On Wednesday, 29 July 2009 at 15:24, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 29.07.09 06:48, Jeff Garzik (jgarzik pobox com
> > Karel Zak wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:07:32PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 28.07.09 15:48, Bill Nottingham (notting redhat com
> >>> Yes. You cannot select them as record source, you cannot mute or
> >>> unmute them, you cannot change their volume. "CD", "PC Speaker",
> >>> "MIDI" and so on are just obsolete.
> >> This reminds me your note:
> >> https://tango.0pointer.de/pipermail/pulseaudio-discuss/2009-July/004519.html
> >> PA does not make use of hardware mixing. And I don't plan to change
> >> that. It's obsolete technology. CPUs these days come with extensions
> >> such as MMX or SSE precisely for speeding up DSP tasks such as PCM
> >> mixing. This is way more flexible that hw mixing, and definitely the
> >> way to the future, both on the desktop and on embedded envs as well.
> >> The "obsolete technology" -- who made this decision? Is it your private
> >> opinion or any suggestion from sound card manufacturers?
> >> It seems that HW companies still produce the "obsolete technology".
> > Quite agreed [says a former kernel audio driver maintainer], and I will
> > go even farther:
> Maybe since the times you worked on audio drivers the design of the
> sound cards changed a little and stuff like SSE became largely available?
> > It is completely stupid to waste host CPU on a task that can be
> > offloaded in parallel to dedicated audio hardware.
> > If the user intentionally purchased expensive audio hardware with nice
> > hardware mixing, do not subvert the user's intentions by ignoring such
> > nice hardware.
> > Any developer who claims "always use software mixing" or "always use
> > hardware mixing" is a young, inexperienced fool. There are valid
> > situations for both choices.
> Hear hear, Mr. Garzik is the the old experienced wise man of audio,
> who knows so much more about audio than any of the audio guys at
> Microsoft or Apple.