search for: speex_bits_init_buffer

...o the ogg contianer format in order to encode/decode and send it? or will it work "as is"? if the latter then: "the packet is larger than the allocated buffer" message: whats your recomendaton for fixing that? i was thinking simply getting the size of the frame and using the speex_bits_init_buffer() function to create a bigger buffer. However i want to keep latency in mind and make them as small as possible. i apologise if the questions seem simple but i've working at this for sevreal days and i'm a little stump. a indication in the right direction would be helpful. thank you in a...

...the codec by removing them or if all that I removed is just fine. I did get a .patch file from Jim Crichton as well to shrink nb_celp, but is there anything else I can do to shrink the code or am I reaching my limit? Thanks. these are the functions that I removed: In bits.c: speex_bits_init speex_bits_init_buffer speex_bits_destroy speex_bits_reset speex_bits_rewind speex_bits_read_from speex_bits_flush speex_bits_read_whole_bytes speex_bits_write speex_bits_write_whole_bytes speex_bits_unpack_signed speex_bits_peek_unsigned speex_bits_peek speex_bits_nbytes speex_bits_insert_terminator In cd_search.c: no...

speex_bits_init_buffer(), clears the buffer. -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca] Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:20 AM To: Miles, Stewart Cc: speex-dev@xiph.org Subject: Re: [Speex-dev] New function for manipulating SpeexBits How's that different from the...

...@ ; speex.def ; LIBRARY +NAME libspeex.dll EXPORTS ; -speex_encoder_init -speex_encoder_destroy -speex_encode -speex_encoder_ctl -speex_decoder_init -speex_decoder_destroy -speex_decode -speex_decoder_ctl -speex_mode_query -speex_lib_ctl -speex_lib_get_mode -speex_bits_init -speex_bits_init_buffer -speex_bits_destroy -speex_bits_reset -speex_bits_rewind -speex_bits_read_from -speex_bits_read_whole_bytes -speex_bits_write -speex_bits_write_whole_bytes -speex_bits_pack -speex_bits_unpack_signed -speex_bits_unpack_unsigned -speex_bits_nbytes -speex_bits_peek_unsigned -speex_bits_pe...

...gt; it >> work >> "as is"? if the latter then: >> >> "the packet is larger than the allocated buffer" message: whats your >> recomendaton for fixing that? i was thinking simply getting the size of >> the >> frame >> and using the speex_bits_init_buffer() function to create a bigger >> buffer. >> However i >> want to keep latency in mind and make them as small as possible. >> >> i apologise if the questions seem simple but i've working at this for >> sevreal >> days >> and i'm a little stum...

...ur code, there are very few functions that would be "rarely called" (either it is every time, or it's not). The only exception might be the packet loss concealment function (nb_decode_lost). > these are the functions that I removed: > > In bits.c: > speex_bits_init > speex_bits_init_buffer > speex_bits_destroy > speex_bits_reset > speex_bits_rewind > speex_bits_read_from > speex_bits_flush > speex_bits_read_whole_bytes > speex_bits_write > speex_bits_write_whole_bytes > speex_bits_unpack_signed > speex_bits_peek_unsigned > speex_bits_peek > speex_b...

...just fine. > > I did get a .patch file from Jim Crichton as well to shrink nb_celp, > but is there anything else I can do to shrink the code or am I reaching > my limit? Thanks. > > > these are the functions that I removed: > > In bits.c: > speex_bits_init > speex_bits_init_buffer > speex_bits_destroy > speex_bits_reset > speex_bits_rewind > speex_bits_read_from > speex_bits_flush > speex_bits_read_whole_bytes > speex_bits_write > speex_bits_write_whole_bytes > speex_bits_unpack_signed > speex_bits_peek_unsigned > speex_bits_peek > speex_b...

It would be nice to have the following function added to the speex bits... void speex_bits_read_from_buffer( SpeexBits * const bits, void * const buff, const int buf_size) { bits->bytes = (char*)buff; bits->buf_size = buf_size; bits->nbBits = buf_size << 3; bits->bytePtr = 0; bits->bitPtr = 0; bits->owner = 0;

...der to encode/decode and send it? or will it > work > "as is"? if the latter then: > > "the packet is larger than the allocated buffer" message: whats your > recomendaton for fixing that? i was thinking simply getting the size of the > frame > and using the speex_bits_init_buffer() function to create a bigger buffer. > However i > want to keep latency in mind and make them as small as possible. > > i apologise if the questions seem simple but i've working at this for sevreal > days > and i'm a little stump. a indication in the right direction would...

