Adding pulseaudio-discuss back. Sorry about that. On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 07:08:46PM +0200, Damir Jeli? wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 07:48:36PM +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 15:26 +0200, Damir Jeli? wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > > > For those who don't know, I'm Damir Jeli? from Croatia and I would like to > > > work on the "Resampling Improvements" project during this year's Summer of > > > Code. > > > > > > Last year I participated and finished the "Latency offset" project. After > > > the summer I tried to become a regular contributor. For those who are > > > interested, all my contributions can be seen in the git log [1]. > > > > > > I know I said that last year should be my final year as a student but I > > > prolonged my studies for a year and I'm still eligible for this year's > > > Summer of Code. > > > > > > I picked this project because it's a part of pulseaudio that I consider > > > quite interesting and didn't had the chance to touch yet. > > > > > > I have some DSP background (although more from control theory than from > > > digital audio) and also I have some assembly background, but not from any > > > modern instruction set (z80), which should make me a good candidate for this > > > project. > > > > > > What I would like to do over the summer: > > > - enable resampling with libav > > > - write some test coverage for the libav resampling method > > > - deprecate the ffmpeg resample method > > > - update the speex resample method > > > > > > The ideas page mentions also libresample, if I'm not mistaken pulseaudio > > > already supports resampling via libresample and I'm not sure what would I > > > need to do about this. > > > > By "libresample", I guess you mean "libsamplerate". Peter can correct me > > if I'm intepreting him wrong, but my understanding is that libsamplerate > > was only mentioned as an example of a resampler with a problematic > > license. I don't know either what should be done about it - perhaps the > > idea was to compare the different resamplers, and if it turns out that > > we don't have any good reason to keep using libsamplerate, we could drop > > that code. > > > > Yes, I've got it wrong since there are some libs named libresample. > > https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/resample/README-libresample-0.1.3.txt > > > > Speex has been obsoleted [2] and the resampler seems to had been moved to > > > opus-tools. There are some interesting commits [3] inside this repo and I think > > > it would be nice to update our speex resample method although I'm not sure > > > if it's ok to drop speex and replace it with opus-tools just like that. > > > > To me replacing the speex resampler with the opus-tools resampler sounds > > like an obvious thing to do, if the upstream says that the speex > > resampler code is deprecated in favour of opus-tools. > > > > Ok, sounds good. > > > -- > > Tanu > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Intel Finland Oy > > Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki > > Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4 > > Domiciled in Helsinki > > > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
