Hello
i have the problem about the look up table using in the FAAD2.27 decoder
at this "static const complex_t Phi_Fract_SubQmf34[]" table
above this table ,the formula is
/* RE(Phi_Fract_SubQmf34[j]) = (float)cos(M_PI*f_center_34[j]*0.39); */
/* IM(Phi_Fract_SubQmf34[j]) = (float)sin(M_PI*f_center_34[j]*0.39); */

static const complex_t Phi_Fract_SubQmf34[] = {
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.3387379348), FRAC_CONST(0.9408807755) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.3387379348), FRAC_CONST(0.9408807755) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.3387379348), FRAC_CONST(0.9408807755) },
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(-0.7705132365), FRAC_CONST(0.6374239922) },
{ FRAC_CONST(-0.7705132365), FRAC_CONST(0.6374239922) },
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(1.0000000000), FRAC_CONST(0.0000000000) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.3387379348), FRAC_CONST(0.9408807755) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.3387379348), FRAC_CONST(0.9408807755) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.3387379348), FRAC_CONST(0.9408807755) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.3387379348), FRAC_CONST(0.9408807755) },
{ FRAC_CONST(-0.7705132365), FRAC_CONST(0.6374239922) },
{ FRAC_CONST(-0.7705132365), FRAC_CONST(0.6374239922) },
{ FRAC_CONST(-0.8607420325), FRAC_CONST(-0.5090414286) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.3387379348), FRAC_CONST(0.9408807755) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.1873813123), FRAC_CONST(-0.9822872281) },
{ FRAC_CONST(-0.7705132365), FRAC_CONST(0.6374239922) },
{ FRAC_CONST(-0.8607420325), FRAC_CONST(-0.5090414286) },
{ FRAC_CONST(-0.8607420325), FRAC_CONST(-0.5090414286) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.1873813123), FRAC_CONST(-0.9822872281) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.1873813123), FRAC_CONST(-0.9822872281) },
{ FRAC_CONST(0.9876883626), FRAC_CONST(-0.1564344615) },
{ FRAC_CONST(-0.8607420325), FRAC_CONST(-0.5090414286) }
};

but i can't understand the value at this table.
does anyone can explain this table?thanks

in my opinion, i think the table may be like the table below

because of the f_center_34 table
float f_center_34[32] = {
1/12, 3/12, 5/12, 7/12,
9/12, 11/12, 13/12, 15/12,
17/12, -5/12, -3/12, -1/12,
17/8, 19/8, 5/8, 7/8,
9/8, 11/8, 13/8, 15/8,
9/4, 11/4, 13/4, 7/4,
17/4, 11/4, 13/4, 15/4,
17/4, 19/4, 21/4, 15/4
};

and we can get the value from the fomula
/* RE(Phi_Fract_SubQmf34[j]) = (float)cos(M_PI*f_center_34[j]*0.39); */
/* IM(Phi_Fract_SubQmf34[j]) = (float)sin(M_PI*f_center_34[j]*0.39); */

complex_t __AACDec_Phi_Fract_SubQmf34[] = {
{FRAC_CONST(0.99479214176202) ,FRAC_CONST(0.10192445579215) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.95345417232164) ,FRAC_CONST(0.30153795993615) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.87249600707993) ,FRAC_CONST(0.48862124148422) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.75528181229857) ,FRAC_CONST(0.65540017089637) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.60668235102288) ,FRAC_CONST(0.79494435337158) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.43287258154935) ,FRAC_CONST(0.90145511709835) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.24107506086986) ,FRAC_CONST(0.9705064734594) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.039259815802809) ,FRAC_CONST(0.999229036239) },
{FRAC_CONST(-0.16418684651993) ,FRAC_CONST(0.98642925718464) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.87249600707993) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.48862124148422)},
{FRAC_CONST(0.95345417232164) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.30153795993615)},
{FRAC_CONST(0.99479214176202) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.10192445579215)},
{FRAC_CONST(-0.85873639428512) ,FRAC_CONST(0.51241760813832) },
{FRAC_CONST(-0.97327915824898) ,FRAC_CONST(0.2296250859949) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.72085359671809) ,FRAC_CONST(0.69308736252986) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.47830872006914) ,FRAC_CONST(0.8781917605545) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.19123729289741) ,FRAC_CONST(0.9815438338685) },
{FRAC_CONST(-0.11363673043608) ,FRAC_CONST(0.9935223668825) },
{FRAC_CONST(-0.40793212242395) ,FRAC_CONST(0.91301225812948) },
{FRAC_CONST(-0.6642524378622) ,FRAC_CONST(0.74750832690621) },
{FRAC_CONST(-0.92685659561054) ,FRAC_CONST(0.37541557129831) },
{FRAC_CONST(-0.97417338699159) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.22580126677529)},
{FRAC_CONST(-0.66718276698938) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.74489405651569)},
{FRAC_CONST(-0.54244153661163) ,FRAC_CONST(0.84009355393218) },
{FRAC_CONST(0.47485638973961) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.88006329836181)},
{FRAC_CONST(-0.97417338699159) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.22580126677529)},
{FRAC_CONST(-0.66718276698938) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.74489405651569)},
{FRAC_CONST(-0.11753739758825) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.99306845693949)},
{FRAC_CONST(0.47485638973961) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.88006329836181)},
{FRAC_CONST(0.89454463976367) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.44697862081992)},
{FRAC_CONST(0.98888649877184) ,FRAC_CONST(0.14867243371512) },
{FRAC_CONST(-0.11753739758825) ,FRAC_CONST(-0.99306845693949)}
};

In the sbr+ps comformance testing , the different tables cause the result is almost the same.
but i can't understand why? does anyone know the reason? thank you so much.