Hey, Maybe you guys remember us, I'm from the Neuros forums. I've got to say, having a player that supports Ogg Vorbis has really turned things around for everybody. We're still struggling with higher bitrate Vorbis streams, but that is only because of our terribly underpowered DSP. Anyway, to the point of my email. Recently the discussion of bitrate peeling has been floating around, and one of our members pointed out this Ogg Traffic: http://www.vorbis.com/ot/20030415.html#id2728830 In that section, it alludes to the fact that there isn't enough development interest or time, and that donations could help encourage the process. So how much do you guys need? We want to raise a bit of money to drop in the bucket, and we'll need to set a goal for that amount. We have an ongoing discussion of this here: http://www.neurosaudio.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4778 I figured $500 may be a good start. Monty or anyone else want to set the bar higher? -Chris Harrington
Hello, We do remember you and I am glad that you are interested in peeling and, once implemented, should make for a great feature. Implementing bitrate peeling requires a lot of work and most likely changes in the encoder. This is not easy and would take time and effort. In terms of money, $500 is, as you said, a "drop in the bucket" and, honestly, about 10% of what might be necessary. That being said, your effort should generate interest and someone might take up the job of doing it. Feel free to post things on the wiki: http://wiki.xiph.org/Bounties and mention the initial donation as the seed. Hoping for a good germination, Manuel> In that section, it alludes to the fact that there isn't enough > development interest or time, and that donations could help encourage > the process. > > So how much do you guys need? > > We want to raise a bit of money to drop in the bucket, and we'll need to > set a goal for that amount. We have an ongoing discussion of this here: > http://www.neurosaudio.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4778 > > I figured $500 may be a good start. Monty or anyone else want to set the > bar higher? >
>Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:49:09 -0700 >From: Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org>>On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 03:41:18PM -0400, Monty wrote: > >> One approach seeks to implement a peeler that will work on any stream. >> I think this approach is perfectly possible. However... >> >> Approach B relies on the encoder pre-structuring a stream to be easy >> to peel. I think this approach is simpler/faster to implement in the >> decoder/splitter, and will result in higher final quality. It will >> require a more complex encoder. > >So, how do you think we should structure the bounty? One for each will >probably just divide the resources. One bounty for either? >>From my reading, there are two solutions that might be solved.A) works on existing streams B) works on new streams only I, for one, am *much* more interested in approach A - I adopted Vorbis assuming this would soon be available. But approach B would be valuable. Why not have two pots of money, since Approach A seems a superset of approach B. Pot one would be for approach A. As an example, say I put $4 in it. Pot two would be for approach B. Suppose I put $a in it. If someone solved A, they are by extension solving B, they get $5 If someone solved B, they would get $1. If, later, someone developed a "re-organizer" for existing streams, such that they could be peeled, they would get the remaining $4. -Ben