I know, but Pipewire gets a lot of hype and I’m not sure how much of it is deserved.
I also don’t know where the “easier” part comes into play for the end-user. pavucontrol and pactl reveals as much to me under pipe as it did under pulse. I’m sure the I/O in the background is a lot cleaner, but I’ve not noticed anything in the foreground.
I’m not sure. I’m using the pipewire-pulse module on top of pipe, which provides the “drop-in replacement” of pulse, so it all seems to work with the old tools.
You make me wonder now whether I should drop pipewire-pulse and see if I still have accessible sound
The answer is PipeWire. It’s a drop-in replacement for PulseAudio that works.
I think that’s just branding. I use the pipewire / wireplumber stack for a while and have not noticed any big gains over vanilla pulse
Seems like you had unusual luck with pulseaudio. I had so many problems with it, I was considering switching back to Windows for some tasks.
FYI, Pulse and Pipewire are two different audio servers, not just branding.
Pipewire should be more like JACK, but easier to use like PulseAudio. That was the whole point of it.
I know, but Pipewire gets a lot of hype and I’m not sure how much of it is deserved.
I also don’t know where the “easier” part comes into play for the end-user.
pavucontrolandpactlreveals as much to me under pipe as it did under pulse. I’m sure the I/O in the background is a lot cleaner, but I’ve not noticed anything in the foreground.Those tools were made for pulseaudio, not pipewire, so it makes sense they worm the same. Don’t they have pipewire-specific versions of these tools?
I’m not sure. I’m using the pipewire-pulse module on top of pipe, which provides the “drop-in replacement” of pulse, so it all seems to work with the old tools.
You make me wonder now whether I should drop pipewire-pulse and see if I still have accessible sound