Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder! (Read 4157 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #26 –
You want it, you do it.  It should be clear by now nobody else is interested.
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #27 –
Quote from: fooball on
You want it, you do it.  It should be clear by now nobody else is interested.
"you do it" - IT'S VERY HARD TO DO IF YOU DON'T KNOW C/C++/C# OR OTHER HARD PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES.

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #28 –
Last time, ask actual ACELP.KELVIN vendor, (not here, not FFmpeg, but actual company responsible for encoder).

Do you have binary encoder and/or binary decoder and audio files? If not, than you are out of lack creating anything sensible.
Please remove my account from this forum.

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #29 –
Quote from: mycroft on
Last time, ask actual ACELP.KELVIN vendor, (not here, not FFmpeg, but actual company responsible for encoder).

Do you have binary encoder and/or binary decoder and audio files? If not, than you are out of lack creating anything sensible.
"Last time, ask actual ACELP.KELVIN vendor, (not here, not FFmpeg, but actual company responsible for encoder)." - SEARCHED "ACELP.KELVIN", BUT LITTLE TO NO LUCK!!!!!!! :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X. FFMPEG ONLY DECODES ACELP.KELVIN FILES! THERE'S NO ENCODER. I WANT A ENCODER.
Here's a SAMPLE FILE:

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #30 –
Yeah, so utterly important that you want it only if you can have it for $0 (not counting the efforts of others).
ARE YOU EVEN WILLING TO PAY YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY?!?!!

To the matter, it seems to have been created by Sipro, and Sipro seems to have been acquired by Voiceage, and Voiceage seems not to have offered it when they started touting their ACELPs, and you can go back on the Wayback Machine and look further. Maybe if you ask them - in a less spammish way, can I suggest? - to have a .kelvin encoder to satifsy your personal curiosity, you might have better chances than just howling out repeatedly that someone else shall fix it for you.

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #31 –
It looks like g729 with possible only minor modifications. I think asterisk project on github have support for encoding it, if you do minor modifications to asterisk code... (by looking at ffmpeg decoder)
Please remove my account from this forum.
 

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #32 –
I think the only difference is that it doesn't compress silence, but removes it altogether from stream. IIRC.
TAPE LOADING ERROR

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #34 –
Why do you need the encoder? It's just G.729 with an extra header byte for the channel number. If you want to know what it sounds like, you could use any G.729 encoder.

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Octocontrabass on
Why do you need the encoder? It's just G.729 with an extra header byte for the channel number. If you want to know what it sounds like, you could use any G.729 encoder.
ACELP.KELVIN is cloaked at 8.718kbps but G.729 is cloaked at 8kbps. ACELP.KELVIN is ~10% larger than G.729!

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #36 –
Quote from: MihaiPopa12346 on
ACELP.KELVIN is cloaked at 8.718kbps but G.729 is cloaked at 8kbps. ACELP.KELVIN is ~10% larger than G.729!
That's because each G.729 packet is only 10 bytes. Adding the extra header byte to each packet is a ~10% increase in bitrate, but the extra header byte has no effect on the audio quality.

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Octocontrabass on
Quote from: MihaiPopa12346 on
ACELP.KELVIN is cloaked at 8.718kbps but G.729 is cloaked at 8kbps. ACELP.KELVIN is ~10% larger than G.729!
That's because each G.729 packet is only 10 bytes. Adding the extra header byte to each packet is a ~10% increase in bitrate, but the extra header byte has no effect on the audio quality.
You should code a encoder from PCM WAV to ACELP.KELVIN because that's like G.729 but also supports stereo and compile to EXE that works with Windows 7. Post also the source code (as a ZIP file).

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #38 –
Come on, just block him. It's obvious he's just trolling...

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #40 –
Merge it with the other - or maybe kill that one. Because this thread is more informative - here one can find a why don't you use G.729 instead.
If you need it at all, or just are of the kind who insists that everyone should spend their time on any and every idea you may come up with.

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #41 –
i must also add that that one signature is actually rather misleading.
"creating a ACELP.KELVIN encoder" suggests some semblance of progress on how you're going to achieve that, but as the linked thread can attest to, it turned out to be anything but!
and the user that made this thread knows perfectly why that is the case; that is called "baiting". i am 100% familiar with such a technique. i've lived it.

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #43 –
Wait, I got curious.
@MihaiPopa12346 , why do you need that specific codec?
TAPE LOADING ERROR

Re: No ACELP.KELVIN encoder!

Reply #44 –
The specific requirements read quite like a class assignment.