Hi,
Here are my comments to your responses to my editorial comments. As
before, I removed sections that do not seem to need further comment.
Thanks!
Ben.
On 11 Dec 2015, at 16:16, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
[...]
Editorial
=========
[...]
- 5, steps 2 and 3:
These steps in combination seem to say “ decode at the highest
available
supported rate that the hardware can handle.” If so, the wording
could
be simplified.
It is a little bit more complicated. There are two rates here: one
used for decoding, and one used for playback. The difference between
steps 2 and 3 is that in step 3, the hardware's highest available
sample rate is not one of the rates supported by Opus decoding. For
example, if the highest available sample rate the hardware can handle
is 32 kHz, then this is not a "supported rate" (i.e., not supported by
Opus decoding), so step 2 does not apply and step 3 does. Step 3 says
to decode at the next highest "supported rate", which would be 48 kHz,
and then resample to a rate the hardware can handle (in this case 32
kHz).
I don't think that's equivalent to your summary of the two steps.
I think I see. The point is that you decode rate still does not match
the hardware rate, thus the resampling? OTOH, I now find myself confused
by "next highest supported rate above this". Does "this" refer to the
"hardware’s highest available sample rate"? So the decode rate is
always equal to or higher than the hardware playback rate?
[...]
-10, last paragraph:
Updates, or extends? If the former, the draft needs an “Updates RFC
5334” field in the initial heading.
I didn't see a response to this one.
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