...>>>> >>>> "the packet is larger than the allocated buffer" message: whats >>>> your >>>> recomendaton for fixing that? i was thinking simply getting the >>>> size of the >>>> frame >>>> and using the speex_bits_init_buffer() function to create a >>>> bigger buffer. >>>> However i >>>> want to keep latency in mind and make them as small as possible. >>>> >>>> i apologise if the questions seem simple but i've working at >>>> this for sevrea...

Hi, I've enocded and decoded a file using speexencexe/speexdec.exe respectively. However when i use the example code to encode a file and use speexdec.exe to decode it; not only do i get a file that is 3kb larger than if i had encoded it with the .exe but also I get a "this doesn't look like a speex file" message, and it is unable to decode it. I've checked around and it

...gt;> I did get a .patch file from Jim Crichton as well to shrink >> nb_celp, but is there anything else I can do to shrink the code or >> am I reaching my limit? Thanks. >> >> >> these are the functions that I removed: >> >> In bits.c: speex_bits_init speex_bits_init_buffer >> speex_bits_destroy speex_bits_reset speex_bits_rewind >> speex_bits_read_from speex_bits_flush speex_bits_read_whole_bytes >> speex_bits_write speex_bits_write_whole_bytes >> speex_bits_unpack_signed speex_bits_peek_unsigned speex_bits_peek >> speex_bits_nbytes...

...gt; it >> work >> "as is"? if the latter then: >> >> "the packet is larger than the allocated buffer" message: whats your >> recomendaton for fixing that? i was thinking simply getting the size of >> the >> frame >> and using the speex_bits_init_buffer() function to create a bigger >> buffer. >> However i >> want to keep latency in mind and make them as small as possible. >> >> i apologise if the questions seem simple but i've working at this for >> sevreal >> days >> and i'm a little stum...

...;> "as is"? if the latter then: >>> >>> "the packet is larger than the allocated buffer" message: whats your >>> recomendaton for fixing that? i was thinking simply getting the size of >>> the >>> frame >>> and using the speex_bits_init_buffer() function to create a bigger >>> buffer. >>> However i >>> want to keep latency in mind and make them as small as possible. >>> >>> i apologise if the questions seem simple but i've working at this for >>> sevreal >>> days >&g...

...nd it? or will it work "as is"? if the latter then: "the packet is larger than the allocated buffer" message: whats your recomendaton for fixing that? i was thinking simply getting the size of the frame and using the speex_bits_init_buffer() function to create a bigger buffer. However i want to keep latency in mind and make them as small as possible. i apologise if the questions seem simple but i've working at this for sevreal days and i'm a little stump. a indication in the...

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca] > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:51 AM > To: Miles, Stewart > Cc: speex-dev@xiph.org > Subject: Re: [Speex-dev] Would be nice to conditionally > compile out coding modes and code tables... > > Miles, Stewart a ?crit : > > I'm only using the narrow-band encoder

...5,7 @@ #define MAX_CHARS_PER_FRAME (2000/BYTES_PER_CHAR) #endif -void speex_bits_init(SpeexBits *bits) +EXPORT void speex_bits_init(SpeexBits *bits) { bits->chars = (char*)speex_alloc(MAX_CHARS_PER_FRAME); if (!bits->chars) @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ speex_bits_reset(bits); } -void speex_bits_init_buffer(SpeexBits *bits, void *buff, int buf_size) +EXPORT void speex_bits_init_buffer(SpeexBits *bits, void *buff, int buf_size) { bits->chars = (char*)buff; bits->buf_size = buf_size; @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ speex_bits_reset(bits); } -void speex_bits_set_bit_buffer(SpeexBits *bits, void *...

...5,7 @@ #define MAX_CHARS_PER_FRAME (2000/BYTES_PER_CHAR) #endif -void speex_bits_init(SpeexBits *bits) +EXPORT void speex_bits_init(SpeexBits *bits) { bits->chars = (char*)speex_alloc(MAX_CHARS_PER_FRAME); if (!bits->chars) @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ speex_bits_reset(bits); } -void speex_bits_init_buffer(SpeexBits *bits, void *buff, int buf_size) +EXPORT void speex_bits_init_buffer(SpeexBits *bits, void *buff, int buf_size) { bits->chars = (char*)buff; bits->buf_size = buf_size; @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ speex_bits_reset(bits); } -void speex_bits_set_bit_buffer(SpeexBits *bits, void *...

>> There is a bit of work remaining to get the memory usage down for a >> multichannel application. There have been some good posts over the >> last couple of months about reducing memory usage. > > I think 1.1.8 incorporates all memory reductions proposed. Let me know > otherwise. For the persistent storage, the only change that I have made is to MAX_CHARS_PER_FRAME,