Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Phonon + PulseAudio Problem

[Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com>]

On Freitag 21 Mai 2010, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 05/21/2010 09:26 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@arcor.de>  
wrote:
> >> Then why does dmix lag?
> >> Then why does dmix lag?
> > 
> > I don't know; I don't care. I don't use dmix, I use PulseAudio, and it
> > takes care of everything in user space and I don't have to worry about
> > anything.
> > 
> >> I've tried it 6 days ago.  Ubuntu 10.04.  It's still a laggy, buggy,
> >> pile of ****.  First thing I did was to disable it.
> > 
> > It doesn't lag here. It's rock solid stable. In all my computers, each
> > one with completely different sound hardware. And I'm just using the
> > ebuilds from Gentoo; I didn't configure *anything*. I didn't have to.
> > 
> > Maybe Ubuntu has something wrong: Lennart complained that they "didn't
> > get it":
> > 
> > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/pa-in-ubuntu.html
> > 
> >> Yes, you and many people also find it acceptable to run their games with
> >> 10FPS, or to take their systems 1 minute to boot, etc.
> > 
> > My games doesn't run at 10FPS, my laptop boot in seconds (and usually
> > it's always suspended), my desktop and media center (specially the
> > latter) boot very quickly also. Please don't speak about something you
> > don't know anything about.
> > 
> >> I am not one of those people.  I don't like it when the sound lags.  You
> >> may claim that it doesn't bother you.  But you can't claim that it
> >> doesn't happen.
> > 
> > I can claim it: it doesn't happen *to me*. It works beautifully. I'm
> > using Gentoo, with the following versions:
> > 
> > media-sound/pulseaudio-0.9.21.1
> > sys-kernel/vanilla-sources-2.6.32.9
> > 
> > My sound card is :
> > 
> > 00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801I (ICH9 Family) HD Audio
> > Controller (rev 03)
> > 
> > (I'm on my laptop; don't have the specs of my desktop or media center,
> > but the versions at least should be the same).
> > 
> > I simply don't have any sound lags.
> > 
> >> That doesn't mean ALSA is better.
> > 
> > Again, I trust more the technical judgement from the kernel
> > developers. No offense.
> > 
> >> Then why don't they fix it?  It's still crap after all this time.
> > 
> > It's not in my case. Not at all. But (as I said in my last mail), this
> > is Open Source; if you think it's crap, you can try to fix it.
> > 
> > All I'm saying is that PulseAudio is a great sound architecture for
> > Linux. It works great for me, in several hardware configurations; and
> > in particular in my Media Center, which is my principal medium to
> > listen to music. And I trust the judgement of the ones that decided to
> > use ALSA+PulseAudio.
> > 
> > Regards.
> 
> All of this boils down to what you should have said in the beginning:
> 
> It works for *you*.
> 
> You don't mind the lag (there is lag, no way around it, you just don't
> mind because you're not using software that needs good latency, like
> software synthesizers) but I do.  So stop trying to convince me that it
> works for me too.  To use your own words, please don't speak about
> something you don't know anything about.  As I see it, if I have to use
> ALSA's OSS-compatibility to get acceptable results, why not use the real
> thing instead?

h,mm, lets see - because oss4 is broken by design? Also, what 'latency' are 
you talking about?