similar to: Bitrate peeling

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

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

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

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

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/

Hi: A friend asked me a question that I was unable to answer, so I'm posting it here. Can files created by the beta4 encoder be peeled down when that becomes available, or is the ability to encode peelable files also not implemented? My friend wants to know if they should switch over now or hold off until this becomes possible. Geoff. --- >8 ---- List archives:

After reading the recent thread [http://www.xiph.org/archives/vorbis/200211/0057.html] on the vorbis list about bitrate peeling, I was wondering if it would be possible for xiph.org to post a specification, outline, flowchart, or a drawing on a napkin of what the basic operations of bit peeling would entail. If there was some sort of starting point, then it may be a little more inviting for

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

>> 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

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

I just read some of the discussion on the list about 'bitrate peeling' and remembered an interview of Monty that I have read recently. In it he says that Vorbis uses MCDTs <sp> and that these are theoretically reversable. And now, I learn that theoretically we can use bitrate peeling to make smaller files from larger ones, and that leads to my question. Could I theoretically

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello vorbis, Wasn't really answered in my first post about this subject (although people did convince me to do a debian/rules binary, which i've done and am VERY impressed with RC3 (played a -q3 file to a mp3 dude secretly, and he says "whoa! 112kbits! give me your new mp3 encoder" (winamp3 doesn't show the changing

Hi all, I'm looking into congestion control for Vorbis RTP and I'm wondering if it's not too early to define a mechanism which would help bitrate peeling. The client can send a standard receiver report stating the interarrival jitter and packets loss. Once a certain jitter/loss point is reached the server peels off a pre-determined bitrate fraction from the stream, eg 128k would

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello vorbis, Is bitrate peeling implemented into RC3? (i'm guessing not due to the fact that none of the tools seem to have any information about that) Still, looking forward to checking out the quality improvments (once the Debian packages become available... (i've compiled it already on one of my potato boxes, but the newer

> From: Beni Cherniavsky [mailto:cben@users.sf.net] > Sent: 26 September 2003 10:35 > To: vorbis@xiph.org > Subject: Re: [vorbis] streaming > > - Vorbis is designed to allow "peeling": if you truncate packets, you > still get a legal Vorbis stream but with lower quality. This should > allow very effecient streaming of multiple bitrates from the same >

Icecast / Vorbis community, I have a icecast/ices audio streaming server from which I stream ogg audio files. I know that I can encode different streams for low, medium and /or high quality broadcasts (for example). However, I would like to have one stream that uses bit rate peeling to send the user the highest quality stream that their bandwidth will allow. Has any one done this? Does any

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