| 1 |
On 05/21/2010 09:26 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Then why does dmix lag? |
| 4 |
>> Then why does dmix lag? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I don't know; I don't care. I don't use dmix, I use PulseAudio, and it |
| 7 |
> takes care of everything in user space and I don't have to worry about |
| 8 |
> anything. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> I've tried it 6 days ago. Ubuntu 10.04. It's still a laggy, buggy, pile of |
| 11 |
>> ****. First thing I did was to disable it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It doesn't lag here. It's rock solid stable. In all my computers, each |
| 14 |
> one with completely different sound hardware. And I'm just using the |
| 15 |
> ebuilds from Gentoo; I didn't configure *anything*. I didn't have to. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Maybe Ubuntu has something wrong: Lennart complained that they "didn't get it": |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/pa-in-ubuntu.html |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>> Yes, you and many people also find it acceptable to run their games with |
| 22 |
>> 10FPS, or to take their systems 1 minute to boot, etc. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> My games doesn't run at 10FPS, my laptop boot in seconds (and usually |
| 25 |
> it's always suspended), my desktop and media center (specially the |
| 26 |
> latter) boot very quickly also. Please don't speak about something you |
| 27 |
> don't know anything about. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>> I am not one of those people. I don't like it when the sound lags. You may |
| 30 |
>> claim that it doesn't bother you. But you can't claim that it doesn't |
| 31 |
>> happen. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> I can claim it: it doesn't happen *to me*. It works beautifully. I'm |
| 34 |
> using Gentoo, with the following versions: |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> media-sound/pulseaudio-0.9.21.1 |
| 37 |
> sys-kernel/vanilla-sources-2.6.32.9 |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> My sound card is : |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> 00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) HD Audio |
| 42 |
> Controller (rev 03) |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> (I'm on my laptop; don't have the specs of my desktop or media center, |
| 45 |
> but the versions at least should be the same). |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> I simply don't have any sound lags. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
>> That doesn't mean ALSA is better. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Again, I trust more the technical judgement from the kernel |
| 52 |
> developers. No offense. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
>> Then why don't they fix it? It's still crap after all this time. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> It's not in my case. Not at all. But (as I said in my last mail), this |
| 57 |
> is Open Source; if you think it's crap, you can try to fix it. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> All I'm saying is that PulseAudio is a great sound architecture for |
| 60 |
> Linux. It works great for me, in several hardware configurations; and |
| 61 |
> in particular in my Media Center, which is my principal medium to |
| 62 |
> listen to music. And I trust the judgement of the ones that decided to |
| 63 |
> use ALSA+PulseAudio. |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> Regards. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
All of this boils down to what you should have said in the beginning: |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
It works for *you*. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
You don't mind the lag (there is lag, no way around it, you just don't |
| 72 |
mind because you're not using software that needs good latency, like |
| 73 |
software synthesizers) but I do. So stop trying to convince me that it |
| 74 |
works for me too. To use your own words, please don't speak about |
| 75 |
something you don't know anything about. As I see it, if I have to use |
| 76 |
ALSA's OSS-compatibility to get acceptable results, why not use the real |
| 77 |
thing instead? |
Archives