[flac-dev] [PATCH] stream_encoder : Improve selection of residual accumulator width
Miroslav Lichvar
mlichvar at redhat.com
Mon Jun 30 02:36:47 PDT 2014
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:27:18AM +0400, lvqcl wrote:
> lvqcl wrote:
> > FLAC 1.2.1 and 1.3.0 cannot encode snippet6.wav with -7 and -8 encoding modes.
> > But they are able to do this with --disable-fixed-subframes option. This
> > implies that snippet6.wav triggers a problem somewthere inside
> > FLAC__fixed_compute_residual(data[], data_len, order, residual[]) function.
Interestingly, -8 -l 0 seems to avoid the encoding problem too.
> > And indeed, max. possible residual value is 16 times bigger than max. value
> > in data[] array:
> >
> > residual[i] = data[i] - 4*data[i-1] + 6*data[i-2] - 4*data[i-3] + data[i-4]
> >
> > 16 == 2^4, so max. bps value for residual[] is equal to max. bps for data[] + 4.
> > The value of FLAC__MAX_EXTRA_RESIDUAL_BPS == 4 is enough to fix this problem
> > with FLAC__fixed_compute_residual().
>
>
> On the other hand, it is possible to set FLAC__MAX_EXTRA_RESIDUAL_BPS
> to 0, and change evaluate_fixed_subframe_() function instead: in the call
> of find_best_partition_order_() function, replace subframe_bps
> with subframe_bps + order.
Adding the extra bits to bps in evaluate_fixed_subframe_ instead of
precompute_partition_info_sums_ is ok with me, that's what I suggested
in the original thread discussing this problem, but I think it should
be done also in the lpc function. Adding order instead of 4 might work
for fixed frames, for LPC it looks too pessimistic.
> ...And maybe it's also better to use 'subframe_bps + order' instead of 'order'
> in calculation of 'estimate' variable in evaluate_fixed_subframe_()?
Why exactly?
To me it looks like (order * subframe_bps) in the calculation is the
number of bits for the warmup samples in the fixed subframe.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
More information about the flac-dev
mailing list