On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 14:32 +0100, Niels Ole Salscheider wrote: > > As for the complexity - yes, it can be reduced substantially, because > > you use the simplest possible implementation of convolution with a > > rather long filter. Please try to use FFT-based convolution and > > benchmark. > > > > Or, even better, try to approximate one of the available HRIRs with a > > combination of an IIR filter of some low (4-6) order and a > > fixed-per-channel delay, and hard-code that. As there is no scientific > > way of designing IIR filters with arbitrary impulse response yet, the > > simplest possible way of doing such approximation is to autogenerate > > random IIR filters of a given order, compare their response with the > > desired one, and leave the whole thing running for a day or so until it > > finds something suitable. > > Sure, my code is O(n^2) while FFT is O(n log n) but it is somewhat simpler > and > has less overhead. > I will try your proposed alternatives when I find the time to do so (exams > are > coming up).
It seems that the performance really matters: my computer can't do the processing in real time :( -- Tanu _______________________________________________ pulseaudio-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss
