# Sound compatibility for 11.2



## dalpets (Sep 12, 2019)

I have an MSI B360M Mortar motherboard running freeBSD 11.2. Looking at the available info for sound implementation I see that most are implemented for dedicated NOT on board codecs. I don't know which would apply for my m/b specs, which are as follows;
Realtek ALC892 codec
7.1-Channel High Definition Audio
Supports S/PDIF output
The reference to sound cards in "7.2 setting up the sound card" (hardware list 7 for v12, with their drivers) seems to cater only for relatively old sound cards. If I go down that path I need pcie compatibility. If, on the other hand, I want to use the available onboard sound how do I assess what drivers I need with the scant info available. The latter is my preference, if possible.
I don't want to spend a lot of time on this I just want usable sound. What would be your recommendation? Thanks a lot.


----------



## SirDice (Sep 13, 2019)

dalpets said:


> What would be your recommendation? Thanks a lot.


Reading the mentioned handbook section and following the instructions.

Not related to your issue but you should plan your upgrade to 11.3, 11.2 will be end-of-life soon.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 13, 2019)

SirDice, How long do I have?

For those struggling with PCie sound implementation, like me, the within information may be of help. Please note I have not confirmed this information to be correct so you are advised to do your own research before acting on it.

So, my 11.2 machine does indicate (see below) that it sees my onboard Realtek codec, but as far as I can see it is nowhere supported in the 7.2 hardware list, which in any event seems to only cover PCI. If I'm correct the lack of PCie support, for non-enterprise users at least, is a glaring omission .


```
$ cat /dev/sndstat 
Installed devices: 
pcm0: <Realtek ALC892 (Rear Analog 5.1/2.0)> (play/rec) default 
pcm1: <Realtek ALC892 (Front Analog)> (play/rec) 
pcm2: <Realtek ALC892 (Rear Digital)> (play) 
pcm3: <Intel Kabylake (HDMI/DP 8ch)> (play) 
No devices installed from userspace.
```

A user in 2017 did have success apparently, advising that........... 
"I'm very pleased to report that the Creative Audigy RX 7.1 sound card (PCie) works 'out of the box' with FreeBSD 11.
The emu10kx driver is compiled into the generic kernel so all I had to do to test the card was to build xmms in ports, copy some MP3s to the system
and sit back & enjoy! This card has a proper headphone amp and works very  well with high impedance 600 ohm headphones, which require a higher
voltage from the sound card to get decent sound levels".

*The FreeBSD Manual pages * says to compile this driver into the kernel, place the following lines in your kernel configuration file

*device* *sound*
*device* *snd*_*emu10kx*

Or alternatively, load the driver as a module at boot time, & place the following line in loader.conf(5):


```
snd_emu10kx_load="YES"
```

Another user says he had success with...............
Turtle Beach Audio Advantage Micro II.  He said it worked without drivers.

Cheers.


----------



## SirDice (Sep 16, 2019)

dalpets said:


> in the 7.2 hardware list, which in any event seems to only cover PCI. If I'm correct the lack of PCie support, for non-enterprise users at least, is a glaring omission .


Your assumption it only covers PCI is incorrect. The actual bus (PCI or PCIe) is irrelevant.


----------



## PMc (Sep 16, 2019)

So, whats Your actual problem?  Your system says the card is detected. What else do You need?

If you now copy a file to `/dev/dsp0.0` it shoudl make some noise. Just find out on which outlet it appears.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 17, 2019)

SirDice said:


> Your assumption it only covers PCI is incorrect. The actual bus (PCI or PCIe) is irrelevant.


Well, obviously I don't understand what I am reading since the hardware list only seems to mentions drivers/cards that are no longer available in the market place, and  I assumed, therefore, they must be old & pci only. My motherboard will only accept pcie cards, so don't I need to look for specific device drivers that support cards for specific PCie hardware? You seem to be suggesting that my choices are quite wide. Perhaps you might give me a fix on them as I have not yet purchased the Creative Audigy RX 7.1 PCie board or any other (unknown to me) cheaper options . I only want vanilla sound as I don't pretend to be an audiophile!


