| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Given 5.1(side), this lets it pick 5.1 from [5.1, 7.1]. Which was
probably the original intention of this replacement stuff. Until now,
the opposite was done in some cases.
Keep the old heuristic if the replacement is not perfect. This would
mean that a subset of the channel layout is an inexact equivalent, but
not all of it.
(My conclusion is that audio output APIs should be designed to simply
take any channel layout, like the PulseAudio API does.)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The speaker replacement nonsense sometimes made blatantly incorrect
decisions. In this case, it prefered a 7.1(rear) upmix over outputting
5.1(side) as 5.1, which makes no sense at all. This happened because 5.1
and 7.1(rear) appeared equivalent to the final selection, as both of
them lose the sl-sr channels. The old code was too stupid to select the
one with the lower number of channels as well.
Redo this. There's really no reason why there should be a separate final
decision, so move the speaker replacement logic into the
mp_chmap_is_better() function.
Improve some other details. For example, we never should compare the
plain number of channels for deciding upmix/downmix, because due to NA
channels this is essentially meaningless. Remove the NA channels when
doing this comparison. Also, explicitly handle exact matches.
Conceptually this is not necessary, but it avoids that we have to
needlessly shuffle audio data around.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This didn't really work since the last time the channel map fallback
code was touched. In some cases, quite bad results were selected.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Instead of somehow having 4 different cases with each their own weight,
do it with a single function that decides which channel layout is the
better fallback.
This is simpler, and also introduces new (fixed) semantics. The new test
added to test/chmap_sel.c actually works now. This is a mixed case with
no perfect upmix or downmix, but the better choice is the one which
loses the least channels from the original layout.
One test also changes. If the input is 7.1(wide-side), and the available
layouts are 7.1 and 5.1(side), the latter is now chosen instead of the
former. This makes sense: both layouts contain 6 out of 8 channels from
the original layout, but the 5.1(side) one is smaller. This follows the
general logic. The 7.1 layout has FLC/RLC speakers instead of BL/BR,
and judging by the names, "front left center" is completely different
from "back left". If these should be exchangeable, a separate exception
would have to be added.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Reuse MP_SPEAKER_ID_NA for this. If all mp_chmap entries are set to NA,
the channel layout has special "unknown channel layout" semantics, which
are used to deal with some corner cases.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As indicated by the added test. In this case, fallback and downmix have
the same score, but fallback happens to give better results. So prefer
fallback over downmix.
(This is probably not a correct solution.)
|
|
|
Instead of just failing during channel map selection, try to select a close
layout that makes most sense and upmix/downmix to that instead of failing AO
initialization. The heuristic is rather simple, and uses the following steps:
1) If mono is required always prefer stereo to a multichannel upmix.
2) Search for an upmix that is an exact superset of the required channel map.
3) Search for a downmix that is the exact subset of the required channel map.
4) Search for either an upmix or downmix that is the closest (minimum difference
of channels) to the required channel map.
|
