On 06/01/2016 02:06 PM, Felicia Lim wrote:> That was my intention with refactoring out the subframe encoding and > repacketizing bit. Or do you mean I should merge the explicit check for > 120 ms frame and the existing checks for 40/60 ms wideband?What I mean is that this line in opus_encoder.c: if (frame_size > st->Fs/50 && (st->mode == MODE_CELT_ONLY || st->bandwidth > OPUS_BANDWIDTH_WIDEBAND)) can probably be extended to also cover 80/100/120 ms. One difference is that it would also need to trigger for SILK-only > 60 ms. Cheers, Jean-Marc
OK, I've amended the second patch and also added 80 and 100 ms. Thanks, Felicia On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:20 AM Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> wrote:> On 06/01/2016 02:06 PM, Felicia Lim wrote: > > That was my intention with refactoring out the subframe encoding and > > repacketizing bit. Or do you mean I should merge the explicit check for > > 120 ms frame and the existing checks for 40/60 ms wideband? > > What I mean is that this line in opus_encoder.c: > > if (frame_size > st->Fs/50 && (st->mode == MODE_CELT_ONLY || > st->bandwidth > OPUS_BANDWIDTH_WIDEBAND)) > > can probably be extended to also cover 80/100/120 ms. One difference is > that it would also need to trigger for SILK-only > 60 ms. > > Cheers, > > Jean-Marc >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20160602/ef64463a/attachment.html> -------------- next part --------------
Hi, I wondered if are there any further thoughts on these patches? Thanks, Felicia On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:13 PM Felicia Lim <flim at google.com> wrote:> OK, I've amended the second patch and also added 80 and 100 ms. > > Thanks, > Felicia > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:20 AM Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> wrote: > >> On 06/01/2016 02:06 PM, Felicia Lim wrote: >> > That was my intention with refactoring out the subframe encoding and >> > repacketizing bit. Or do you mean I should merge the explicit check for >> > 120 ms frame and the existing checks for 40/60 ms wideband? >> >> What I mean is that this line in opus_encoder.c: >> >> if (frame_size > st->Fs/50 && (st->mode == MODE_CELT_ONLY || >> st->bandwidth > OPUS_BANDWIDTH_WIDEBAND)) >> >> can probably be extended to also cover 80/100/120 ms. One difference is >> that it would also need to trigger for SILK-only > 60 ms. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jean-Marc >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20160610/d9b0cfef/attachment.html>
Hi Felica, yes, this is the only reason to have larger frames is on bandwidth limited links having a gross (physical) bit rates of 10kbps per channel. Decades ago I calculated with figure (for AMR-NB but the same holds for Opus). https://www.tkn.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg112/Hard_Software_Components/Software/hoene_07_2004_paper.pdf Von: Felicia Lim [mailto:flim at google.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Juni 2016 16:59 An: Christian Hoene <christian.hoene at symonics.com> Betreff: Re: [opus] Patches for adding 120 ms encoding Yes, that's right. In that case, a longer frame size means that we can reduce header overhead. On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:45 PM Christian Hoene <christian.hoene at symonics.com <mailto:christian.hoene at symonics.com> > wrote: Hello Felicia, what are the reason to support 120 ms frame sizes? Links with a very low throughput? With best regards, Christian Hoene Von: opus [mailto:opus-bounces at xiph.org <mailto:opus-bounces at xiph.org> ] Im Auftrag von Felicia Lim Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Juni 2016 16:19 An: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca <mailto:jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> >; opus at xiph.org <mailto:opus at xiph.org> Betreff: Re: [opus] Patches for adding 120 ms encoding Hi, I wondered if are there any further thoughts on these patches? Thanks, Felicia On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:13 PM Felicia Lim <flim at google.com <mailto:flim at google.com> > wrote: OK, I've amended the second patch and also added 80 and 100 ms. Thanks, Felicia On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:20 AM Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca <mailto:jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> > wrote: On 06/01/2016 02:06 PM, Felicia Lim wrote:> That was my intention with refactoring out the subframe encoding and > repacketizing bit. Or do you mean I should merge the explicit check for > 120 ms frame and the existing checks for 40/60 ms wideband?What I mean is that this line in opus_encoder.c: if (frame_size > st->Fs/50 && (st->mode == MODE_CELT_ONLY || st->bandwidth > OPUS_BANDWIDTH_WIDEBAND)) can probably be extended to also cover 80/100/120 ms. One difference is that it would also need to trigger for SILK-only > 60 ms. Cheers, Jean-Marc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20160610/5d711954/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18007 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20160610/5d711954/attachment-0001.jpg>