[LAD] Do professionals use Pulse Audio? ; xfce4-mixer

[John Rigg]

On Wed Apr 25 18:27:25 CEST 2018 Will J Godfrey wrote:
> I use one machine specifically for music, permanently connected to Keyboards
> etc. and PA was removed with extreme prejudice. On the audio side it's working
> entirely Jack - MIDI is mostly ALSA.
> 
> On my other 'office' machine it's there and I don't pay any attention to it.

I also use dedicated machines for my DAW systems, with no PA installed. All
audio is working with jack.

My DAWs seldom connect to the internet so I don't have a heavyweight web
browser (or many other desktop-type programs for that matter) installed.

I actually dislike modern desktop Linux so much I switched my 'office'
system to OpenBSD some time ago. That uses sndio (much simpler than PA)
for browser audio.

John
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Do professionals use Pulse Audio? ; xfce4-mixer

[Len Ovens]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Nikita Zlobin wrote:


In Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens  wrote:


On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Philip Rhoades wrote:

> I am not a professional LA user but I have regard for what serious
> LA users have to say.  A post turned up on the Fedora XFCE list
> about removing xfce4-mixer for F29 - I responded with:
>
> "Every time I upgrade I immediately UNinstall PA and use ALSA only
> - so I still depend on xfce4-mixer . ."
>
> Someone replied that PA has greatly improved since the early days 
> especially and "controlling streams separately is an added feature"



Having some kind of ALSA mixer is still required. Pulse controls
levels as a mix of sound card and digital gain stage levels. You have
no way of knowing what it is really doing. This is great for desktop
use, absolutely useless for any kind of profesional use. Note that
input levels are worse as pulse uses a mix of input level, input/mic
boost (even on aux inputs) and digital gain stage.

An interesting experiment is to run alsamixer and watch the audio
card control levels while adjusting pulse's one level control full
range. Input levels on the internal audio card will see the input
level go up then bounce to 0 as the boost is set up a notch then the
level goes up again, then down plus more boost. I have found that
each boost level has it's own unique noise that I can work around
with alsamixer that pulse tramples all over.

Pulse offers no guaranty of any particular audio card being used for
sync or of any source not having SRC applied.

Pulse offers no guaranty of no drop outs or stable latency.

Pulse offers no guaranty that some other application (skype is 
particularely bad) will not change your audio card levels for you.


pulse makes a good audio front end for desktop applications so long
as Jackd is it's _only_ output. The Pulse-jackd bridge appears to be
set up as a client (using jack terms) rather than a device or back
end. This means that even when another device connected to pulse is
not being used for output, pulse continues to rely on it for sync :P
This means that jack free wheel will not work correctly if pulse has
a connection to any audio HW.


For complemention, PA may be configured to run with jack sink/source,
without alsa, udev, may be bluetooth - only necessary minimum. Not sure
about PA resampler... Some examples could be found around in web
(places like userquestions, stackexchange, etc).


Either PA or the client must be able to resample in order to mix streams 
of varying sample rates or to deal with an audio device (or jack) 
requiring a sample rate different from the source. There is no getting 
around that. PA tries for the first source to open the device, ask the 
device to run at the source's sample rate and if successful no SRC is 
needed. A second stream almost always needs SRC. This why a 
(semi)profesional audio application should never be a pulse client but 
rather be either a jack client or use alsa directly. Using jack allows PA 
to send desktop audio as well.



One question from me - is this enough to fix pulse->jack sync,
including mentioned freewheel issue?


Is it enough for what? It is not enough to use pulse as an audio server 
for pro-audio applications. It is enough to make sure pulse doesn't 
interfere with jack's operation... it is up to the user to make sure 
noises from the desktop don't show up in studio monitors at an 
inconvenient time. Many home recording studios do not have acoustic 
separation from miced areas to monitoring speakers. I would suggest 
turning any system notification sounds off for this reason. The pulse 
controller applet has a mute function, but it would be easy to forget to 
use it.


So in a pa/jack computer, desktop applications that do not have jack 
connection ability (even some that do and do it wrong) use pulse and any 
application that can use jack, should do so. An application that does not 
allow connecting to jack is not pro-audio and should not be used as such.


