search for: oppos

Thanks for bringing up this aspect, Nicholas. I seem to recall that specific hardware has a problem with certain compression levels, but I cannot recall whether that was limited to just encoding, or decoding as well. It could very well be true that I am conflating my vague memory of encoder limitations with decoder limitations. It does seem to be that the oppo BDP-95 is exhibiting

Version 1.2.1 introduced new rice coding techniques that are used by the reference encoder for 24 bit files. An older version of the decoder will have trouble with frames that use this encoding... Maybe that's where the strange noises come from... Pyt. On 6 f?vr. 2011, at 06:01, Brian Willoughby <brianw at sounds.wa.com> wrote: > Thanks for bringing up this aspect, Nicholas. I

My friend somehow managed to get a BDP-95, even though the hardware isn't scheduled to ship until March. The problem is that the manual makes no mention of FLAC, at all, and only the web page claims to support the format. Playback of flac seems to work, but files from one online vendor work flawlessly while files from other online vendors have strange glitches that sound like a

Correct me if wrong, but I was under the impression that the processing required for playback was totally independent on the level of compression. The encoder looks for polynomials that fit, and it takes much more processing to find polynomials with a very good fit and small residuals. On the other hand, the decoder just has to multiply out the stored prediction, which is independent of the

What is a "local implementation?" Do you mean the hardware version number? I think Pierre-Yves may be correct. There certainly were some changes to 24-bit support, and many of these problematic FLAC files are HD audio. In other words, they're not simply 16-bit 44.1 kHz CD audio converted to FLAC, but they are 24/96 or 24/192 audio in FLAC format. The only curious thing

Version 1.2.1 of the standard/spec or the local implementation? I've not seen "FLAC 1.0/1.1 Compliant" or "FLAC 1.2 Compliant" on the specs of hardware gear for example when FLAC is stated supported. Just a curious on-looker. On 7 February 2011 02:34, Pierre-Yves Thoulon <py.thoulon at gmail.com> wrote: > Version 1.2.1 introduced new rice coding techniques

as devices that support FLAC come out from time to time, I update the front page on the FLAC site, but it occurred to me that people might miss some of these. the ideal way would be to set up an rss news feed but until that's ready, here are a few from the last month or so: Linn Klimax DS networked digital music player http://www.linn.co.uk/klimax_ds Pioneer SC-LX90 amplifier

I'm about to do some testing with a an OSX 10.9 client connected to sernet samba 4.1.5 to see what things work and don't both from the finder and from the terminal with unix extensions = yes and no. Does anyone know of any show stopping issues that occur with unix extensions = yes and the latest samba (or 3.6.x, or 4.0.x a) and the latest OSX (or latest update with 10.7 & 10.8)?

Hi Martjn, and everyone, Apologies if I have missed the reply, but I think I have not got any comment so far on this. That means our new ID request is accepted? What should I do next to proceed?? Apparently this is my first time here, so appreciate any advice assistance. Best regards, Taku From: Kurosawa, Taku Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 8:41 PM To: 'Martijn van Beurden'

A few comments: 1) Many embedded devices that have FLAC support only handle a subset of the FLAC capabilities. It seems highly unlikely that an embedded device would have the ability to parse Vorbis file format wrappers around FLAC data. In other words, depending upon how broad you want the support to be, it might be best to make this addition to FLAC rather than Vorbis. 2) In general, changes

On Nov 25, 2014, at 8:27 AM, Declan Kelly <flac-dev at groov.ie> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:29:33AM -0800, mle+la at mega-nerd.com wrote: >> >> CVE-2014-9028 : Heap buffer write overflow >> CVE-2014-8962 : Heap buffer read overflow > > Is it known what other FLAC decoding software or firmware is vulnerable > to these overflows? > >

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 05:41:21AM -0800, avuton at gmail.com wrote: > Hate to be Capt. obvious here, but there's a lot of development going > on here that should be encouraged. If the FLAC project isn't going to > open up, it would make a lot of sense for someone to take over > maintenance on a github account with the git-cvsimport or such. I > don't see anyone

Hi all, Google Security Team member, Michele Spagnuolo, recently found two potential problems in the FLAC code base. They are : CVE-2014-9028 : Heap buffer write overflow CVE-2014-8962 : Heap buffer read overflow For Linux distributions, the specific fixes for these two CVEs are available from Git here: