On 05.04.19 13:29, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 20:28 +0200, Georg Chini wrote:
On 06.11.18 22:14, Andrea A wrote:
Thanks a lot for the reply
If the preset files are expected to be shared between users, then the
database.h stuff isn't good, because different users can have their
pulseaudio configured with different database formats. I like the "ini-
style" configuration file style that pulseaudio uses for .conf files.
There are no helpers for writing those files, though, but that's
probably not a big issue.
I can write a parser for ini-style file however since PA is
multiplatform I need some information about how to store user and
system settings. System settings can be hardcoded at least, but the
directory of user config depends on the platform I think.
Iwould love to have the equalizer as a LADSPA plugin
My fear is that a LADSPA plugin will be too hard to use for a lot of
desktop users. I think that a GNU desktop user would like to have a
fully working audio equalizer in his distribution and PA is default in
almost all GNU distributions. Configuring a LADSPA plugin may be hard
and boring for the average user and GNU will continue to don't have a
standard equalizer. Beyond the issues you've already listed.
It's not very uncommon that some core
change requires changes in all sinks, so even if the module is perfect
and doesn't require maintenance in form of bug fixes, there are other
kinds of real maintenance costs.
As far as I know the actual equalizer is deprecated so if this mine
equalizer will be adequate I think that the actual can be substitute
and the number of modules to maintain will not change.
Andrea993
Hi Andrea,
maybe there is a chance now to have your equalizer included as a module.
The messaging API patches
should have their final form (at least I do not think the public
functions will change anymore) and today
I submitted a patch series that consolidates the code of the current
virtual sinks and moves the common
code to a separate file. Using the common code should significantly
reduce the maintenance cost of an
additional sink.
So if you are still interested to have it included, at least I would
welcome a new patch.
Arun, Tanu, what do you think?
I think it would anyway make sense to make one or more LADSPA plugins
out of the equalizer code (I say one or more, because of the lack of
parametrization support in LADSPA). That way the equalizer would be
available also to other software than just PulseAudio (I'm thinking
PipeWire in particular).
If a suitable LADSPA plugin existed, we might or might not still need a
separate equalizer module, but in any case we wouldn't need to maintain
the DSP code in PulseAudio. If there's some reason why module-ladspa-
sink isn't (and can't become) suitable for implementing the integration
in PulseAudio, then a specialized module is fine.
I'm not saying that I'm dead against hosting the DSP code in
PulseAudio, but I'd certainly prefer not to.
It surely would make sense to have one or several LADSPA
plugins, but for me a good equalizer should be an integral
part of pulseaudio. And as you say yourself, the full flexibility
cannot be achieved by a single LADSPA plugin. The equalizer
we are currently providing is buggy and completely unsupported.
The new equalizer would at least be fully documented, so that
it is possible to maintain. Additionally I agree with Andrea that
handling LADSPA plugins is somewhat cumbersome. From a
user point of view, a module is much easier to handle.
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
pulseaudio-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
