[pulseaudio-discuss] [Ubuntu-audio-dev] Preferred resampler method on armhf.

[Sjoerd Simons]

On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 11:58 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:
> 
> On 2014-11-20 08:40, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> > 20.11.2014 12:35, David Henningsson wrote:
> >> Crossposting to Debian and upstream lists.
> >>
> >> Apparently Debian has a patch that uses fixed point by default on armhf,
> >> so I'm just echoing Luke's question here: Has anybody performed any
> >> testing or benchmarks across armhf hardware, w r t fixed point vs
> >> floating point resampling with speex and PulseAudio?
> >
> > That patch has been superseded by this commit:
> >
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/pulseaudio/pulseaudio/commit/?id=ac984f59d36ef555bc5b0df9af1cd48193d0d14f
> >
> >
> > So, if you prefer a fixed-point resampler on armhf (or, for that matter,
> > on any other architecture), just compile speex with --enable-fixed-point
> > there.
> 
> Well, this is a more of an "upstream default" question rather than a 
> "why don't you recompile speex" question, and one where it might make 
> sense to come up with something reasonable across the board; either by 
> upstreaming "fixed point by default for armhf", or by Debian to drop its 
> patch.
> 
> It does not look likely to me that PulseAudio upstream and Debian would 
> correspond to so different machine/user scenarios so that a Debian 
> specific patch would make sense here.

Well with the patch mentioned here, i would probably drop that patch
from Debian in any case as pulse would just follow speex (which is the
right thing anyway).. Which makes the upstream choice in pulse a bit
moot?

That said i'd still be interesting on seeing speex resampling benchmark
numbers on a wider set of recentish boards.

-- 
Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd at luon.net>