similar to: PC Benchmarks

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

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

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

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

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 >

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 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

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

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Stuart Marsden <stuartmarsden at finmars.co.uk> wrote: > I have just started trying Opus with a view to using it in a project. I am > interested in embedded hardware and tried it on the Raspberry Pi using the > raspbian distro. > > The version of libopus in the repos is 0.9.14. I installed this and tried > encoding 2 minutes of speech from a

I have just started trying Opus with a view to using it in a project. I am interested in embedded hardware and tried it on the Raspberry Pi using the raspbian distro. The version of libopus in the repos is 0.9.14. I installed this and tried encoding 2 minutes of speech from a librevox recording. It managed this at a respectable pace for complexity 10: Skipping chunk of type "LIST",

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

Version 0.1-0 of a new package `ffmanova' is now available on CRAN. Comments, suggestions, etc. are welcome. Please use the email address ffmanova (at) mevik.net. The package implements 50-50 MANOVA (Langsrud, 2002) with p-value adjustment based on rotation testing (Langsrud, 2005). The 50-50 MANOVA method is a modified variant of classical MANOVA made to handle several highly correlated

Version 0.1-0 of a new package `ffmanova' is now available on CRAN. Comments, suggestions, etc. are welcome. Please use the email address ffmanova (at) mevik.net. The package implements 50-50 MANOVA (Langsrud, 2002) with p-value adjustment based on rotation testing (Langsrud, 2005). The 50-50 MANOVA method is a modified variant of classical MANOVA made to handle several highly correlated

Hi Everyone, I have a question regarding the construction of 3D graphs in 'R', BUT these graphs also need to illustrate movement (with time) of the prostate gland (using radiological techniques). I am not sure how to do this in 'R' although I'm sure there is some way of doing it. Below, I have copied and pasted some of the data with which I'm working on. The data

Dear R-users, These days, I have been struggling to install the package sna on my Ubuntu 8.04 laptop. My R version is currently R 2.7.2. And I had no trouble installing any other packages (including network). However when I run 'install.packages("sna")', compilation of C codes is ok, but a syntax error is reported when building help pages and sna does not want to install. I

----- Original Message ----- From: <asterisk-users-request@lists.digium.com> To: <asterisk-users@lists.digium.com> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 7:55 PM Subject: Asterisk-Users digest, Vol 1 #1279 - 16 msgs > Send Asterisk-Users mailing list submissions to > asterisk-users@lists.digium.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >

Hi I downl;oaded the source distribution of wine 0.9.14 and compiled it as described in the readme file. I now created an rpm with checkinstall. My problem is that I can not install it, as it tells me that there is a conflict with the package desktop-file-utils-0.10-9: # rpm -Uvh wine-0.9.14-1.i386.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] file

Kashyap: I have not tried integrating your guest xml but I will look over it today when I get a chance. Thank you. Martin: Below is the output from /proc/cpuinfo. Let me know if there is anything else that would be helpful in debugging this. Thank you, Michael Giardino processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 60 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz stepping

This is release 0.9.14 of Wine, a free implementation of Windows on Unix. What's new in this release: - Better MS/RPC compatibility. - Many fixes to Direct3D shaders. - Several improvements to the header control. - Lots of bug fixes. Because of lags created by using mirrors, this message may reach you before the release is available at the public sites. The sources will be available

Debian is preparing to release Debian 7, which will be the `stable' version of Debian for the next 2 years It includes 0.9.14 http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/libopus0 Looking here: http://www.opus-codec.org/downloads/older.shtml.en I notice the comment "This version matches version -14 of the draft" - it is not clear to me that 0.9.14 is the same bitstream format that is finally