13.11.2014 01:16, Andrey Semashev пишет:
On Wednesday 12 November 2014 20:03:48 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
12.11.2014 14:26, Alexander E. Patrakov пишет:
I will recheck the quality separately later today, in order to verify
that it is still as good as in the previous tests. Please don't merge
the patches until this is done.
Done. The -mq, -hq and -vhq variants of the resampler never produce
audible distortions. The -lq variant sometimes does, by means of
suppressing very high frequencies, but this is relevant to artificial
tests only, and only if the listener knows that these frequencies are
supposed to be there. Thus, quality is on par with speex-float-5, the
CPU consumption is even better than with speex-float-1. Conclusion:
*** the patches are generally acceptable ***
Great! And thanks a lot for the quality data and information. I will send v2
patches in a day or two.
However, because the low-quality and high-quality versions eat very
similar amount of CPU time, I'd just expose a single (high or very high)
quality setting.
Given that -lq is actually slower than -mq in some cases and has worse
quality, I agree there is no point in keeping it.
However, the other three presets do have different performance and quality. In
my test results [1] -mq is about 2 times faster than -vhq, and -hq is
somewhere in between. Performance wise, there should be no problem with -vhq
on modern CPUs, but maybe the little extra would be desired in embedded domain
to conserve battery. Do you think we could keep the three presets: -mq, -hq
and -vhq?
[1]: http://lastique.github.io/src_test/
OK, let's just drop -lq.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
_______________________________________________
pulseaudio-discuss mailing list
pulseaudio-discuss@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
