On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:28:38AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Jacob Meuser <jake...@sdf.lonestar.org> > wrote: > >> If you don't like mixerctl, there's at least a half dozen mixers in > >> ports. > > > > those don't help at all. cmixer is the only one with a chance of > > ever being really helpful, imo. it's the only one that doesn't use > > libossaudio (where the real mixer names are matched to OSS names, > > ick). > > I used aumix with some success, back when I was scared of the command > line (and using an ISA soundblaster). I'm not sure what it would do > with a current azalia set of mixers, but in olden times it managed to > pop up a useful set of sliders.
because our mixer interface design only ever had simple old timey SB type devices as it's target. same with OSS. <rant> frankly, I get rather perturbed at people complaining about azalia's mixer interface, because that's what's driven all the other "free" HDA drivers to try to shoehorn HDA mixers into a simple SB-like mixer interface. just doesn't work without taking away a lot of the capabilities. not only do they take away a lot of capablilty, they get it wrong, because it's not easy, with no way but patching the driver (or maybe NetBSD's hdaudioctl, or FreeBSD's HDA sysctls, or Linux's boot parameters, all of which require some understanding of the *HDA specification* to use effectively) to fix it. yeah, azalia mixers may have a lot of controls, but there all right there to be configured as you wish. </rant> -- jake...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
