I think I already know the answer, but I'm at work and the boxes I need
are at home...

I'm running Slack 10.x & 11, 2.4.x kernel, alsa, and kde.

From what I can tell, the only reason I need to use artsd in KDE is if
I have a need to play more sounds than I have hardware mixer support for.
So, for a cheapo mobo that say had only one pcm channel in hardware,
you'd be unable to have sounds enabled in kde and play xmms at the same
time if you didn't have artsd running. (or an equivalent driver.)

Is this right? Wrong?

I started testing this theory out last night....

Never ran into this before under windows - assuming the windows mm stuff
has a software mixer or I just never had any cheapo soundcards and
multiple audio streams...

Ray

Ray wrote:
> Is this right? Wrong?

In the past, right. Today, wrong.

Alsa includes its own software mixer, dmix, which is now enabled by default,
so artsd is no longer necessary for that function (although KDE still seems
to use artsd for handling its own internal sounds).

-Carlos

Carlos Corbacho wrote:
> Ray wrote:
>> Is this right? Wrong?
>
> In the past, right. Today, wrong.
>
> Alsa includes its own software mixer, dmix, which is now enabled by default,
> so artsd is no longer necessary for that function (although KDE still seems
> to use artsd for handling its own internal sounds).
>
> -Carlos
>

what I found interesting is that artsd was necessary on my machine with
onboard audio for multiple streams, whereas with a sblive I could run
"play song.mp3" at least 5 times... I think I could do it 64 times, but
after 5 times I can't tell because the mix is just noise...

I still would think that that should be a function of alsa and then have
no need for artsd or esound etc... but I guess that's how things evolved
vs a clean design...

Ray

Ray wrote:
> what I found interesting is that artsd was necessary on my machine with
> onboard audio for multiple streams, whereas with a sblive I could run
> "play song.mp3" at least 5 times... I think I could do it 64 times, but
> after 5 times I can't tell because the mix is just noise...

As you found, better cards provide hardware mixing; the rest mix in
software.

> I still would think that that should be a function of alsa and then have
> no need for artsd or esound etc... but I guess that's how things evolved
> vs a clean design...

Things are slowly moving in that direction. IIRC, KDE4 will no longer
require arts. Several years ago, I remember the standard answer as
being "if you care, buy a real sound card".

- Daniel

D Herring wrote:
> Ray wrote:
>> what I found interesting is that artsd was necessary on my machine
>> with onboard audio for multiple streams, whereas with a sblive I could
>> run "play song.mp3" at least 5 times... I think I could do it 64
>> times, but after 5 times I can't tell because the mix is just noise...
>
> As you found, better cards provide hardware mixing; the rest mix in
> software.
>
>> I still would think that that should be a function of alsa and then
>> have no need for artsd or esound etc... but I guess that's how things
>> evolved vs a clean design...
>
> Things are slowly moving in that direction. IIRC, KDE4 will no longer
> require arts. Several years ago, I remember the standard answer as
> being "if you care, buy a real sound card".
>
> - Daniel

I just read a page this morning talking about KDE4 and sound and how
artsd is dead. Still don't understand why KDE needs it's own sound
system instead of just using ALSA ... it uses X instead of providing
it's own version of X...

ray@nospam.example.com wrote :

> Still don't understand why KDE needs it's own sound system instead of
> just using ALSA .

There's a historical reason for that. KDE needed a sound system and aRts
was there as an independent project while ALSA barely existed back then.
--
Thomas O.

This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

Thomas Overgaard wrote:
> ray@nospam.example.com wrote :
>
>> Still don't understand why KDE needs it's own sound system instead of
>> just using ALSA .
>
> There's a historical reason for that. KDE needed a sound system and aRts
> was there as an independent project while ALSA barely existed back then.

Ok, maybe I should have rephrased that... why is KDE4 still going to
come with it's own sound system instead of just using what the OS provides?

(rhetorical question, I'm sure I could go ask the KDE guys that and find
out where alsa doesn't cut it for them, but I'm supposed to be working
today...)

Ray

Ray wrote:
> Ok, maybe I should have rephrased that... why is KDE4 still going to
> come with it's own sound system instead of just using what the OS provides?

perhaps because kde doesn't just run on linux, but also on *bsd, and
porting to windows is under way (iirc). and perhaps those alternative OSes
don't come with an underlying sound system.

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

ray@nospam.example.com wrote :

> why is KDE4 still going to come with it's own sound system instead of
> just using what the OS provides?

The situation is different today, KDE has been ported to many different
operation systems and ALSA stands for Advanced Linux Sound Architecture.
--
Thomas O.

This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ray wrote:

>> Ok, maybe I should have rephrased that... why is KDE4 still going
>> to come with it's own sound system instead of just using what the
>> OS provides?
>
> perhaps because kde doesn't just run on linux, but also on *bsd,
> and porting to windows is under way (iirc). and perhaps those
> alternative OSes don't come with an underlying sound system.

Obviously windoze has an "underlying sound system." We find it
unlikely that KDE would make such a decision based solely on the
fact that BSD doesn't have a sound system.

cordially, as always,

rm