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

Alexander E. Patrakov patrakov at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 11:45:34 PDT 2015

2015-03-11 23:27 GMT+05:00 Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com>:
> I'm writing release notes for 7.0, and I'm wondering how to describe the
> three soxr resampler variants. Alexander says that all variants are
> perfect quality-wise (no audible distortions). Alexander also says that
> each variant takes about the same amount of CPU time, but Andrey says
> that there's 2x difference between mq and vhq. Who's right?

I'll retest the performance tomorrow on two desktops and one laptop
that I have access to.

> To me it sounds like the hq and vhq variants are redundant, since mq is
> at least as fast (and on some hardware significantly faster) as the
> other variants, and there's no meaningful difference in quality.

Even though there is indeed no meaningful difference in quality, for
project consistency reasons, I'd prefer some careful wordings, because
my results and upstream recommendations disagree, and the
pulse-daemon.conf man page (that we ship with PulseAudio) references
upstream recommendations.

Could you please, if you want to state that there is no meaningful
difference in quality, add a link to the psychoacoustical masking
model that was used during evaluation? I.e. to this paper:


Alexander E. Patrakov

More information about the pulseaudio-discuss mailing list