Santa Cruz S/PDIF + Linux makes me want to stab myself

**k0NG0** · 02-22-2007, 03:22 PM

OK, it seems there's no way on earth or in hell that you can get functioning S/PDIF output with the Santa Cruz in Linux, unless you do some serious voodoo.

I had Ubuntu 6.10 installed previously, sound was absolute *****. It didn't work, simply put. Drop-outs, static and usually just never made a sound at all. I figured it was Ubuntu's fault, and I did a lot of jiggery-pokery, and never got the thing to work.

I cursed a while, called Linux various names that made the paint fall off the walls, stuff like that. I mean, it's not rocket science, I want digital out since I have a pretty NAD receiverDVDkickassmachine with coax digital inputs. We don't need no stinkin' analog connections.

So, Ubuntu was completely screwed up after I was done with it (excellent guides on how to compile ALSA and then end up with a system that won't boot). Anyhoo, I downloaded a nice shiny openSUSE DVD and proceeded to install it. Very slick and pretty all the way through, I almost wanted to make love to it. It made me squeal with joy.

Did sound work? Noooooooooo! Of course not, that would have made sense and been nice. We can't have that, can we? The same problems, with drop-outs and static and feelings of running your bait&tackle through a blender.

Basically if I want sound I either have to try every single distro out there until I find one that works (no way I'm doing that), or I need to spank openSUSE 10.2 into submission to get it to work.

Last resort is to simply switch over to analog (need cables for that, currently use the old analog cable for digital duties, I MacGyvered it). But that just irks me to no limit. Why doesn't the damned thing output S/PDIF properly? Do I have to sacrifice to Linus himself?

Any tips and pointers would be nice. I have mean Google-fu skills, but have so far come up empty. Otherwise, feel free to generally tease me or join me in complaining about this horrendous lack of fidelity. Really, I'm a tad frustrated.

**k0NG0** · 02-22-2007, 04:35 PM

OK, so suddenly it "kinda" works.

That is, I hear sound more than I hear, well, nothing. Static is still sort of a problem, and I do get drop-outs.

It's almost usable. I think my tirade above actually helped. On some metaphysical level.

Cogar · 02-22-2007, 05:58 PM

LOL. Good job!

It has been my impression that most Linux distributions have essentially the same capabilities, since they use essentially the same packages. However, they are not all equally easy to configure.

One advantage openSUSE has over others is that it is more "plug and play" than distributions like Ubuntu where configuration is both a talent and an art. Although Ubuntu will install on almost anything, if a person does not like its default configuration, it is not that easy to "change its mind."

PS: Let me add that with some sound cards, the sound output through ALSA seems somewhat low. On others it seems to work fine. Although I do consider this to be a software/driver problem, the hardware being used affects the results as well.

**k0NG0** · 02-22-2007, 06:07 PM

Yeah, ALSA's on pretty much all of them. Although no one seems to really like it, from what I've heard. E.g. Jono, the head of the Jokosher team (audio recording and producer tool), couldn't praise things like Python and GStreamer enough, but when he talked about ALSA he basically said "unfortunately we're stuck with the stuff".

It still doesn't run perfectly. Although it's better than in Ubuntu, where I was ready to kick the computer out the window. I'll probably fix things up with an analog and digital hookup in parallel, and use digital in WinXP and analog in Linux. The NAD switches between them with a single button on the remote, so it's not like I'll be breaking a sweat. Still kinda sucks, though.

swannema · 02-22-2007, 11:26 PM

The Santa Cruz is not the best SC for Linux. I dropped mine years ago because I could never get my rear speakers to work. I now use an Audigy 2ZS and everything works.

**k0NG0** · 02-23-2007, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swannema

The Santa Cruz is not the best SC for Linux. I dropped mine years ago because I could never get my rear speakers to work. I now use an Audigy 2ZS and everything works.

Yeah, I'm beginning to realize that. Heh.

I'm only looking for 2.0 sound, though. No 5.1 or anything like that. Plain vanilla stereo over S/PDIF. Apparently even that is a stretch for ALSA. Hopefully analog will work better. I'm not buying a new sound card just for this

.

**k0NG0** · 02-23-2007, 11:49 AM

Well, it's a two-pronged problem. I agree that hardware manufacturers need to at least provide basic Linux drivers for their products if they want to seem like reasonable. It's a shame that so few do.

