WOW..<br> That's precise and crisp.<br><br>Thanks<br>Sumit<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/9/9 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xiphmont@xiph.org">xiphmont@xiph.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Sumit Chatterjee<<a href="mailto:getsumit@gmail.com">getsumit@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi Gregory,<br>
> Very informative explanation. According to your figures, my processor<br>
> stands nowhere close :(<br>
> I have 2Ghz core2, but the time to encode 600-700ms data takes around<br>
> 100ms and mostly more.<br>
> Ofcourse the compilation has been improved to time based optimization.<br>
> i.e. O2<br>
<br>
</div>It requires 100ms because the encoder needs to wait for roughly 100ms<br>
of audio before it can even begin working. The vorbis encoder<br>
requires a long look-ahead and is not designed for low-latency work.<br>
The encoder is not busy, it is waiting for enough input to proceed;<br>
the output will always lag the input by about 100ms.<br>
<br>
If you need lower latency, you will need to use a codec designed for<br>
low-latency operation such as CELT.<br>
<br>
Monty<br>
</blockquote></div><br>