similar to: opus-tools 0.1.4 release

Hi, Seems like it's not linking with libm. I suspect it has to do with linking statically with libopus.a (is that intended?). Maybe opus-tools relies on the fact that libopus is linked with libm and doesn't explicitly add it? Greg? Jean-Marc On 09/24/2013 06:09 AM, bat guano wrote: > Hi > I'm having a problem compiling opus-tools-0.1.7. > Version opus-tools-0.1.6 seems to

Hi I'm having a problem compiling opus-tools-0.1.7. Version opus-tools-0.1.6 seems to compile OK. I've tried with opus-1.0.3 and opus-1.1-beta. The errors are like this:- "undefined reference to `sqrtf'" etc. This OS is Peppermint Three, similar to Ubuntu 12.04. It uses:- gcc --version gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3 Google says it's maybe something to do

On Aug 07 08:30:31, hans at stare.cz wrote: > On Aug 07 00:41:52, petrparizek2000 at yahoo.com wrote: > > ????#1. To test encoding at low bitrates, I encoded a sine sweep at 12 kbps > > with Opusenc and then decoded the resulting file with Opusdec. > 1) Opusenc --bitrate 12 --downmix-mono Sweep50.wav Sweep50.opus Why are you using a stereo file containing the same sweep in both

Hi, I've noticed that the opus-tools is using a really old version of Speex's resampler code - a version that I've seen fail in the wild first-hand under low resource circumstances. I've actually submitted patches for some issues in the Speex resampler a while ago (and IIRC they were accepted): http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/2009-November/007541.html ,

hi,All, I want to know whether Opus has AEC features like Speex? Thanks 2012/10/17 <opus-request at xiph.org> > Send opus mailing list submissions to > opus at xiph.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:01 AM Jan Stary <hans at stare.cz> wrote: Attached I send the spectrogram (vic SoX) of the first 20 seconds > for the wav file and the opus file. Indeed, there is extra noise > for the low frequencies, but somewhere around -100 dB. > > Jan > That might be entirely due to SoX treating it as a 16-bit file, which it is not; -100dB is almost

>>> Emily Bowman <silverbacknet at gmail.com> schrieb am 05.11.2018 um 20:46 in Nachricht <CAGSVXPR6t8uHJFqDCT-1pn9otP_7ypPxgRXRasgZERunsAe0fA at mail.gmail.com>: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:01 AM Jan Stary <hans at stare.cz> wrote: > > Attached I send the spectrogram (vic SoX) of the first 20 seconds >> for the wav file and the opus file. Indeed, there

Resampling to 48khz speeds them both up but the disparity is about the same: 2.609 to 3.69. Best Regards, Stuart Marsden On 17 December 2013 17:04, Stuart Marsden <stuartmarsden at finmars.co.uk>wrote: > Christian, > > Complexity 0, 6kbps: > > 0.9.14 Speed 5.204 > 1.1 Speed 5.218 > > A slight win on that run but they vary enough to say about the same. At >

On Aug 07 22:04:21, petrparizek2000 at yahoo.com wrote: > > The encoded opus file is 48kHz, > > so how would the output wav be resampled from 16kHz? To be clear: did you mean the opus output of opusenc or the wav output of opusdec? > > What are those "clear signs" exactly? > > The things that I can hear while listening at 1/2 or even 1/4 of the > original

Hi, On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:50 PM, dos386 <dos386 at gmail.com> wrote: > I recently stumbled upon <speex/speex_resampler.h> and made a chain of > discoveries: > > - "http://speex.org/downloads" some links are broken ("rarewares" and git) What do you mean by broken? Those links seem to work here. > - there is some (minor) development (whitespace

Hi Stuart, you are compressing it at 6kbit/s. Then, then SILK mode is probability used and the Silk mode is much faster than CELT. Do you also some figures at 64kbit/s? It is strange that Opus 1.1 got slower in the Silk mode - may the speech/voice selection adds some overhead. I would be interested in seeing the performance of the 64 kbit/s in both Opus 1.0 and Opus 1.1. With best

Hi All, First time poster to this group, please ignore my ignorance? I?m trying to use Opus 1.1 on a 400MHz MIPS 24k CPU (AR9331, specifically, like in the Arduino Yun). I?ve successfully built (I think) opus-1.1 and opus-tools-1.8 and they run, but are dog slow. opus-1.1 does have the ?enable-fixed-point option set, as this chip only has soft-float. My short test file (less than one

On 2013-09-24 5:46 AM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > Seems like it's not linking with libm. I suspect it has to do with > linking statically with libopus.a (is that intended?). Maybe opus-tools > relies on the fact that libopus is linked with libm and doesn't > explicitly add it? Greg? Indeed. The opus-tools build explicitly adds -lm for opusdec and opusenc because they use math

(Please wrap your lines.) On Oct 26 01:38:34, Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de wrote: > Playing with Opus 1.3 I converted a tone sweep with a sample rate of 96kHz (just for fun). Before I had converted that from WAV to FLAC, and to Vorbis without problems. Can you please post the original wav? I am not sure what Audacity means by a logarithmisch sweep. Is that a fixed number of Hertz per

I recently stumbled upon <speex/speex_resampler.h> and made a chain of discoveries: - "http://speex.org/downloads" some links are broken ("rarewares" and git) - there is some (minor) development (whitespace and more) of the "dead" Speex codec ... will there be a release? (I don't really need such myself) - there is some (more useful?) development of the

I wanted to roughly benchmark how the different version of libopus performed at each complexity level for a 6kbit/s output opus file. This was conducted on a Raspberry Pi so it is a constant hardware platform. This was done on an early Pi so only 256MB RAM but it was never used up so should not make a difference. I compiled the three final versions of each major release of libopus so that was

Hi, We are rebasing our audio compression subsystem using OPUS rather than SPEEX. The platform is Android but this piece is written in C code: we need to support armv5/armv7/x86 architectures.... and we use the released opus-1.1beta package from here<http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/opus/opus-1.1-beta.tar.gz>. A lot of our OPUS build system + code to drive the audio compression has been

> To be clear: did you mean the opus output of opusenc > or the wav output of opusdec? I meant during the decoding. There's one significant difference between how Opusdec deals with resampling and how, let's say, MP3 decoders usually deal with resampling. If I make an MP3 at a very low bitrate and if the encoder decides (because it's too low) to internally resample my audio

It appears that both Opus and amrnb have a function called preemphasis(). In the short term, your options are: 1) Not building statically 2) Renaming that function in the Opus code 3) Renaming that function in the amrnb code I can do the rename for the next version of libopus. Cheers, Jean-Marc On 11/13/2013 05:51 PM, batguano999 wrote: > > Hi > Any idea what's causing these

Hi Mark, Thanks for the feedback. By default CMake is building the static library in debug, to get other things one has to explicit turn it on. To build in release mode for CMake you use the following flag: -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/variable/CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE.html CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE — CMake 3.14.1