Re: [Traverso-devel] on the fly resampling

[ben levitt]

Hi remon,

Ahhh, of course.  I understand.  How annoying!  :P

I agree that there's not much reason to allow this.  Although I would
love to have a timestretch feature!  :)  We could also use
libSoundTouch to alter tempo and pitch separately...  But I guess, not
for this release!  :)

But back to the current issue:  I think it would be fine to force
resampling.  I don't think it's worth the effort to keep supporting
the non-resampling pathway.  There would be a lot of bugs to work
around...

Ben


On Nov 8, 2007 10:26 AM, Remon <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> > Plus, it can probably be worked around by pretending that the source's
> > sample rate is the same as the current playback rate.  :)  Which I
> > think would give the old behavior...
>
> I've done that, but that doesn't work. Point is that the current play position
> is translated into a position relative to the file.
> So, when the samplerates don't match, the reading into the audio buffer
> happens at the wrong position, well actually the correct position.
> Argh, don't know how to explain it ....
>
> Ehm, when you play at 48 Khz and the audio file is 44 KHz, then before the
> playcursor reaches the end of the clip, the audioclip would have stopped
> playing previously, obviously, since we were playing more samples per second
> then the file really has.
> But now, due 'universal samplerate logic' in Traverso, we continuously
> calculate the 'correct' position in the audiofile, which means we jump back a
> little bit in the audiofile every time we read in the next chunk of it....
>
> It probably could be made to 'work' more or less, (then of course the audio
> plays to fast, and stops playing before the end or after the end of the clip)
> but the question is do we want such a 'feature' ?
>
> I don't see a use for it, such a feature would be more appropriate as a
> time-stretch feature....
>
> Greetings,
>
> Remon
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > benjie
> >
> > On Nov 8, 2007 9:16 AM, Nicola Döbelin <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 November 2007 16.13:33 Remon wrote:
> > > > Does anyone know a solution to this? (other then simply forcing
> > > > onthefly resampling :) )
> > >
> > > What happens if on-the-fly resampling is active, but source and hardware
> > > samplerate are equal? If the algorithm is smart enough to bypass
> > > resampling in that case, I would say forcing on-the-fly resampling would
> > > be just fine. Or are there realistic cases where users want to play back
> > > with the wrong s.r.?
> > >
> > > Nic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Traverso-devel mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/traverso-devel
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Traverso-devel mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/traverso-devel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Traverso-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/traverso-devel
>