Erik de Castro Lopo:
> >
> > I recently did a lot of benchmarking between libsamplerate and mus_src
> > in clm/sndlib. My result was quite interesting, the fastest mus_src sinc
> > resampler where a lot faster than the fastest libsamplerate resampler.
>
> I think most people would agree that speed is not the most important
> aspect when measuring the quality of a sample rate converter.
>
I was primarily testing speed, but both libraries where using the sinc
routine, so...
> With libsamplerate, I can state that the three sinc based converters
> have the following characteristics:
>
> SNR Bandwidth
> SRC_SINC_FASTEST 102.42 dB 80.23 %
> SRC_SINC_MEDIUM_QUALITY 98.99 dB 90.68 %
> SRC_SINC_BEST_QUALITY 97.43 dB 96.96%
>
> where SNR is signal to noise ratio and Bandwidth its a percentage of
> the theoretical best bandwidth (ie half of the minimum of the source
> and desination sample rate).
>
> > A third program is the original sinc-resampler from Julius Smith:
> > http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jos/resample/
> > I don't know how this one performs compaired to the other two though.
>
> libsamplerate the same algorithm as this one. I think Julius O. Smith
> developed this algorithm.
>
He did, and Bil Schottstaedt used this algorithm as well for mus_src.
When I compaired mus_src with width=5, and libsamplerate with
SRC_SINC_FASTEST, the first one is much faster, I don't know what kind of
SNR/Bandwidth you get with your way of measuring when using mus_src with
width=5, but the source is easy to read so I guess you can figure it out.
--Received on Mon Jun 13 16:15:15 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 13 2005 - 16:15:15 EEST