[pulseaudio-discuss] Patch review status wiki page updated

[Tanu Kaskinen]

On Sun, 2014-08-17 at 13:51 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> 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 Jelić)
> >     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.

Ok, I'm waiting for "yes" or "no" from Damir.

> 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 Jelić)
> >     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):

Notes copied from this old entry to the new.

> > resamplers
> >
> >     3 patches
> >     From: Damir Jelić / 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.

I applied the first patch (changed the author to Damir) without taking
your objection into account, because that was the easier option for me.
I didn't look in detail what the objection was about, so I'm not saying
that I don't agree with your objection. If you or someone else wants to
change the code, please send a patch.

-- 
Tanu