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.
Recent Posts
12
FLAC / Re: FLAC v1.4.x Performance Tests
Last post by ktf -
I am really just guessing here. The bounds check is indeed per sample, but there are also additional checks for missing blocks and such. Even the per-sample checks can affect the per-frame overhead if the per-frame "loop" no longer fits the branch prediction history.
14
Site Related Discussion / Re: Please remove my account
Last post by 2012 -
Nice complotist vocabulary.

Are you trying to out-drama the OP?

Quote
When some people have a different opinion than yours it's not propaganda, it's just a different opinion.

What do you think propaganda means?

It's just the organized/proselytized form of "different opinion".

It's not even necessarily wrong or evil.

Those who want words like "propaganda" and "agenda" to be automatically negatively-connoted, are the same who want to enjoy a monopoly of their use.
20
FLAC / Re: FLAC v1.4.x Performance Tests
Last post by Porcus -
I think it has to do with the extensive checks that have been added to FLAC 1.4.0 for handling corrupt audio.
Fair enough if so.
(I thought of that possibility, but it didn't strike me as something that should depend on the number of blocks. Like, if you decode something that exceeds 16 bit when it shouldn't, I was thinking that you probably check that per sample. But what do I know.)