----------



## dalpets (Sep 17, 2019)

PMc said:


> So, whats Your actual problem?  Your system says the card is detected. What else do You need?
> 
> If you now copy a file to `/dev/dsp0.0` it should make some noise. Just find out on which outlet it appears.


No, my system does not detect the card as I haven't purchased the Creative Audigy RX 7.1 (it's expensive) . It was the only PCie card that my very recent long winded research (outside of this forum & BSD docs) identified as PCie & that also has a driver for it on the BSD hardware list. I thought others may find it helpful, but SirDice is saying I misunderstand and the PCI/PCie issue is irrelevant. It would be nice to know, how so. I must be overthinking this.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Sep 17, 2019)

dalpets said:


> No, my system does not detect the card



Unless you made up the output of `cat /dev/sndstat` your system clearly detect a Realtek ALC892 card, onboard it seems.

*[EDIT]*

Btw, this is the output of mine, and I listening to Villalobos from it in this exactly moment:


```
Installed devices:
pcm0: <NVIDIA GT440 (HDMI/DP 8ch)> (play)
pcm1: <NVIDIA GT440 (HDMI/DP 8ch)> (play)
pcm2: <NVIDIA GT440 (HDMI/DP 8ch)> (play)
pcm3: <NVIDIA GT440 (HDMI/DP 8ch)> (play)
pcm4: <Realtek ALC892 (Rear Analog 7.1/2.0)> (play/rec)
pcm5: <Realtek ALC892 (Front Analog)> (play/rec) default
pcm6: <Realtek ALC892 (Rear Digital)> (play)
pcm7: <Realtek ALC892 (Onboard Digital)> (play)
No devices installed from userspace.
```


----------



## shkhln (Sep 17, 2019)

dalpets said:


> I must be overthinking this.



That doesn't even begin to describe it. Do you have speakers/headphones lying around?


----------



## PMc (Sep 17, 2019)

dalpets said:


> No, my system does not detect the card as I haven't purchased the Creative Audigy RX 7.1 (it's expensive) . It was the only PCie card that my very recent long winded research (outside of this forum & BSD docs) identified as PCie & that also has a driver for it on the BSD hardware list. I thought others may find it helpful, but SirDice is saying I misunderstand and the PCI/PCie issue is irrelevant. It would be nice to know, how so. I must be overthinking this.



The problem is, we don't really understand what You are trying to achieve.
You say, the hardware compatibility iist contains only old PCI cards, and that may indeed be true. But people here probably have some experience with newer cards and could tell You which ones they use. Only, we need to know where You want to go.
You quoted this piece of output,

```
$ cat /dev/sndstat
Installed devices:
pcm0: <Realtek ALC892 (Rear Analog 5.1/2.0)> (play/rec) default
pcm1: <Realtek ALC892 (Front Analog)> (play/rec)
pcm2: <Realtek ALC892 (Rear Digital)> (play)
pcm3: <Intel Kabylake (HDMI/DP 8ch)> (play)
No devices installed from userspace.
```
and this says that You already have a soundcard (probably integrated in your mainboard). If, as You say, You "_just want useable sound_", then that one should work.
If, on the other hand, You want to buy an extra card, and Your mainboard accepts ony PCIe, then just ask for recommendations for a card that 1. is available on the market, and 2. somebody here can report that it works alright with FreeBSD - and hopefully somebody has something to recommend.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

SirDice said:


> Your assumption it only covers PCI is incorrect. The actual bus (PCI or PCIe) is irrelevant.


Why?


----------



## SirDice (Sep 18, 2019)

dalpets said:


> Why?


