17.08.2014 12:38, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > Patch review status updated: > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/PatchStatus/ ... > Resampler quality testing > > From: poljar (Damir Jeli?) > Submission date: 2013-08-26(?) > In a github branch: https://github.com/poljar/pulseaudio/commits/resampler_quality Review: does not answer the question "is this distortion audible?" and provides no way to evaluate quality of non-PulseAudio resamplers. So I have decided to redo all of this using a different approach. The new work is based on a psychoacoustical model in order to correct the first objection, and is supposed to judge any resampler according to its output as a wav file (including Windows output recorded by KVM) when given a linear sine sweep. I have already implemented the model, can answer the "is this distortion audible" question given the spectrum of the signal and the distortion, but have not used this yet to analyze the resampler output. Damir also provided useful contributions. So this is definitely no longer "Waiting for Review". As this successor is now a side project that does not share code with PulseAudio and does not even use PulseAudio, I don't expect it to produce a PulseAudio patch. If Damir agrees, let's remove it from the page. I think I will have some announceable results in about a week and full results in about a month, and would like to talk about this (maybe unofficially) at Audio mini conference 2014. > Resampler implementations > > From: poljar (Damir Jeli?) > Submission date: 2013-09-06(?) > Reviewed: 2013-11-29 > In a github branch: https://github.com/poljar/pulseaudio/commits/resampler_implementations_v2 > Status update: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.pulseaudio.general/18991 > Performance tests (mono): http://poljar.blogspot.com/2013/08/vol-2-resampling-methods.html > Performance tests (stereo & 5.1): TBD > Bandwidth & Aliasing tests: TBD, with explanatory material at http://poljar.blogspot.com/2013/10/epilogue-fourier-analysis-and-testing.html > Features (such as variable-rate support, input & output formats, optimizations for particular combinations of sample rates, compatibility with rewinds): TBD Duplicate of this one, and all TBDs still apply to the new submission (please copy): > resamplers > > 3 patches > From: Damir Jeli? / Peter Meerwald > Submission date: 2014-08-04 > On the mailing list: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.pulseaudio.general/20739 > These have been reviewed by Arun and Alexander, and it's a bit unclear what will happen next. The first patch appears to be (mostly?) ready to be merged, the two other patches probably need at least some additional justification. Yes, the first patch should be merged, with or without taking my speex_is_fixed_point objection into account. I would have to apply the other two patches locally in order to do the quality evaluation, but don't want them to be upstreamed yet, until we have tools to judge them. Hopefully this clears the "what's next" question. -- Alexander E. Patrakov
