IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Opus 1.1-beta, Officially released
Anakunda
post Dec 4 2013, 10:03
Post #126





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 24-November 08
Member No.: 63072



Thanks jmvalin. is there a measure which justifies which changes in saved range are yet acceptable and which not? It seems that speed optimizations really affect these and now I'm not too sure which degree of optimizations is yet affordable and which not, so that I could make build fully conforming to opus standard.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Case
post Dec 4 2013, 12:05
Post #127





Group: Developer (Donating)
Posts: 2181
Joined: 19-October 01
From: Finland
Member No.: 322



For the record, my GCC compile, which doesn't match jmvalin's range file, was compiled with no manual adjustments. I just ran configure and make in mingw environment.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
eahm
post Dec 4 2013, 16:50
Post #128





Group: Members
Posts: 1035
Joined: 11-February 12
Member No.: 97076



Case, do you have any time to compile rc3? Thanks.


--------------------
/lwAsIimz
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ajaja
post Dec 4 2013, 16:51
Post #129





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 27-November 13
Member No.: 112638



My build was compilied with "-O3 -flto". And it does match jmvalin's range file on Core 2 Duo (WinXP x86) where I built it, but doesn't match on Core i5 (Win7 x64).

Opus v1.1rc3 build for x64 Core i3/i5/i7 (GCC 4.8.2 with "-O3 -flto -march=native -mtune=native") in attachment.

This post has been edited by Ajaja: Dec 4 2013, 16:52
Attached File(s)
Attached File  opus_1.1rc3.rar ( 391.05K ) Number of downloads: 149
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anakunda
post Dec 4 2013, 17:46
Post #130





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 24-November 08
Member No.: 63072



QUOTE (Ajaja @ Dec 4 2013, 16:51) *
Opus v1.1rc3 build for x64 Core i3/i5/i7 (GCC 4.8.2 with "-O3 -flto -march=native -mtune=native") in attachment.

Thank you, this still produces different range from range_working.txt on Quad Core with SSE4.2, I can't compare on old Core2Duo since it's crushing on it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brazil2
post Dec 4 2013, 18:33
Post #131





Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 9-May 10
Member No.: 80499



QUOTE (Ajaja @ Dec 4 2013, 16:51) *
Opus v1.1rc3 build for x64 Core i3/i5/i7 (GCC 4.8.2 with "-O3 -flto -march=native -mtune=native") in attachment.

Thanks, but why x64 only ? Any chance you could build both x86 and x64 versions ?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmvalin
post Dec 4 2013, 19:40
Post #132


Xiph.org Speex developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 475
Joined: 21-August 02
Member No.: 3134



QUOTE (Anakunda @ Dec 4 2013, 04:03) *
Thanks jmvalin. is there a measure which justifies which changes in saved range are yet acceptable and which not? It seems that speed optimizations really affect these and now I'm not too sure which degree of optimizations is yet affordable and which not, so that I could make build fully conforming to opus standard.


The --save-range trick is just a quick way of checking which frames are identical. The range value is simply the final state of the range coder, which acts as a sort of checksum. With float builds, it's normal to not always have identical files due to rounding behaviour. If you look at the broken file I was talking about earlier, the range file also shows that the bitrate suddenly goes very high and when you listen to it, there's loud noise for a while. If you're still able to reproduce that BTW, I'm still interested in finding the cause to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anakunda
post Dec 4 2013, 20:07
Post #133





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 24-November 08
Member No.: 63072



QUOTE (jmvalin @ Dec 4 2013, 19:40) *
If you look at the broken file I was talking about earlier, the range file also shows that the bitrate suddenly goes very high and when you listen to it, there's loud noise for a while.


Strange, if I try now Ajajaj's build on PC with Quad Core and SSE4.2 it produces exactly same range listing like mine build (regardless on bitness version). This points me like both independent builds are working well, but the range report gives unusually high bitrates all the time tho.
This: http://pastebin.com/1a92JaTr
Try if there's still the loud noise, I don't notice it:
Attached File(s)
Attached File  smallProblem.opus ( 159.39K ) Number of downloads: 51
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmvalin
post Dec 4 2013, 20:58
Post #134


Xiph.org Speex developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 475
Joined: 21-August 02
Member No.: 3134



QUOTE (Anakunda @ Dec 4 2013, 14:07) *
QUOTE (jmvalin @ Dec 4 2013, 19:40) *
If you look at the broken file I was talking about earlier, the range file also shows that the bitrate suddenly goes very high and when you listen to it, there's loud noise for a while.


Strange, if I try now Ajajaj's build on PC with Quad Core and SSE4.2 it produces exactly same range listing like mine build (regardless on bitness version). This points me like both independent builds are working well, but the range report gives unusually high bitrates all the time tho.
This: http://pastebin.com/1a92JaTr
Try if there's still the loud noise, I don't notice it:


Looks normal and the bitrate rate appears to be (roughly) in the same range. The previous broken file was encoded with --bitrate 24 and for some frames had really high bitrate.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ajaja
post Dec 4 2013, 20:58
Post #135





Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 27-November 13
Member No.: 112638



QUOTE (Brazil2 @ Dec 4 2013, 19:33) *
Thanks, but why x64 only ? Any chance you could build both x86 and x64 versions ?

i686, mingw-builds GCC 4.8.2, "-O3 -flto"
Attached File(s)
Attached File  opus_1.1rc3_x86.rar ( 314.66K ) Number of downloads: 90
 
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brazil2
post Dec 4 2013, 21:25
Post #136





Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 9-May 10
Member No.: 80499



QUOTE (Ajaja @ Dec 4 2013, 20:58) *
i686, mingw-builds GCC 4.8.2, "-O3 -flto"

Thanks smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anakunda
post Dec 5 2013, 18:15
Post #137





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 24-November 08
Member No.: 63072



Just to mention Opus 1.1 RC3 is officially confirmed to be final version cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zerowalker
post Dec 5 2013, 18:43
Post #138





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 6-August 11
Member No.: 92828



QUOTE (Anakunda @ Dec 5 2013, 18:15) *
Just to mention Opus 1.1 RC3 is officially confirmed to be final version cool.gif


Final Version as in Opus 1.1 RC3 = Opus 1.1 Release Version?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Anakunda
post Dec 5 2013, 18:44
Post #139





Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: 24-November 08
Member No.: 63072



QUOTE (zerowalker @ Dec 5 2013, 18:43) *
Final Version as in Opus 1.1 RC3 = Opus 1.1 Release Version?

yes
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zerowalker
post Dec 8 2013, 18:57
Post #140





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 6-August 11
Member No.: 92828



How am i supposed to build it?
Is there a guide somewhere?

I want to build an x64 version which is optimized for my CPU or something (not sure how these optimization ad compile works).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Dec 8 2013, 20:51
Post #141





Group: Members
Posts: 1540
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=103718

Binaries Opus 1.1 final https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/opu...0.1.8-win32.zip
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zerowalker
post Dec 9 2013, 00:14
Post #142





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 6-August 11
Member No.: 92828



QUOTE (IgorC @ Dec 8 2013, 20:51) *


Thatīs x86 right, would like x64, or perhaps itīs unicode?

And why does it say 0.1.8, what happened to 1.1?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChronoSphere
post Dec 9 2013, 01:00
Post #143





Group: Members
Posts: 461
Joined: 11-March 07
Member No.: 41384



0.1.8 refers to the package (opustools), while 1.1 refers to the opus version included.
x86 and x64 has nothing to do with being unicode, btw.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Dec 9 2013, 09:21
Post #144


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4883
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (zerowalker @ Dec 8 2013, 18:57) *
How am i supposed to build it?
Is there a guide somewhere?

I want to build an x64 version which is optimized for my CPU or something (not sure how these optimization ad compile works).


If you have to ask those questions you should really download a build made by someone who actually knows what he's doing.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brazil2
post Dec 9 2013, 10:19
Post #145





Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 9-May 10
Member No.: 80499



QUOTE (zerowalker @ Dec 9 2013, 00:14) *
Thatīs x86 right, would like x64

Optimized x64 build for Intel i3/i5/i7 available here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=851794
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zerowalker
post Dec 11 2013, 16:29
Post #146





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 6-August 11
Member No.: 92828



QUOTE (Brazil2 @ Dec 9 2013, 10:19) *
QUOTE (zerowalker @ Dec 9 2013, 00:14) *
Thatīs x86 right, would like x64

Optimized x64 build for Intel i3/i5/i7 available here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=851794

It doesnīt lead me to the correct place, as i canīt find any download link there.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zerowalker
post Dec 11 2013, 17:11
Post #147





Group: Members
Posts: 266
Joined: 6-August 11
Member No.: 92828



QUOTE (ChronoSphere @ Dec 9 2013, 01:00) *
0.1.8 refers to the package (opustools), while 1.1 refers to the opus version included.
x86 and x64 has nothing to do with being unicode, btw.


Ah that explains it.

Hmm didnīt unicode mean x64 and x86 compatible?
Though i think there is some text / web encoding by the same name.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zao
post Dec 11 2013, 18:05
Post #148





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 899
Joined: 25-September 03
From: Umeå, Sweden
Member No.: 9001



QUOTE (zerowalker @ Dec 11 2013, 18:11) *
Hmm didnīt unicode mean x64 and x86 compatible?
Though i think there is some text / web encoding by the same name.


Unicode has only ever referred to the big text standardisation and encoding effort.
You may be conflating it with OSX-style "universal binaries" or "fat binaries", which bundle code for more than one architecture into the same executable.


--------------------
Zao shang yong zao nong zao rang zao ren zao.
To, early in the morning, use a chisel to build a bathtub makes impatient people hot-tempered.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th July 2014 - 10:15