But then there's also the Linux distro crowd that claims that Linux is ready as a desktop replacement. Which it isn't when you can't get sound working, or all the mouse buttons on your mouse working without various trickery. There are many reasons.

There seems to be little movement towards making hardware manufacturers to just that, too. The open-source community is mostly made up of people who code. That's well and good, but that doesn't create very much incentive for companies to actually put in an effort.
Distro companies have their own agendas. I mean, there's several package systems around, no one seems to fully adhere to file system layout standards, when you compile and install a program, you have almost no control over what files are installed and where. And it varies between distros. (I could add that Windows too is sort of crap at this, with DLL hell and whatnot, but (D)SO hell isn't much better. That no one has done what Apple has done with OSX is astounding. A single file dragged to a single place installs the program. To uninstall, delete the file. Apple manages to do this while supporting two hardware platforms, in a completely seamless way. That's how it should be done, and that distros can't agree on a simple format for that and just implement it, well, it's a sign that too many people are pulling too many strings.)

Standardization bodies for Linux-based projects are starting to come to life, though, with desktop harmonization as a goal. And that's a good. I'd say it's a necessity if Linux is going to move towards actually meaning something on the desktop. As a server OS it's already proven itself, but that's because a server always has a server admin who's educated in how to operate it. A desktop OS is run by Joe Public.

Standardization is also something that will drive hardware manufacturers towards offering drivers, since having a united front always beats a fractured marketplace. Even if all facets of that marketplace essentially is based on the same thing.

I know my post above was full of venting, jibber jabber, hyperbole and things like that. But the core of my argument is still valid, IMHO.

*Bofinn* · 02-23-2007, 01:41 PM

Just stab the computer...

**k0NG0** · 02-24-2007, 05:02 AM

I may have been a bit unclear as to what I consider being fragmentation. Diversity is a good thing in F/LOSS software, I agree with that. It's just that there is still unnecessary fragmentation on lower levels.

File system layout, for example. There's no real reason for why it should differ between distros. There is a standard in place, FHS, has been for years, yet I think pretty much all distros use their own bastardization of it. Which accomplishes nothing. It's simply a way of putting different files in different places. If everyone followed FHS, it'd be easy to go from distro to distro when trawling the file system, applications would know with certainty where things are, and so on. Yet still no dice. That's moronic if you ask me.

The Tango project aims as desktop harmonization between KDE and Gnome (generally all desktops). To develop common guidelines for icons and naming conventions and such. Also something that should've happened a long time ago. There is no need for default installations of Gnome and KDE being wildly different. It makes it confusing for normal users when, depending on what system you choose, things work completely different.

I'm not saying that choice shouldn't be in the equation. It should, for sure. If you want to tweak something, tweak the hell out of it. Change the window manager, the desktop theme, make the kernel boot backwards, I don't care. But default installations should be unified to as large a degree as possible, to allow for regular users to install Linux and use it, and to enable them to move from one Linux distro to another without much trouble.

With a unified basic configuration (that is, just running the install through, without "Advanced" tweaks) should give the user a standardized and harmonized desktop. Linux should be more than Microsoft's competitor. It should be everything XP is, and more. You don't get that by only having a fragmented and confused landscape. You get it by having a standardized one that allows you to change everything.

I also think that using a standard packaging system for applications, and having drag-drop install as the standard isn't a limitation, but a strength. "make install" would then just inject whatever you've compiled into the standardized package and then move the package to the appropriate directory. You could simply add a shell variable like SHOW_FULL_PATHS and that would allow you to browse inside packages as /usr/bin, /lib and /sbin and whatever allows you to do today. And this would make Linux on par with OSX and significantly better than Windows!

I actually believe that standardizations like these would bring even more diversity to the table. Because as with projects like XML or the web, once you have a set of standards to rest on, that you know are frozen, then you can really go nuts and still know that what you make runs pretty much anywhere.

**k0NG0** · 02-24-2007, 05:25 AM

On the sound issue, I switched over to analog, and it's working swimmingly. It's a compromise I'm satisfied with, to be honest.

