On Monday 17 Nov 2003 14:33, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:34:14 +0100,
>
> Peter Kirk wrote:
> > WARNING: Unsanitized content follows.
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Am Montag, 17. November 2003 11:32 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
> > > At Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:37:02 +0000,
> > >
> > > Mark Hubbard wrote:
> > > > On Friday 14 Nov 2003 15:31, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > > At Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:11:22 +0000, Mark Hubbard wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday 14 Nov 2003 13:20, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > > > > as a future plan, we'll define dmix as default for el-cheapo
> > > > > > > soundcards, but e.g. not for sb live, which supports such a
> > > > > > > function on hardware.
> > >
> > > ok, let me correct: which users most likely want as dmix plugin :)
> >
> > Hmmm,
> >
> > sorry if I cant realy follow your reasoning. I have understood that using
> > dmix on every device is stupid - since some applications like jack want
> > low level access to the hardware. But these applications should use the
> > hw: device, if I understand everything right. If this is so, you have yet
> > to come up for any reason why a user would NOT want a smartdmix running
> > behind devices like "default" "rear" front" (and all others that I dont
> > know about, but that are consumer application devices) ?
> >
> > Please enlighten me on this.
>
> i personally think using dmix would be nice even for such "high-end"
> cards. but the smart dmix can still result in resampling or format
> conversion if the first and the second applications use different
> sample rates or formats. in the case of cheap soundcards, it's not a
> big problem because the quality is anyway cheap, too. however, in the
> case of high-end cards, people might not like that it happens.
>
> this decision, whether dmix as default is better or not, depends on
> users, not on us developers.
> the statement above simply shows this attitude.
Peter Kirk has an important point. Default dmix ("smart" could be a misnomer)
will only work as the default pcm, therefore if one application is set-up to
use surround51 and another set-up to use default, then nothing is going to be
mixed. It would be better, for the sake of simplicity and ALSA's target user,
to abandon the various pcm definitions and only use default which would work
with all set-ups....I believe this is what Peter means by "smart".
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF. Net email is sponsored by: GoToMyPC
GoToMyPC is the fast, easy and secure way to access your computer from
any Web browser or wireless device. Click here to Try it Free!
https://www.gotomypc.com/tr/OSDN/AW/Q4_2003/t/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
