PipeWire 0.3.71 Released With Performance Improvements, Zero Latency JACK D-Bus Bridge

[Danny3]

Implement battery reporting using AT+XEVENT

Great

[avis]

the only thing i wish was the ability to easy change sample rates and bit rate. i know pipewire allows it, but you have to go digging into configuration files. i wish the big desktop enviroments created an easy way to change these in their settings. a simple "24 bit, 192khz, 32bit, 384hz" etc.windows has had this ability for a very long time and windows 11 made it even easier to do.

whats also a shame is that pipewire has a cool feature where you can set multiple sample rates that is supported by the sound card, and have it switch to that sample rate when the source file matches it. by default if multiple streams are playing it will use the highest sample rate, but when sitting back enjoying music, if its 44khz, sample rate is 44, 92khz, sample rate is 92khz, etc. it be really nice if that was exposed via say gnome's setting panel or kde's setting panel.

https://github.com/birdie-github/useful-scripts/blob/master/audio-conf

[caligula]

I remember using a 5.1 sound system and having problems with ALSA. Pulseaudio came and had a rocky launch for sure, but today I barely notice it exists. Today my Surround sound works better than ever.

You can easily see that Linux/PA/PW is behind the competition. In 1980s we had 22,05 kHz Mono sound cards and PCs running DOS. In mid 2010s, many cards supported 2.0 or 5.1 at 44,1 kHz. Now in 2020s many fans of music use 384 kHz or higher external DACs. Also the bit depth can be anything between 24 and 66 bits. Even floating point. Late 1990s Windows users had Winamp with 10-band graphic eq. Now most users prefer 16+-band parametric eq, FIR or IIR, depending on your needs. All speakers are bi- or tri-amped and instead of wires you use proprietary low latency wireless or optical connections.

[Weasel]

You can easily see that Linux/PA/PW is behind the competition. In 1980s we had 22,05 kHz Mono sound cards and PCs running DOS. In mid 2010s, many cards supported 2.0 or 5.1 at 44,1 kHz. Now in 2020s many fans of music use 384 kHz or higher external DACs. Also the bit depth can be anything between 24 and 66 bits. Even floating point. Late 1990s Windows users had Winamp with 10-band graphic eq. Now most users prefer 16+-band parametric eq, FIR or IIR, depending on your needs. All speakers are bi- or tri-amped and instead of wires you use proprietary low latency wireless or optical connections.

What a load of brainwashed rubbish and snake oil. Those "fans of music" are beyond delusional.

Let them waste money on placebo bullshit or worse, hearing defects. At such high sampling rates they probably get aliasing if their gear isn't completely professional, i.e. they hear artifacts but they think this "sounds better", lmfao.

[caligula]

What a load of brainwashed rubbish and snake oil. Those "fans of music" are beyond delusional.

Let them waste money on placebo bullshit or worse, hearing defects. At such high sampling rates they probably get aliasing if their gear isn't completely professional, i.e. they hear artifacts but they think this "sounds better", lmfao.

BTW I forgot that even cheap portable devices these days use 1536 kHz LPCM DACs instead of legacy 384 kHz: https://store.hiby.com/products/r6-pro-ii-gen-2

[Quackdoc]

BTW I forgot that even cheap portable devices these days use 1536 kHz LPCM DACs instead of legacy 384 kHz: https://store.hiby.com/products/r6-pro-ii-gen-2

that is some top quality placebo you have there lol, gotta love those hi-res bluetooth codecs listed lol, hires SBC, hires APTX, at least AAC can be considered hi res when paired with an apple device.

[Weasel]

BTW I forgot that even cheap portable devices these days use 1536 kHz LPCM DACs instead of legacy 384 kHz: https://store.hiby.com/products/r6-pro-ii-gen-2

https://www.audiocheck.net/soundtests_headphones.php

How much can you hear? Remember, sampling rate above double of what frequency you can hear is useless because you will never hear it.

This is an undisputable scientific fact. A measurable fact. Here's a classic example: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

The section Sampling fallacies and misconceptions probably answers all your naive questions.

Btw it's the same with bit depth (noise floor). If you can't hear the noise in dithered 16-bit material (you won't, there's a dynamic range test up there btw) without messing with your volume, then it's pointless as well.

If you do mess with the volume, then expect to have your ears smashed when a loud audio comes back. After all, the point of noise floor is dynamic range, not just "near silent audio" but the contrast between silent and loud.

If you don't believe in this, then ignore this post, but other delusional clowns can test it themselves and stop believing fairy tales. Science.

[Quackdoc]

https://www.audiocheck.net/soundtests_headphones.php

How much can you hear? Remember, sampling rate above double of what frequency you can hear is useless because you will never hear it.

This is an undisputable scientific fact. A measurable fact. Here's a classic example: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

The section Sampling fallacies and misconceptions probably answers all your naive questions.

Btw it's the same with bit depth (noise floor). If you can't hear the noise in dithered 16-bit material (you won't, there's a dynamic range test up there btw) without messing with your volume, then it's pointless as well.

If you do mess with the volume, then expect to have your ears smashed when a loud audio comes back. After all, the point of noise floor is dynamic range, not just "near silent audio" but the contrast between silent and loud.

If you don't believe in this, then ignore this post, but other delusional clowns can test it themselves and stop believing fairy tales. Science.

Im not actually a fan of that xiph article, not because it's wrong, it's not. but it is lacking IMO. it's not as if very high frequency and sample rates have no use. they actually pose a very important task for scientific and creative workflows as very briefly covered in the article, however indeed, when it comes to consuming it is indeed not worth while, in the article he states "there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format" there is a lot of point, for instance there are artists who actively support people who want to take sample of their music, higher bitdepth and frequency can help support that.

[Weasel]

Im not actually a fan of that xiph article, not because it's wrong, it's not. but it is lacking IMO. it's not as if very high frequency and sample rates have no use. they actually pose a very important task for scientific and creative workflows as very briefly covered in the article, however indeed, when it comes to consuming it is indeed not worth while, in the article he states "there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format" there is a lot of point, for instance there are artists who actively support people who want to take sample of their music, higher bitdepth and frequency can help support that.

Yeah, the point was listening to them, not processing.

High frequency content is very useful when you apply effects like pitch down or just slow it down (which innately pitches it down). And during working and processing I hope everyone uses at least 32-bit floating point, to avoid clipping.

[Quackdoc]

Yeah, the point was listening to them, not processing.

High frequency content is very useful when you apply effects like pitch down or just slow it down (which innately pitches it down). And during working and processing I hope everyone uses at least 32-bit floating point, to avoid clipping.

yup, the issue is that a lot of people seemed to have missed that point entirely sadly. I just wish they were more clear.