Sur d’autres sites (5818)

• Ode to the Gravis Ultrasound

  1er août 2011, par Multimedia Mike — General

  WARNING : This post is a bunch of nostalgia. Feel free to follow along if you recall the DOS days of the early-mid 1990s.

  I finally let go of my Gravis Ultrasound MAX sound card a little while ago. It felt like the end of an era for me, even though I had scarcely used the card in recent memory.

  
  
  

  The Beginning
  What is the Gravis Ultrasound ? Only the finest PC sound card from the classic DOS days. Back in the day (very early 1990s), most consumer PC sound cards were Yamaha OPL FM synthesizers paired with a basic digital to analog converter (DAC). Gravis, a company known for game controllers, dared to break with the dominant paradigm of Sound Blaster clones and create a sound card that had 32 digital channels.
  
  I heard about the GUS sometime in 1992 through one of the dominant online services at the time, Prodigy. Through the message boards, I learned of a promotion with Electronic Arts in which customers could pre-order a GUS at a certain discount along with 2 EA games from a selected catalog (with progressive discounts when ordering more games from the list). I know I got the DOS version of PowerMonger ; I think the other was Night Shift, though that doesn’t seem to be an EA title.

  Anyway, 1992 saw many maddening delays of the GUS hardware. Finally, reports of GUS shipments began to trickle into the Prodigy message forums. Then one day in November, 1992, mine arrived. Into the 286 machine it went and a valiant attempt at software installation was made. A friend and I fought with the software late into the evening, trying to make this thing work reasonably. I remember grabbing a pair of old headphones sitting near the computer that were used for an ancient (even for the time) portable radio. That was the only means of sound reproduction we had available at that moment. And it still sounded incredible.

  After graduating to progressively superior headphones, I would later return to that original pair only to feel my ears were being physically assaulted. Strange, they sounded fine that first night I was trying to make the GUS work. I guess this was my first understanding that the degree to which one is a snobby audiophile is all a matter of hard-earned experience.

  Technology
  The GUS was powered by something called a GF1 which was supposed to use a technology called wavetable synthesis. In the early days, I thought (and I wasn’t alone in this) that this meant that the GF1 chip had a bunch of digitized instrument samples stored in the ASIC. That wasn’t it.

  However, it did feature 32 digital channels at a time when most PC audio cards had 2 (plus that Yamaha FM synthesizer). There was some hemming and hawing about how the original GUS couldn’t drive all 32 channels at a full 44.1 kHz ("CD quality") playback rate. It’s true— if 14 channels were enabled, all could be played at 44.1 kHz. Enabling more channels started progressive degradation and with all 32 channels, each was only playing at around 19 kHz. Still, from my emerging game programmer perspective, that allowed for 8-channel tracker music and 6 channels of sound effects, all at the vaunted CD level of quality.

  Games and Compatibility
  The primary reason to have a discrete sound card was for entertainment applications — ahem, games. GUS support was pretty sketchy out of the gate (ostensibly a major reason for the card’s delay). While many sound cards offered Sound Blaster emulation by basically having the same hardware as Sound Blaster cards, the GUS took a software route towards emulating the SB. To do this required a program called the Sound Blaster Operating System, or SBOS.

  Oh, how awesome it was to hear the program exclaim "SBOS installed !" And how harshly it grated on your nerves after the 200th time hearing it due to so many reboots and fiddling with options to make your games work. Also, I’ve always wondered if there’s something special about sampling an ’s’ sound — does it strain the sampling frequency range ? Perhaps the phrase was sampled at too low a bitrate because the ’s’ sounds didn’t come through very clearly, which is something you notice after hundreds of iterations when there are 3 ’s’ sounds in the phrase.

  Fortunately, SBOS became less relevant with the advent of Mega-Em, a separate emulator which intercepted calls to Roland MIDI systems and routed them to the very capable GUS. Roland-supporting games sounded beautiful.

  Eventually, more and more DOS games were released with native Gravis support, sometimes with the help of The Miles Sound System (from our friends at Rad Game Tools — you know, the people behind Smacker and Bink). The library changelog is quite the trip down PC memory lane.

  An important area where the GUS shined brightly was that of demos and music trackers. The emerging PC demo scene embraced the powerful GUS (aided, no doubt, by Gravis’ sponsorship of the community) and the coolest computer art and music of the time natively supported the card.

  Programming
  At this point in my life, I was a budding programmer in high school and was fairly intent on programming video games. So far, I had figured out how to make a few blips using a borrowed Sound Blaster card. I went to great lengths to learn how to program the Gravis Ultrasound.

