[Vorbis-dev] Re: Streams with block sizes 4096 and 8192

[罗 强]

>> >
>> >If we did remove 8196 (and I'm not saying we would), we _certainly_
>> >wouldn't even consider removing 4096 - that's in wide use, and has
>> >been for some years. Removing it would break a lot of files that users
>> >are happily playing at the moment.
>> >
>> 
>> But I think, in stereo, if 4096 block size supportted, another 3K words(32 bits/word) for workbuffer
>> and another 1K words(32 bits/word or 16 bits/word) for window table, it is a not acceptted in portable
>> audio player. then, I also suggest not supportting 4096 and 8192 block sizes.
>
>As Monty and I said, block size 4096 is used by most encoders (though
>only at some bitrates) for cd-rate audio. So removing that is not
>acceptable for vorbis-compliant decoders.
>
>Monty noted that 8192 is only useful for high-sampling-rate audio
>(such as 96kHz material), and it's reasonable for a portable device to
>not support those files. So a portable could omit the 8192 size.
>
>We're thinking about defining a "portable profile" that limits various
>aspects of the vorbis specification. That 8192 block size would be one
>of the things that wouldn't be required in such a profile, but 4096
>would still be required.
>
>Mike

Thank you and monty for your answers.
Though I still don't want to support these audio files with 4096 
block size, considering SRAM resource, but I am so glad to hear that 
a "portable profile" will be defined in future, and I also have some 
thinking on it:
	1, support of floor type0?  2, limitation of total codebooks size?
	3, limitation on ogg page size(considering CRC checksum)?
jim luo
thx.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: face-3.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis-dev/attachments/20050304/b39bc0d3/face-3.gif