Talk:PulseAudio

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Configuration of the PulseAudio ALSA plugin

Can anybody give an example where to use the pcm.pulse setting? --BertiBoeller 12:33, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

Abandoned draft

PulseAudio/Configuration was initially created to discuss PA configuration; then its goal was changed to be a replacement for this whole article; then it was abandoned. Currently it's marked for merge in PulseAudio#Configuration: is there anything worth being merged from there? -- Kynikos (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to focus more on generic explanation/configuration, where the main article is mostly about troubleshooting (considering the size of that section, you'd consider moving it to PulseAudio/Troubleshooting ...) -- Alad (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
How much sense would it make to actually merge PulseAudio/Configuration#Easy_configuration and PulseAudio/Configuration#Advanced_configuration and then simply redirect PulseAudio/Configuration to PulseAudio#Configuration?
I'd agree with moving Troubleshooting to PulseAudio/Troubleshooting.
-- Kynikos (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I do agree it makes sense to merge PulseAudio/Configuration#Easy_configuration and PulseAudio/Configuration#Advanced_configuration in PulseAudio/Configuration. I made an attempt in this way. Gabx (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I like what I see so far, more extensive configuration in the main article also allows to cut back on PulseAudio/Troubleshooting. -- Alad (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Restore package list

Why revert the list? I think Arch News is just a temp reminder. Arch Wiki should keep all needed info.--Fengchao (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the right policy is for this (hence my query in my edit summary) but I would just point out that the archive does stretch back to 2002 so I don't think it's unsafe to link to that material. -- Chazza (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but the set of split packages can change in the future... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, so at that time, the news page is out of date and only wiki page could be updated to keep up.--Fengchao (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We should ask for a more extensive optdepends instead of maintaining this information here. -- Alad (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively creating a pulseaudio-modules group should be equally simple for the packager, more comprehensible to the user and most naturally referenceable from the wiki. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Then before a group is created, should we restore the package list?--Fengchao (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any action need be taken until such a time that the set of split packages changes. -- Chazza (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Considering [1], I think including the list explicitly is useful already. Restored in [2]. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Equalizer module is unsupported

As of pulseaudio-7.0-2, loading the module-equalizer-sink module results in the following warning:

pulseaudio[535]: W: [pulseaudio] module-equalizer-sink.c: module-equalizer-sink is currently unsupported, and can sometimes cause PulseAudio crashes, increased latency or audible artifacts.
pulseaudio[535]: W: [pulseaudio] module-equalizer-sink.c: If you're facing audio problems, try unloading this module as a potential workaround.

Running qpaeq then makes PulseAudio crash with this error:

pulseaudio[535]: E: [pulseaudio] iface-module.c: Assertion 'pa_dbus_protocol_add_interface(m->dbus_protocol, m->path, &module_interface_info, m) >= 0' failed at modules/dbus/iface-module.c:309, function pa_dbusiface_module_new(). Aborting.

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not correct. Recently installed pulseaudio-7.0-2 and following the instructions in the wiki am successfully running the equalizer.
brettski (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This is odd. You should have at least seen the first warning in your journal... -- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding User to Audio Group

Currently, the article says, "There is no need to add your user to audio group, as it uses udev and logind to dynamically give access to the currently "active" user". That is a little heavy-handed; perhaps a wording like "There is usually no need..."? For instance, on one of my machines running pulse audio, I was unable to play any sounds as "me", but could using root. The server is running headless, and I access it over SSH. It's understandable that udev doesn't consider "me" the currently "active" user in this scenario. It is essential to know that adding a user to the audio group helps in this circumstance, so I appreciate the explicit mention of that group. Does my rewording make sense, or is there a better rewording? Lmat (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a reasonable rewording. Additionally I would considering explicitly describing in which cases it might make sense in the Wiki. -- Edh (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)