Speex dev - Dec 2011 - Decoding only a certain frame results in different values than when decoding the entire file

My file is 3 hours long, so decoding takes around 5 minutes on an 
average computer.
That is a bit too long unfortunately...


Am 23.12.2011 20:38, schrieb Steve Checkoway:
> On Dec 23, 2011, at 10:54, Hermann Weber<hermie.weber at gmx.de> 
wrote:
>
>> And how many frames does Speex need to "recover"?
>> Or is that not predictable?
> No idea. My guess is not predictable. You have all of the data, why not
decode it all?
>

When I already decoded something, and the decstate is not erased or 
reset, shouldn't that be sufficient to decode other frames with a good 
quality?

For example, when I have decoded 30 frames without decoding the previous 
frames, the sound quality may not be too good, but afterwards the 
decoder should (in my opinion) be in a "good" state.
But when I decode other frames afterwards, it is as if I did not decode 
anything before...
Can someone explain this?

Does the decoder need to have decoded the adjacent previous frames or is 
it sufficient that the decoder has just decoded anything?

Thank you.
Hermann


Am 23.12.2011 20:49, schrieb Hermann Weber:
> My file is 3 hours long, so decoding takes around 5 minutes on an
> average computer.
> That is a bit too long unfortunately...
>
>
> Am 23.12.2011 20:38, schrieb Steve Checkoway:
>> On Dec 23, 2011, at 10:54, Hermann Weber<hermie.weber at gmx.de> 
wrote:
>>
>>> And how many frames does Speex need to "recover"?
>>> Or is that not predictable?
>> No idea. My guess is not predictable. You have all of the data, why not
decode it all?
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Speex-dev mailing list
> Speex-dev at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/speex-dev
>

Clearly, it must be the previous frames. 

-- 
Steve Checkoway



On Dec 23, 2011, at 14:32, Hermann Weber <hermie.weber at gmx.de> wrote:
> When I already decoded something, and the decstate is not erased or 
> reset, shouldn't that be sufficient to decode other frames with a good 
> quality?
> 
> For example, when I have decoded 30 frames without decoding the previous 
> frames, the sound quality may not be too good, but afterwards the 
> decoder should (in my opinion) be in a "good" state.
> But when I decode other frames afterwards, it is as if I did not decode 
> anything before...
> Can someone explain this?
> 
> Does the decoder need to have decoded the adjacent previous frames or is 
> it sufficient that the decoder has just decoded anything?
> 
> Thank you.
> Hermann
> 
> 
> Am 23.12.2011 20:49, schrieb Hermann Weber:
>> My file is 3 hours long, so decoding takes around 5 minutes on an
>> average computer.
>> That is a bit too long unfortunately...
>> 
>> 
>> Am 23.12.2011 20:38, schrieb Steve Checkoway:
>>> On Dec 23, 2011, at 10:54, Hermann Weber<hermie.weber at
gmx.de>   wrote:
>>> 
>>>> And how many frames does Speex need to "recover"?
>>>> Or is that not predictable?
>>> No idea. My guess is not predictable. You have all of the data, why
not decode it all?
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speex-dev mailing list
>> Speex-dev at xiph.org
>> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/speex-dev
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speex-dev mailing list
> Speex-dev at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/speex-dev
>