<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Michal Hlavinka <<a href="mailto:mhlavink@redhat.com">mhlavink@redhat.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> > This reminds me your note: > > > <a href="https://tango.0pointer.de/pipermail/pulseaudio-discuss/2009-July/004519.htm" target="_blank">https://tango.0pointer.de/pipermail/pulseaudio-discuss/2009-July/004519.htm</a> >l > > 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". First, I like pulseaudio, especially the ability of moving streams from one sink to another is awesome for laptops with external sound card :o) But imo hw mixer (or other hw parts) are not that bad... we still have hw accelerated graphic, math,... why not sound? Also this remains me that pulseaudio eats 24 % of my (1.6GHz) cpu when mapping stereo stream to 5.1 which (I suppose) some hw mixer could do while letting cpu free for other tasks.</blockquote><div> Absolutely... IMO Pulseaudio needs some serious justification for its direction. </div></div> -- <a href="http://projecthuh.com">projecthuh.com</a> All of my bits are free, are yours? Fedoraproject.org