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.
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.
We always want to prefer upmix to downmix, as long as it makes sense.
Even if the upmix is not "perfect" (not just adding channels), we want
to prefer the upmix.
Cleanup for commit d3c7fd9d.
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.
This could trigger an assertion when using ao_alsa or ao_coreaudio. The
code was simply assuming the number of channel maps was bounded
statically (which was true at first in both AOs).
Fix by using dynamic memory allocation. It needs to be explicitly
enabled by the AOs by setting a temp context, because otherwise the
memory couldn't be freed. (Or at least this seems to be the most elegant
solution.)
Fixes#1306.
While I'm not very fond of "const", it's important for declarations
(it decides whether a symbol is emitted in a read-only or read/write
section). Fix all these cases, so we have writeable global data only
when we really need.
The point is selecting a minimal fallback. The AOs will call this
through the AO API, so it will be possible to add options affecting
the general channel layout selection.
It provides the following mechanism to AOs:
- forcing the correct channel order
- downmixing to stereo if no layout is available
- allow 5.1 <-> 5.1(side) fallback
- handling "unknown" channel layouts
This is quite weak and lots of code/complexity for little gain. All AOs
already made sure the channel order was correct, and the fallback is of
little value, and could perhaps be done in the frontend instead, like
stereo downmixing with --channels=2 is handled. But I'm not really sure
how this stuff should _really_ work, and the new code will hopefully
provides enough flexibility to make radical changes to channel layout
negotiation easier.
wm4
Stefano Pigozzi