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

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

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

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

> 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)

Hello, I understand it would be better to post several messages with separate topics but I hope I don't cause too much mess if I put it all in a single message this time. To be clear, recently I've been testing Opus Tools under Windows and these are my questions/observations. ????#1. To test encoding at low bitrates, I encoded a sine sweep at 12 kbps with Opusenc and then decoded

> 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 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

> 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 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.

Well, you are right :) In fact I've started porting the VM in the spare time and it is working fine. I'm still having some issues to understand the garbage collector, but I'll delve more into it as soon as the other features will be complete Gabriele Il giorno 07/apr/09, alle ore 08:22, someguy ha scritto: > Gabrielle, > > The way I see it, its pretty much the same

On Saturday 04 April 2009 09:20:21 Gabriele Farina wrote: > - generate IR from my complier; > - build a VM that converts at runtime my bytecode to IR and executes it; > > I largely prefer the second option because it would be great if I can > continue to use to old programs without having to recompile them. > > Which approach do you suggest ? are there any alternatives ?

On Apr 4, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Gabriele Farina wrote: > Which approach do you suggest ? are there any alternatives ? My take, do the second one first, gain some experience and have some fun. You can use this to double check the performance and suitability. But mid-term, I'd say, do both. This allows you to compare the performance of each solution against the other, compile time,

On Dec 4, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Thiago Farina wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> Thiago, >> >> The coding standards (which have been finalized and comitted) don't dictate names for local variables. >> > > Do you like the fact that local variables start with capital letter? > Following the same

Hi Jon, I've read your articles about HLVM, and that was one of the reasons that convinced me to try out LLVM. Actually my VM has been implemented in C++, but as long as it is not extremely complex, I might port it to OCaml that sounds more compact for this kind of programs. Did you find any significant performance loss when using OCaml over C++ ? Runtime performance is quite

Hi Mike, thanks for the suggestion. Do you know if there are any articles around that explains how to use LLVM to build a VM that should work like mine ? I've read something around (mostly source code) but a good article/doc will be perfect Gabriele Il giorno 04/apr/09, alle ore 19:23, Mike Stump ha scritto: > On Apr 4, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Gabriele Farina wrote: >> Which

Gabrielle, The way I see it, its pretty much the same thing... Conversion to LLVM-IR of a custom bytecode is the same as conversion to LLVM-IR of a custom language. The syntax of the 'custom language' just happens to be binary bytecode. On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Gabriele Farina <gabriele at sephiroth.it>wrote: > Hi, > > Isn't it intended to explain how to build

Hi everyone, I have profiled Opus on AArch64. I just run opus_demo with some pcm files. Following is time proportion of FFT with different bitrate. Bitrate | Time cost by FFT/iFFT 24kb/s | 15% 48kb/s | 15% 96kb/s | 13% Any comment? I want some data close to real application, any suggestion? Thanks, Phil Wang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

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, I've been using the command line opusenc/opusdec tools for a while now to encode/decode files. The next version of OS X changes a few things, so I was looking to recompile these tools using a version of the OS X SDK > 10.7 (needed for apple's "hardened runtime") but had no luck. How can I compile a static version of opus tools on OS X that doesn't depend on any other