Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 17:15 +0100 schrieb Colin Guthrie: > 'Twas brillig, and Alexey Fisher at 20/10/09 16:02 did gyre and gimble: > > Thank you, the answer was clear. > > Now i need to test what is cheaper: to reasample by pa or by aplication. > > Please note that PA supports several different resamplers and the > evaluation of "what is cheaper" could easily be invalidated by the user > selecting a different resampler. > > I'd advice you to generally let pulse worry about the resampling. Let > the appropriate part of the stack deal with it in the way the user likes :) > > Col The question i made was a part of my investigation "what making my netbook on simple tasks so busy?" Currently ubuntu karmic use default "resample-method = speex-float-1" and it seems to be not optimal for me. More over, i use gnome-sound-recorder which is not really optimal too. For example: to record sound to speex, "audio/x-raw-float,rate=44100 ... speexenc" which make PA resampling stream. After i switched to "audio/x-raw-int" i reduced CPU usage to 5%. But i don't need "rate=44100" with speex i need "rate=16000", so we are back on resample. if i use "resample-method = ffmpeg" it seems to be better, but i don't wont to change anything in "/etc/pulse/*". So it will be probably better to use mplayer to record sound with internal resampler. But currently i care more about cpu usage on record without resampling. Alexey.