Note: "not pro-audio" means in this context. If the application will only 
connect directly to a hardware ALSA device and will not allow itself to 
connect to PA's psudo-alsa device, that is fine too. However, in this 
discusion the system is assumed to want to be able to use jack for some 
things and so jack support is needed.


--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Do professionals use Pulse Audio? ; xfce4-mixer

[Nikita Zlobin]

In Wed, 25 Apr 2018 11:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Len Ovens  wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Philip Rhoades wrote:
> 
> > I am not a professional LA user but I have regard for what serious
> > LA users have to say.  A post turned up on the Fedora XFCE list
> > about removing xfce4-mixer for F29 - I responded with:
> >
> > "Every time I upgrade I immediately UNinstall PA and use ALSA only
> > - so I still depend on xfce4-mixer . ."
> >
> > Someone replied that PA has greatly improved since the early days 
> > especially and "controlling streams separately is an added feature"
> > - but I can do that with the .asoundrc I have now - are there any
> > good reasons for me to reconsider the situation the next time I do
> > a fresh install?  (I realise I am likely to get biased comments
> > here but I am not going to post on a PA list . .).  
> 
> Having some kind of ALSA mixer is still required. Pulse controls
> levels as a mix of sound card and digital gain stage levels. You have
> no way of knowing what it is really doing. This is great for desktop
> use, absolutely useless for any kind of profesional use. Note that
> input levels are worse as pulse uses a mix of input level, input/mic
> boost (even on aux inputs) and digital gain stage.
> 
> An interesting experiment is to run alsamixer and watch the audio
> card control levels while adjusting pulse's one level control full
> range. Input levels on the internal audio card will see the input
> level go up then bounce to 0 as the boost is set up a notch then the
> level goes up again, then down plus more boost. I have found that
> each boost level has it's own unique noise that I can work around
> with alsamixer that pulse tramples all over.
> 
> Pulse offers no guaranty of any particular audio card being used for
> sync or of any source not having SRC applied.
> 
> Pulse offers no guaranty of no drop outs or stable latency.
> 
> Pulse offers no guaranty that some other application (skype is 
> particularely bad) will not change your audio card levels for you.
> 
> pulse makes a good audio front end for desktop applications so long
> as Jackd is it's _only_ output. The Pulse-jackd bridge appears to be
> set up as a client (using jack terms) rather than a device or back
> end. This means that even when another device connected to pulse is
> not being used for output, pulse continues to rely on it for sync :P
> This means that jack free wheel will not work correctly if pulse has
> a connection to any audio HW.

For complemention, PA may be configured to run with jack sink/source,
without alsa, udev, may be bluetooth - only necessary minimum. Not sure
about PA resampler... Some examples could be found around in web
(places like userquestions, stackexchange, etc).

One question from me - is this enough to fix pulse->jack sync,
including mentioned freewheel issue?

> 
> I personally use jackdbus as my audio server, started at session
> start. I use pulse as a desktop front end with the pulse-jack bridge,
> but with the udev and alsa modules removed so that jackd is it's only
> audio in/output. This means pulse does not ever control audio device
> levels, and free wheel works correctly.
> 
> Jack (or alsa direct) is the only way to do profesional audio is you
> want bit perfect throughput. Pulse offers no such thing. I agree
> pulseaudio has improved a whole lot, but it is no replacement for
> jack or alsa direct. Alsa direct is great except if you want to be
> able to mix two audio sources without stopping your proaudio
> application.
> 
> I have no comments on xfce4-mixer. I don't use it because I have an 
> ice1712 based card that has it's own much better control utility 
> (mudita24) and I find qasmixer (and it's extra tools) easier to use.
> I also still use alsamix in a terminal because it is faster to access
> in many cases :)
> 
> So I am not of the "pulse must be removed" community, but I still
> feel that pulse is a long way from usable in any kind of profesional
> audio (or even semiprofesional) environment. I would even go so far
> as to say it never will be because it's original design goal was as
> an easy to use desktop application/server. The possibility to do
> pro-audio would require starting over not patching.
> 
> 
> --
> Len Ovens
> www.ovenwerks.net
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Do professionals use Pulse Audio? ; xfce4-mixer

[Len Ovens]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Philip Rhoades wrote:

I am not a professional LA user but I have regard for what serious LA 
users have to say.  A post turned up on the Fedora XFCE list about 
removing xfce4-mixer for F29 - I responded with:


"Every time I upgrade I immediately UNinstall PA and use ALSA only - so 
I still depend on xfce4-mixer . ."


