Erik de Castro Lopo: > > > > I recently did a lot of benchmarking between libsamplerate and mus_src > > in clm/sndlib. My result was quite interesting, the fastest mus_src sinc > > resampler where a lot faster than the fastest libsamplerate resampler. > > I think most people would agree that speed is not the most important > aspect when measuring the quality of a sample rate converter. >
I was primarily testing speed, but both libraries where using the sinc routine, so... > With libsamplerate, I can state that the three sinc based converters > have the following characteristics: > > SNR Bandwidth > SRC_SINC_FASTEST 102.42 dB 80.23 % > SRC_SINC_MEDIUM_QUALITY 98.99 dB 90.68 % > SRC_SINC_BEST_QUALITY 97.43 dB 96.96% > > where SNR is signal to noise ratio and Bandwidth its a percentage of > the theoretical best bandwidth (ie half of the minimum of the source > and desination sample rate). > > > A third program is the original sinc-resampler from Julius Smith: > > http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jos/resample/ > > I don't know how this one performs compaired to the other two though. > > libsamplerate the same algorithm as this one. I think Julius O. Smith > developed this algorithm. > He did, and Bil Schottstaedt used this algorithm as well for mus_src. When I compaired mus_src with width=5, and libsamplerate with SRC_SINC_FASTEST, the first one is much faster, I don't know what kind of SNR/Bandwidth you get with your way of measuring when using mus_src with width=5, but the source is easy to read so I guess you can figure it out. --