You're right Steve, I even blogged on it: http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?p=3427
This bit is a slightly damped 2nd order system for me (rings a bell): "This work took me about an hour of creative thinking (the fun bit) and several days of implementation pain, off by one errors, fighting to understand filter memories (again), and tracking down differences between the Octave and C versions." That ratio of 1% inspiration/99% perspiration ..... - David On 28/07/15 12:44, Steve wrote: > I think that David said he kept the kissfft only because it was faster. > The kissfft however, uses twice as much memory, not being an in-place > algorithm. > > This can be easily changed in the code though, if a slower in-place is > used that still performs the task "fast enough" and you are running out > of memory. > > He did do a lot of memory optimizations last year, as I recall. > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Shane Burrell <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > My last project working with codec2, the code is coupled to kissfft. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Freetel-codec2 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freetel-codec2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
