From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3561 216.34.176.0/20 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.34.181.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAEC620A40 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 12:37:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eIwBG-0006Eu-Pc; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 12:37:06 +0000 Received: from sfi-mx-3.v28.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.28.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eIwBF-0006Ei-IM for sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 12:37:05 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version :Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=oTuX3faWSwhv6VAgYeG6092Q8Gl7zTOrLyZs7bAt734=; b=K9Zqex9HrYcLl3ET3bzKg7aIDa X5sv21fHB9jLNgF8oiwlMCJEuXg9M/0/dgy4k7LsugdBrVAZJMyyeMAt2+FyF1uNjdbM10fiXlXJ+ gn4Pug9OS0+IroC3NkYpE8eFx2C1QlSHFHRh58GaUjw4oFEQfxPF5d31um4Rw/cOJ+L8=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID: In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=oTuX3faWSwhv6VAgYeG6092Q8Gl7zTOrLyZs7bAt734=; b=Tzy/I4wXhs2qlAFrNriBcetMfb SUhKeFJ3okjTwMXg63amT254OSpOsh0nOLrkAHJeqA6Ot+qpufZAaN6p4VLpxNNUiKgk+/Os8pTzN h3oZna+O/4KhfmGnv+qoVXe9PWJQj9iDrpVXIx5fPnh6I6FO0zd1GvKuGhTUEmAgfWtk=; Received: from unicorn.mansr.com ([81.2.72.234]) by sfi-mx-3.v28.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) id 1eIwBE-0003TS-N5 for sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 12:37:05 +0000 Received: by unicorn.mansr.com (Postfix, from userid 51770) id 826C315613; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 12:36:58 +0000 (GMT) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= To: Glenn English References: Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 12:36:58 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Glenn English's message of "Sat, 25 Nov 2017 18:50:39 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Headers-End: 1eIwBE-0003TS-N5 Subject: Re: which is better / more effective X-BeenThere: sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: sox-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Glenn English writes: > I'm getting ready to ask sox to do several things: EQ, compression, > normalization, speed change, etc. I see on the web, suggestions of > several different ways to do this: make one call to sox with several > switches, make several calls to sox with one switch, or pipe those > several calls together. > > Which of these works best? Does it matter? Does sox just figure all > this out and fork several times if it needs to? (multi-core CPU and > lots of RAM on Debian Linux, and the file is ~1G FLAC, if any of that > makes any difference) Sox has very limited support for multi-processing built-in, and it doesn't work very well. For a long effects chain, you'll get better throughput by piping multiple processes. If you have a single command like this: sox in.flac out.flac effect1 effect2 effect3 it can be split up like this: sox in.flac -p effect1 | sox -p -p effect2 | sox -p out.flac effect3 The end result should be exactly the same. It probably doesn't make sense to put light-weight effects in a separate command as the extra inter-process copying could easily negate any gains. -- = M=E5ns Rullg=E5rd ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Sox-users mailing list Sox-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sox-users