similar to: RTP Payload Format for the Speex Codec

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>

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

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)

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) =

Congrats to the team for 0.10.0. It sounds really good in the tests I've done so far. I'm really looking forward to the 1.0 release. One question though: could you explain briefly the difference between VBR and unconstrained VBR? And, in my case, the $64K question: is there any situation where CELT could produce more data than specified by nbCompressedBytes when encoding? Thanks

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 The inline assembly parts of my aarch64 patch set can thus be considered withdrawn.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

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

Thanks for the confirmation Jean-Marc. I kind of suspected from the comments that it was the confluent hypergoemetric function, which I was trying to evaluate using Kummer's equation, namely: M(a;b;x) is the sum from n=0 to infinity of (a)n*x^n / (b)n*n! where (a)n = a(a+1)(a+2) ... (a+n-1) But when I use Kummer's equation, I don't get the values in the "hypergeom_gain"

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

> 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

Hi JM, When porting my project to the Mac, I found that the definition for "celt_int16" and "celt_uint16" are wrong for the MacOS X Framework in celt_types.h, and need to be changed to "int16_t" and "u_int16_t" respectively. Just thought you ought to know. John Ridges

Hi Jean-Marc, I could be way off base here, but it seems to me that line 115 in pitch.c in the function "pitch_downsample": x_lp[i] = SHR32(HALF32(HALF32(x[1][(2*i-1)]+x[1][(2*i+1)])+x[1][2*i]), SIG_SHIFT+2); should actually be: x_lp[i] += SHR32(HALF32(HALF32(x[1][(2*i-1)]+x[1][(2*i+1)])+x[1][2*i]), SIG_SHIFT+2); Sorry if I'm totally misreading things and just

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 Jean-Marc, I'd just like to put in a vote that I wish you'd left in the high-complexity mode in CELT (with the assumption that it could be conditionally compiled out for the IETF standard codec). It seems like it makes it a more useful standalone codec in Xiph's arsenal, and from my own viewpoint I'm uncertain I'll be able to use the SILK codec because of the patent

Something looks odd without your values (or the doc) because hypergeom_gain() should really approach 1 as x goes to infinity. But in the end, an approximation is probably OK because denoising is anything but an exact science :-) Jean-Marc Quoting John Ridges <jridges at masque.com>: > By my reckoning the confluent hypergoemetric functions should have the > following values: >

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

It's been a while since I did the maths. M(-.5;1;-x) optimises something else, though it's not too far. I think it may be [M(-.25;1;-x)]^2 (or is it the sqrt?) that is supposed to be there. In any case, if there's a mismatch between the doc and the code, the code is the one likely to be correct. Jean-Marc John Ridges a ?crit : > I got the approximation from a Google book: >

Hi ? I used this "sample counting " method to?resample and put my audio signals in synch. It worked perfectly?in XP machines using a SoundMax?audio card, but it failed in other XPs using Realtek cards. As seen on http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/2008-September/006889.html?my application?continously checked my AEC level to slighly modify resample frequency, but convergence was

Hi Jean-Marc, I was just wondering if maybe you would consider a "blog-like" text file in the codebase where you just jot down your thoughts about why you are making a change, and where you think you are headed. For example, I noticed today that you completely removed the pitch prediction code. It would be nice to know if you did that because you're moving away from using it as

One other minor thing: I notice that in the inline assembly the result (rd) is constrained as an earlyclobber operand. What was the reason for that?