search for: m_nsamplesperfram

I just download the 1.1.5. And it is working well. I try the xxx_int functions at least it works. But I did not find the performance improvement. But when I try this: m_pPreprocess= speex_preprocess_state_init(m_nSamplesPerFrame, m_nSampleRate); speex_preprocess_ctl(m_pPreprocess, SPEEX_PREPROCESS_SET_DENOISE, &tmp); and add speex_preprocess(m_pPreprocess, buf, NULL); before encode. The result is really unacceptable. I think there must be something wrong. And for the encode I did not use abr or...

...8/05/2004 à 16:29, Alex Wang a écrit : > I just download the 1.1.5. And it is working well. I try the xxx_int > functions at least it works. But I did not find the performance > improvement. > > But when I try this: > > m_pPreprocess= > speex_preprocess_state_init(m_nSamplesPerFrame, m_nSampleRate); > > speex_preprocess_ctl(m_pPreprocess, > SPEEX_PREPROCESS_SET_DENOISE, &tmp); > > and add > > speex_preprocess(m_pPreprocess, buf, NULL); > > before encode. The result is really unacceptable. I think there must > be somethi...

...8/05/2004 à 16:29, Alex Wang a écrit : > I just download the 1.1.5. And it is working well. I try the xxx_int > functions at least it works. But I did not find the performance > improvement. > > But when I try this: > > m_pPreprocess= > speex_preprocess_state_init(m_nSamplesPerFrame, m_nSampleRate); > > speex_preprocess_ctl(m_pPreprocess, > SPEEX_PREPROCESS_SET_DENOISE, &tmp); > > and add > > speex_preprocess(m_pPreprocess, buf, NULL); > > before encode. The result is really unacceptable. I think there must > be somethi...