similar to: Opus Tools -- low bitrates, new features in 1.5, "expect-loss"

On Aug 07 00:41:52, petrparizek2000 at yahoo.com wrote: > ????#1. To test encoding at low bitrates, I encoded a sine sweep at 12 kbps > with Opusenc and then decoded the resulting file with Opusdec. What sine sweep exactly? How did you obtain it, and how exactly did you encode and decode it? Jan > The strange > thing was that even though the output wave file was at 48 kHz, it

On Aug 07 08:30:31, hans at stare.cz wrote: > On Aug 07 00:41:52, petrparizek2000 at yahoo.com wrote: > > ????#1. To test encoding at low bitrates, I encoded a sine sweep at 12 kbps > > with Opusenc and then decoded the resulting file with Opusdec. > 1) Opusenc --bitrate 12 --downmix-mono Sweep50.wav Sweep50.opus Why are you using a stereo file containing the same sweep in both

> What sine sweep exactly? An exponential sweep. It started slightly below 24 Hz and ended almost at 24 kHz. And it was 50 seconds long. > How did you obtain it, I used Angelo Farina's "Aurora" modules. One of them is called "Generate sine sweep". > and how exactly did you encode and decode it? 1) Opusenc --bitrate 12 --downmix-mono Sweep50.wav

> As the thing is to encode for human ears (AFAIK), I'd say that 4kHz is already "quite high", > and I wonder who can actually hear pure 20kHz sine. If you read the beginning of RFC 6716, you learn that Opus never encodes any frequencies that are higher than 20 kHz. So at some medium or high bitrates, anything above 20 kHz is filtered out, not because of the bitrate but

On Aug 07 10:08:43, petrparizek2000 at yahoo.com wrote: > > What sine sweep exactly? > > An exponential sweep. It started slightly below 24 Hz and ended almost at 24 > kHz. And it was 50 seconds long. > > > How did you obtain it, > > I used Angelo Farina's "Aurora" modules. One of them is called "Generate > sine sweep". Can you please

> To be clear: did you mean the opus output of opusenc > or the wav output of opusdec? I meant during the decoding. There's one significant difference between how Opusdec deals with resampling and how, let's say, MP3 decoders usually deal with resampling. If I make an MP3 at a very low bitrate and if the encoder decides (because it's too low) to internally resample my audio

On Aug 07 22:04:21, petrparizek2000 at yahoo.com wrote: > > The encoded opus file is 48kHz, > > so how would the output wav be resampled from 16kHz? To be clear: did you mean the opus output of opusenc or the wav output of opusdec? > > What are those "clear signs" exactly? > > The things that I can hear while listening at 1/2 or even 1/4 of the > original

> Why are you using a stereo file > containing the same sweep in both channels > and then downmixing to mono? When I first tried encoding at a higher bitrate, I needed to test the different behavior of the "mid" (l+r) and "side" (l-r) channels. That's why I made the first sweep identical on both the left and the right channel (i.e. "side" is silent)

On Aug 09 11:58:33, u.windl at ukr.de wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: opus <opus-bounces at xiph.org> On Behalf Of Jan Stary > > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 12:00 PM > > To: Petr Pa??zek <petrparizek2000 at yahoo.com> > > Cc: opus at xiph.org > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [opus] Re: Opus Tools -- low bitrates, new features in 1.5, > >

> > I am talking about the original sweep. > > The original sweep stops pretty close to 24 kHz. I mean the original sweep _as_encoded_, sorry.

Good morning. I've ran a test against MP3 format. Code: (first convert tested audio file to 16 bit 48khz with sox.exe if needed) lame.exe -b 320 48khzfilein.wav -o fileout.mp3 lame --decode fileout.mp3 -o fileout.mp3.wav opusenc.exe --bitrate 320 48khzfilein.wav fileout.opus opusdec.exe fileout.opus fileout.opus.wav wavdiff.exe 48khzfilein.wav fileout.mp3.wav -diff fileout.mp3.delta.wav

opusdec -V opusdec opus-tools f2a2e88 (using libopus unknown) I've got an opus file encoded from a .wav off a cd, 44100Hz: opusinfo 2-24-Overture_in_C_\(In_Memoriam\).opus Processing file "2-24-Overture_in_C_(In_Memoriam).opus"... New logical stream (#1, serial: 38134f1f): type opus Encoded with libopus unknown User comments section follows... ENCODER=opusenc from opus-tools

Hi! Excuse the delay, but I had to deal with a corrupted NTFS file system that ate many important files on an USB stick... The FLAC version of the original is almost 6MB and it can be downloaded slowly from this time-limited link: https://sbr5vjid0jgmce4q.myfritz.net:40262/nas/filelink.lua?id=0ba5a10529a6fe7b On the meaning of a logarithmic sweep: If you use foobar2000 and the

Jean-Mark sarkasm. Jean-Markasm. (Bonus points for providing an actual noisy WAV! ^_^) On 30/10/2017 20:28, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: Hi, Before I comment on the graphics you posted to visualize the difference between two audio signals, I'd like to ask for your help in evaluating my JPEG encoder. I've encoded an image with JPEG and then computed the difference with the original. I then

I had expected that the default bitrate for the encoder would be the same as setting it to OPUS_AUTO, but I'm getting difference results: >opusenc --comp 4 sample.wav sample.opus Encoding using libopus 1.3-rc2 (audio) ----------------------------------------------------- Input: 8 kHz, 1 channel Output: 1 channel (1 uncoupled) 20ms packets, 25 kbit/s VBR Preskip: 312

Hi, Before I comment on the graphics you posted to visualize the difference between two audio signals, I'd like to ask for your help in evaluating my JPEG encoder. I've encoded an image with JPEG and then computed the difference with the original. I then converted the difference to sound. You can listen to the image difference on this clip: https://jmvalin.ca/misc_stuff/diff.wav Can you

Hi, Seems like it's not linking with libm. I suspect it has to do with linking statically with libopus.a (is that intended?). Maybe opus-tools relies on the fact that libopus is linked with libm and doesn't explicitly add it? Greg? Jean-Marc On 09/24/2013 06:09 AM, bat guano wrote: > Hi > I'm having a problem compiling opus-tools-0.1.7. > Version opus-tools-0.1.6 seems to

Hi everyone, I've made several posts recently about CELT being "replaced" by the Opus codec ( http://opus-codec.org/ ) and I thought it was time to give an update on what's going on. As many of you know, I've been involved at the IETF on this new Opus codec, which essentially merge (a modified version of) Skype's SILK codec with CELT. This is more than just two codecs

Just to be clear, my goal here wasn't to make fun of anyone, but to drive the point that spectrograms should *never* be used to demonstrate quality. The only case where they can sometimes be useful is for diagnostic purposes. If you hear something and you're not sure what you're hearing exactly, then sometimes a spectrogram can help you figure out what it is. That's pretty much it.

Hi I'm having a problem compiling opus-tools-0.1.7. Version opus-tools-0.1.6 seems to compile OK. I've tried with opus-1.0.3 and opus-1.1-beta. The errors are like this:- "undefined reference to `sqrtf'" etc. This OS is Peppermint Three, similar to Ubuntu 12.04. It uses:- gcc --version gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5) 4.6.3 Google says it's maybe something to do