PipeWire vs PulseAudio
Users discuss and recommend PipeWire as a superior alternative to PulseAudio for Linux audio management, highlighting its compatibility, low latency, and resolution of longstanding audio issues like those with ALSA and JACK.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Have you tried Pipewire? It's pretty wonderful.
I would like to recommend pipewire over Pulse, it's compatible but actually really good, also ALSA compatible
They're still using pulseaudio and not pipewire?
Yes, PulseAudio works great since it's actually PipeWire.
Maybe it'll be like pulseaudio... it never got good, but pipewire is actually quite good.
Use pipewire instead of pulseaudio. Much better.
Forget about PulseAudio and use PipeWire.
You've already been told about ALSA (which Pulse uses and organizes, for its the low-level audio subsystem the kernel offers) and Jack, which specializes in low-latency audio. There's also sndio ported from OpenBSD.But the one you might want to consider instead is called PipeWire. It implements the ALSA, Pulse and Jack APIs with a single implementation and it's pretty much the future of audio (and video casting) on Linux.If you're using Wayland, you're already usin
Audio I/O on Linux, specifically PulseAudio and JACK. It's a disaster compared to CoreAudio and WASAPI. Maybe pipewire won't suck and break regularly, but I doubt it.
Yes, I recall the audio engine problems and the war between Alsa, Pulseaudio and Jack (and OSS before them). Luckily Pipewire solved all or nearly all those problems: it emulates other engines APIs so that programs requiring this or that engine will transparently access it instead of the real required engine. If you're running a recent distro, chances are that you already have Pipewire installed, otherwise you can install it after getting rid of the old engines.<a href="https:/