🎙PulseAudio and PipeWire: A Comparative Review 🎧

 

🎙PulseAudio and PipeWire: A Comparative Review 🎧

Introduction
In the world of Linux audio systems, PulseAudio and PipeWire are two major players. Both are designed to manage audio streams and provide a bridge between applications and the kernel's ALSA audio stack. This article will provide a comprehensive review and comparison of these two systems, focusing on their performance, compatibility, and features.

PulseAudio
PulseAudio is a standard audio stack used by almost all Linux distributions. It can be used for mixing, per-application volume control, and network audio. However, it has faced criticism for high CPU usage and numerous bugs, particularly in its early years from 2004 to 2014. Modern versions of PulseAudio have addressed many of these issues and are generally considered reliable and useful.
PulseAudio's configuration can be adjusted to affect audio quality, with settings such as high-priority, default-sample-channels, and default-sample-rate. However, some users have reported issues with PulseAudio, such as interruptions and glitches in games when there are a lot of sound effects.

PipeWire
PipeWire is a newer audio/video software streaming bus that has been in development for 15 years. It aims to solve the problem of Linux having multiple, sometimes conflicting, ways to deal with audio. PipeWire incorporates a system to determine the connections between applications and devices, specifying the linkage, manner, and timing of these connections.
PipeWire is already the default audio server for newer desktop Linux distributions like Fedora Linux, Pop! OS, Ubuntu, and openSUSE. It supports all current audio profiles and codecs, and is designed to be future-proof, enabling it to be integrated with other stacks like ofono.
PipeWire has been praised for its superior Bluetooth codec support compared to PulseAudio, and its ability to handle low-latency work with audio on Linux. It also supports connections that require reclocking, something that PulseAudio was never really able to do.

Comparison
When comparing PulseAudio and PipeWire, several key differences emerge:
- Performance: PipeWire is often praised for its low-latency capabilities, which is crucial for real-time audio processing. PulseAudio, on the other hand, has been criticized for its high CPU usage.
- Compatibility: PipeWire has been designed to be compatible with PulseAudio, JACK, ALSA, and GStreamer applications. PulseAudio, while widely used, has faced criticism for its compatibility issues.
- Features: PipeWire supports all current audio profiles and codecs and is designed to be future-proof. It also offers better Bluetooth codec support than PulseAudio. PulseAudio, while offering a range of features such as mixing and network audio, has been criticized for its lack of advanced capabilities.

Conclusion
While both PulseAudio and PipeWire have their strengths and weaknesses, PipeWire appears to be the more advanced and future-proof option. Its low-latency capabilities, wide compatibility, and advanced features make it a strong choice for Linux audio. However, PulseAudio remains a reliable and widely-used option, particularly for those who value its simplicity and established presence in the Linux ecosystem.

Disclaimer
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are from various diverse online sources and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Distrowrite Project.