jack at atosc.org
Thu May 17 04:29:38 PDT 2007
On Thu, 17 May 2007, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
>>> Consider a device that only has enough ROM to store one set of
>>> quantization tables (the limitation could also be about speed, network,
>>> ...). If you specify MUST be able to decode, then it means that this
>>> device simply *cannot* implement the spec *at all*. This is bad for
>> For me: device which don't have all mode implemented are already banned:
>> the SDP offer/answer model is based on codec and parameter *proposal*:
>> still the sender is *allowed* to not send the given mode. That said, UA
>> that don't support all modes are already not capable of
>> interoperability: they will receive sometimes modes that they do not
>> proposed and do not support.
> The same reasoning could apply to other codecs as well: if a client
> doesn't support G.729, you can't say it's broken if someone unexpectedly
> start sending that. Of course, in the case of Speex, we try and do our
I'm not talking about codec proposal: you cannot send G729 to a UA that
didn't offered it. While you can send packetisation interval of 30ms even
if the UA offered that he wish to receive 20ms.
I think anyway, that adding "mode=any" is fixing the mode issue, so it's
now possible to specify that you don't support some of the modes.
>> One possible way would be to use "mode=any" to clearly indicate that the
>> UA support any modes. The prefered mode could be specified by order of
>> preference: "mode=5;mode=any". Other "limited device" would announce all
>> modes supported: "mode=5;mode=3;mode=1"
> Yes, I agree with that.
>> Samples for SDP negotiation must clearly indicates this behaviour:
>> m=audio 8088 RTP/AVP 97
>> a=rtpmap:97 speex/8000
>> -> equivalent to "mode=any" (for smooth evolution of current
> Shouldn't clients have at least a preferred mode? Otherwise, if everyone
> says "any", which bit-rate do you choose?
But I gave you example in previous mail! Clients that support any mode and
prefer "mode=4" would say:
>> The above would make sense and compliant application would
>> be interoperable? right?
> I think so.
>> That would be perfect for me, and I guess would be fine for you?
> Yes, I think it's the best compromise -- and actually not very far from
> what we have now. I would still keep the thing that says 8 kbps SHOULD
> be supported. Or maybe we can say "all modes SHOULD be supported and if
> it's not possible, then at least 8 kbps (mode 3) SHOULD be supported".
I think this is close to be equivalent anyway.
>>>> The other way would be to make it transparent like g279.
>>> Not sure what kind of transparence you mean? The Speex decoder (unless
>>> you remove some tables) is able to decode anything without even knowing
>>> how it was encoded.
>> Except for limited device which are not capable of decoding the "mode"
>> that were removed from code ;)
>> If I understood well the speex stuff: a decoder without wideband
>> implementation would be capable of locating the narrowband part
>> of the speex bitstream and return at least narrowband in audio? right?
> Actually, if you give wideband data to a narrowband decoder, it will
> decode it as narrowband without even *realising* it's wideband (the
> wideband bits are transparently ignored).
>> Is this possible? (I guess it's not that complex):
>> --->wideband data --> NARROW BAND DECODER --> narrow band decoded audio!
> yes, that's possible.
>> This does not seems possible:
>> --->mode=4 nband data --> LIMITED DEVICE ---> correct nband data
>> WITH MODE=3 ONLY
> That's not possible.
>>> If all you mean is "do your best to decode anything you get no matter
>>> how different it is from what you asked for", then I agree.
>> This has to be at least of recommendation so people are aware that speex
>> implementation allow this behavior: it was unclear to people that they
>> don't need to set option before starting decode process. Because they
>> get a lot of decode failure before, I think speex users are more prepared
>> now. Anyway, it's good to inform people.
> What do you mean by "they get a lot of decode failure"?
Just that implementation was full of bugs.
>> Sometimes, draft are providing some C code: I would love to see some kind
>> of annex with a sample routine to decode speex data.
>> Something like: static void dec_process(MSFilter *f)
>> I'm not sure of my implementation (mainly I have a strange behavior of
> I'm not really sure I understand your code, but it looks much more
> complicated than it should be. Normally, the decode code should look like:
> speex_bits_read_from(&bits, packet, length);
> while (1)
> err = speex_decode_int(state, bits, out_buffer);
> if (err != 0)
> if (err == -2)
> ms_warning("there was an error decoding");
> I see from your code that you use speex_bits_remaining(&bits) but I
> can't really understand why. Could you explain?
I don't know......
I think that when I implemented this, that helped me to get out the loop.
It seems that in your code you call "speex_decode_int" one more time
than me: I tried to call it only when "speex_decode_int" will succeed
because I though it was bad to call it when there was no data any more.
It seems I was wrong... Anyway: it's working fine...
Would you mind if I rewrite the draft myself with the idea we discussed?
Do you have the xml version?
More information about the Speex-dev