Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "unbeaten".
Did you mean:
beaten
2017 Apr 18
1
Antw: Re: 133 kbps stereo killer sample
...al from the sampling points, and the reconsruction
could actually exceed the sampling point, which my result in an overdrive,
which will result in clipping.
I just wonder whether the encoder (or the decoder at least) can or should warn
in such situations.
Regards,
Ulrich
>
> Opus remains unbeaten for me at 133 kbps. That's totally awesome.
>
> Cheers
>
> On 10 April 2017 at 17:14, Agustín Dall'Alba <agustin at dallalba.com.ar>
wrote:
>> Hello! I found a sample I can ABX successfully when encoded at
>> 133.333 kbps. I was targetting 1 MB/min.
>>...
2017 Apr 10
2
133 kbps stereo killer sample
Hello! I found a sample I can ABX successfully when encoded at
133.333 kbps. I was targetting 1 MB/min.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B8KWShoIrA1kQzR1Z0FFRUlfcEU
floex.wav is 4:54–5:04 of a lossless copy of 'Forget-me-not' by
Floex, downloaded from http://store.floex.cz/album/zorya
floex-133.opus was created with `opusenc --bitrate 133.333333 floex.wav
floex-133.opus`,
2017 Apr 14
0
133 kbps stereo killer sample
I halved the volume of the sample before encoding with
`sox -v 0.5 floex.wav quiet.wav` and now I can't ABX it succesfully anymore.
So the artifact I heard was just clipping when encoding or decoding.
Opus remains unbeaten for me at 133 kbps. That's totally awesome.
Cheers
On 10 April 2017 at 17:14, Agustín Dall'Alba <agustin at dallalba.com.ar> wrote:
> Hello! I found a sample I can ABX successfully when encoded at
> 133.333 kbps. I was targetting 1 MB/min.
>
> https://drive.google.com/dr...