[Matroska-devel] Opus in Matroksa Cont.

[Timothy B. Terriberry]

Cross-posting to codec: N.B. that 
<http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html> applies to replies there.

Moritz Bunkus wrote:
> an audio packet corresponds to a video packet with timestamp 0. It also
> seems not so say what Opus needs it to say: that a number of samples
> have to be dropped because they're simply invalid.

Quoting from the first paragraph of Section 4.1: "Therefore, the first 
few samples produced by the decoder do not correspond to real input 
audio, but are instead composed of padding inserted by the encoder to 
compensate for this latency."

What do you think the text should say to make it clearer that "a number 
of samples have to be dropped because they're simply invalid"?