linuxdc-dev

[linuxdc-dev]mu Law support - cast your vote

[Adrian M. <ad...@mc...>]

Mu Law support could be added to the sound driver at the cost of a 32k look 
up table (plus a bit of code to manage it).

What do people think - is muLaw that important or not?

To put it in perspective - userland applications might easily attempt to pass 
a 16k buffer to the sound driver, so on that basis 32k is not too big.

But - this system has only 16M in all... and muLaw is rather uncommon these 
days...

Re: [linuxdc-dev]mu Law support - cast your vote

[M. R. B. <mr...@0x...>]

* Adrian McMenamin <ad...@mc...> on Thu, Jan 03, 2002:

> Mu Law support could be added to the sound driver at the cost of a 32k lo=
ok=20
> up table (plus a bit of code to manage it).
>=20

Feeping creaturism.

IMHO you should focus on speeding the driver up.

M> R.

Re: [linuxdc-dev]mu Law support - cast your vote

[Adrian M. <ad...@mc...>]

On Thursday 03 Jan 2002 5:58 pm, M. R. Brown wrote:
> * Adrian McMenamin <ad...@mc...> on Thu, Jan 03, 2002:
> > Mu Law support could be added to the sound driver at the cost of a 32k
> > look up table (plus a bit of code to manage it).
>
> Feeping creaturism.
>
> IMHO you should focus on speeding the driver up.
>
> M> R.

I am, I am! Even as we speak... 

This is a bug which I am trying to fix (ie driver now reports it supports 
muLaw when it doesn't).

Re: [linuxdc-dev]mu Law support - cast your vote

[Adrian M. <ad...@mc...>]

On Thursday 03 Jan 2002 5:44 pm, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> Mu Law support could be added to the sound driver at the cost of a 32k look
> up table (plus a bit of code to manage it).
>
> What do people think - is muLaw that important or not?

Well I had one broadly against, one broadly for.

Don't propose to add it at the moment then....

Adrian