  Oh you kids today, with your easy access to information at the tips of your fingers thanks to Google and the broader internet. I had to track down whatever information I could find through a combination of Prodigy message boards and local dialup BBSes and FidoNet message bases. Gravis was initially tight-lipped about programming information for its powerful card, as was de rigueur of hardware companies (something that largely persists to this day). But Gravis eventually saw an opportunity to one-up encumbent Creative Labs and released a full SDK for the Ultrasound. I wanted the SDK badly.

  So it was early-mid 1993. Gravis released an SDK. I heard that it was available on their support BBS. Their BBS with a long distance phone number. If memory serves, the SDK was only in the neighborhood of 1.5 Mbytes. That takes a long time to transfer via a 2400 baud modem at a time when long distance phone charges were still a thing and not insubstantial.

  Luckily, they also put the SDK on something called an ’FTP site’. Fortunately, about this time, I had the opportunity to get some internet access via the local university.

  Indeed, my entire motivation for initially wanting to get on the internet was to obtain special programming information. Is that nerdy enough for you ?

  I see that the GUS SDK is still available via the Gravis FTP site. The file GUSDK222.ZIP is dated 1998 and is less than a megabyte.

  Next Generation : CD Support
  So I had my original GUS by the end of 1992. That was just the first iteration of the Gravis Ultrasound. The next generation was the GUS MAX. When I was ready to get into the CD-ROM era, this was what I wanted in my computer. This is because the GUS MAX had CD-ROM support. This is odd to think about now when all optical drives have SATA interfaces and (P)ATA interfaces before that— what did CD-ROM compatibility mean back then ? I wasn’t quite sure. But in early 1995, I headed over to Computer City (R.I.P.) and bought a new GUS MAX and Sony double-speed CD-ROM drive to install in the family’s PC.

  
  
  

  About the "CD-ROM compatibility" : It seems that there were numerous competing interfaces in the early days of CD-ROM technology. The GUS MAX simply integrated 3 different CD-ROM controllers onto the audio card. This was superfluous to me since the Sony drive came with an appropriate controller card anyway, though I didn’t figure out that the extra controller card was unnecessary until after I installed it. No matter ; computers of the day were rife with expansion ports.

  
  
  The 3 different CD-ROM controllers on the GUS MAX
  

  Explaining The Difference
  It was difficult to explain the difference in quality to those who didn’t really care. Sometime during 1995, I picked up a quasi-promotional CD-ROM called "The Gravis Ultrasound Experience" from Babbage’s computer store (remember when that was a thing ?). As most PC software had been distributed on floppy discs up until this point, this CD-ROM was an embarrassment of riches. Tons of game demos, scene demos, tracker music, and all the latest GUS drivers and support software.

  Further, the CD-ROM had a number of red book CD audio tracks that illustrated the difference between Sound Blaster cards and the GUS. I remember loaning this to a tech-savvy coworker who disbelieved how awesome the GUS was. The coworker took it home, listened to it, and wholly agreed that the GUS audio sounded better than the SB audio in the comparison — and was thoroughly confused because she was hearing this audio emanating from her Sound Blaster. It was the difference between real-time and pre-rendered audio, I suppose, but I failed to convey that message. I imagine the same issue comes up even today regarding real-time video rendering vs., e.g., a pre-rendered HD cinematic posted on YouTube.

  Regrettably, I can’t find that CD-ROM anymore which leads me to believe that the coworker never gave it back. Too bad, because it was quite the treasure trove.

  Aftermath
  According to folklore I’ve heard, Gravis couldn’t keep up as the world changed to Windows and failed to deliver decent drivers. Indeed, I remember trying to keep my GUS in service under Windows 95 well into 1998 but eventually relented and installed some kind of more appropriate sound card that was better supported under Windows.

  Of course, audio output capability has been standard issue for any PC for at least 10 years and many people aren’t even aware that discrete sound cards still exist. Real-time audio rendering has become less essential as full musical tracks can be composed and compressed into PCM format and delivered with the near limitless space afforded by optical storage.

  A few years ago, it was easy to pick up old GUS cards on eBay for cheap. As of this writing, there are only a few and they’re pricy (but perhaps not selling). Maybe I was just viewing during the trough of no value a few years ago.

  Nowadays, of course, anyone interested in studying the old GUS or getting a nostalgia fix need only boot up the always-excellent DOSBox emulator which provides remarkable GUS emulation support.

