I see a minor issue with a change in the new version -11 of this draft.
This version of the draft changes:
"It is possible to run an Opus decoder at other sampling rates,
but the value in the granule position field always counts samples
assuming a 48 kHz decoding rate ..."
to:
"It is possible to run an Opus decoder at other sampling rates,
but all of them evenly divide 48 kHz. Therefore, the value in the
granule position field always counts samples assuming a 48 kHz
decoding rate ..."
Although the reference decoder can only decode at sampling rates that
evenly divide 48 kHz, this change inaccurately implies that it is not
possible to write an Opus decoder that decodes at another rate. How
about this wording:
It is possible to run an Opus decoder at other sampling rates, but
a sampling rate of 48 kHz is sufficient to capture the full audio
bandwidth of any Opus packet. Therefore, the value in the granule
position field always counts samples assuming a 48 kHz decoding rate
...
- Mark
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
codec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