Someone replied that PA has greatly improved since the early days 
especially and "controlling streams separately is an added feature" - 
but I can do that with the .asoundrc I have now - are there any good 
reasons for me to reconsider the situation the next time I do a fresh 
install?  (I realise I am likely to get biased comments here but I am 
not going to post on a PA list . .).


Having some kind of ALSA mixer is still required. Pulse controls levels as 
a mix of sound card and digital gain stage levels. You have no way of 
knowing what it is really doing. This is great for desktop use, absolutely 
useless for any kind of profesional use. Note that input levels are worse 
as pulse uses a mix of input level, input/mic boost (even on aux inputs) 
and digital gain stage.


An interesting experiment is to run alsamixer and watch the audio card 
control levels while adjusting pulse's one level control full range. 
Input levels on the internal audio card will see the input level go up 
then bounce to 0 as the boost is set up a notch then the level goes up 
again, then down plus more boost. I have found that each boost level has 
it's own unique noise that I can work around with alsamixer that pulse 
tramples all over.


Pulse offers no guaranty of any particular audio card being used for sync 
or of any source not having SRC applied.


Pulse offers no guaranty of no drop outs or stable latency.

Pulse offers no guaranty that some other application (skype is 
particularely bad) will not change your audio card levels for you.


pulse makes a good audio front end for desktop applications so long as 
Jackd is it's _only_ output. The Pulse-jackd bridge appears to be set up 
as a client (using jack terms) rather than a device or back end. This 
means that even when another device connected to pulse is not being used 
for output, pulse continues to rely on it for sync :P  This means that 
jack free wheel will not work correctly if pulse has a connection to any 
audio HW.


I personally use jackdbus as my audio server, started at session start. I 
use pulse as a desktop front end with the pulse-jack bridge, but with the 
udev and alsa modules removed so that jackd is it's only audio in/output. 
This means pulse does not ever control audio device levels, and free wheel 
works correctly.


Jack (or alsa direct) is the only way to do profesional audio is you want 
bit perfect throughput. Pulse offers no such thing. I agree pulseaudio has 
improved a whole lot, but it is no replacement for jack or alsa direct. 
Alsa direct is great except if you want to be able to mix two audio 
sources without stopping your proaudio application.


I have no comments on xfce4-mixer. I don't use it because I have an 
ice1712 based card that has it's own much better control utility 
(mudita24) and I find qasmixer (and it's extra tools) easier to use. I 
also still use alsamix in a terminal because it is faster to access in 
many cases :)


So I am not of the "pulse must be removed" community, but I still feel 
that pulse is a long way from usable in any kind of profesional audio (or 
even semiprofesional) environment. I would even go so far as to say it 
never will be because it's original design goal was as an easy to use 
desktop application/server. The possibility to do pro-audio would require 
starting over not patching.



--
Len Ovens
www.ovenwerks.net
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Do professionals use Pulse Audio? ; xfce4-mixer

[Will J Godfrey]

I use one machine specifically for music, permanently connected to Keyboards
etc. and PA was removed with extreme prejudice. On the audio side it's working
entirely Jack - MIDI is mostly ALSA.

On my other 'office' machine it's there and I don't pay any attention to it.


-- 
It wasn't me! (Well actually, it probably was)

... the hard part is not dodging what life throws at you,
but trying to catch the good bits.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Do professionals use Pulse Audio? ; xfce4-mixer

[Brett McCoy]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Spencer Jackson 
wrote:

> I know of several linux pro-audio users who do not have pulse installed,
> but I think more of the ones I talk with are like me: we have pulseaudio
> for most "desktop audio" stuff like web browsing, listening to music,
> etc... all generic tasks. Its perfectly good for that! But as soon as we go
> to produce some music we use pasuspender or other methods that bypass
> pulseaudio and use JACK or pure alsa. I don't have any real numbers but I
> think thats pretty common. So my suggestion is if you aren't actually doing
> audio production don't fear pulse.
>

I typically run Jack 100% of the time and just have PA running as a client,
so I can still use web browser, VLC, etc, as needed.

