Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] what's wrong with glame
From: Juhana Sadeharju (kouhia_AT_nic.funet.fi)
Date: Thu Jul 26 2001 - 21:38:46 EEST
>Actually you can resample with rather good quality. But you have to setup
>a network for that purpose. Just stream the audio into FFT->FFT_RESAMPLE->
>IFFT. IMHO the quality is better than sox with polyphase resampling which
>produces glitches.
What exactly is the algorithm? Does it do a good job? How have you
tested it?
I'm in progress of implementing a resampler, and would like to
know if any existing really work. Julius O. Smith has resampler but
it may work for 16-bit audio only. SonicFlow has a resampler too,
but I don't know details of it.
-*-
As what comes to various wave editors: it could be better to start
turning Glame's wave editor, Sweep and Audacity(?) to a SoundForge
clone because SoundForge has a quite good user interface. I understand
you have your own ideas of how the editor should look like but as
written here, they cannot be used if they are different from "standards".
When all three are looking like SoundForge, they could be fused
together much better. But it really is not necessary.
Anyway, when we have a "standard" looking editor, it is easier to
improve it further. It doesn't make sense to improve an editor
which is practically unusable. Yes, SoundForge is not perfect
either: I have a very hard time to perform such a simple operation
than to extract selections of audio from larger files. It is next to
impossible (but, of course, it is possible from engineer's perpective;
not enough for artist!). However, I have a right tool for the task. ;-)
I have a list of problems in SoundForge and would like to share it
with you when we have a "standard" looking editor.
Best regards,
Juhana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 21:39:26 EEST