similar to: conformance testing of custom implementation

Thanks for the answer. I'll take a look at this tool and verify my implementation. But I'd like to clarify the moment. If the following is applied for a test vector Reference Float Point Encoder --> Reference Float Point Decoder --> Float Point Output Reference Fixed Point Encoder --> Reference Float Point Decoder --> Fixed Point Output And then, if Float Point Output and

Hi, I checked the ODG (Objective Difference Grade) scores for a few reference vectors using the PQEvalAudio Tool and found that some of them show ODG scores as high as -3.5 If we look at the range as described in the link below, it looks unacceptable. http://www-mmsp.ece.mcgill.ca/documents/Software/Packages/AFsp/PQevalAudio.html Am I missing something or are these scores valid? Thanks and

On 06/12/2013 12:21 PM, SG wrote: > Is there any test files created specifically to exercise all aspects > of the encoder? If not, can you recommend some steps to verify a > custom implementation of libopus in encoding mode ? There is no test for the encoder because unlike the decoder, it is not normatively specified and it keeps improving over time. The best way to check your encoder

Hi Rhishi, PQevalaudio is very unreliable and buggy. I have compared to PEAQ and - as a result - now I am not using it anymore. With best regards, Christian Hoene Von: opus-bounces at xiph.org [mailto:opus-bounces at xiph.org] Im Auftrag von Rhishikesh Agashe Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Oktober 2013 12:35 An: opus at xiph.org Cc: Rasmi Mishra Betreff: [opus] ODG (Objective Difference

Viswanath Puttagunta wrote: > a. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for correctness. > b. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for performance. > > Would prefer something like opusdec that can be executed on command > line. The easiest thing to use is probably opus_demo (opusdec does a bunch of extra things, plus for interactive use we care about both the

Hi, Just to let everyone know that RFC 8251, aka "Updates to the Opus Audio Codec" has been approved by the IETF: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8251 This means that the two changes that were previously behind a --enable-update-draft option are now enabled by default in git. If needed (not sure why), they can still be disabled using --disable-rfc8251 The changes require a new set of

On 21 November 2014 at 18:06, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe at xiph.org> wrote: > > Viswanath Puttagunta wrote: >> >> a. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for correctness. >> b. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for performance. >> >> Would prefer something like opusdec that can be executed on command >> line. > >

On 24 November 2014 at 14:53, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 21 November 2014 at 18:06, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe at xiph.org> wrote: > > > > Viswanath Puttagunta wrote: > >> > >> a. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for correctness. > >> b. Simplest use case to validate this

Hi all, I am a developer for embedded system and totally new to Opus and open source audio codec. I'm now using Microchip dsPIC33 to develop a decoder for Opus. I am now using sources of libopus. The first question is for calling opus_decode(), do I need to skip the header bytes of an opus file before I can input the file data to opus_decode()? Or will libopus handle this automatically?

On 24 November 2014 at 17:48, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> a. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for correctness. >>> >> b. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for performance. >>> >> >>> >> Would prefer something like opusdec that can be executed on command >>> >>

>> >> a. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for correctness. >> >> b. Simplest use case to validate this optimization for performance. >> >> >> >> Would prefer something like opusdec that can be executed on command >> >> line. >> > >> > >> > The easiest thing to use is probably opus_demo (opusdec

Hi, I am looking at the conformance test using opus_compare and the test vectors and I am a bit confused about FEC. Is there a way to validate that a decoder processes LBRR frames correctly? Thanks, Alexis

On 10/26/2013 01:11 PM, Wang, Chris wrote: > A simpler question. How does opus_encode() generate packets of 20ms > (SILK-only or Hybrid)? Concatenating two 10ms frames or doing it > straight with just one 20ms frame? Just one 20 ms frame. It always returns a single frame except when it just can't (e.g. 60 ms CELT). > From your explanations below, opus_encode() will concatenate

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

ly or Hybrid frames for 40 or 60ms packet, respectively. That is based on = concatenating 20ms frames, right? Is 60ms the largest packet opus_encode() can generate? In order to get pac= kets of up to 120 ms by combining multiple frames as described in RFC6716 c= lause 2.1.4 one would need to use the "repacketizer". That is if I want to= have a 120 ms packet, I would need to take

OK, so at the link : https://uloz.to/!yyVrCY2Y8sn1/devil-s-elbow-opus-7z (https://uloz.to/%21yyVrCY2Y8sn1/devil-s-elbow-opus-7z) (change the language to English by clicking at the flag at the right upper side of the web page or just simply click at "Stáhnout pomalu" - it may take some time as the file is 55 MB+ and the download service is free) there is 7zip archive with 5 music

Hello Jean-Marc, yes, it works for both 32 and 48 kb/s. Also this option marginally increases the size of the file which is understandable. I tried a few other music files and found that this stereo narrowing happens not only in the case of track I submitted (although in smaller scale) so it would be great if the final libopus 1.2 had officialy a parameter to force music "mode" of

Hi, I'm working on porting libopus to some specific platforms. Due to some restrictions of the platform and to improve the performance I had to change a bit the accuracy of some functions (fft, mdct and so on). With a help of tools provided with the source code, I can check that my changes in the code are not the cause of serious damages during decoding, and all decoding tests are passed.

Thanks Jean-Marc and Benjamin for the answers. One follow-up question. If I use a repacketizer as Jean-Marc suggested by combining two 60ms frames to form a 120ms frame, without extracting individual frames and using a new TOC, I would need to have a "de-packetizer" that does the exact opposite of repacketizer. De-packetizer would need to separate this 120ms frame into two 60ms frames

Hi, I am interested in this part of the answer: "Make sure both are also linked to the same libopus (opusenc could be using the system libopus 1.0.x while opus_demo is from git)" I dowloaded a tarball distrib of libopus (1.1-beta),build and installed it,and afterwards did the same with opus-tools (0.1.7),using the former installed libopus library (also using libogg 1.3.1). When I execute