similar to: 1.1 Much slower on Raspberry Pi

Christian, I will give 64kbit/s a try and post the figures. My own project is voice only and requires low bitrate so was hoping that it was just the way I was compiling and not an actual regression in speed for SILK. The raspberry PI is quite a cheap and handy reference platform though the ARM side is fairly underpowered but has a great GPU. It also has no audio in which is a pain for playing

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

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 >

I have run a few more test at different bitrates and 1.1 is looking even worse in terms of speed compared to previous versions. I have shared a google sheet which has the raw data and charts for 6,16 and 32 kbps. Unfortunately you cannot show proper error bars on Google sheets but the standard deviation is in the data if you want to look. You can see that the profile for 1.1 is a lot different

Hi All, What would be interesting would be a plot of complexity versus subjective or object audio quality. I've not had a chance to look at the new analysis code in 1.1 so maybe in the case of a 6kbps compression you could clarify what decisions would it be making that would justify the extra complexity? Best Regards Cliff Parris -----Original Message----- From: opus-request at

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

I had expected that the default bitrate for the encoder would be the same as setting it to OPUS_AUTO, but I'm getting difference results: >opusenc --comp 4 sample.wav sample.opus Encoding using libopus 1.3-rc2 (audio) ----------------------------------------------------- Input: 8 kHz, 1 channel Output: 1 channel (1 uncoupled) 20ms packets, 25 kbit/s VBR Preskip: 312

Hello, I am testing the command line based opus encoder/decoder tools and I have some questions regarding the information given by the encoder (see below as an example). Encoding using libopus 1.0.2 (audio) ----------------------------------------------------- Input: 48kHz 1 channel Output: 1 channel (1 uncoupled) 20ms packets, 64kbit/sec VBR Preskip: 312 Encoding complete

Hi! 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. With Opus I noticed that the file size for 48kHz and 48 kbps compared to 96kHz Vorbis at 31kbps is about double the size and it sounds even worse (than Vorbis) (there is a lot of noise in the lower frequencies when a low

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

Hello!, i've just compared the 1.0.3 release with the master branch on a BeagleBone Black (AM335x 1GHz ARM Cortex-A8 with NEON floating-point accelerator) and Arch Linux ARM. At the moment I dont no why, but I see that 1.1 is much slower in encoding. Are there any default changes, that I missed and could explain this? Normaly I suggested a better performance with 1.1 and the ARM

Hi! Excuse the delay, but I had to deal with a corrupted NTFS file system that ate many important files on an USB stick... The FLAC version of the original is almost 6MB and it can be downloaded slowly from this time-limited link: https://sbr5vjid0jgmce4q.myfritz.net:40262/nas/filelink.lua?id=0ba5a10529a6fe7b On the meaning of a logarithmic sweep: If you use foobar2000 and the

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

Cliff, Yes it would be good, but very hard to get a figure for the quality. At 6kbps I assume it does not bother trying to figure what mode to use as at that rate it can only use SILK. When I run some other bitrates it may get a bit slower trying to decide whether it is voice or music. I started with low bit rate because I am only really interested in Voice and very low bit rate. I think there

It might be good to use the (uncompressed) samples on the opus page, as a common starting point? http://www.opus-codec.org/examples/ On Dec 21, 2013, at 9:43 AMEST, Stuart Marsden wrote: > I have run a few more test at different bitrates and 1.1 is looking even worse in terms of speed compared to previous versions. > > I have shared a google sheet which has the raw data and charts for

I have to admit that I am impressed by your results -- making 1.1 look slower than 1.0 is by no means an easy task. On the other hand, it's a great tutorial on how not to use Opus, so for the benefit of everyone, this is a summary of what we learned in this exercise: 1) When running on ARM, the fixed-point build is usually faster than floating point. This is true on the majority of ARM archs

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. What sine sweep exactly? How did you obtain it, and how exactly did you encode and decode it? Jan > The strange > thing was that even though the output wave file was at 48 kHz, it

(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

>>> Jan Stary <hans at stare.cz> schrieb am 05.11.2018 um 11:05 in Nachricht <20181105100534.GB44329 at www.stare.cz>: > (Are we off‑list now by intention?) No, just fooled by the list defaults (some need just reply, others need reply to all) > >> Did you also try to listen at the beginning, shortly before the real tone > appears in the audible spectrum?

On Sat, 28 May 2016 16:21:33 -0700, Michael Graczyk <mgraczyk at google.com> wrote : > Hi Marc, Hi Micheal. > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Marc Lavallée <marc at hacklava.net> > wrote: > > I subscribed because your discussion on the IETF draft ("Ambisonics > > in an Ogg Opus Container") was mentioned on the sursound list. > > Thanks for