similar to: PATCH: WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK is ignored when decoding

This is equivalent and just makes the code shorter. --- src/flac/decode.c | 24 +++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/flac/decode.c b/src/flac/decode.c index fa82c04..98fc430 100644 --- a/src/flac/decode.c +++ b/src/flac/decode.c @@ -333,32 +333,26 @@ FLAC__bool DecoderSession_process(DecoderSession *d) return false; /* set channel

Martin Leese wrote: > Your proposed wording was: > 0000-0111 : (number of independent channels)-1. The channel order > follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations. The assignments are as follows: > > The channel order might not follow SMPTE/ITU-R > recommendations, so this proposed wording > seems misleading to me. But this text describes only those 4 bits in frame header. IMHO

This commit accepts the new default channel masks for 6.1 and 7.1 surround input WAV files, and writes the corresponding masks when decoding to WAV without a channel mask from the metadata block. --- src/flac/decode.c | 5 +++++ src/flac/encode.c | 4 +++- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/flac/decode.c b/src/flac/decode.c index 98fc430..2d1bdd6 100644 ---

Maybe I don't understand you correctly, but 0000 is mono, not undefined. It says: 0000-0111 : (number of independent channels)-1 I agree that the use of WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK should be documented. I can probably take a look at it this week or so, if no one hasn't already? 2015-07-05 13:54 GMT+02:00 lvqcl <lvqcl.mail at gmail.com>: > An issue was raised at < >

On 13-03-01 2:17 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Ralph, looks like there's a missing closing brace there. Do you want to fix > it and resubmit or should I fix it? Sorry about that. Is this one better? -r -------------- next part -------------- commit 93d92eb5e98cacd8cab185a0bfdaafb795b14b22 Author: Ralph Giles <giles at mozilla.com> Date: Thu Jan 17 16:21:45 2013 -0800

An issue was raised at <http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1728923#post1728923> - FLAC uses WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK tag to describe non-standard layout, but it isn't mentioned anywhere in FLAC format. Channel assignment is described at <https://xiph.org/flac/format.html#frame_header>: "Where defined, the channel order follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations."

Martijn van Beurden wrote: > Op 16-07-15 om 17:58 schreef lvqcl: >> But this text describes only those 4 bits in frame header. >> IMHO this sectoin should not describe WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK, >> it should be described somewhere in vorbis comments section. > > I would propose: 0000-0111 : (number of independent channels)-1. > The channel order is defined

I made some changes to the previous patch. I don't know why I originally didn't put the output buffering to piped output too but that is now moved to cover both file and pipe output. Additionally this patch informs the Windows filesystem in advance about the decoded size to eliminate NTFS fragmentation. On 25.9.2014 23:01, Janne Hyv?rinen wrote: > Decoding flac files is also prone

lvqcl wrote: > Martin Leese wrote: >> Note that the channel order may not be defined. > > IMHO it doesn't matter in this place of documentation (which describes > default channel assignments for FLAC). Your proposed wording was: 0000-0111 : (number of independent channels)-1. The channel order follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations. The assignments are as follows: The

It seems that it's possible to make slightly less intrusive patch. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mask_v3.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 711 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac-dev/attachments/20140426/11d64c6f/attachment.obj

On 7/16/15, Martin Leese <martin.leese at stanfordalumni.org> wrote: > Martijn van Beurden wrote: >> I would propose: 0000-0111 : (number of independent channels)-1. >> The channel order is defined through the >> WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK vorbis comment, if defined. If >> no WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK is present, the channel >> order follows

Removed buffer size increase. Only tells the filesize to Windows now. On 26.9.2014 14:08, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Martijn van Beurden wrote: > >> Can you please wrap the setvbuf in _WIN32 IFDEFs too? Currently >> memory usage of FLAC decoding is about 1MB, so this patch is >> increasing memory usage tenfold, also for platforms that do not >> need this. It is a

The commit http://git.xiph.org/?p=flac.git;a=commitdiff;h=99257e177eac96fa41a107b423080232f59ebe45 also requires some changes in write_iff_headers() function: currently flac don't write WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE header if decoder_session->channel_mask is equal to 0, 1 or 3. After the commit 99257e17 flac should do this for channel_mask equal to 0, 4 or 3. The patch fixes this.

lvqcl wrote: ... > From FLAC 1.2.1 documentation: > > 0000-0111 : (number of independent channels)-1. Where defined, the channel > order follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations. The assignments are as follows: > 1 channel: mono > 2 channels: left, right > 3 channels: left, right, center > 4 channels: left, right, back left, back right > 5 channels: left, right, center,

lvqcl wrote: > The commit http://git.xiph.org/?p=flac.git;a=commitdiff;h=99257e177eac96fa41a107b423080232f59ebe45 > also requires some changes in write_iff_headers() function: > > currently flac don't write WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE header if > decoder_session->channel_mask is equal to 0, 1 or 3. > After the commit 99257e17 flac should do this for channel_mask > equal to

lvqcl wrote: > Martin Leese wrote: >> Why place restrictions on which speaker a >> user can use? ... >> Finally to answer your question, for a >> single-channel file, FLAC should accept any >> one of the three masks 0x00000001 (FL), >> 0x00000002 (FR), 0x00000004 (FC), plus any >> one of the 15 other single-bit masks, plus zero. Please note that the

Can you please wrap the setvbuf in _WIN32 IFDEFs too? Currently memory usage of FLAC decoding is about 1MB, so this patch is increasing memory usage tenfold, also for platforms that do not need this. It is a non-problem on my system anyway. Op 26-09-14 om 10:36 schreef Janne Hyv?rinen: > I made some changes to the previous patch. I don't know why I > originally didn't put the

The previous patch was bugged. The output file wasn't truncated to correct size and was a bit off from rounding the WAVE/AIFF header to smallest sector size. And RAW output didn't benefit from the change. And the existing functions didn't need changes as outputfilename was already known. Attached is a fixed and improved version. -------------- next part -------------- diff --git

Sorry for the delay; I have been waiting for SourceForge to come back on-line. lvqcl wrote: > 1) It seems that some programs (eac3to) write the value of > WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK tag with uppercase 'x' (e.g. 0X3) > (see <http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1728852#post1728852>) > > Also, from MediaInfo changelog

Decoding flac files is also prone to producing fragmented files. NTFS has the ability to completely avoid fragmentation if it is told the file size before hand, but that would require using special Windows-only functions. Increasing the write buffer from the default 512 bytes to 10 MB already reduces the problem tremendously. -------------- next part -------------- diff --git