Well, I do notice that parec doesn't have the same issue, so maybe the issue is that arecord isn't all that good with pulse, hence, the need for parec. I do retain the claim that later versions of pulse have higher cpu consumption when using a combined_sink. Jim Jim Duda wrote: > I've noticed that when I use arecord without pulse, raw alsa, the cpu > consumption of arecord is very low, almost zero. > > However, when using arecord with pulseaudio, I find cpu consumption very > high. > > With 0.9.6, I found that arecord ran in the high 90's, and using ^C to > kill the process wasn't useful. I had to kill -9. > > With >= 0.9.9, I found that arecord ran around 75%, and using ^C would > work consistently. > > I have a 2.8 Ghz P4 with hyperthreading. > > Is it expected that arecord usage be so high with pulseaudio? > > I also found another curious note. With 0.9.6, a combined_sink results > in pulseaudion consuming ~ 10-20% cpu while playing a wav file. With >= > 0.9.10, I have found that using a combined_sink now consumes 50%. I > don't find this unreasonable giving what combined sink is doing, just > thought I'd pass on my findings. > > Example: > load-module module-combine sink_name=misterhouse > resample_method="src-sinc-best-quality" > master=alsa_output.pci_1274_5880_alsa_playback_0 > slaves=alsa_output.pci_8086_24d5_alsa_playback_0 > > Just attempting to route audio out 2 different cards. > > Jim
