Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PipeWire 1.0 Released For Managing Audio/Video Streams On The Linux Desktop

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
    Wonderful!
    The only other thing I want from it is to obtain the battery stats from devices like speakers and headphones connected over Bluetooth and report it back.
    Some deskto environments already show battery levels for devices like mice and game controllers connected over Bluetooth and it would be nice if they could show it for speakers and headphones too with the help of PipeWire.
    PulseAudio can get this info from version 16:
    The freedesktop.org project announced the release of the PulseAudio 16.0 sound server with some new features. Here's what is new.


    So, I think PipeWire should be able to get it too.
    this has been working oob for me on arch

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Danny3 View Post

      That's good!
      But not great!
      As it should've been enabled by default.
      I still don't know how to enable it manually.
      Add Experimental=true in /etc/bluetooth/main.conf and restart bluetooth. Why it's not enabled by default,
      you would have to check with bluez.
      ‚Äč

      Comment


      • #13
        This is awesome! I love pipewire, it's great!

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Britoid View Post

          Pipewire needs better GUI management tools.

          If your audio output needs a higher frequency (e.g. a USB DAC), you have to deep into configuration files for both pipewire and wireplumber, of which the documentation is usually missing or outdated. My USB DAC sounds awful if its running anything below it's targeted frequency.
          You mean that your USB DAC sounds bad if it's set to Pipewire's default sample rate? (at least for me, it's 48000hz). I also have a USB DAC which supports up to 24bit 192000hz, but I don't really hear any difference between the different sample rates. I mean, there might be some small difference if the source is some high resolution / high sample rate audiophile grade recording, but even then, if it's downsampled to 44100hz / 48000hz, the difference is almost negligible.

          I do agree though that Linux in general needs a GUI for changing bit rate and sample rate, something both Windows and Mac already had for years.

          Comment


          • #15
            "I mean, there might be some small difference if the source is some high resolution / high sample rate audiophile grade recording, but even then, if it's downsampled to 44100hz / 48000hz, the difference is almost negligible."

            That's certainly one way to divulge the fact that your amps, speakers and/or ears are shit.



            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by user1 View Post
              You mean that your USB DAC sounds bad if it's set to Pipewire's default sample rate? (at least for me, it's 48000hz). I also have a USB DAC which supports up to 24bit 192000hz, but I don't really hear any difference between the different sample rates. I mean, there might be some small difference if the source is some high resolution / high sample rate audiophile grade recording, but even then, if it's downsampled to 44100hz / 48000hz, the difference is almost negligible.

              I do agree though that Linux in general needs a GUI for changing bit rate and sample rate, something both Windows and Mac already had for years.
              In terms of actual human hearing there will be literally no difference between 48khz and 192kz, no matter your gear. Period. You can't even hear the upper parts of 48khz to begin with.

              However, if the USB DAC is shit or low quality, then any sample rate it's not "native" at will sound like shit, because it will actually degrade it. Same the other way around: many USB DACs sound good at 48khz but complete shit at 192khz even if they "advertise" support for it, because they'll add an insane amount of aliasing and so on. And funnily enough some people will claim this sounds "better"! (it does sound different, after all, but it's actually worse and errors introduced that make it different)

              To me what "sounds good" is something that reproduces the exact input signal it's fed, as close as possible.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Type44Q View Post
                "I mean, there might be some small difference if the source is some high resolution / high sample rate audiophile grade recording, but even then, if it's downsampled to 44100hz / 48000hz, the difference is almost negligible."

                That's certainly one way to divulge the fact that your amps, speakers and/or ears are shit.
                Look, spotted the delusional guy who lives in his non-scientific bubble.

                So how high can you hear in frequency huh? https://www.audiocheck.net/soundtests_headphones.php

                Do a proper test and do yourself a favor instead of believing your bullshit delusions and "feelings". Note that many DACs (and even gear/headphones) will alias above 48khz or even below, if they're shit. Yes they will change the sound, but in a negative way. If that sounds "better" for you then stay with your cheap quality shit. You can always add aliasing yourself as an effect if you love it so much.

                BTW don't start with "quantization", it doesn't work like that. The signal is pure analog and filtered, not "stepped". Should I link you actual scientific articles measuring it?

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                  In terms of actual human hearing there will be literally no difference between 48khz and 192kz, no matter your gear. Period. You can't even hear the upper parts of 48khz to begin with.

                  However, if the USB DAC is shit or low quality, then any sample rate it's not "native" at will sound like shit, because it will actually degrade it. Same the other way around: many USB DACs sound good at 48khz but complete shit at 192khz even if they "advertise" support for it, because they'll add an insane amount of aliasing and so on. And funnily enough some people will claim this sounds "better"! (it does sound different, after all, but it's actually worse and errors introduced that make it different)

                  To me what "sounds good" is something that reproduces the exact input signal it's fed, as close as possible.
                  Sampling rate != Sound frequency

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by user1 View Post
                    I mean, there might be some small difference if the source is some high resolution / high sample rate audiophile grade recording, but even then, if it's downsampled to 44100hz / 48000hz, the difference is almost negligible.
                    This isn't how it works, there are plenty of hardware that have noticable audio quality degradation if they are running below their optimal sample rate. and even if you have a dac that could output right, there are plenty of reasons to want a higher sample rate input/output, recording music for instance, should always be done at higher sample rates.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                      In terms of actual human hearing there will be literally no difference between 48khz and 192kz, no matter your gear. Period. You can't even hear the upper parts of 48khz to begin with.
                      I know. When I said there might be some difference when it's downsampled to 44100hz / 48000hz, I meant that the downsampling is done in software, which might affect the sound quality a bit. That of course depends on your media player.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X