Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] ALSA vs OSS drivers
From: Josh Green (jgreen_AT_users.sourceforge.net)
Date: Fri Sep 28 2001 - 09:55:43 EEST
On Thu, 2001-09-27 at 17:59, Luis Pablo Gasparotto wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I would like to know your opinion about wich is the best driver. I have two soundcards: SB PCI 512 (emu10k1) + TB Santa Cruz (CS46xx)
>
> Midi synth doesn't matter. Lateny issues and sound quality are very important.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Luis Pablo Gasparotto
>
ALSA drivers are what you want. It has good support for multiple cards
and yes it does have MIDI synth support for your EMU10k1. It still is in
developement, but I've been using it for quite some time with little
problems (none that weren't fixed quickly). All your OSS programs will
work fine too. Its generally thought to have better latency than OSS
driver (you'll want to look into a Low Latency kernel patch too, I use
Andrew Morton's patch with Kernel 2.4.9 currently). ALSA is by far a
more Advanced architecture than OSS. I like the sequencer system the
best (though I haven't tried multi-track recording yet), which can have
multiple sequencer clients (be they hardware or software) that can
connect to each other to send time sequenced events, etc. Very nice. As
far as what version of ALSA to recommend.. Hmm. I've been using the
0.9.0beta releases. I haven't used the 0.5.x versions in quite some
time, since I try to keep up on developement for my program "Smurf Sound
Font Editor". I'm actually currently using ALSA CVS, but thats even more
on the edge I guess. So I'd say try the latest 0.9.0beta release. Many
of the programs that profess low latency stuff most likely will try to
keep up on the latest betas, the other ones you can just use OSS.
--
Josh Green
Smurf Sound Font Editor (http://smurf.sourceforge.net)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 09:53:44 EEST