On Sun, 2014-08-24 at 13:35 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > 04.08.2014 19:29, I wrote: > > Anyway, I think that the task of objectively testing the resampler > > speed and quality also needs to be done, in order to provide such > > justifications. Please see > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/2014-February/019968.html > > for the formulation. > > Now I have the tools for the basic form of quality evaluation (using a > linear sine sweep). The tools can compare quality of various resamplers, > including those found in proprietary operating systems. However, the end > result is still not good enough to answer the question "is this > resampler good enough". The (useless) answer is almost always the same: > "no, here is a sine wave frequency that it either attenuates audibly or > distorts audibly", even though nobody listens to e.g 18 kHz sine waves. > > I will test the two new resamplers among the others today. Do we have some kind of a conclusion about whether the soxr and libavresample resamplers should be merged? If I understood correctly, the libavresample resampler appears to be somehow broken, so I guess that should not be merged until the brokenness is fixed. Did the soxr resampler end up being the best one in any of the following categories? 1) Best quality 2) Fastest 3) Fastest without any audible distortions 4) Best compromise between speed and quality X) Some of the above when applying licensing constraints -- Tanu
