On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 19:36 -0500, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
> > > Before anyone starts writing new documentation, what is most desperately
> > > needed is for someone to remove all the bad documentation out there (for
> > > example most of the ALSA wiki dealing with .asoundrc files and dmix)
> >
>
> > > Need it always be so? Or can we get a little organized and greatly
> > > improve the situation? My own opinion is that the community can do
> this
> > > with a little organization and motivation. Someone well-repsected and
> > > experienced in documenting (e.g. Dave) could head the organizati
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 at 13:24 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 06:52 -0700, Hans Fugal wrote:
> >
> > Need it always be so? Or can we get a little organized and greatly
> > improve the situation? My own opinion is that the community can do this
> > with a little organization and mot
Has anyone written a VST host for LADSPA plugins? I see a lot of work in
the other direction on Google.
Would such a beast even be possible, considering licensing?
--
Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net
There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the
right keys at the right t
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 07:48:02PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
>
> > Measuring the same example with libsamplerate with SRC_SINC_FASTEST
> > gives a throughput of 1233140 samples/second, which means that my code
> > is about 41 times faster.
>
> Are you comparing
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 04:34:43PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:47:30PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> > > Tobias Scharnberg wrote:
> > >
> > > However, please do not use linear resampling; its just too crappy.
> >
> > urgh...
On Mar 30, 2006, at 12:52 AM, linux-audio-dev-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I haven't made myself clear. IMHO linear resampling sucks
for audio. It is included in libsamplerate purely so I can
show how bad it actually is.
"Vintage" gear from the first few decades of digital audio
were larg
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 06:52 -0700, Hans Fugal wrote:
>
> Need it always be so? Or can we get a little organized and greatly
> improve the situation? My own opinion is that the community can do this
> with a little organization and motivation. Someone well-repsected and
> experienced in documenting
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 at 13:08 -0500, Paul Coccoli wrote:
> The type of info that would be in a second edition, in addition to the
> tutorial-style stuff mentioned in another post, would be a great
> reference for everyone if it were on-line and maintained by capable
> writers (like Dave). However,
Hi!
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 07:48:02PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
>
> > Measuring the same example with libsamplerate with SRC_SINC_FASTEST
> > gives a throughput of 1233140 samples/second, which means that my code
> > is about 41 times faster.
>
> Are you co
> Fast 'n dirty vs slow 'n clean is a common trade-off in a zillion
> applications
And some have fast'n clean. If my src is "dirty", send me an example.
I wonder if this contest is misleading -- the default sinc width I use
was originally aimed at CLM-users; perhaps Eric's uses a different
defau
Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> Measuring the same example with libsamplerate with SRC_SINC_FASTEST
> gives a throughput of 1233140 samples/second, which means that my code
> is about 41 times faster.
Are you comparing apples to apples here?
What is the bandwidth of your resampler?
>From the comment
Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your work very much, but this
> particular issue is irritating. There are situations where linear
> resampling is useful, for example when resampling xx sounds at once.
I'm rather busy, but I'll have a look at it.
Erik
--
+---
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 12:12:23 +0300, Jussi Laako wrote:
> Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> >process, it should be possible to be quite fast (well, of course it
> >depends on what fast is) while maintaining good quality. From my recent
> >work on SSE based resampling code for BEAST:
>
> At least you c
Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
process, it should be possible to be quite fast (well, of course it
depends on what fast is) while maintaining good quality. From my recent
work on SSE based resampling code for BEAST:
At least you can make SSE process four float streams in parallel without
significant
Erik de Castro Lopo:
Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
Was this with the linear resampler lib libsamplerate? In case, you should
know that its terrible slow. Last time I tried, the fastest sinc resampler
in CLM was almost as fast as the linear resampler in libsamplerate.
(Erik, you should do somethi
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 06:21:15AM -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> My publisher, Bill Pollock, has been gently pressuring me to commit to
> completing the 2nd edition of The Book Of Linux Music & Sound.
> Unfortunately I'm in a precarious position to commit myself to the work.
> T
Hi!
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 04:34:43PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:47:30PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> > > Tobias Scharnberg wrote:
> > >
> > > However, please do not use linear resampling; its just too crappy.
> >
> >
Fast 'n dirty vs slow 'n clean is a common trade-off in a zillion
applications. It is good to have choices.
Luis
On 3/30/06, Erik de Castro Lopo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
>
> > Was this with the linear resampler lib libsamplerate? In case, you should
> > know that i
19 matches
Mail list logo
