[pulseaudio-discuss] native-protocol-tcp vs esound-protocol-tcp

Antoine Martin antoine at nagafix.co.uk
Tue May 11 13:54:04 PDT 2010

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)

> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/attachments/20100512/316620b6/attachment.htm>

More information about the pulseaudio-discuss mailing list