On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:38:48PM +0100, Tobias Rapp wrote: > On 25.02.2015 16:29, Clément Bœsch wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:35:59AM +0100, Christoph Gerstbauer wrote: > >[...] > >>What is the actual state of the ebur128 filter? Is just 48kHz still > >>implemented or are there more sampling rates implemented since 2013? > >> > > > >Yes ebur128 supports only 48kHz because that's the only one standardized > >(at least when it was implemented; did this change?). I saw some people > >generalizing the formula for other frequencies, but until this is official > >I don't see much point in supporting that. Of course, patches are welcome. > > ITU-R BS.1770-2 states (page 4): > > """ > These filter coefficients are for a sampling rate of 48 kHz. Implementations > at other sampling rates will require different coefficient values, which > should be chosen to provide the same frequency > response that the specified filter provides at 48 kHz. > """ > > I read this as "feel free to use a different sampling rate but you will have > to calculate the filter coefficients for yourself". >
I feel very lazy right now to look for the formula themselves, but if someone have a reference for the 2 filters then I can send a patch to implement them. -- Clément B.
pgpvf5ibKMfiO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list [email protected] http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
