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: FLAC decoder testbench (Read 6500 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: FLAC decoder testbench

Reply #51
I think these edits are in line with the facts?
Yes, that is OK.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: FLAC decoder testbench

Reply #52
Not completely true though, seems that files 26, 27 and 55 differ. (26 and 27 are not bit-identical files, but same size. 55 is different size.)
I should have put forth the point: could one merely test 60 to 63?


Filled in some fields:
* Amarok. I see you have edited that at some point. Anyway, on this computer, it returns silence (not skipping) on the 20-bit file number 37, and then it certainly also does the same on a 20-bit predictor overflow test too.
* mpv and Mplayer based on old ffmpeg fail the last file. Not sure if it was worth mentioning since it is kinda known ... but so I did.
Last two months' worth of foobar2000.org ad revenue has been donated to support war refugees from Ukraine: https://www.foobar2000.org/

Re: FLAC decoder testbench

Reply #53
The silence on 20 bit files would be the same reason that Cog failed those files. Arbitrarily only supporting multiples of 8 bits in the code interfacing libFLAC to the player.

It must be really fun where mishandling libFLAC can result in outright freezes or crashes of the player, or worse, crashing the entire embedded OS.

Re: FLAC decoder testbench

Reply #54
Not completely true though, seems that files 26, 27 and 55 differ. (26 and 27 are not bit-identical files, but same size. 55 is different size.)
I already forgot about those. Yes, there were some minor corrections. See https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/flac-test-files/pull/3 for details.

Quote
I should have put forth the point: could one merely test 60 to 63?
Yes, I don't think the changes to files 26, 27 and 55 should cause any decoder to fail them where they didn't fail before. The reverse is the case though, as explained in the PR linked above, one player complained about this that weren't strictly according to spec.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

 

Re: FLAC decoder testbench

Reply #55
Haha, so someone reads specs with a harsher eye than the reference implementation does?

I did some updates, but in case there is a revision 7 ... volunteers, don't bother to do JRiver yet unless you are a paying user. It is only trialware and I couldn't kick it from my computer altogether, so each user who wants to test it, only has 30 days. Also this computer isn't friends with MediaMonkey anymore it seems.

Added VUPlayer, and also: VUPlayer's audiotester.exe verifies them all except complains "EXTRA SAMPLES" on number 45 (not to whine over people who do a job - but if every track had started with speaking out its number, I would have detected skipping without staring at it. Oh, and I have compared the "gritty" the last four seconds of 44 across players.
Last two months' worth of foobar2000.org ad revenue has been donated to support war refugees from Ukraine: https://www.foobar2000.org/