On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:33:42 -0800 (PST) Josh Coalson <xflac@yahoo.com> wrote:> --- Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd-flac@mega-nerd.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:08:21 -0800 (PST) > > Josh Coalson <xflac@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Is there someway of figuring out if a sample rate is valid? > > > > > > that's the right way. > > > > But it doesn't tell me that the sample rate is invalid it tells > > me FLAC__SEEKABLE_STREAM_ENCODER_STREAM_ENCODER_ERROR or > > FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE. > > oh, I meant FLAC__format_sample_rate_is_valid() is the right way > to check.Ok, I tried that, but this: printf ("\n\n%u -> %d\n%u -> %d\n%u -> %d\n", 112, FLAC__format_sample_rate_is_valid(112), 11025, FLAC__format_sample_rate_is_valid(11025), 44100, FLAC__format_sample_rate_is_valid(44100)); prints out this: 112 -> 1 11025 -> 1 44100 -> 1 which suggests that both 112 and 11025 are valid samplerates, but when I use 11025, I get a FLAC__SEEKABLE_STREAM_ENCODER_STREAM_ENCODER_ERROR.> 11025 is a valid sample rate, but 9 channels is not a valid > # of channels. > > the FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE error means you are > violating the "set streamable subset" setting that is in effect. > > I guess FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE could be expanded > to FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE_BAD_SAMPLE_RATE, > FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE_BAD_BITS_PER_SAMPLE etc > but it doesn't seem worth changing the API for.Without valid feedback fro libflac about why I am getting FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE I am completely up the creek without a paddle. The current state of affairs prevents me from supplying the user with accurate information about what they have done wrong. It means that if I release what I have now users are going to have something go wrong and not know why. That means they will end up sending me emails. Erik PS: I seem to be having a great deal of trouble with the xiph.org mail server. It seems to be silently deleting some of my emails. I sometimes need to resend my emails 2 or 3 times before it gets through to the list. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ "Python is the most efficient language I've ever used. It's 10 times better than any of the other tools I have used. It's free, it's object-oriented, it adapts to everything, it runs on everything. There is almost an indescribable 'quality without a name' attraction on my part." --Bruce Eckel, Author of Thinking in Java
--- Erik de Castro Lopo <erikd-flac@mega-nerd.com> wrote:> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:33:42 -0800 (PST) > Josh Coalson <xflac@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 11025 is a valid sample rate, but 9 channels is not a valid > > # of channels. > > > > the FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE error means you are > > violating the "set streamable subset" setting that is in effect. > > > > I guess FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE could be expanded > > to FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE_BAD_SAMPLE_RATE, > > FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE_BAD_BITS_PER_SAMPLE etc > > but it doesn't seem worth changing the API for. > > Without valid feedback fro libflac about why I am getting > FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE I am completely up the creek > without a paddle. The current state of affairs prevents me from > supplying the user with accurate information about what they have > done wrong. It means that if I release what I have now users are > going to have something go wrong and not know why. That means they > will end up sending me emails.I understand your frustration, but with the current API you have to translate FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE into: 1. blocksize must be one of 192,576,1152,2304,4608,256,512, 1024,2048,4096,8192,16384,32768 2. sample rate must be one of 8000,16000,22050,24000,32000, 44100,48000,96000 3. bits-per-sample must be one of 8,12,16,20,24> PS: I seem to be having a great deal of trouble with the xiph.org > mail server. It seems to be silently deleting some of my emails. > I sometimes need to resend my emails 2 or 3 times before it > gets through to the list.yes. spam is a big problem so I think stuff that gets tagged is diverted for approval (I haven't exercised moderator power on the Xiph lists yet). I haven't seen any mails get lost (maybe resends/duplicates that are cued up get deleted) but sometimes they do get delayed a couple of days. Josh __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 09:30:09AM -0800, Josh Coalson wrote:> > PS: I seem to be having a great deal of trouble with the xiph.org > > mail server. It seems to be silently deleting some of my emails. > > I sometimes need to resend my emails 2 or 3 times before it > > gets through to the list.Just as an aside, we did have some trouble last week; our mail server changed IP addresses, and while we have an MX redirect installed, it apparently didn't get updated promptly. Why this resulted in undeliverable bounces rather than late delivery I don't know. If you're still having trouble this week, let us know in case there's something else wrong. I'll go clean the mod queue, so we'll see if that's the problem. Usually things are just held if they're sent from an unsubscribed address. We have some auto-discard filters as well (thank god) but they're unlikely to cull a message one time and let it through another. Please accept my appologies on the behalf of my fellow humans for ruining email. :P -r
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:30:09 -0800 (PST) Josh Coalson <xflac@yahoo.com> wrote:> I understand your frustration, but with the current API you > have to translate FLAC__STREAM_ENCODER_NOT_STREAMABLE into: > 1. blocksize must be one of 192,576,1152,2304,4608,256,512, > 1024,2048,4096,8192,16384,32768 > 2. sample rate must be one of 8000,16000,22050,24000,32000, > 44100,48000,96000 > 3. bits-per-sample must be one of 8,12,16,20,24OK, that should be sufficient information for me to hard code into my stuff. Cheers, Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ "Even Napoleon had his Watergate" -- Michael Spautz