• Ogg objections

  3 mars 2010, par Mans — Multimedia

  The Ogg container format is being promoted by the Xiph Foundation for use with its Vorbis and Theora codecs. Unfortunately, a number of technical shortcomings in the format render it ill-suited to most, if not all, use cases. This article examines the most severe of these flaws.
  

  Overview of Ogg

  The basic unit in an Ogg stream is the page consisting of a header followed by one or more packets from a single elementary stream. A page can contain up to 255 packets, and a packet can span any number of pages. The following table describes the page header.

  Field	Size (bits)	Description
  capture_pattern	32	magic number “OggS”
  version	8	always zero
  flags	8
  granule_position	64	abstract timestamp
  bitstream_serial_number	32	elementary stream number
  page_sequence_number	32	incremented by 1 each page
  checksum	32	CRC of entire page
  page_segments	8	length of segment_table
  segment_table	variable	list of packet sizes

  Elementary stream types are identified by looking at the payload of the first few pages, which contain any setup data required by the decoders. For full details, see the official format specification.

  Generality

  Ogg, legend tells, was designed to be a general-purpose container format. To most multimedia developers, a general-purpose format is one in which encoded data of any type can be encapsulated with a minimum of effort.

  The Ogg format defined by the specification does not fit this description. For every format one wishes to use with Ogg, a complex mapping must first be defined. This mapping defines how to identify a codec, how to extract setup data, and even how timestamps are to be interpreted. All this is done differently for every codec. To correctly parse an Ogg stream, every such mapping ever defined must be known.

  Under this premise, a centralised repository of codec mappings would seem like a sensible idea, but alas, no such thing exists. It is simply impossible to obtain a exhaustive list of defined mappings, which makes the task of creating a complete implementation somewhat daunting.

  One brave soul, Tobias Waldvogel, created a mapping, OGM, capable of storing any Microsoft AVI compatible codec data in Ogg files. This format saw some use in the wild, but was frowned upon by Xiph, and it was eventually displaced by other formats.

  True generality is evidently not to be found with the Ogg format.

  A good example of a general-purpose format is Matroska. This container can trivially accommodate any codec, all it requires is a unique string to identify the codec. For codecs requiring setup data, a standard location for this is provided in the container. Furthermore, an official list of codec identifiers is maintained, meaning all information required to fully support Matroska files is available from one place.

  Matroska also has probably the greatest advantage of all : it is in active, wide-spread use. Historically, standards derived from existing practice have proven more successful than those created by a design committee.

  Overhead

  When designing a container format, one important consideration is that of overhead, i.e. the extra space required in addition to the elementary stream data being combined. For any given container, the overhead can be divided into a fixed part, independent of the total file size, and a variable part growing with increasing file size. The fixed overhead is not of much concern, its relative contribution being negligible for typical file sizes.

  The variable overhead in the Ogg format comes from the page headers, mostly from the segment_table field. This field uses a most peculiar encoding, somewhat reminiscent of Roman numerals. In Roman times, numbers were written as a sequence of symbols, each representing a value, the combined value being the sum of the constituent values.

  The segment_table field lists the sizes of all packets in the page. Each value in the list is coded as a number of bytes equal to 255 followed by a final byte with a smaller value. The packet size is simply the sum of all these bytes. Any strictly additive encoding, such as this, has the distinct drawback of coded length being linearly proportional to the encoded value. A value of 5000, a reasonable packet size for video of moderate bitrate, requires no less than 20 bytes to encode.

  On top of this we have the 27-byte page header which, although paling in comparison to the packet size encoding, is still much larger than necessary. Starting at the top of the list :

  • The version field could be disposed of, a single-bit marker being adequate to separate this first version from hypothetical future versions. One of the unused positions in the flags field could be used for this purpose
  • A 64-bit granule_position is completely overkill. 32 bits would be more than enough for the vast majority of use cases. In extreme cases, a one-bit flag could be used to signal an extended timestamp field.
  • 32-bit elementary stream number ? Are they anticipating files with four billion elementary streams ? An eight-bit field, if not smaller, would seem more appropriate here.
  • The 32-bit page_sequence_number is inexplicable. The intent is to allow detection of page loss due to transmission errors. ISO MPEG-TS uses a 4-bit counter per 188-byte packet for this purpose, and that format is used where packet loss actually happens, unlike any use of Ogg to date.
  • A mandatory 32-bit checksum is nothing but a waste of space when using a reliable storage/transmission medium. Again, a flag could be used to signal the presence of an optional checksum field.

  With the changes suggested above, the page header would shrink from 27 bytes to 12 bytes in size.

