Subject: Re: [ecasound] edi-18: removal of implicit resampling
From: harvey smith (harvey_AT_buskers.org)
Date: Wed Jan 30 2002 - 04:13:13 EET
I have to agree too. I would prefer to get an error message when all
my audio object weren't at the same sample rate. It's tripped me up a
couple times when I din't notice this.
harvey
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 08:52:17PM -0500, S. Massy wrote:
> In short, I think it's a damn good idea. :)
> But maybe there are some users who actually find this resampling thing
> useful. Personally I use sox whenever I want to resample something and
> the whole -sr variation thing is just a pain to me.
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen_AT_wakkanet.fi> wrote:
>
> > Just came up with a solution candidate for...
> >
> > (edi-18) Intelligent system for setting the internal sample rate.
> >
> > What if we just removed implicit resampling altogether? My reasoning
> > behind this is:
> >
> > - current resampling is not high-quality (mostly just causes
> > bad pr for ecasound)
> > - for any kind of realtime work, resampling should _not_
> > be used (wastes cpu-resource for no good reason)
> > - only real use for resampling is file format conversions
> > - by removing the "resampling_needed()" check we
> > make the common code path a little bit faster (although
> > not much) and cleaner
> > - we avoid problems with unexpected resampling
> >
> > As a result you could not execute a chainsetup, where sampling rate of
> > one or more objects differs from engine's sampling rate.
> >
> > If this was done, implementation of 'edi-18' would be reduced to:
> >
> > - find the common sampling rate between audio objects
> > - if found: set engine's rate to it
> > - else: print an error message
> >
> > This would also make the -sr option obsolete.
> >
> > For cases where resampling is needed, a new audio object type could be
> > added - something like:
> >
> > ecasound -f:16,2,44100 -i resample,22050hz_file.wav,44100 -o output.wav
> >
> > As a bonus, as now resampling would be a special-case operation, we are
> > not limited to light resampling algorithms. In practise we could use a
> > much more high-quality (=cpu-heavy) alternative (if someone has the time
> > to do it).
> >
> > Comments?
> >
-- To unsubscribe send message 'unsubscribe' in the body of the message to <ecasound-list-request_AT_wakkanet.fi>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 30 2002 - 04:02:28 EET