On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 1:41 PM Paul B Mahol wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 9:14 PM Nicolas George wrote:
>
>> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
>> > Not really, it works with 2x/3x/4x/5x.. sample rate or 1/2 / 1/3 / 1/4
>> / 1/5
>> > o sample rate in other direction.
>>
>> I do not think so:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 9:14 PM Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
> > Not really, it works with 2x/3x/4x/5x.. sample rate or 1/2 / 1/3 / 1/4 /
> 1/5
> > o sample rate in other direction.
>
> I do not think so: the algorithm can work for absolutely any ratio. The
> effect on the
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
> Not really, it works with 2x/3x/4x/5x.. sample rate or 1/2 / 1/3 / 1/4 / 1/5
> o sample rate in other direction.
I do not think so: the algorithm can work for absolutely any ratio. The
effect on the spectrum will not be as clean if the ratio is not an
integer, but
On 4/25/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
>> The filter does not take sample rate as argument, but integer factor
>> instead.
>> So that make it impossible to be used with lswr.
>
> No need for an argument: the filter knows the negotiated input and
> output sample rate.
Not
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
> The filter does not take sample rate as argument, but integer factor instead.
> So that make it impossible to be used with lswr.
No need for an argument: the filter knows the negotiated input and
output sample rate.
--
Nicolas George
On 4/25/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Hendrik Leppkes (12019-04-25):
>> The point of this kind of filtering is not that they are necessary to
>> perform filtering, because you can filter at any sample rate, but that
>> oversampling for certain filters, and downsampling after, improves
>> quality.
Hendrik Leppkes (12019-04-25):
> The point of this kind of filtering is not that they are necessary to
> perform filtering, because you can filter at any sample rate, but that
> oversampling for certain filters, and downsampling after, improves
> quality. As such, negotiation is not really
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 7:25 PM Nicolas George wrote:
>
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
> > I did reacted. It plays well with negotiation.
>
> I missed that part, sorry. But it did not address my concern.
>
> > Can you be more specific what exactly you mean by "plays well with
> > sample rate
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
> I did reacted. It plays well with negotiation.
I missed that part, sorry. But it did not address my concern.
> Can you be more specific what exactly you mean by "plays well with
> sample rate negotiation"?
If the user judges that this is the kind of sample rate
On 4/25/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
>> You haven't replied any more, and nothing that you said earlier is valid.
>
> I have stated: rejected until it plays well with sample rate
> negotiation. You have not reacted to it.
I did reacted. It plays well with negotiation.
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
> You haven't replied any more, and nothing that you said earlier is valid.
I have stated: rejected until it plays well with sample rate
negotiation. You have not reacted to it.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
On 4/25/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
>> As there appears to be no more comments or valid arguments against this
>
> Saying it does not make it true.
You haven't replied any more, and nothing that you said earlier is valid.
>
>> set I will apply it.
>
> Do it and I
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-25):
> As there appears to be no more comments or valid arguments against this
Saying it does not make it true.
> set I will apply it.
Do it and I will revert and ask that your commits rights be revoked.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing
On 4/22/19, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 4/22/19, Nicolas George wrote:
>> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-21):
>>> https://dspguru.com/dsp/faqs/multirate/resampling/
>>>
>>> Resampling involves interpolation.
>>> If I do resampling with aresample and resampling with factor 2 from
>>> 44100 to 88200
>>> I
On 4/22/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-21):
>> https://dspguru.com/dsp/faqs/multirate/resampling/
>>
>> Resampling involves interpolation.
>> If I do resampling with aresample and resampling with factor 2 from
>> 44100 to 88200
>> I can see there is still some spectrum data in
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-21):
> https://dspguru.com/dsp/faqs/multirate/resampling/
>
> Resampling involves interpolation.
> If I do resampling with aresample and resampling with factor 2 from
> 44100 to 88200
> I can see there is still some spectrum data in highest frequencies.
Resampling MAY
On 4/21/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> I apperciate the efforts to reply more than half a line.
>
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-21):
>> It is not kind of resampling. Resampling is specific and belongs to
>> separate library.
>
> There is no doubt it IS a kind of resampling: it is in the name. The
>
I apperciate the efforts to reply more than half a line.
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-21):
> It is not kind of resampling. Resampling is specific and belongs to
> separate library.
There is no doubt it IS a kind of resampling: it is in the name. The
question is whether is it specific enough to warrant
On 4/21/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>> Generic resampling via aresample is completely another filtering that
>> have
>> nothing to do with this filters, for more info read:
>>
>> https://www.oblique-audio.com/technique/oversampling
>
> Quite the opposite: this page
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> Generic resampling via aresample is completely another filtering that have
> nothing to do with this filters, for more info read:
>
> https://www.oblique-audio.com/technique/oversampling
Quite the opposite: this page makes it rather clear that oversampling is
a kind
On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>> I'm really sorry for insulting you, and I will try to not repeat it.