  We thus see that in an Ogg file, the packet size fields alone contribute an overhead of 1/255 or approximately 0.4%. This is a hard lower bound on the overhead, not attainable even in theory. In reality the overhead tends to be closer to 1%.

  Contrast this with the ISO MP4 file format, which can easily achieve an overhead of less than 0.05% with a 1 Mbps elementary stream.

  Latency

  In many applications end-to-end latency is an important factor. Examples include video conferencing, telephony, live sports events, interactive gaming, etc. With the codec layer contributing as little as 10 milliseconds of latency, the amount imposed by the container becomes an important factor.

  Latency in an Ogg-based system is introduced at both the sender and the receiver. Since the page header depends on the entire contents of the page (packet sizes and checksum), a full page of packets must be buffered by the sender before a single bit can be transmitted. This sets a lower bound for the sending latency at the duration of a page.

  On the receiving side, playback cannot commence until packets from all elementary streams are available. Hence, with two streams (audio and video) interleaved at the page level, playback is delayed by at least one page duration (two if checksums are verified).

  Taking both send and receive latencies into account, the minimum end-to-end latency for Ogg is thus twice the duration of a page, triple if strict checksum verification is required. If page durations are variable, the maximum value must be used in order to avoid buffer underflows.

  Minimum latency is clearly achieved by minimising the page duration, which in turn implies sending only one packet per page. This is where the size of the page header becomes important. The header for a single-packet page is 27 + packet_size/255 bytes in size. For a 1 Mbps video stream at 25 fps this gives an overhead of approximately 1%. With a typical audio packet size of 400 bytes, the overhead becomes a staggering 7%. The average overhead for a multiplex of these two streams is 1.4%.

  As it stands, the Ogg format is clearly not a good choice for a low-latency application. The key to low latency is small packets and fine-grained interleaving of streams, and although Ogg can provide both of these, by sending a single packet per page, the price in overhead is simply too high.

  ISO MPEG-PS has an overhead of 9 bytes on most packets (a 5-byte timestamp is added a few times per second), and Microsoft’s ASF has a 12-byte packet header. My suggestions for compacting the Ogg page header would bring it in line with these formats.

  Random access

  Any general-purpose container format needs to allow random access for direct seeking to any given position in the file. Despite this goal being explicitly mentioned in the Ogg specification, the format only allows the most crude of random access methods.

  While many container formats include an index allowing a time to be directly translated into an offset into the file, Ogg has nothing of this kind, the stated rationale for the omission being that this would require a two-pass multiplexing, the second pass creating the index. This is obviously not true ; the index could simply be written at the end of the file. Those objecting that this index would be unavailable in a streaming scenario are forgetting that seeking is impossible there regardless.

  The method for seeking suggested by the Ogg documentation is to perform a binary search on the file, after each file-level seek operation scanning for a page header, extracting the timestamp, and comparing it to the desired position. When the elementary stream encoding allows only certain packets as random access points (video key frames), a second search will have to be performed to locate the entry point closest to the desired time. In a large file (sizes upwards of 10 GB are common), 50 seeks might be required to find the correct position.

  A typical hard drive has an average seek time of roughly 10 ms, giving a total time for the seek operation of around 500 ms, an annoyingly long time. On a slow medium, such as an optical disc or files served over a network, the times are orders of magnitude longer.

  A factor further complicating the seeking process is the possibility of header emulation within the elementary stream data. To safeguard against this, one has to read the entire page and verify the checksum. If the storage medium cannot provide data much faster than during normal playback, this provides yet another substantial delay towards finishing the seeking operation. This too applies to both network delivery and optical discs.

  Although optical disc usage is perhaps in decline today, one should bear in mind that the Ogg format was designed at a time when CDs and DVDs were rapidly gaining ground, and network-based storage is most certainly on the rise.

  The final nail in the coffin of seeking is the codec-dependent timestamp format. At each step in the seeking process, the timestamp parsing specified by the codec mapping corresponding the current page must be invoked. If the mapping is not known, the best one can do is skip pages until one with a known mapping is found. This delays the seeking and complicates the implementation, both bad things.

  Timestamps

  A problem old as multimedia itself is that of synchronising multiple elementary streams (e.g. audio and video) during playback ; badly synchronised A/V is highly unpleasant to view. By the time Ogg was invented, solutions to this problem were long since explored and well-understood. The key to proper synchronisation lies in tagging elementary stream packets with timestamps, packets carrying the same timestamp intended for simultaneous presentation. The concept is as simple as it seems, so it is astonishing to see the amount of complexity with which the Ogg designers managed to imbue it. So bizarre is it, that I have devoted an entire article to the topic, and will not cover it further here.

