similar to: Antw: [EXT] Re: Multithreaded encoding?

I'm not aware of any other attempts, and there have never been official plans. It's difficult to partition input for opus at anything other than the track level, because of the way the decoder derives its adaptive state from recently-seen audio. I guess cutting together streams with at least an 80ms overlap wouldn't glitch too much? You could probably do something to try different

I am interested in being able to encode a single Opus stream using several CPU cores. I get a raw audio input and "opusenc" can transcode it at 1200% speed (Raspberry PI 3B+). It saturates a single CPU core, but the other three are idle. Is out there any project to add multithreading options to "opusenc", or something in that line? Looking around, I have found this:

I don't know if this is of interest as an alternative. I did find a cool functionality called locate and updatedb Updatedb creates the database of your files, locate does superfast searches. It essentially does a superfast "find" on your root filesystem, giving you the fully qualified path of all hits. You can create db's on your other filessytems. The problem is that it can

http://dovecot.org/test/ Maildir code is still having syncing trouble. I thought about fixing mbox code for a chance - if the same problems happen with it too then I at least know that the problems are in indexes instead of maildir syncing itself. So, the biggest change in 1.0-test15 is a new fully functional superfast mbox code. If you can make it corrupt your mboxes I'd like to know about

I''m using a RangeFilter to limit a search to only the most recently added documents. My index is about 150 000 articles and the RangeFilter typically selects about 1000 of them to run a batch of searches against. The performance is great as long as my index is newly optimized. As soon as add a few new documents the average search time for a batch of searches using the rangefilter

dsync in Dovecot v2.0 tree is a new utility for syncing a mailbox in two locations. Some things it can be used for: - Initially transfer a mailbox to another server via SSH - A faster sync done to an existing mailbox, sending only changes - A superfast sync based on modification sequences. - Source and destination mailboxes can use different formats (convert-tool will be history) dsync can

Dear Statisticians--- This is not even an R question, so please forgive me. I have so much ignorance in this matter that I do not know where to begin. I hope someone can point me to documentation and/or a sample. I want to compute a covariance as quickly as non-humanly possible on an Intel core processor (up to SSE4) under linux. Alas, I have no idea how to engage CPU vectorization. Do I need

Thanks for the superfast reaction. You got me started thinking. I got rid of the following lines number 3 and 8 hereunder. They were present in the example xml and I think that they don't belong here because icecast won't run if chroot is not being used........ Now it starts. I am very happy about this!!!! :-) JK 1 <security> 2 <chroot>0</chroot> 3

Hi, I have done a simple libtheora test for the theora ticket (http://dev.laptop.org/attachment/ticket/5988/), using theora-svn. The results are at: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Theora#Testing For the sake of discussion here, 've copied some comments from the results section on the wiki: - the patch for super fastmode seems to give an impressive speedup. Depending on video input, encoding time

On Saturday 21 February 2004 00:14, Jan-Kees Fels wrote: > Thanks for the superfast reaction. > > You got me started thinking. > > I got rid of the following lines number 3 and 8 hereunder. They were > present in the example xml and I think that they don't belong here > because icecast won't run if chroot is not being used........ > > Now it starts. I am very

Hello, Does anyone have experience using a 3ware 9650SE series raid controller on CentOS 6.0? I am getting very sporadic throughput with moderately sized files (0.5-2GB) on ext3. I have tried most of the mount time tuning options: * noatime * trying different journal types * setting commit=120 - helped a little Even after these optimizations it doesn't seem like the raid array is working

Dear list, I came up with a two functions that flatten arbitrary deeply nested lists (as long as they're named; not tested for unnamed) and environments (see attachment; 'flatten_examples.txt' contains some examples). The paradigm is somewhat similar to that implemented in 'unlist()', yet extends it. I would have very much liked to build upon the superfast functionality

I''ve read the stuff about polymorphic associations here: http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/UnderstandingPolymorphicAssociations But I''m not sure what exactly they are and what their advantage is. Are they the same as HABTM, but they''re "two-way"? Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

>>> Emily Bowman <silverbacknet at gmail.com> schrieb am 05.11.2018 um 20:46 in Nachricht <CAGSVXPR6t8uHJFqDCT-1pn9otP_7ypPxgRXRasgZERunsAe0fA at mail.gmail.com>: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:01 AM Jan Stary <hans at stare.cz> wrote: > > Attached I send the spectrogram (vic SoX) of the first 20 seconds >> for the wav file and the opus file. Indeed, there

>>> Jan Stary <hans at stare.cz> schrieb am 05.11.2018 um 18:00 in Nachricht <20181105170002.GA72174 at www.stare.cz>: > On Nov 05 11:32:49, hans at stare.cz wrote: >> On Nov 05 11:05:34, hans at stare.cz wrote: >> > > Did you also try to listen at the beginning, shortly before the real tone > appears in the audible spectrum? While significantly

On Nov 05 11:05:34, hans at stare.cz wrote: > > Did you also try to listen at the beginning, shortly before the real tone appears in the audible spectrum? While significantly larger, Opus had produced significant ghost noise (much less than Vorbis did)... > > Yes. But given that these are not audible sounds, > the various codecs might use various strategies of throwing them away.

On Nov 05 18:00:06, hans at stare.cz wrote: > On Nov 05 11:32:49, hans at stare.cz wrote: > > On Nov 05 11:05:34, hans at stare.cz wrote: > > > > Did you also try to listen at the beginning, shortly before the real tone appears in the audible spectrum? While significantly larger, Opus had produced significant ghost noise (much less than Vorbis did)... > > I experience

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:01 AM Jan Stary <hans at stare.cz> wrote: Attached I send the spectrogram (vic SoX) of the first 20 seconds > for the wav file and the opus file. Indeed, there is extra noise > for the low frequencies, but somewhere around -100 dB. > > Jan > That might be entirely due to SoX treating it as a 16-bit file, which it is not; -100dB is almost

>>> 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 Nov 05 11:32:49, hans at stare.cz wrote: > On Nov 05 11:05:34, hans at stare.cz wrote: > > > Did you also try to listen at the beginning, shortly before the real tone appears in the audible spectrum? While significantly larger, Opus had produced significant ghost noise (much less than Vorbis did)... I experience the "same" low level noise even in a wav file, even on