similar to: Antw: [EXT] Stop opusenc from generating any comments?

The opusenc tool automatically adds metadata - even if you don't specify any. For example, these tags are created by default on my files: ENCODER=opusenc from opus-tools 0.2 ENCODER_OPTIONS=--bitrate 6 --comp 10 --framesize 60 --padding 0 I've tried using `--discard-comments` but that has no effect. I've tried using `--comment ENCODER=` but that adds a duplicate tag. My limited

>>> 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

(Sending again after subscribing, I guess the moderator is on vacation.) I'm working on support for tagging Speex files for Mutagen[0] and part of the specification at [1] is confusing me. It says the first page should have granulepos 0 and packetno 0. Does this really mean page sequence number 0, since the Ogg format doesn't number packets? If it doesn't mean page sequence number,

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?

I'm trying to install the exaile package on my newly upgraded CentOS 6.4 machine. It fails (see below) with missing dependencies on python-cddb and gnome-python2-gtkmozembed. I found this thread but there does not seem to be any resolution. \ Has anyone got this installed? Am I missing a repo? Thanks, Steve # yum install exaile Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, refresh-packagekit, security

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

On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 14:35 -0700, Ralph Giles wrote: > On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 02:17:22PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > > I'm working on support for tagging Speex files for Mutagen[0] and part > > of the specification at [1] is confusing me. It says the first page > > should have granulepos 0 and packetno 0. Does this really mean page > > sequence number 0,

Hi Ryan, I run into the same problem with my HP-UX 11 as well as HP-UX 10.20 boxes. Therefore I decided not to start the sshd from the swagent in the postinstall script. I start the daemon via the lan console by hand. I know in large environments it is not a perfect solution but the only one which works these days ;-(( regards Stephan -- LDS Brandenburg Dr. Stephan Hendl fon: +49-(0)331-39 471

>>> Erwan <erwan at seanodes.com> schrieb am 10/19/2009 um 10:11 PM in Nachricht <4ADCC807.6090700 at seanodes.com>: > Hey Marcel, Hi Erwan, > I'm in the process to test your lua branch. > I was wondering what is the current state of it. You can pull the current state from here: git pull git://linux.rrze.uni-erlangen.de/syslinux.git luaext The current

>>> Jesus Cea <jcea at jcea.es> schrieb am 13.01.2016 um 16:31 in Nachricht <56966DC0.9030604 at jcea.es>: > Opus 1.1.2. > > As experienced in previous release: > > """ > ./test-driver: line 107: 25185 Illegal instruction "$@" > $log_file 2>&1 > FAIL: celt/tests/test_unit_mathops > """ The shell

On 01/14/2016 02:23 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: >> """ >> ./test-driver: line 107: 25185 Illegal instruction "$@" > $log_file > 2>&1 >> FAIL: celt/tests/test_unit_mathops >> """ > > The shell script most likely does not have the illegal instruction; a more > useful report would be to run the thing under a

On 14/01/16 08:23, Ulrich Windl wrote: > The shell script most likely does not have the illegal instruction; a more > useful report would be to run the thing under a debugger like gdb and then > disassemble the instruction in question. I was under the impression of this being a well known "issue" already. If you need all details I could try to find some time to provide full

Hi! AFAIK, there are different version of AVX; maybe clarify which versions you use, and how you detect the availability of the instructions needed. Also you could point out which CPUs are expected to be supported. Also consider that besides Intel there still exists AMD ;-) Regards, Ulrich >>> "Velea, Radu" <radu.velea at intel.com> schrieb am 20.01.2016 um 19:02 in

Hi! I'm not deep i the code, but from my experience even older gcc (4.3.4) does function inlining at -O2, and at -O3 it inlines almost any function inside one module. Once I even let it inline across modules (-combine). I'm not talking about explicit inline functions; just about automatic optimization. So did you check that frequent function calls actually happen? I'm a bit afraid

>>> Linfeng Zhang <linfengz at google.com> schrieb am 19.04.2017 um 18:29 in Nachricht <CAKoqLCDX3eCUGbnZFvRzhiCV1Mbo2ksbj8K+pcVu60Dvit7WCQ at mail.gmail.com>: > Hi, > > Attached are 2 patches related to silk_biquad_alt() optimization. Please > review. Out of curiosity: How do you test "The optimization is bit exact with C function."? Use one example,

Hi! While talking on cosmetics: I noticed that a few lines significantly exceed the 80-column limit without obvious need. See attachment for an example. Regards, Ulrich >>> Linfeng Zhang <linfengz at google.com> schrieb am 19.04.2017 um 18:49 in Nachricht <CAKoqLCA-tXd7XSa0a1T9xE4SF9GPMp+ySxsULgbB_F_=3dK3iw at mail.gmail.com>: > Hi, > > Attached is a patch for