  Complexity

  Video and audio decoding are time-consuming tasks, so containers should be designed to minimise extra processing required. With the data volumes involved, even an act as simple as copying a packet of compressed data can have a significant impact. Once again, however, Ogg lets us down. Despite the brevity of the specification, the format is remarkably complicated to parse properly.

  The unusual and inefficient encoding of the packet sizes limits the page size to somewhat less than 64 kB. To still allow individual packets larger than this limit, it was decided to allow packets spanning multiple pages, a decision with unfortunate implications. A page-spanning packet as it arrives in the Ogg stream will be discontiguous in memory, a situation most decoders are unable to handle, and reassembly, i.e. copying, is required.

  The knowledgeable reader may at this point remark that the MPEG-TS format also splits packets into pieces requiring reassembly before decoding. There is, however, a significant difference there. MPEG-TS was designed for hardware demultiplexing feeding directly into hardware decoders. In such an implementation the fragmentation is not a problem. Rather, the fine-grained interleaving is a feature allowing smaller on-chip buffers.

  Buffering is also an area in which Ogg suffers. To keep the overhead down, pages must be made as large as practically possible, and page size translates directly into demultiplexer buffer size. Playback of a file with two elementary streams thus requires 128 kB of buffer space. On a modern PC this is perhaps nothing to be concerned about, but in a small embedded system, e.g. a portable media player, it can be relevant.

  In addition to the above, a number of other issues, some of them minor, others more severe, make Ogg processing a painful experience. A selection follows :

  • 32-bit random elementary stream identifiers mean a simple table-lookup cannot be used. Instead the list of streams must be searched for a match. While trivial to do in software, it is still annoying, and a hardware demultiplexer would be significantly more complicated than with a smaller identifier.
  • Semantically ambiguous streams are possible. For example, the continuation flag (bit 1) may conflict with continuation (or lack thereof) implied by the segment table on the preceding page. Such invalid files have been spotted in the wild.
  • Concatenating independent Ogg streams forms a valid stream. While finding a use case for this strange feature is difficult, an implementation must of course be prepared to encounter such streams. Detecting and dealing with these adds pointless complexity.
  • Unusual terminology : inventing new terms for well-known concepts is confusing for the developer trying to understand the format in relation to others. A few examples :
    

    Ogg name	Usual name
    logical bitstream	elementary stream
    grouping	multiplexing
    lacing value	packet size (approximately)
    segment	imaginary element serving no real purpose
    granule position	timestamp

  Final words

  We have found the Ogg format to be a dubious choice in just about every situation. Why then do certain organisations and individuals persist in promoting it with such ferocity ?

  When challenged, three types of reaction are characteristic of the Ogg campaigners.

  On occasion, these people will assume an apologetic tone, explaining how Ogg was only ever designed for simple audio-only streams (ignoring it is as bad for these as for anything), and this is no doubt true. Why then, I ask again, do they continue to tout Ogg as the one-size-fits-all solution they already admitted it is not ?

  More commonly, the Ogg proponents will respond with hand-waving arguments best summarised as Ogg isn’t bad, it’s just different. My reply to this assertion is twofold :

  • Being too different is bad. We live in a world where multimedia files come in many varieties, and a decent media player will need to handle the majority of them. Fortunately, most multimedia file formats share some basic traits, and they can easily be processed in the same general framework, the specifics being taken care of at the input stage. A format deviating too far from the standard model becomes problematic.
  • Ogg is bad. When every angle of examination reveals serious flaws, bad is the only fitting description.

  The third reaction bypasses all technical analysis : Ogg is patent-free, a claim I am not qualified to directly discuss. Assuming it is true, it still does not alter the fact that Ogg is a bad format. Being free from patents does not magically make Ogg a good choice as file format. If all the standard formats are indeed covered by patents, the only proper solution is to design a new, good format which is not, this time hopefully avoiding the old mistakes.

• tools/target_swr_fuzzer : do not use negative numbers of samples

  30 novembre 2024, par Michael Niedermayer

  tools/target_swr_fuzzer : do not use negative numbers of samples
  Fixes : signed integer overflow : -277109688 * 8 cannot be represented in type 'int'
  
  Fixes : 376118159/clusterfuzz-testcase-minimized-ffmpeg_SWR_fuzzer-5884436320681984
  Found-by : continuous fuzzing process https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/tree/master/projects/ffmpeg
  
  Signed-off-by : Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
  

  • [DH] tools/target_swr_fuzzer.c