On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:20:57PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Let me try changing this by providing a review. > > Resampler implementations > > From: poljar (Damir Jeli?) > Submission date: 2013-09-06(?) > In a github branch: > https://github.com/poljar/pulseaudio/commits/resampler_implementations_v2 > > My review: justification for this work is currently missing. I would expect > some comparisons with the existing resamplers to be posted on the mailing > list, or, if they were posted already, a link to be added to the patch > review page. Performance comparison was posted already [1]. > > As I have already expressed, we should aim either for one perfect > feature-complete resampler, or a small number plus a technical document > justifying (a) the tradeoffs that are at play here and (b) why these > tradeoffs should be exposed to the user. > > In other words: if one of the added resamplers is strictly better than e.g. > speex, then add it and drop speex. If speex is strictly better than one of > the added resamplers, drop that resampler. If no resampler is strictly > better than the other, document this and document whether pulseaudio has > enough information to make a decision automatically in each case. The original plan was to remove ffmpeg from our tree and replace it with the maintained equivalent library implementations (libav and libswresample), but over the summer Arun requested not to drop ffmpeg since some people don't like to have an extra dependency. My new plan is as follows: - don't drop ffmpeg - don't add libav or libswresample - add soxr (which could potentially be a speex replacement) [1] http://poljar.blogspot.com/2013/08/vol-2-resampling-methods.html