Abstraction. There are various layers that deal with this, the pci(4) driver for example supports both PCI and PCIe (they're not that different from each other). It just doesn't make sense if each individual driver would need to have code to do the same things as every other driver. So various bits of code are generalized in such a way that every driver can use it as an interface and doesn't need to bother with specific implementation details.


----------



## olli@ (Sep 18, 2019)

dalpets said:


> Why?


Device drivers don't care if the chip is connected via PCI or PCIe. You can even plug a PCI card into a PCIe slot, using a small adaptor, and the driver won't even notice. I did exactly that, so I could continue using an old PCI SCSI card in my new PCIe-only mainboard.


----------



## olli@ (Sep 18, 2019)

Regarding your audio problem (or rather non-problem, it seems): Basically *all* onboard audio chips of common mainboards are supported. Just enable sound, and it will work out of the box, you don't have to look for a specific driver for your hardware. /dev/sndstat lists all audio devices and connectors that are recognized and supported.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

PMc said:


> The problem is, we don't really understand what You are trying to achieve.
> You say, the hardware compatibility iist contains only old PCI cards, and that may indeed be true. But people here probably have some experience with newer cards and could tell You which ones they use. Only, we need to know where You want to go.
> You quoted this piece of output,
> 
> ...


Well now we are getting somewhere! At last someone who mostly understands what I'm about. As a newcomer the hardware list appears not to speak to emdbedded system sound drivers. Why?
Accordingly, I start to look for solutions outside and the only one I can come up with is the ALC892, that is available as the Audigy device with the snd_emu10kx driver . In reverse it  was just luck to find this hardware as the drivers don't tell you anything about the hardware they support. But joy to the world now, anyhow!

In my travels around the internet I come across comments about why people have decided not to use freebsd. Mostly it seems, due to its complexity, very steep learning curve, arcane nature & the massive documentation, needed to make it work. Well, it's also said that it's not for everyone, particularly for desktop users such as myself. No wonder it has trouble winning significant support from potential linux converts. I must be a masochist, but hey I'm retired & that's the only reason I am able to continue with this challenge.
Note, no one has come forward here to suggest what card I might use, as you suggest I might ask. I have already asked the moderator but didn't receive a reply but in any event it's no longer an issue in light of other replies.
The problem I see with this issue is that people who reply don't take the time necessarily to assess the experience level of the poster. In my case I'm a new user & have not been exposed to the wider machinations of the operating system. I'm still learning. There's almost a case for a specific forum for new users.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

olli@ said:


> Device drivers don't care if the chip is connected via PCI or PCIe. You can even plug a PCI card into a PCIe slot, using a small adaptor, and the driver won't even notice. I did exactly that, so I could continue using an old PCI SCSI card in my new PCIe-only mainboard.


Thanks. At least I have a clear answer now.


----------



## olli@ (Sep 18, 2019)

dalpets said:


> Note, no one has come forward to suggest what card I might use, as you suggest I might ask.


Why not use the onboard audio of your PC? According to the output from /dev/sndstat that you have quoted, it is clearly supported, as several people have pointed out already. Just to make this perfectly clear: *If a device is listed in /dev/sndstat, then it is supported.*

If it doesn't work, please specify exactly what the problem is (e.g. error messages that you receive).

If you want to use a separate sound card for a different reason, I'd be interested to hear why.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

olli@ said:


> Why not use the onboard audio of your PC? According to the output from /dev/sndstat that you have quoted, it is clearly supported, as several people have pointed out already. It seems that you are seeing a problem that doesn't really exist.
> 
> If it doesn't work, please specify exactly what the problem is (e.g. error messages that you receive).
> 
> If you want to use a separate sound card for a different reason, I'd be interested to hear why.


Now I know that I will certainly do so. Thanks


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

shkhln said:


> That doesn't even begin to describe it. Do you have speakers/headphones lying around?


That's an unhelpful reply.


----------



## shkhln (Sep 18, 2019)

No speakers — no sound, sorry.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

PMc said:


> So, whats Your actual problem?  Your system says the card is detected. What else do You need?
> 
> If you now copy a file to `/dev/dsp0.0` it shoudl make some noise. Just find out on which outlet it appears.


Fair enough. Just another method a new user is not aware of. Thanks.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

shkhln said:


> No speakers — no sound, sorry.


Of course I have speakers, I've worked in the Windows environment with sound since 1993.


----------



## shkhln (Sep 18, 2019)

Now, please tell us, what you actually tried to do with them and where they are connected. I'm assuming you already tried to play something without success, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

shkhln said:


> Now, please tell us, what you actually tried to do with them and where they are connected. I'm assuming you already tried to play something without success, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.


Stop treating me like a child. You haven't taken the time to understand what I've tried to clarify.  If you had you would understand that I haven'yet tried to play anything. It's all been about preliminary issues and how BSD treats sound implementation. You simply have missed the point of my OP.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

SirDice said:


> Abstraction. There are various layers that deal with this, the pci(4) driver for example supports both PCI and PCIe (they're not that different from each other). It just doesn't make sense if each individual driver would need to have code to do the same things as every other driver. So various bits of code are generalized in such a way that every driver can use it as an interface and doesn't need to bother with specific implementation details.


At Last! Thank you very much.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 18, 2019)

olli@ said:


> Why not use the onboard audio of your PC? According to the output from /dev/sndstat that you have quoted, it is clearly supported, as several people have pointed out already. Just to make this perfectly clear: *If a device is listed in /dev/sndstat, then it is supported.*
> 
> If it doesn't work, please specify exactly what the problem is (e.g. error messages that you receive).
> 
> If you want to use a separate sound card for a different reason, I'd be interested to hear why.


Thanks for being so definitive with your answer. With that knowledge I will use the onboard audio.


----------



## shkhln (Sep 18, 2019)

dalpets said:


> Stop treating me like a child. You haven't taken the time to understand what I've tried to clarify.



You do understand this a support forum and the default assumption here is that you are trying to solve some problem? If you don't have any issues and you simply want to discuss architecture or whatever, you should state that somewhere. Else you would receive clarifying questions, troubleshooting questions and general setup instructions (those typically repeat the handbook).



dalpets said:


> If you had you would understand that I haven'yet tried to play anything.



I'm not blind, it's pretty clear you haven't tried that. However, I can't directly point at this fact. You know, forum rules and all that.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 19, 2019)

I accept that all the criticism I received from experienced users on the issue here were deserved, if I accept that that they tend not to tolerate questions they think stupid. In my case that was due to the fact that I am a new user & lacked their longstanding indoctrination & understanding.

In this instance it was solely because I failed to recognize from the outset that what cat /dev/sndstat was telling me was that sound was already setup in the system & should work out of the box, so to speak.  In a face to face situation that would have been cleared up in a matter of seconds. I expect that I will receive similar criticisms in future for asking perceived greenhorn questions, questions that I have researched in the documentation, but have perhaps misunderstood.  Hopefully responders will be able to see that for what it is & apply some expertise in the knowledge that wherever possibleI I do try to exercise due diligence with my OP's. But hey i'm only a flawed human being so i may not always achieve that goal.

In any event sound now works out of the box (speakers & headphones), so thank you all for your indulgence & taking the time to help me out.


----------



## olli@ (Sep 19, 2019)

Honestly, I think there are some users on this forum that need to be a little more gentle with new users that have no UNIX background.

Also, admittedly, the FreeBSD Handbook's section on sound is neither up-to-date nor complete. Ironically, that's probably caused by the fact that sound is so well-supported in FreeBSD that it works out of the box, most of the time. This makes people care less about the documentation.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Sep 19, 2019)

dalpets said:


> In my travels around the internet I come across comments about why people have decided not to use freebsd. Mostly it seems, due to its complexity, very steep learning curve, arcane nature & the massive documentation, needed to make it work. Well, it's also said that it's not for everyone, *particularly for desktop users such as myself*.



Please provide a link to the freebsd.org page that specifically states that. Unless that's just what you've heard in your travels around the internet. There is a whole screenshot thread going back years of people who use it as their daily desktop OS including numerous shots of mine.

No, it's not for everybody. If you're not willing to put in the work to learn (arcane spellcasting not a requirement) you might as well give up now and save the tears for a Linux forum. I provide a step-by-step beginners tutorial with a targeted audience of a Windows user who has never used UNIX or the commandline. Most people have successfully set up a fully functional desktop without much problem:









						Beginners Guide - How To Set Up A FreeBSD Desktop From Scratch
					

I'm going to guide you though the process of getting a fully functional FreeBSD 13.0-RELEASE desktop up and running, complete with system files and security settings, step-by-step as if you've never used UNIX or the command line. Now let's get started:  Insert your boot media and at the Welcome...




					forums.freebsd.org
				




This is a shot of the Thinkpad X61 that served as my dedicated .mp3 player at 292 days uptime. I have a library in excess of 13,400 songs. All I do is plug in my headphones and the music never stops, or didn't till the fan gave an error and shut it down. Now I have a Gateway/Acer clone that stepped in to take its place. My W520 is cranking Korn as I type:










dalpets said:


> No wonder it has trouble winning significant support from potential linux converts.


Water seeks its own level.



dalpets said:


> I must be a masochist, but hey I'm retired & that's the only reason I am able to continue with this challenge.
> Note, no one has come forward here to suggest what card I might use, as you suggest I might ask. I have already asked the moderator but didn't receive a reply but in any event it's no longer an issue in light of other replies.
> The problem I see with this issue is that people who reply don't take the time necessarily to assess the experience level of the poster. In my case I'm a new user & have not been exposed to the wider machinations of the operating system. I'm still learning. There's almost a case for a specific forum for new users.



That's your perception of things. Everybody here can see you just joined June 25, 2019. I'm in tune with new users or I wouldn't have written a tutorial for them. I taught myself to use FreeBSD and learned the hard way so I always try to help new people out.

People have responded to your question but nobody is going to hold your hand or spoonfeed you. You're expected to read the Handbook and individual hands-on experience encouraged. If people have a legitimate question somebody always answers. That's a fact documented by threads.


----------



## dalpets (Sep 19, 2019)

@ Trihexagonal

When i'm trying to resolve a bsd issue outside of its forums, most likely by googling an answer, then I'm most likely to come across people who have tried and failed & who thus have negative reactions to their failure. These people are probably not core users otherwise they would be using the forums, but they probably could be if they thought the systems were more accessible.

That has been my experience & that finding is not necessarily to be assumed to be the result of a personal confirmation bias.  In fact I expect the reasons would be naturally infinite. One would have to do serious research to find out accurately which distributions/operating systems are in fact easy or hard to use, and in fact that has been surely done informally by people over the years including many who have had to find out the hard way. What can be defined as hard or easy is of course another question.

I get the impression that developers tend try to make their distributions/operating systems more palatable to users by using a smattering of graphics as an attraction but without losing their linux/unix identity, As such  Unix in particular, still seems to come across as a system really only accessible to sophisticated /business users & there is no real attempt (or need) to market it to be accessible to the masses. 

My perception has always been that with linux & unix one needs to go into the process very much with his/her eyes open, as they tend to be code intensive. The problem is exacerbated in that many people coming from the windows operating system environment have been hand fed with intuitive graphics systems.

I also expect that for more than a few business organisations training all there staff to use unix would be at a prohibitive cost because its tendency to be code intensive in nature compared with the Windows system, & because many people are not geeky and find working with code an arduous chore.  These are people who just want results & don't want to have their head under the hood all the time to make those results possible.

At the end of the day it's horses for courses. It depends how one is wired & motivated. I'm sure most people of an artistic nature would not be comfortable working with algorithms. The easy implied answer would be 'why don't you just go away & collect stamps_this is not for you'.

i have found the BSD forums here very friendly, much more so than some other forums, but it would be nice if the small few who want to make new users life miserable with high handed & sometimes negative responses gave it a rest. & they should be careful not to stereotype us as not having read the manual/handbook.
I commend you for producing the Beginner's guide. Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Sep 19, 2019)

dalpets said:


> I get the impression that developers tend try to make their distributions/operating systems more palatable to users by using a smattering of graphics as an attraction but without losing their linux/unix identity, As such  Unix in particular, still seems to come across as a system really only accessible to sophisticated /business users & there is no real attempt (or need) to market it to be accessible to the masses.



Spin-offs like GhostBSD come with a pre-installed DE but FreeBSD is bare bones so the user can build it to suit their needs. It's more work but I end up with a custom desktop of my own with only the 3rd party programs I choose that meet my needs.



dalpets said:


> My perception has always been that with linux & unix one needs to go into the process very much with his/her eyes open, as they tend to be code intensive. The problem is exacerbated in that many people coming from the windows operating system environment have been hand fed with intuitive graphics systems.
> 
> I also expect that for more than a few business organisations training all there staff to use unix would be at a prohibitive cost because its tendency to be code intensive in nature compared with the Windows system, & because many people are not geeky and find working with code an arduous chore.  These are people who just want results & don't want to have their head under the hood all the time to make those results possible.



*I use it every day and never see the actual code*. I'm familiar with the file system hierarchy and what it contains, can edit it as needed (there is quite a bit of editing to do when you first set it up and I cover that) but that's not actual code. I've never worked in IT and am not that kind of Programmer. There are a lot of people here that know more about FreeBSD than me. I can set up and keep my desktops running and that's what's important where I sit.

A terminal can seem intimidating to someone who has never used one but that's partly why I use ports in my tutorial. You get some valuable commandline time in and it helps take the mystery out of it.

*EDIT*: I guess that's not really true. I've been compiling ports for 12 years or so and can't count the hours I've watched screen after screen of code fly by. I just didn't associate it with everyday desktop use. Once you get things set up it takes very little work to maintain. The files you edit are in plain English for the most part and the few commands needed to perform everyday tasks become second nature.


----------



## k.jacker (Sep 19, 2019)

Don't take this as criticism, but rather as general information on how technical forums work.

Lack of knowledge is not a problem, just ask for help and show your will to gain it.


dalpets said:


> I don't want to spend a lot of time on this I just want usable sound.


Opposite of right attitude.
You'll never get a step-by-step guide for anything that is already well documented.



dalpets said:


> I haven'yet tried to play anything.


This isn't optimal either.
Even though the available documentation in the FreeBSD Handbook is dated in parts, it at least get's you going to a point where you have configured and tried something and eventually failed.
With that experience you should be able to ask a more or less qualified question, describe what you did and what errors you received.

Of course it's not a shame to say you don't really understand how things fit together, as long as you did your homework.
Throughout a discussion you should answer the questions of those people who honestly try to help you, provide information you are asked for and try the suggestions made.

It's true FreeBSD isn't for anyone. The majority of people isn't willing to invest the amount of time that is required to even learn the basics.


----------



## xtremae (Sep 19, 2019)

k.jacker said:


> The majority of people isn't willing to invest the amount of time that is required to even learn the basics.


That is probably because it is easier to just give up and go back to Windows/MacOS. People instinctively gravitate towards what they already know.

For the few that want to use FreeBSD however they have to make the effort.


----------



## shkhln (Sep 19, 2019)

The funny thing is, a typical Windows user would expect sound to work out of the box without reading documentation and would _not_ have any issues there.


----------



## PMc (Sep 19, 2019)

dalpets said:


> When i'm trying to resolve a bsd issue outside of its forums, most likely by googling an answer, then I'm most likely to come across people who have tried and failed & who thus have negative reactions to their failure. These people are probably not core users otherwise they would be using the forums, but they probably could be if they thought the systems were more accessible.



Well, over all, I think we here did a good effort to figure and solve Your issue. And if I search the internet for some issue, I give not much care to those who tried&failed, as these don't help my issue. 



> I get the impression that developers tend try to make their distributions/operating systems more palatable to users by using a smattering of graphics as an attraction but without losing their linux/unix identity, As such  Unix in particular, still seems to come across as a system really only accessible to sophisticated /business users & there is no real attempt (or need) to market it to be accessible to the masses.



This has been done by Apple: take the Berkeley codebase and create something that can be used by the masses. I highly respect this, but there are two gotchas: 
1. They solve the "which hardware can be used" problem by bundling hardware and software. If one does not want to do that, one needs a very big market share in order to make the manufacturers care for compatibility.
2. The more ease-of-use, the more distance from the actual technical matters.



> My perception has always been that with linux & unix one needs to go into the process very much with his/her eyes open, as they tend to be code intensive. The problem is exacerbated in that many people coming from the windows operating system environment have been hand fed with intuitive graphics systems.



On linux/unix many things can be solved with a few lines of shell scripting. Administration and coding is not strictly separated. On windows there is a huge gap between running the system and trying to write a program for it, and many things just cannot be solved or get very complicated.



> I also expect that for more than a few business organisations training all there staff to use unix would be at a prohibitive cost because its tendency to be code intensive in nature compared with the Windows system, & because many people are not geeky and find working with code an arduous chore.  These are people who just want results & don't want to have their head under the hood all the time to make those results possible.
> 
> At the end of the day it's horses for courses. It depends how one is wired & motivated. I'm sure most people of an artistic nature would not be comfortable working with algorithms. The easy implied answer would be 'why don't you just go away & collect stamps_this is not for you'.



It depends. Think about this: until about a hundred years ago, any average peasant could maintain or even build almost all the things that were used in everyday life. This has changed during the industrial age, and now even more into the computer age. Nowadays people are entirely surrounded by things they have hell no idea how they work, and no control over them whatsoever. I think it is not a good thing when people have no control, no understanding about what surrounds them. To me, unix is a means to get some of this control back, to have the things work the way they do because *I* tell them to do so. Obviousely there is learning involved, but the benefit is not just to have a running computer, it is also about understanding more of the things that surrounds us.



> i have found the BSD forums here very friendly, much more so than some other forums, but it would be nice if the small few who want to make new users life miserable with high handed & sometimes negative responses gave it a rest. & they should be careful not to stereotype us as not having read the manual/handbook.
> I commend you for producing the Beginner's guide. Thank you for your thoughts.



Oh well, you have those folks in any group where some more ambitioned things are discussed. Just ignore them.


----------



## PMc (Sep 19, 2019)

shkhln said:


> The funny thing is, a typical Windows user would expect sound to work out of the box without reading documentation and would _not_ have any issues there.



Yes, *if* it works. If it does not work, one can gather a couple of "specialists" trying to solve the problem by procedures that remind rather of voodoo priests than engineers.


----------



## shkhln (Sep 19, 2019)

PMc said:


> If it does not work, one can gather a couple of "specialists" trying to solve the problem by procedures that remind rather of voodoo priests than engineers.



I have to admit, association/sequence settings for snd_hda are rather cryptic. Other than that it either works or it doesn't.


----------



## PMc (Sep 19, 2019)

shkhln said:


> I have to admit, association/sequence settings for snd_hda are rather cryptic. Other than that it either works or it doesn't.



I agree, this is an area that could use some improvement in documentation. 
I managed to configure the various outlets of my board to my needs, but that was already somehow obscure. I would really like to understand more of that technology, in order to find out what it can do beyond just playing sound. But then there seem to be not so many people deeply into it - and on the professional side (artists and studio engineers) most people use packaged software for mac or windows.


----------

