Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"PulseAudio Is Still Awesome"

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • quandasim
    replied
    i use pulse audio with archlinux and i dont havy any problems. from user perspective its much easier to use than alsa. the only exception is recording, which have very bad quality and is desynced with video. So for recording i use alsa.

    Leave a comment:


  • erendorn
    replied
    Originally posted by magika View Post
    You are stating obvious things again: offline renderer provides better quality. But we are talking about realtime, and specialized hardware does better job here.
    That's just because graphics saturate the CPU, but audio resampling does not, hence you can have real-time for high quality audio mixing. The downside will be the noticeable CPU usage, but you can indeed reach higher quality still well within a desktop CPU computational envelope.

    Leave a comment:


  • magika
    replied
    Originally posted by mdias View Post

    I hear good things about xonars. But still, the most used chips are onboard stuff like Realtek ALCxxx and things like that.




    You are comparing it with the crappiest setting on pulse, that's not fair. And I like I said, CPUs do a better job quality-wise; it's obvious a fixed-function hardware component will fare better when comparing CPU usage.



    I am not. You're the one comparing the "trivial" PA resampler to dedicated chips. I only said a CPU is capable of doing a better job than a fixed-function hardware component.
    Your comparison is flawed; llvmpipe's purpose is to mimick the abilities of OpenGL (which in turn tries to mirror limited hardware functionality). A better analogy would be comparing what GPUs can do to what offline renderers can do.
    You are stating obvious things again: offline renderer provides better quality. But we are talking about realtime, and specialized hardware does better job here.

    Originally posted by mdias View Post
    You see, with modern CPUs' capabilitites, spending resources on dedicated audio processing hardware makes less and less sense. Our modern CPUs are blazingly fast when doing math, more so if the algorithm is optimized; however resampling can be a tough problem to solve if you want to achieve a certain level of quality. This level of complexity will make specialized hardware components VERY expensive to make, and so people have been shifting this problem to our CPUs.

    Normal users don't even notice if the resampling is of somewhat poor quality. After all if you're interested in bit perfect playback you'll make sure all stack plays at the same sample rate and format. Pulse let's you choose between different resamplers that have different quality levels at the expense of different CPU usage levels. If you have performance problems and it's not the resampler, I think it's something worth reporting.

    I am not against PA providing options to let the resampling work go through your dedicated soundcards. I think that'd be great, but you have to understand that most people's soundcards only have 1 voice channel, and that's where work must be done first. Projects with limited resources must prioritize things. You are all welcome to contribute though.
    If you target lowest hardware possible then that is given.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdias
    replied
    Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post
    I use both xonar d2x and x-fi xtreme gamer but what the important are the chipset used. Next month I shoould replace my xonar d2x with x-fi xtreme gamer which is excellent on managing both audio and gaming switching from audio controller in windows system.
    I hear good things about xonars. But still, the most used chips are onboard stuff like Realtek ALCxxx and things like that.


    Originally posted by magika
    I think about what you said its not a common sense at all. My CA20K2 does its job much better that low quality low-CPU usage software mixing form Pulse. Besides much higher quality of resampling it also supports various sample rates as well.
    You are comparing it with the crappiest setting on pulse, that's not fair. And I like I said, CPUs do a better job quality-wise; it's obvious a fixed-function hardware component will fare better when comparing CPU usage.

    Originally posted by magika
    You are comparing using highly specialized hardware and doing same thing on general purpose CPU, and at the same time CPU implementation is also meant to be light on resources. That is like comparing llvmpipe and hardware with actual driver.
    I am not. You're the one comparing the "trivial" PA resampler to dedicated chips. I only said a CPU is capable of doing a better job than a fixed-function hardware component.
    Your comparison is flawed; llvmpipe's purpose is to mimick the abilities of OpenGL (which in turn tries to mirror limited hardware functionality). A better analogy would be comparing what GPUs can do to what offline renderers can do.

    You see, with modern CPUs' capabilitites, spending resources on dedicated audio processing hardware makes less and less sense. Our modern CPUs are blazingly fast when doing math, more so if the algorithm is optimized; however resampling can be a tough problem to solve if you want to achieve a certain level of quality. This level of complexity will make specialized hardware components VERY expensive to make, and so people have been shifting this problem to our CPUs.

