From bill%solaria@hac2arpa.hac.com Tue Jun 22 19:26:36 1993 Return-Path: Received: from hac2arpa.hac.com by mail.netcom.com (5.65/SMI-4.1/Netcom) id AA29019; Tue, 22 Jun 93 19:26:34 -0700 Received: from solaria ([147.16.24.30]) by hac2arpa.hac.com (4.1/SMI-DDN) id AA17399; Tue, 22 Jun 93 19:28:40 PDT Received: by solaria (5.65c/E50-AUTOMATED-PLANNING) id AA14987; Tue, 22 Jun 1993 19:28:38 -0700 From: bill%solaria@hac2arpa.hac.com (Bill Neisius) Message-Id: <199306230228.AA14987@solaria> Company: Hughes Aircraft; El Segundo, CA 90245 Subject: Re: New SOX release To: thinman@netcom.com (Technically Sweet) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 19:28:36 PDT In-Reply-To: <9306222117.AA12327@netcom3.netcom.com>; from "Technically Sweet" at Jun 22, 93 2:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11] Status: OR > It also tries to tell you what kind of adpcm or u-law > format it is rejecting. Wouldn't it be nice to throw an ADPCM routine into SOX to encode/decode.... > What is the extended block format? If it's documented > somewhere and there are adequate test files I can add it. Here's the format: Block Type 8 - Extended Block byte description ---- ----------- 0 0x08 1-3 Block length (always 4) 4-5 Time constant mono: 65536 - (256000000/sample_rate) stereo: 65536 - (256000000/(2*sample_rate)) 6 pack 0: 8-bit unpacked 1-3: packed 4-10: "n-channel multi" whatever that is... 7 mode 0: mono 1: stereo "Block type 8 always precedes block type 1. When this block is present, the attributes in block type 1 are ignored" Test files? I could generate some if you like... There must be a 16-bit VOC...right? I guess it might be pack type #11... -Bill