similar to: Encoding processing complexity

Dear Opus Experts, I am interested in an application where I should aim for the lowest possible latency. At the moment, I can be flexible in adjusting the frame sizes of the application for what is provided by the Standard mode but I have existing implementation using Opus Custom mode. So my question is: if I can use frame sizes according to Opus Standard mode, is there a performance reason

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

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 try to work with CELT encoder & decoder in 2 different threads at the same time. So I create/destroy encoder and encode in one thread and create/destroy decoder and decode in other thread. If I didn't protect celt_encoder_create, celt_encode_float and celt_decoder_create, celt_decode_float with CRITICAL_SECTION I get stable error in icwrs32 or ec_byte_write1 (more often) in encoder.

Hello opus-dev, Can we please have review on RFCv2? We have quite a few optimizations (Eg: ifft/mdct_backwards, fixed point fft/ifft mdct_forward/backward etc) that are in my pipeline that depend on this patch series being accepted. Regards, Vish On 4 February 2015 at 12:21, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > Changes from RFC PATCH v1: > - passing

Hi, folks, I have an old CELT thing that I'm updating to Opus and I'm trying to get individual pieces upgraded.  My first task is upgrading the CELT encoder to Opus. The old CELT thing treated the L and R channels as independent mono streams, encoded them somehow with CELT to form one bitstream, sent one bitstream across, and then unpacked it manually after the decoder. Can I do that

Hi Mark, Jean-Marc, Thanks for your comments. On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 6:34 AM Mark Harris <mark.hsj at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Felicia, > > A few comments: > > > - /* CELT can only support up to 20 ms */ > > subframe_size = st->Fs/50; > > - nb_subframes = frame_size > st->Fs/25 ? 3 : 2; > > + nb_subframes =

On 25 February 2015 at 19:54, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe at xiph.org> wrote: > Viswanath Puttagunta wrote: >> >> Can we please have review on RFCv2? We have quite a few optimizations >> (Eg: ifft/mdct_backwards, fixed point fft/ifft mdct_forward/backward >> etc) that are in my pipeline that depend on this patch series being >> accepted. > > >

Hi, I was checking complexity modes of CELT 07.1 encoder. If i got it correctly everything is driven by pitch_available variable set in celt_encoder_create function. By default it's set to 1 hence high complexity mode is used all the time. I tried to disable it and although i couldn't hear any particular difference in the decoded audio quality, the cycle count of the encoder dropped

Hi, We're using Celt 0.7.1 at the moment. We're thinking to update the code to a newer version of it. Is there an appreciable complexity (decoding time) difference among versions (0.7.1 - 0.8.1 - 0.9.1 - 0.10 - 0.11.1)? If so, which one is the fastest? Thanks Regards Riccardo Riccardo Micci Senior DSP Engineer, Wireless Group Cambridge Consultants Science Park, Milton Road

Hi, I'm testing CELT 0.7.1 speed performance and I'm focusing now on the complexity switch. I've dug in the archive and i found some information. Is it still true that there are two ranges? - 0-2 low complexity mode - 3-10 high complexity mode If no input is given is 2 hence low complexity mode the default setting? Does the complexity mode affect decoding as well? Thank you Best

Hi all, We (WebRTC/Google) would like to extend Opus to natively support 120 ms encoding instead of relying on repacketization as a post processing step. This is to ensure that a valid 120 ms packet is always available. I've attached a couple of patches to add this to opus_encoder(), based on the internal repacketization process carried out by 60 ms CELT. We intend to extend this later for

--- win32/VS2015/opus.vcxproj | 2 ++ win32/VS2015/opus.vcxproj.filters | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/win32/VS2015/opus.vcxproj b/win32/VS2015/opus.vcxproj index d9aaa03..f55ea37 100644 --- a/win32/VS2015/opus.vcxproj +++ b/win32/VS2015/opus.vcxproj @@ -852,6 +852,7 @@ <ClInclude Include="..\..\celt\vq.h" /> <ClInclude

Hi! A note on style: Looking at this chunk of the patch -- @@ -382,9 +382,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) frame_size = sampling_rate/25; else if (strcmp(argv[ args + 1 ], "60")==0) frame_size = 3*sampling_rate/50; + else if (strcmp(argv[ args + 1 ], "80")==0) + frame_size = 4*sampling_rate/50; +

This patch adds a static bitrate allocation for ambisonics encoded with the multistream API. We allocate 4 bits to the mono channel (channel index 0) for every 3 bits allocated to other channels. The allocation is static because it does not depend on the input audio. This patch also forces the underlying encoders to use CELT only for ambisonics. -- Thanks, Michael Graczyk -------------- next

I too would like to know the status of the opus IP holders. From what I've seen on the CELT and opus lists, it seems that the CELT part of opus is covered by patents from Xiph and Broadcom, and the SILK part of opus is covered by the rest. All of the IP holders except Qualcomm and Huawei have released their patents to the public as far as opus is concerned, and the general consensus from

Hi, On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Raghavan, Karthik < karthikr at qti.qualcomm.com> wrote: > Hi > > > > I am not sure if this issue has been resolved, but on the latest opus > 1.1.4, > > · I downloaded the tarball, > > · ran ./configure followed by > > · make and then > > · make check > > > > Can you

Hi, Seems like it's not linking with libm. I suspect it has to do with linking statically with libopus.a (is that intended?). Maybe opus-tools relies on the fact that libopus is linked with libm and doesn't explicitly add it? Greg? Jean-Marc On 09/24/2013 06:09 AM, bat guano wrote: > Hi > I'm having a problem compiling opus-tools-0.1.7. > Version opus-tools-0.1.6 seems to

Thanks to Jean-Marc and Tim explaining 'git rebase -i' to me, I've factored my reorganization of the Opus Intrinsics configury into a number of hopefully more comprehensible (and thus more reviewable) pieces. This applies to the current tip of Opus Master in git. Viswanath's Ne10 changes require some slight modification to apply on top of these patches, but nothing major.

The patch prevents KEIL MDK compile warnings, like:   warning:  #1035-d: single-precision operand implicitly converted to double-precision Actually ARM Cortex-M4F has only a *single precision* (float) FPU. It's suit for all platforms. See the comment at the begin of patch file. Sincerely Forrest Zhang -------------- next part -------------- Specify the floating point constant with single