> If there is a problem, and you know what it is, and you know how to
For various reasons.
One condition would be that the original authors agree that
there is something to be fixed. This discussion started not
about the IIR crossover but about the FFT-based filter.
I presented the technical arguments, and the only response
was a lot of obfuscation (by referring to my remarks as being
about optimisation while I had made it quite clear from the
start that this was not the case), irrelevant references
to general theorems posted by someone who clearly does not
understand them, and finally that 'three qualitatively more
experienced DSP engineers' who remained anonymous and did
not present any technical arguments were of the opinion that
I was wrong.
If there's something wrong in my analysis I'll be the first
to admit it if presented with the evidence. If OTOH the response
is to publicly attack my competence as a DSP engineer, then the
one who does that should better have his own shop in order and
know what he's talking about. Which as the IIR crossover example
shows is clearly not the case (it's not a typo).
Because before I post a single word of criticism I will have
measured the application, analysed its code, and if necessary
refreshed and updated my understanding of the relevant theory.
A second reason is that there are multiple issues and fixing
all of them would not be a matter of a few patches.
And regarding the FFT-based filter, even if implemented correctly
this remains IMHO the wrong kind of filter. It has its uses, but
certainly not as a way to emulate a parametric EQ or a 30-band
graphical EQ. If I would fix it, that would also imply I approve
the way it is being used, and I don't.
So, for the moment, 'I rest my case', and maybe I'll look into
Jamin again in a few months. I did not start this discussion
There are three of them, and Alleline.
Linux-audio-user mailing list