[pulseaudio-discuss] Patch review status wiki page updated
tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com
Fri Nov 29 04:58:57 PST 2013
On Fri, 2013-11-29 at 18:48 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Damir Jelić wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:20:57PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >> 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)
> >  http://poljar.blogspot.com/2013/08/vol-2-resampling-methods.html
> Thanks for the update.
> Tanu: could you please add the following text to the patch status page
> regarding Damir's project, just to keep all information in one place?
> * Status update:
> * Performance tests (mono):
> * Performance tests (stereo & 5.1): TBD
> * Bandwidth & Aliasing tests: TBD, with explanatory material at
> * Features (such as variable-rate support, input & output formats,
> optimizations for particular combinations of sample rates, compatibility
> with rewinds): TBD
Done. I also moved the entry to the "reviewed, waiting for a new
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss