Re: "hw" or "plughw"

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

 



On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, stan wrote:

> Vladimir Mosgalin wrote:
>> Hi paul blakeley!
>>
>>  On 2007.11.20 at 12:26:29 +0000, paul blakeley wrote next:
>>
>>
>>> Can someone please explain the differences between these?  What impact
>>> they have on the application?
>>>
>>
>> plughw supports much more sample formats / channel configurations
>> than underlying hardware supports natively, and performs conversion if
>> needed. hw performs no conversion, but supports less configuration,
>> sometimes only very obscure ones, but when used you can rest assured
>> that no conversion takes place.
>>
>> Mostly you'd want these conversions to take place, like mono->stereo
>> conversion or S16LE->S32LE conversion etc (all depending on your
>> hardware)

Mostly this is true, except for sample rate conversion. The sample rate
conversion routines are primative and add distortion and noise to the
signal, and you, in general, do not want to do that. Almost all of the
other conversions do not destroy the signal while converting, so are best
left to the plughw to handle, agreed.

The propensity of some card manufacturers to not support rates like 44100,
the ubiquitous recorded rate, makes it difficult of course.


>>
>>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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