similar to: bitrate peeling question

I was up late last night, and i had a thought on peeling that would probably provide 100% accurate peeling data to a decoder, but take a maximum of 1101 times normal time to encode (taking into account the range from q-1 to q10 ). ay you want to encode a track at q10, but you want it to be peelable. the 1101 encoder would encode from the source at every quantifiable level (since there are 2

Hi all, last time I have seen discussions here about alternative encoders, or tuned versions of the encoder. Last year (sept/oct) there had been the discussion if existing streams will be peelable or if they have to be "modified" first to be peelable. Now for my question: Is it known allready if existing streams will be peelable or not ? Or, with other words: Is it known if the /can/

first, congrats to monty and the whole crew for getting this close to 1.0. it's a monumental achievement reflecting a huge amount of hard work -- kudos! econd, i know the bitrate peeling feature has been pushed back until after 1.0 is out. but i'm wondering -- will oggs created with a 1.0 encoder be peelable with an as-yet-unreleased utility, or do "peelable oggs" have to be

Hi All, Let me ask this question of the group: When bit rate peeling becomes available, how will the quality of the peeled Vorbis file compare to a file encoded at the target quality directly from the original? So, for: a.wav --> b.ogg (at q6) --> c.ogg (at q2) a.wav --------------------> d.ogg (at q2) how are c.ogg and d.ogg likely to compare in terms of audio

>> Is bit-peeling going to be real (or just a rumor forever)? > Apparently the RC3 streams are capable of being bit peeled, however the > tool to do so was looking likely to be quite complex. I believe the plan > was to have RC4 produce streams that left better hints for the peeling > tool, so as to make the tool simpler and faster, but I doubt we'll see it > until

Monty, You helped me out quite a bit the other day, but I just wanted to make sure I understand something. The "ideal" way to do bit rate peeling is to have the encoder set the file up to be conducive to the peeling process, and the streamer would be the device that actually does the peeling. Am I correct in assuming, then, that the decoder would think that the file it is

I have run an ogg analisis using EAQUAL from -q 0 till -q 10 evaluating bitrate and quality. The results are shown in a nice graph, and can be seen here: http://audio.sinderman.com/ One thing I have found is a bug, as it is cleary shown by the blue lines. Other discoveries are written in that page, and others are still evolving in my mind :) The goals of this analisis is to help the developers

No offense, Segher, but the output quality of this thing is awful. =) I'll disregard the fact that, at least with *my* compiler, the source tarball I downloaded reduces every packet to zero bytes, which isn't terribly interesting. I decided to set the byte reduction to something constant: I started by dividing each packet's size by 2 just to see what would happen. The resulting ogg

Hey, Maybe you guys remember us, I'm from the Neuros forums. I've got to say, having a player that supports Ogg Vorbis has really turned things around for everybody. We're still struggling with higher bitrate Vorbis streams, but that is only because of our terribly underpowered DSP. Anyway, to the point of my email. Recently the discussion of bitrate peeling has been floating

Hey y'all -- I heard some discussion a while back about "bitrate stripping" to reduce filesize without re-encoding ... has this gone anywhere? Too lazy to write a re-encode script, Nate <p> --- nate - nmt2002@columbia.edu cell=917 445 6830 aim=mediumnate abolishthe.us/gpgpublickey Nobody for president. --- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg

Greetings, I thought this was supposed to be a list for educated people to discuss serious development of the ogg vorbis project. In light of that, it is amazing to see the level Mr. Segher Boessenkool drops down to in the last posts. More or less calling people insane and accusing them of being on crack and what not. I didn't want to post this on the list, for there is no reason to

Hi all, I recently started to study the Ogg Vorbis codec and found an interesting feature called bitrate peeling [1]. Do you know where I can find more information on this topic? E.g., how is the actual peeling being implemented, what are the performance results in terms of resulting quality, what are the requirements for bitrate peeling (can it be applied to any ogg vorbis stream), ...? Also,

Given all this talk of peeling lately, I thought I'd try out a method I've been thinking about for a while now. It goes something like this: * Peeling is achieved by dropping some of the residue. * The encoder indicates how much of the residue to retain (e.g a number of stages, 3 bits in the stream per packet, non-standard!). * The decoder (peeler) copies the contents of packets except

Hello all, Just a quick note to let you all know that I have placed a bounty on Lauchpad to get bitrate peeling added to Vorbis. It is a feature that I think we would all like to have, and would probably pay something to get, but it hasn't been done. My request to you is to add to the bounty. I have seeded it with US$20, which is not enough to motivate a developer to get it done, but I am a

Hi I read in http://grahammitchell.net/writings/vorbis_intro.html > Ogg Vorbis files support "bitrate peeling", which means you can produce > a lower bitrate file from a higher bitrate file without re-encoding and > at the same quality as if you'd encoded the file directly into the lower > bitrate from the original file. No other lossy audio codec currently > supports

Not vorbis-related, just I think I found a similar technique being used... The description of the MPEG-2/SVCD plugin on the nero site says that it can encode exacty to the size of the CD (to maximize quality given a size restriction). It also says (in a separate point) that it uses two-pass VBR compression. >From that I guess they do something like encoding a bigger-than needed file and then

Hi all, First up, this is not a proposal on how to do it, but rather on how to get it done. In the latest thread it was mentioned that it was most likely that either Monty or Segher would be the most likely people to implement this code. It was also stated that this is not their priority at the moment. I can only see two solutions to this problem: 1. Find someone else with the knowledge and

After reading the documentation on the different types of channel coupling I began to wonder what effects this might have on bit peeling. Say for instance an audio file is encoded at a rather high bit rate with channel coupling type "X". Later on the same file is streamed, and is peeled down to a much lower bit rate in the process. However at this lower bit rate, channel coupling type

Hi guys. IMO now it's definitely time for finalizing Vorbis and throwing it in the arena. Two reasons: - RC2 sounds wonderfully well, I'm really amazed how good it is.. and I personally think there's little room for further improvement in sound quality.. - portable music devices are starting to take off (see Waitec, Creative, Apple and many other vendors). Wouldn't be good

Hi: I just wanted to know where exactly the problem with re-encoding in RC2 was. Was it in vorbis' ability to cope well with its own output as input, or did the first encode produce output that didn't lend itself to re-encoding? The difference is important. If it's the latter, anyone wanting to re-encode material will have to first encode it with RC3. I guess what I'm asking