02-22-2007, 03:22 PM	#1
k0NG0 Remembering TQ Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sweden Posts: 13,630	Santa Cruz S/PDIF + Linux makes me want to stab myself OK, it seems there's no way on earth or in hell that you can get functioning S/PDIF output with the Santa Cruz in Linux, unless you do some serious voodoo. I had Ubuntu 6.10 installed previously, sound was absolute *****. It didn't work, simply put. Drop-outs, static and usually just never made a sound at all. I figured it was Ubuntu's fault, and I did a lot of jiggery-pokery, and never got the thing to work. I cursed a while, called Linux various names that made the paint fall off the walls, stuff like that. I mean, it's not rocket science, I want digital out since I have a pretty NAD receiverDVDkickassmachine with coax digital inputs. We don't need no stinkin' analog connections. So, Ubuntu was completely screwed up after I was done with it (excellent guides on how to compile ALSA and then end up with a system that won't boot). Anyhoo, I downloaded a nice shiny openSUSE DVD and proceeded to install it. Very slick and pretty all the way through, I almost wanted to make love to it. It made me squeal with joy. Did sound work? Noooooooooo! Of course not, that would have made sense and been nice. We can't have that, can we? The same problems, with drop-outs and static and feelings of running your bait&tackle through a blender. Basically if I want sound I either have to try every single distro out there until I find one that works (no way I'm doing that), or I need to spank openSUSE 10.2 into submission to get it to work. Last resort is to simply switch over to analog (need cables for that, currently use the old analog cable for digital duties, I MacGyvered it). But that just irks me to no limit. Why doesn't the damned thing output S/PDIF properly? Do I have to sacrifice to Linus himself? Any tips and pointers would be nice. I have mean Google-fu skills, but have so far come up empty. Otherwise, feel free to generally tease me or join me in complaining about this horrendous lack of fidelity. Really, I'm a tad frustrated. __________________ Use Firefox - "the one that blocks all the schmutz" Feeling multicore elation? Remember this correlation: Amdahl's Law.
(Offline)

02-22-2007, 04:35 PM	#2
k0NG0 Remembering TQ Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sweden Posts: 13,630	OK, so suddenly it "kinda" works. That is, I hear sound more than I hear, well, nothing. Static is still sort of a problem, and I do get drop-outs. It's almost usable. I think my tirade above actually helped. On some metaphysical level. __________________ Use Firefox - "the one that blocks all the schmutz" Feeling multicore elation? Remember this correlation: Amdahl's Law.
(Offline)

02-22-2007, 05:58 PM	#3
Cogar Level 15, lawful good Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: It varies, but usually within 100 yards of a keyboard. Posts: 7,222	LOL. Good job! It has been my impression that most Linux distributions have essentially the same capabilities, since they use essentially the same packages. However, they are not all equally easy to configure. One advantage openSUSE has over others is that it is more "plug and play" than distributions like Ubuntu where configuration is both a talent and an art. Although Ubuntu will install on almost anything, if a person does not like its default configuration, it is not that easy to "change its mind." PS: Let me add that with some sound cards, the sound output through ALSA seems somewhat low. On others it seems to work fine. Although I do consider this to be a software/driver problem, the hardware being used affects the results as well.
(Offline)

02-22-2007, 06:07 PM	#4
k0NG0 Remembering TQ Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sweden Posts: 13,630	Yeah, ALSA's on pretty much all of them. Although no one seems to really like it, from what I've heard. E.g. Jono, the head of the Jokosher team (audio recording and producer tool), couldn't praise things like Python and GStreamer enough, but when he talked about ALSA he basically said "unfortunately we're stuck with the stuff". It still doesn't run perfectly. Although it's better than in Ubuntu, where I was ready to kick the computer out the window. I'll probably fix things up with an analog and digital hookup in parallel, and use digital in WinXP and analog in Linux. The NAD switches between them with a single button on the remote, so it's not like I'll be breaking a sweat. Still kinda sucks, though. __________________ Use Firefox - "the one that blocks all the schmutz" Feeling multicore elation? Remember this correlation: Amdahl's Law.
(Offline)

02-22-2007, 11:26 PM	#5
swannema ???????????????? Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 9,627	The Santa Cruz is not the best SC for Linux. I dropped mine years ago because I could never get my rear speakers to work. I now use an Audigy 2ZS and everything works.
(Offline)

02-23-2007, 11:49 AM	#7
k0NG0 Remembering TQ Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sweden Posts: 13,630	Well, it's a two-pronged problem. I agree that hardware manufacturers need to at least provide basic Linux drivers for their products if they want to seem like reasonable. It's a shame that so few do. But then there's also the Linux distro crowd that claims that Linux is ready as a desktop replacement. Which it isn't when you can't get sound working, or all the mouse buttons on your mouse working without various trickery. There are many reasons. There seems to be little movement towards making hardware manufacturers to just that, too. The open-source community is mostly made up of people who code. That's well and good, but that doesn't create very much incentive for companies to actually put in an effort. Distro companies have their own agendas. I mean, there's several package systems around, no one seems to fully adhere to file system layout standards, when you compile and install a program, you have almost no control over what files are installed and where. And it varies between distros. (I could add that Windows too is sort of crap at this, with DLL hell and whatnot, but (D)SO hell isn't much better. That no one has done what Apple has done with OSX is astounding. A single file dragged to a single place installs the program. To uninstall, delete the file. Apple manages to do this while supporting two hardware platforms, in a completely seamless way. That's how it should be done, and that distros can't agree on a simple format for that and just implement it, well, it's a sign that too many people are pulling too many strings.) Standardization bodies for Linux-based projects are starting to come to life, though, with desktop harmonization as a goal. And that's a good. I'd say it's a necessity if Linux is going to move towards actually meaning something on the desktop. As a server OS it's already proven itself, but that's because a server always has a server admin who's educated in how to operate it. A desktop OS is run by Joe Public. Standardization is also something that will drive hardware manufacturers towards offering drivers, since having a united front always beats a fractured marketplace. Even if all facets of that marketplace essentially is based on the same thing. I know my post above was full of venting, jibber jabber, hyperbole and things like that. But the core of my argument is still valid, IMHO. __________________ Use Firefox - "the one that blocks all the schmutz" Feeling multicore elation? Remember this correlation: Amdahl's Law.
(Offline)

02-23-2007, 01:41 PM	#8
Bofinn I'm gettin' dizzy! Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Chicagoland Posts: 11,035	Just stab the computer... __________________ ---------- JimBo ----------- When in doubt, smack it!
(Offline)

02-24-2007, 05:02 AM	#9
k0NG0 Remembering TQ Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sweden Posts: 13,630	I may have been a bit unclear as to what I consider being fragmentation. Diversity is a good thing in F/LOSS software, I agree with that. It's just that there is still unnecessary fragmentation on lower levels. File system layout, for example. There's no real reason for why it should differ between distros. There is a standard in place, FHS, has been for years, yet I think pretty much all distros use their own bastardization of it. Which accomplishes nothing. It's simply a way of putting different files in different places. If everyone followed FHS, it'd be easy to go from distro to distro when trawling the file system, applications would know with certainty where things are, and so on. Yet still no dice. That's moronic if you ask me. The Tango project aims as desktop harmonization between KDE and Gnome (generally all desktops). To develop common guidelines for icons and naming conventions and such. Also something that should've happened a long time ago. There is no need for default installations of Gnome and KDE being wildly different. It makes it confusing for normal users when, depending on what system you choose, things work completely different. I'm not saying that choice shouldn't be in the equation. It should, for sure. If you want to tweak something, tweak the hell out of it. Change the window manager, the desktop theme, make the kernel boot backwards, I don't care. But default installations should be unified to as large a degree as possible, to allow for regular users to install Linux and use it, and to enable them to move from one Linux distro to another without much trouble. With a unified basic configuration (that is, just running the install through, without "Advanced" tweaks) should give the user a standardized and harmonized desktop. Linux should be more than Microsoft's competitor. It should be everything XP is, and more. You don't get that by only having a fragmented and confused landscape. You get it by having a standardized one that allows you to change everything. I also think that using a standard packaging system for applications, and having drag-drop install as the standard isn't a limitation, but a strength. "make install" would then just inject whatever you've compiled into the standardized package and then move the package to the appropriate directory. You could simply add a shell variable like SHOW_FULL_PATHS and that would allow you to browse inside packages as /usr/bin, /lib and /sbin and whatever allows you to do today. And this would make Linux on par with OSX and significantly better than Windows! I actually believe that standardizations like these would bring even more diversity to the table. Because as with projects like XML or the web, once you have a set of standards to rest on, that you know are frozen, then you can really go nuts and still know that what you make runs pretty much anywhere. __________________ Use Firefox - "the one that blocks all the schmutz" Feeling multicore elation? Remember this correlation: Amdahl's Law.
(Offline)

02-24-2007, 05:25 AM	#10
k0NG0 Remembering TQ Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sweden Posts: 13,630	On the sound issue, I switched over to analog, and it's working swimmingly. It's a compromise I'm satisfied with, to be honest. __________________ Use Firefox - "the one that blocks all the schmutz" Feeling multicore elation? Remember this correlation: Amdahl's Law.
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode