[pulseaudio-discuss] [PATCH 0/4] Add support for libsoxr resampler

[Alexander E. Patrakov]

13.11.2014 01:16, Andrey Semashev пишет:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2014 20:03:48 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>> 12.11.2014 14:26, Alexander E. Patrakov пишет:
>>> I will recheck the quality separately later today, in order to verify
>>> that it is still as good as in the previous tests. Please don't merge
>>> the patches until this is done.
>> Done. The -mq, -hq and -vhq variants of the resampler never produce
>> audible distortions. The -lq variant sometimes does, by means of
>> suppressing very high frequencies, but this is relevant to artificial
>> tests only, and only if the listener knows that these frequencies are
>> supposed to be there. Thus, quality is on par with speex-float-5, the
>> CPU consumption is even better than with speex-float-1. Conclusion:
>>
>> *** the patches are generally acceptable ***
> Great! And thanks a lot for the quality data and information. I will send v2
> patches in a day or two.
>
>> However, because the low-quality and high-quality versions eat very
>> similar amount of CPU time, I'd just expose a single (high or very high)
>> quality setting.
> Given that -lq is actually slower than -mq in some cases and has worse
> quality, I agree there is no point in keeping it.
>
> However, the other three presets do have different performance and quality. In
> my test results [1] -mq is about 2 times faster than -vhq, and -hq is
> somewhere in between. Performance wise, there should be no problem with -vhq
> on modern CPUs, but maybe the little extra would be desired in embedded domain
> to conserve battery. Do you think we could keep the three presets: -mq, -hq
> and -vhq?
>
> [1]: http://lastique.github.io/src_test/

OK, let's just drop -lq.

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov