On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:07:06 +0000, Steve Harris wrote > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 12:18:47 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote: > > I had a vague attempt at doing something like this (after noticing that > > filters filtering silence uses up a lot of cpu). Each sample buffer object > > OT: Thats probably because the zeros weren't 0.0, they were probably > denormal numbers. If you squash them the filter will run at the same > cost as when its processing any other data.
ahah, I was hoping for an explanation :) any ideas on how to combat this, what the squashing threshold should be? dave
