CELT TODO: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
** Include energy shape? | ** Include energy shape? | ||
** Partial remixing of short blocks? | ** Partial remixing of short blocks? | ||
* Dynamic allocation | |||
** Include a way to deviate from the normal bit allocation? | |||
* Better stereo coupling | |||
** Better support for "intensity stereo"? | |||
== Other decisions to make == | == Other decisions to make == | ||
| Line 28: | Line 34: | ||
* Include a configuration packet for more flexibility? (probably not) | * Include a configuration packet for more flexibility? (probably not) | ||
* Use a min width for ebands that's equal to the number of short blocks? | * Use a min width for ebands that's equal to the number of short blocks? | ||
Revision as of 19:44, 14 April 2010
Open issues
- Spreading/folding
- Uniform quantisation
- Control over the amount of spreading/folding introduced
- Make it have the same shape as the rest of the spectrum
- Tuning
- Band layout (spacing)
- Bit allocation
- Main table
- Stereo
- qtheta offset
- fine offset
- Spreading/folding parameter
- Transients
- Energy weighting pre- or post-normalization
- Include energy shape?
- Partial remixing of short blocks?
- Dynamic allocation
- Include a way to deviate from the normal bit allocation?
- Better stereo coupling
- Better support for "intensity stereo"?
Other decisions to make
- Should we use raw bits or now?
- What should we do about remaining bits after the last PVQ?
- more fine energy?
- encode bands backward?
- allow "fractional pulses"
- Include a configuration packet for more flexibility? (probably not)
- Use a min width for ebands that's equal to the number of short blocks?