-- 
Brett W. McCoy -- https://www.facebook.com/idragosani
---
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it, it
would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Do professionals use Pulse Audio? ; xfce4-mixer

[Spencer Jackson]

I know of several linux pro-audio users who do not have pulse installed,
but I think more of the ones I talk with are like me: we have pulseaudio
for most "desktop audio" stuff like web browsing, listening to music,
etc... all generic tasks. Its perfectly good for that! But as soon as we go
to produce some music we use pasuspender or other methods that bypass
pulseaudio and use JACK or pure alsa. I don't have any real numbers but I
think thats pretty common. So my suggestion is if you aren't actually doing
audio production don't fear pulse.

_Spencer

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:30 AM, Philip Rhoades  wrote:

> People,
>
> I am not a professional LA user but I have regard for what serious LA
> users have to say.  A post turned up on the Fedora XFCE list about removing
> xfce4-mixer for F29 - I responded with:
>
> "Every time I upgrade I immediately UNinstall PA and use ALSA only - so I
> still depend on xfce4-mixer . ."
>
> Someone replied that PA has greatly improved since the early days
> especially and "controlling streams separately is an added feature" - but I
> can do that with the .asoundrc I have now - are there any good reasons for
> me to reconsider the situation the next time I do a fresh install?  (I
> realise I am likely to get biased comments here but I am not going to post
> on a PA list . .).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil.
> --
> Philip Rhoades
>
> PO Box 896
> Cowra  NSW  2794
> Australia
> E-mail:  p...@pricom.com.au
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Do professionals use Pulse Audio? ; xfce4-mixer

[Neil C Smith]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, 14:12 Paul Davis,  wrote:

> PulseAudio is not a part of the signal flow of any pro-audio workflow.
>

True! Although likewise I'm not sure pure Alsa or JACK suit a consumer
audio workflow very well. I like PA for what it is, and used for what it's
for, it generally works well these days.

OTOH mentioning PA on here can be a little like poking an ants nest. :-)

Best wishes,

Neil

> --
Neil C Smith
Artist & Technologist
www.neilcsmith.net

Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Do professionals use Pulse Audio? ; xfce4-mixer

[Paul Davis]

PulseAudio is not a part of the signal flow of any pro-audio workflow.

That said, its control applications that adjust the hardware mixer work in
just the same way that any other hardware mixer application does, so if you
like it, there's no reason not to use it.

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Philip Rhoades  wrote:

> People,
>
> I am not a professional LA user but I have regard for what serious LA
> users have to say.  A post turned up on the Fedora XFCE list about removing
> xfce4-mixer for F29 - I responded with:
>
> "Every time I upgrade I immediately UNinstall PA and use ALSA only - so I
> still depend on xfce4-mixer . ."
>
> Someone replied that PA has greatly improved since the early days
> especially and "controlling streams separately is an added feature" - but I
> can do that with the .asoundrc I have now - are there any good reasons for
> me to reconsider the situation the next time I do a fresh install?  (I
> realise I am likely to get biased comments here but I am not going to post
> on a PA list . .).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil.
> --
> Philip Rhoades
>
> PO Box 896
> Cowra  NSW  2794
> Australia
> E-mail:  p...@pricom.com.au
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

[LAD] Do professionals use Pulse Audio? ; xfce4-mixer

[Philip Rhoades]

People,

I am not a professional LA user but I have regard for what serious LA 
users have to say.  A post turned up on the Fedora XFCE list about 
removing xfce4-mixer for F29 - I responded with:


"Every time I upgrade I immediately UNinstall PA and use ALSA only - so 
I still depend on xfce4-mixer . ."


Someone replied that PA has greatly improved since the early days 
especially and "controlling streams separately is an added feature" - 
but I can do that with the .asoundrc I have now - are there any good 
reasons for me to reconsider the situation the next time I do a fresh 
install?  (I realise I am likely to get biased comments here but I am 
not going to post on a PA list . .).


Thanks,

Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra  NSW  2794
Australia
E-mail:  p...@pricom.com.au
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev