On 5/6/19, Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 May 2019, Marton Balint wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 6 May 2019, Paul B Mahol wrote: >> >>> On 5/6/19, Marton Balint <c...@passwd.hu> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, 4 May 2019, John Warburton wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 3:34 PM Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John Warburton (12019-05-04): >>>>>> >>>>>> > Is there a patch I can use to test scaletempo to compare it against >>>>>> atempo? >>>>>> > It'll be no trouble to do that with the normal audio that is >>>>>> time-adjusted >>>>>> > on that radio station. It may be that its increased quality is most >>>>>> >>>>>> John, we would appreciate your input about whether these new >>>>>> implementation of atempo is superior or equal to the existing one with >>>>>> regard to your needs. >>>> >>>> I tested scaletempo (with default settings) and it is definitely worse >>>> than atempo for small scaling factors like 25/24. >>>> >>> >>> Have you tried other scaling factors? >>> How you done testing? >> >> Simple hearing tests. I hear audible artifacts (a kind of audio >> stuttering) with scaletempo. Here are some files where it is noticable: >> >> fate-suite/delphine-cin/LOGO-partial.CIN >> fate-suite/real/spygames-2MB.rmvb >> fate-suite/wmapro/Beethovens_9th-1_small.wma >> fate-suite/dts/dts.ts >> >> The last one is noticable even with 2x scaling. > > Another one, audible with any (0.5, ~1, 2) scaling: > > fate-suite/paf/hod1-partial.paf >
OK, vote and patch dropped. Even by using basically same algorithm, it is very slow to get same quality because does not use FFT for cross-correlation. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".