similar to: Average Bit Rate in UWB mode question

Hi all, One question that I hope someone on the list just knows the answer to without having to delve too deeply into the code: How does UWB mode divvy up the bandwidth and pack it in the bitstream? I know from the documentation that WB mode codes the first 0-4K kHz band as a Narrowband packet, and then adds on the 4-8 kHz band coded separately (so that a NB decoder can decode a WB bitstream

Speex tells me that the decoder is always 5 ms, but it says that the encoder is 5 ms for NB, 8.9375 ms for WB, and 10.90625 ms for UWB. Is there an extra frame of delay in the encoder that isn't otherwise accounted for? John Ridges Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > Quoting John Ridges <jridges at masque.com>: > >> I also need to know the precise delays from Speex but I used

Quoting John Ridges <jridges at masque.com>: > Speex tells me that the decoder is always 5 ms, but it says that the > encoder is 5 ms for NB, 8.9375 ms for WB, and 10.90625 ms for UWB. Is > there an extra frame of delay in the encoder that isn't otherwise > accounted for? Oh, delay = frame_size + lookahead If you have a frame size of 20 ms, then there's no choice but

JM, I also need to know the precise delays from Speex but I used the SPEEX_GET_LOOKAHEAD control requests to determine them (plus the "speex_resampler_get_output_latency" function from the resampler). The returned values from the Speex lookahead request don't seem to match with the values you gave Alexander. Am I doing this wrong? Thanks, John Ridges speex-dev-request at

Hi, I'm having a bit of trouble with the ABR. I'm a developer of Mumble, a voicechat application for gamers, and up to now we've just used VBR quality to determine the bitrate. In an effort to make the resource requirements a little more determinable (and limitable) for hosting, I tried switching to ABR, as there doesn't seem to be a way to determine the absolute peak

Quoting John Ridges <jridges at masque.com>: > I also need to know the precise delays from Speex but I used the > SPEEX_GET_LOOKAHEAD control requests to determine them (plus the > "speex_resampler_get_output_latency" function from the resampler). The > returned values from the Speex lookahead request don't seem to match > with the values you gave Alexander. Am I

Hi Jean-Marc, Hi Jim, I have also seen some problems with the 1.1.8 release on the C55x. So far I have boiled down the issues to the following: 1) We need our own "fixed_xx.h" header file. I don't know why, and haven't had time to investigate, but there is a definite improvement when I use the attached fixed_c55x.h file which has turned all the maths into inline functions.

Hi Jean Marc and List, So I have started finally fiddling around with Ultra-wideband mode. It appears to be very similar in operation to Wide mode, except that when peering into the packet structure it looks like (and these are kind of questions as much as statements here): 1. update rate 0 is not used in UWB- only 1-4? 2. The total bits used for each UWB update rate seem to be as follows:

I?ve tried adding support for OPUS_FAST_INT64 to celt/arch.h, and I?ve found that this is indeed comparable in speed, if not a touch faster, than my inline assembly. I?ll submit patches for this. The inline assembly parts of my aarch64 patch set can thus be considered withdrawn. I haven?t yet tried replacing SIG2WORD16 (or silk_ADD_SAT32/silk_SUB_SAT32) with Neon intrinsics. That?s an obvious

Thanks, I look forward to seeing what you find out. BTW, I was wondering if you tried replacing the SIG2WORD16 macro using the vqmovns_s32 intrinsic? I'm sure it would be faster than the C code, but in the grand scheme of things it might not make much difference. On 11/13/2015 12:15 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote: >> On Nov 13, 2015, at 1:51 PM, John Ridges <jridges at masque.com>

I got the approximation from a Google book: http://books.google.com/books?id=2CAqsF-RebgC&pg=PA385 Page 392, formula (10.33) Using this formula, you're right, hypergeom_gain() would *not* converge to 1 for large x, but would instead be gamma(1.25)/sqrt(sqrt(x)) which would approach zero. Now if the formula for the hypergeometric gain were instead gamma(1.5) * M(-.5;1;-x) / sqrt(x)

Hi, So I got a crash on the following code: k1=SUBMODE(lpc_enh_k1); k2=SUBMODE(lpc_enh_k2); which in the newer codebase is: bw_lpc(SUBMODE(lpc_enh_k1), st->interp_qlpc, awk1, st->lpcSize); bw_lpc(SUBMODE(lpc_enh_k2), st->interp_qlpc, awk2, st->lpcSize); I am not sure if the newer code will have the same issue but the following check is

By my reckoning the confluent hypergoemetric functions should have the following values: M(-.25;1;-.5) = 1.11433 M(-.25;1;-1) = 1.21088 M(-.25;1;-1.5) = 1.29385 M(-.25;1;-2) = 1.36627 M(-.25;1;-2.5) = 1.43038 M(-.25;1;-3) = 1.48784 M(-.25;1;-3.5) = 1.53988 M(-.25;1;-4) = 1.58747 M(-.25;1;-4.5) = 1.63134 M(-.25;1;-5) = 1.67206 M(-.25;1;-5.5) = 1.71009 M(-.25;1;-6) = 1.74579 M(-.25;1;-6.5) =

Hello I just wrote a little application using speex. I am compressing and packing singel frames to transmit them. Now I read in the manual, that it's possible to achieve higher bit rates by packing more than one frames at once. Unfortunately there is no table included at the manual, that shows the "real" bitrates of ultra wide band mode. So my question is: Can someone provide that

Hi Jonathan, I'm sorry to bring this up again, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I was very surprised by your benchmarks so I took a little closer look. I think what's happening is that it's a little unfair to compare the ARM64 inline assembly to the C code, because looking at the C macros in "fixed_generic.h" for MULT16_32_Q16 and MULT16_32_Q15 you find

Oops... You've just found a bug. Seems like you're the first one to use that call. Anyway, it's now fixed in CVS (both trunk and 1.0.x branch). Thanks for the bug report. Jean-Marc Le mar 03/06/2003 à 01:16, Christian Buchner a écrit : > Hi there. > > I am having a little trouble understanding the frame sizes chosen > by the codec. > > testenc_uwb.c from

> Oops... You've just found a bug. Seems like you're the first one to use > that call. Anyway, it's now fixed in CVS (both trunk and 1.0.x branch). > Thanks for the bug report. Hmm, the call to speex_encode_stereo() takes the frame size as an an argument - and this call generates bits ;) So possibly my bitrate table shows wrong values in the stereo cases. Hmm... Where would

On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:04 PM, John Ridges <jridges at masque.com<mailto:jridges at masque.com>> wrote: Hi Jonathan. I really, really hate to bring this up this late in the game, but I just noticed that your NEON code doesn't use any of the "high" intrinsics for ARM64, e.g. instead of: int32x4_t coef1 = vmovl_s16(vget_high_s16(coef16)); you could use: int32x4_t coef1

Hi All, Regarding cycle measurements for ARM/NEON, ARM no longer provide cycle accurate simulators. The method we use is to to make measurements on hardware via the PMU unit on the core itself. Note that if your running under Linux you may be 'allowed' to access the PMU directly but can access via it system calls. Typically you will need to make a series of measurements and average them.

> On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:47 PM, John Ridges <jridges at masque.com> wrote: > > Any speedup from the intrinsics may just be swamped by the rest of the encode/decode process. But I think you really want SIG2WORD16 to be (vqmovns_s32(PSHR32((x), SIG_SHIFT))) Yes, you?re right. I forgot to run the vectors under qemu with my previous version (oh, the embarrassment!) Fixed forthcoming