    Normal users don't even notice if the resampling is of somewhat poor quality. After all if you're interested in bit perfect playback you'll make sure all stack plays at the same sample rate and format. Pulse let's you choose between different resamplers that have different quality levels at the expense of different CPU usage levels. If you have performance problems and it's not the resampler, I think it's something worth reporting.

    I am not against PA providing options to let the resampling work go through your dedicated soundcards. I think that'd be great, but you have to understand that most people's soundcards only have 1 voice channel, and that's where work must be done first. Projects with limited resources must prioritize things. You are all welcome to contribute though.

    Leave a comment:


  • magika
    replied
    Originally posted by mdias View Post

    What citation? It's pretty common sense if you think about it. At the end of the stack you have a DAC that will have to have a fixed sample rate. Having a fixed sample rate means a digital signal processor can do the job. Hardware has fixed algorithms and cannot improve; software is programmable...





    Yes, I'm sure most people use xonars......
    I think about what you said its not a common sense at all. My CA20K2 does its job much better that low quality low-CPU usage software mixing form Pulse. Besides much higher quality of resampling it also supports various sample rates as well.

    You are comparing using highly specialized hardware and doing same thing on general purpose CPU, and at the same time CPU implementation is also meant to be light on resources. That is like comparing llvmpipe and hardware with actual driver.

    Leave a comment:


  • Azrael5
    replied
    Originally posted by mdias View Post

    What citation? It's pretty common sense if you think about it. At the end of the stack you have a DAC that will have to have a fixed sample rate. Having a fixed sample rate means a digital signal processor can do the job. Hardware has fixed algorithms and cannot improve; software is programmable...





    Yes, I'm sure most people use xonars......

    I use both xonar d2x and x-fi xtreme gamer but what the important are the chipset used. Next month I shoould replace my xonar d2x with x-fi xtreme gamer which is excellent on managing both audio and gaming switching from audio controller in windows system.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdias
    replied
    Originally posted by magika View Post

    Citation needed.
    What citation? It's pretty common sense if you think about it. At the end of the stack you have a DAC that will have to have a fixed sample rate. Having a fixed sample rate means a digital signal processor can do the job. Hardware has fixed algorithms and cannot improve; software is programmable...



    Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post
    xonar d2X or x-fi xtreme gamer are not able to manage multiple sound mixing!? cmi8788 ca20k1 audio chips should be let hardware mixing. Or not!?

    Hardware inferior compared to software!? depends on audio controller...

    EDIT: just removed PULSE, browser is faster, avoiding also randomly lags.... 5.1 audio runs well also if sounds are not spreads separately in each different speaker... much better without pulse in my case. So why ot increase performance and abilities of hardware audio acceleration of audio chipset?
    Yes, I'm sure most people use xonars......

    Leave a comment:


  • duby229
    replied
    Alsa is not a perfect sound system for a desktop. If alsa's flaws are a papercut, then Pulse Audio is like a 6ft x 9ft (1.8m x 2.7m) bandaid pad.
    Last edited by duby229; 06-07-2015, 05:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Azrael5
    replied
    Originally posted by mdias View Post

    Most people nowadays use hardware that don't support multiple voices; therefore you can't do the mixing in hardware. The most probable cause that in ALSA you have low CPU overhead is because you're probably using dmix, which uses a low-quality-low-overhead resampler.

    Try to use the "trivial" resample method in PA and see if it helps. If CPU usage is still too high, file a bug report.

    Note that hardware mixing is (almost?) always inferior in quality than software mixing. Depending on your audio needs that might be irrelevant though.
    xonar d2X or x-fi xtreme gamer are not able to manage multiple sound mixing!? cmi8788 ca20k1 audio chips should be let hardware mixing. Or not!?

    Hardware inferior compared to software!? depends on audio controller...

    EDIT: just removed PULSE, browser is faster, avoiding also randomly lags.... 5.1 audio runs well also if sounds are not spreads separately in each different speaker... much better without pulse in my case. So why ot increase performance and abilities of hardware audio acceleration of audio chipset?
    Last edited by Azrael5; 06-07-2015, 05:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • magika
    replied
    Originally posted by mdias View Post
    Note that hardware mixing is (almost?) always inferior in quality than software mixing.
    Citation needed.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X