similar to: replacing ACELP encoding with speex

Hi, I have the following config; 4 ices hosts, ices-kh60 2 are streaming to icecast2.1kh5 server. 2 are streaming to icecast2.2kh9 server. The 2 hosts streaming to icecast2.2kh9 are crashing (machine crash...) twice a week. I was thinking of hardware problem, but it think it's not the case. To feed ices, I use: rawrec | ices Which I found very sensitive and may cause machine handup if

> I've been watching the speex development from its inception because I > and several Tech Startup Connection members have a very important > application for this voice encoding/decoding. Further, we are quite > familiar with ACELP as implemented in G.729. As far as I know Speex > is also ACELP ... yes/no? No. Speex is CELP (Code-excited linear prediction), but not ACELP

Hello Jean-Marc: I've been watching the speex development from its inception because I and several Tech Startup Connection members have a very important application for this voice encoding/decoding. Further, we are quite familiar with ACELP as implemented in G.729. As far as I know Speex is also ACELP ... yes/no? Question ... what do you see as the advantages of ACELP compared to MP3? I

Apologies if this is know. But I've spent most of today Googling for a way to get this working, and to me, something is wrong here. But it might well be me. Anyway... I've been trying to record direct from the soundcard into an ogg file. I came up with rawrec -t 10 | oggenc -r -Q -q 5 - > foo.ogg which partially works. ogg123 will play it, but ogginfo reports Warning: Hole in

And the main point of interest is the following: how much difference in SPEEX terms would it be if it were developed with ACELP in mind? (not that i would do an aSpeex codec implementing ACELP, just to know and point my efforts) -- John Villar Gerente de Proyectos Computadores Flor Hard Soft 2058 C.A. www.florhard.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

--- Hal Vaughan <hal@thresholddigital.com> wrote: > I've been reading the info on Sourceforge about Flac, but there's one > thing > I'm not clear about (and it looks like Flac may not support this > yet). > Before I installed it, I wanted to know if Flac would do what I need. > > I want to be able to record shows on the radio (I have a radio hooked >

Hi All, First of all, I'm sorry if my question is offtopic on this list. In such case please ignore this post and/or contact me directly. I'm asking my questions there because I feel you had similar problem before starting developing Speex. My story: my friend developed 3gpp content creator and he would distribute it in binary form. But there is problem with AMR licensing (the terms

On Wednesday 30 March 2005 07:42 pm, Josh Coalson wrote: > --- Hal Vaughan <hal@thresholddigital.com> wrote: > > I've been reading the info on Sourceforge about Flac, but there's one > > thing > > I'm not clear about (and it looks like Flac may not support this > > yet). > > Before I installed it, I wanted to know if Flac would do what I need.

Hello Jean-Marc: How many bits do you have in a frame please and what is your frame rate? For example, G.729 (ACELP) has 12 bits/frame including VAD and the frame rate is 100/second ... I'm looking for the comparable figures for SPEEX. Thank you. --- B. Mitchell Loebel, CEO, VP Engineering 408 425-9920 InstaFlash International Corporation (formerly

Thank you. You're right ... my error ... I meant to say 12 bytes (including the 2 bytes for VAD). And it is 10ms/frame. No matter ... thank you for the SPEEX specs. In terms of quality, what SPEEX bit rate compares with G.729 at 8kbps data rate please? Is there some reason why you chose the 20ms frame rate? Do you keep that same frame rate for the different bit rates? The faster frame

Hello, I am really curious about something. How does the quality of Opus compare to alternative VoIP codecs like AAC-ELD V2 and EVS? I heard that the use of ACELP in EVS and AAC-ELD offers a slight improvement in low bit rate performance relative to Opus but then I also heard that the improvement is insignificant. Thanks for taking the time to read my question. -- mo -------------- next part

B. Mitchell Loebel a ?crit : > How many bits do you have in a frame please and what is your frame rate? > For example, G.729 (ACELP) has 12 bits/frame including VAD and the frame > rate is 100/second ... I'm looking for the comparable figures for SPEEX. I'm sorry but if G.729 used 12 bits/frame at 100 frames/second, it would have a bit-rate of 1.2 kbps. G.729 actually uses 10

B. Mitchell Loebel a ?crit : > Thank you. You're right ... my error ... I meant to say 12 bytes > (including the 2 bytes for VAD). And it is 10ms/frame. No matter ... > thank you for the SPEEX specs. In terms of quality, what SPEEX bit rate > compares with G.729 at 8kbps data rate please? Haven't done formal testing and it depends on whether it's G.729 or G.729A. I'd

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca> wrote: > Jahn, Ray (R.) a ?crit : > > > Dear Speex codec community: > > > > I am working on conversion of voice files. I could not figure out how to use speexdec.exe 1.2.3 in piped mode in order to avoid the creation of the potentially large intermediate *.wav or *.pcm files. Any

Hi I have just written a small c programm which reads in speex files and outputs them as asci text numbers. This is necessary as for writing a hw testbench for decoding tests, since thy only read ascii files :-(.I can't read the bitrate properly from the header file. It's allways -1. Please see example below and attached c programm. I wan't to check for a fixed bitrate (8000).

Thank you Jean-Marc. My understanding is that G.729 is a telephone codec, so there must have been some reason why its developers went to 10ms/frame. Do you know why that might be? From a recent post on this list I saw somebody talking about your decoded sample rate being 8KHZ/sec. and then he mentioned that being 160 bytes at 20ms/frame. That said, I take it that your decoded samples are

Thanks Jim, that's understood. When I say AMBE isn't working well, I only mean from the audience acceptance point of view. Technically it is fine. It is exactly doing the job we had expected. It's the long standing wish that everyone wants... More for less. We are just seeking a bit of magic that just may not be there. Ideally finding a codec that can perform

> If I understand what you said correctly, there is such a call: > speex_bits_read_whole_bytes, which adds a couple byte to the SpeexBits > struct while removing the ones that have already been read. Oh, how could I not have seen that one? That is exactly what I need. Thanks for the pointer. >> It is unusual to require a different sequence of API calls >> depending on

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca] > Hi > > On 10-06-21 07:24 PM, Pavel Pavlov wrote: > > I'm just curious, who and why came up with that strange way to write includes: > > I did. Because I think that's the way to go. I'm just curios, why? Is there some compiler/platform that requires it to be

Not to mention that Speex is also included in the upcoming release of Flash Player 10 (in public beta now). Jozsef -----Original Message----- From: speex-dev-bounces at xiph.org [mailto:speex-dev-bounces at xiph.org] On Behalf Of speex-dev-request at xiph.org Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 12:00 PM To: speex-dev at xiph.org Subject: Speex-dev Digest, Vol 49, Issue 6 Send Speex-dev mailing list