From bill%solaria@hac2arpa.hac.com Tue Jun 22 19:26:36 1993
Return-Path: <bill%solaria@hac2arpa.hac.com>
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

