Hi, On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:15:32PM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > ----- Original Message ----- > > I think the gst PA elements are good enough. Since the change from > > gst 0.10 to gst 1.0 I've been using gstreamer as default backend and > > didn't notice any _new_ problems. But droping pulse entirely is a hard > > decision as it affects other applications. > > > > The main difference at the moment to pulse is the volume per channel > > which is not available in gststreamvolume and I didn't find a way to > > workaround it. > > Bummer.. I wonder how gstreamer apps can provide audio balance then. audiopanorama? Most likely, yes. I asked in #gstreamer, volume control per channel is nice-to-have for the future. It is also possible to deinterleave [0] and use volume element, but that's not what we want I think :-) [0] https://blogs.gnome.org/jessevdk/2010/12/17/fun-with-gstreamer-controlling-volume-of-channels-independently/ > > > Regarding the volume-sync what is most important is the last volume value > > for the application and pulse elements get them from pulse itself so it > > works fine IMHO. (i.e you disconnect the client and connect again, it > > should have the same volume value as before) > > ok, so I guess with gst backend it will always have l=r volume. > > perhaps it's not such a showstopper, and we could tentatively deprecate the pulse backend. I agree, we could use audiopanorama for this until we are capable of setting volume per channel. Should I drop the patches for spice-pulse or have it as it is while deprecating pulse backend? > > > So, if we are keeping pulse I could make it like gstreamer with PA > > thread as I too think it the best alternative to work with this async > > api. > > Ok _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel