Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] protux, stereo and interleaving
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Fri Feb 09 2001 - 16:56:55 EET
>frames are interleaved by audio channel. Overall, interleaved data seems
>much more generic, and real-time friendly. Is it really such a
>performance-killer - the time to [de]interleave data is a knats-p in a
>millpond compared to doing 600+ FFTs in real-time...
true. but if you store a 40 minute 24 channel recording in interleaved
format, editing it becomes extremely difficult, even with
non-destructive techniques. destructive techniques would require
rewriting all 24 channels at and beyond the location of any deletion.
non-destructive techniques can avoid the rewrite, but you end up
either doing massive amounts of duplicate data i/o and/or using a very
complicated caching system between the file and the presentation
system.
i don't think its a coincidence that most high end audio software
suites use non-interleaved storage formats.
and as someone else pointed out, SIMD encourages this approach as
well. i'm not sure that we have any good SIMD-capable compilers at
this time, but thats just a detail :)
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Feb 09 2001 - 17:17:50 EET