Re: "hw" or "plughw"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi!
  As I remember:
hw directly accesses the card, which does plughw. But: If you have say a 
four-channel card configured at 48kHz, the player will try to open four 
channels at 48kHz.
  Where plughw, does some automatic conversion. i don't know, if it also looks 
up the number of channels, and only opens say two channels for a stereo file. 
But at least it converts sampling rates. so you don't need to worry about the 
SR of your audio-files and the SR of the card.
  In most cases I found plughw to be the better choice. The best choice was 
always to have some pcm-plugins defined. This is asoundrc-magic, but it works 
wonders.
  Kindest regards
       Julien

--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)

======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Alsa-user mailing list
Alsa-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user

[Index of Archives]     [ALSA Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

  Powered by Linux