On 05/12/2010 03:54 AM, Antoine Martin wrote: > On 05/12/2010 03:48 AM, Antoine Martin wrote: >> On 05/11/2010 11:29 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: >>> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 12:21 +0700, Antoine Martin wrote: >>> >>>> Add-to-wishlist: ability to use codecs here would be nice. I doesn't >>>> look like I can use ladspa plugins over the tunnel, or can I? If so, how? >>>> 1.4Mbit/s is a little high when most modern cpus can compress audio to >>>> 192Kbit/s on the fly without consuming any significant amount of CPU. >>>> >>> The lack of compression is a known bug :) AFAIK nobody is currently >>> working on the feature, though. >>> >> That's a shame. >> Especially since it consumes the whole bandwidth allocation whether >> actual sound is being played or not! Ouch. >> Well, at least when using an ssh tunnel with CompressionLevel=9 you >> can reduce that down to around 220Kbit/s when idle. (from 1.4Mbit/s) >> I haven't tried with single-channel 22KHz yet. > Correction, that's ~56Kbit/s idle. (~25 times less, decent saving) > (and no noticeable change when playing real audio) FYI: using gstreamer's TCP transport on the same streams, using code based on this example: http://www.jejik.com/articles/2007/01/streaming_audio_over_tcp_with_python-gstreamer/ I get ~56Kbit/s whilst in use. Not bad compared to 1.4Mbit/s! Antoine > >> >> The SSH transport is not the best place to be doing this sort of >> compression! >> Aren't there any open-source codec frameworks that could easily be >> plugged into the tcp transport? > [snip] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/attachments/20100514/7ecd7475/attachment.htm>