>
> Accepted, although I have a feeling that "try" is weak.
>
> Now, you have complained about what you call my "one liners". I do not
> know if you realize, but
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> I'm really sorry for insulting you, and I will try to not repeat it.
Accepted, although I have a feeling that "try" is weak.
Now, you have complained about what you call my "one liners". I do not
know if you realize, but I have adopted the policy of not wasting
On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>> I'm really sorry.
>
> For what, and what do you intend to do about it?
I'm really sorry for insulting you, and I will try to not repeat it.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> I'm really sorry.
For what, and what do you intend to do about it?
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>> I'm really sorry if that hurt you.
>
> That's not excuses for the insult.
I'm really sorry.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> I'm really sorry if that hurt you.
That's not excuses for the insult.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>> I'm very civil here.
>
> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-April/242839.html
I'm really sorry if that hurt you.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> I'm very civil here.
https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-April/242839.html
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above,
On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>> What you actually want?
>
> I demand, that you behave in a civil manner.
I'm very civil here.
If I'm not polite than that is because of your snarky comments.
You already blocked several my patches for no apparent
good reason.
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> What you actually want?
I demand, that you behave in a civil manner.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer (12019-04-19):
>> As i have been asked to look into this
>
> Not to look into this: to take action.
>
>> Everyone, the subject of discussions should be FFmpeg and the
>> technologies
>> sorounding it. Insults, "Ad hominem"
Michael Niedermayer (12019-04-19):
> As i have been asked to look into this
Not to look into this: to take action.
> Everyone, the subject of discussions should be FFmpeg and the technologies
> sorounding it. Insults, "Ad hominem" argumentation/attacks, and so on lead
> to a hostile climate that
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:34:04AM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> > Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> >> This is not about sample rate negotiation.
> >
> > Yes it is.
>
> Give proof.
>
> No, you need to argue better your pathetic behavior.
>
> >
> >> Bad
On 4/19/19, Gyan wrote:
>
>
> On 19-04-2019 02:43 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
>> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>>> Users that know what they are doing will do:
>>>
>>> upsample=4,some additional filtering,alimiter=parameters,some
>>> additional filtering,downsample=4
>> Bad design. We have sample
On 19-04-2019 02:43 PM, Nicolas George wrote:
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
Users that know what they are doing will do:
upsample=4,some additional filtering,alimiter=parameters,some
additional filtering,downsample=4
Bad design. We have sample rate negotiation.
How about a filter that can
On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>> Look, you are full of shit.
>
> Unacceptable. Excuses expected.
I will ignore your one liners, snarky replies.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> Look, you are full of shit.
Unacceptable. Excuses expected.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>> This is not about sample rate negotiation.
>
> Yes it is.
Give proof.
No, you need to argue better your pathetic behavior.
>
>> Bad argumentation.
>
> Then argue better.
>
> Patches rejected for now.
Look, you are full of
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> This is not about sample rate negotiation.
Yes it is.
> Bad argumentation.
Then argue better.
Patches rejected for now.
--
Nicolas George
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>> Users that know what they are doing will do:
>>
>> upsample=4,some additional filtering,alimiter=parameters,some
>> additional filtering,downsample=4
>
> Bad design. We have sample rate negotiation.
This is not about sample rate
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> Users that know what they are doing will do:
>
> upsample=4,some additional filtering,alimiter=parameters,some
> additional filtering,downsample=4
Bad design. We have sample rate negotiation.
> This is already done by SoX.
We are not SoX.
--
Nicolas George
On 4/19/19, Nicolas George wrote:
> Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
>> This is used as part of other filtering. Namely when filter needs to
>> oversample
>> audio when processing - it then upsample audio before processing and
>> downsample
>> it by same factor after processing it.
>
> How do you
Paul B Mahol (12019-04-19):
> This is used as part of other filtering. Namely when filter needs to
> oversample
> audio when processing - it then upsample audio before processing and
> downsample
> it by same factor after processing it.
How do you intend to implement that? Filters cannot call
On 4/19/19, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2019-04-18 23:17 GMT+02:00, Paul B Mahol :
>> Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol
>> ---
>> libavfilter/Makefile | 1 +
>> libavfilter/af_aupsample.c | 159 +
>> libavfilter/allfilters.c | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 161
2019-04-18 23:17 GMT+02:00, Paul B Mahol :
> Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol
> ---
> libavfilter/Makefile | 1 +
> libavfilter/af_aupsample.c | 159 +
> libavfilter/allfilters.c | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 161 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644
Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol
---
libavfilter/Makefile | 1 +
libavfilter/af_aupsample.c | 159 +
libavfilter/allfilters.c | 1 +
3 files changed, 161 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 libavfilter/af_aupsample.c
diff --git a/libavfilter/Makefile
46 matches
Mail list logo
