On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 18:14 +0200, Ralf Neubauer wrote: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 08:17:55PM -0400, John Lindgren wrote: > > Have you tried using ALSA instead of PulseAudio? > > Yes of course, that's how I used audacious before I used packages with > PulseAudio backend. PulseAudio is not compatible with the ALSA dmix plugin, so > I had to change over every audio client from ALSA/dmix to PulseAudio. Please > don't tell me I have to stop using other programs or buy more sound cards.
I'm not suggesting you stop using PulseAudio. I'm just trying to figure out if this 5% CPU usage is specific to using PulseAudio output plugin or if you see it with other output plugins as well. When trying to fix a bug, it helps to narrow down under what conditions it happens. > PulseAudio is described as CPU and energy saving by the developer, so I'm > wondering what's happening here. If audacious is just sitting there -- not > playing audio -- it shouldn't use up any CPU resources. I've only used PulseAudio once, when I once decided to try Ubuntu, so all I can say is that the combination of Ubuntu + Rhythmbox + PulseAudio seemed much slower to me than the combination of Debian + Audacious + ALSA (without dmix). John Lindgren -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
