Re: [codec] Suggested summary...

Hi Christian,

The wording is fine if everybody agrees that AMR-WB should be the reference
complexity for an internet codec. Why is AMR-WB the anchor? What is then the
complexity of the so called low computational mode? Is it half, one third,
10% of it? I don't see the wording low complexity anymore. This complexity
would be the one of the full codec at all bitrates/bandwidth, correct? I am
also fine with adding lower complexity values for lower sampling frequency
(e.g. 8-16 kHz) as proposed by Raymond as well as taking care of the memory
footprint. 

In some sense, the way proposed by Stephen is fine, "work forward from use
cases and problem statements" to figure out the requirements. In that case,
it would be needed to define where and how this codec is going to be used.
Shouldn't it be in the draft documents you were working on?

Best regards

Herve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Hoene [mailto:hoene@uni-tuebingen.de]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 6:01 PM
> To: 'Herve Taddei'; 'Michael Knappe'; 'stephen botzko'
> Cc: codec@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [codec] Suggested summary...
> 
> Hello Herve,
> 
> If I understand you correctly, you are not suggesting G.722.1 as
reference. You just
> say that AMR-WB is not known as low-complexity.
> 
> So, a better wording would say
> 
> "The IWAC codec MUST be able to operate at a mode that requires less
> computational resources than the AMR-WB codec at 12.65 kbit/s.
> Thus, the complexity of the IWAC codec MUST be less than 38 WMOPS if
> measured with the ITU-T STL2005 BaseOP library."
> 
> Fine?
> 
>  Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herve Taddei [mailto:herve.taddei@huawei.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 3:17 PM
> To: 'Michael Knappe'; 'stephen botzko'; 'Christian Hoene'
> Cc: codec@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [codec] Suggested summary...
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Actually if you ask me to name a low complexity codec (by the way at which
> bandwidth?) I don't think I would name AMR-WB. G.722.1 is a good example
of
> a low complexity codec for WB services.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Herve
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Knappe [mailto:mknappe@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:54 PM
> > To: Herve Taddei; 'stephen botzko'; 'Christian Hoene'
> > Cc: codec@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [codec] Suggested summary...
> >
> > On codec complexity benchmarking, there is certainly industry precedence
> for
> > using an existing codec as a rough relative complexity guide (G.729A
comes
> to
> > mind for narrowband codec comparisons), but some form of generalized
fixed
> point
> > / floating point instruction count rating would hopefully be less
> algorithm specific.
> > Herve, Stephen, any suggestion(s) for codec complexity ratings?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On 7/2/10 5:18 AM, "Herve Taddei" <herve.taddei@huawei.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think I have the same opinion as Stephen, this does not really
represent
> a
> > consensus as it never came on the table. This is exactly what I was
asking
> in my
> > email by end of May when you wrote there was consensus, what is the
> consensus?
> >
> > The 5 1/3 ms is quite precise, why this value? The AMR-WB codec
complexity
> as
> > reference, for which reason?
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> >
> > Herve Taddei
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> > stephen botzko
> > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 1:14 PM
> > To: Christian Hoene
> > Cc: codec@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [codec] Suggested summary...
> >
> > Maybe I somehow missed it, but i do not see any discussions on the list
> that
> > support your consensus claim.  While perhaps they are reasonable
> suggestions
> > that we can discuss further, for me consensus means that the specifics
> were
> > expressly discussed and generally agreed.
> >
> > There seem to be details here that I do not find on the list.  For
> instance, a general
> > support for a complexity ceiling of AMR-WB, and a 5 1/3 ceiling on
> low-delay frame
> > size.
> >
> > Regards
> > Stephen Botzko
> >
> >
> > 2010/7/2 Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
> > Hello,
> >
> > taking Cullen advise, I would like to suggest the following summary.
> >
> > > 1) low delay mode
> >
> > The codec shall be able to operated at a mode having an algorithmic
delay
> of 8ms
> > or less while having a frame duration of 5 1/3 ms or less. This is
require
> to support
> > ensemble performances over the Internet and other highly interactive
> > conversational tasks.
> >
> > > 2) low complexity mode (whatever this means)
> >
> > The codec shall be able to operate at a low complexity mode while
> requiring less
> > computational resources than a AMR-WB codec
> > (< 38 WMOPS if measured with ITU-T STL2005 BaseOP (ITU-T G.192)).
> >
> > > 3) technical understanding on how latency sums up on different
platforms
> >
> > Standard ITU-T G.114 (05/00 and 05/03) describes how different system
> > components contribute to the one-way transmission delay. It states that
> the
> > processing time of the codec contributes with an additional delay as
large
> as the
> > frame duration.
> >
> > However, it is common consensus that plenty computational resources will
> be
> > available most of the time. Then, the codec processing will be much
faster
> than one
> > frame duration. Typical values are range from a factor faster of 100
> (smart phones)
> > to 1000 (PCs). A device working at full load is a rare case.
> >
> > Any suggestion to improve it?
> >
> > With best regards,
> >
> >  Christian
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene
> > Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen
> > Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone +49 7071 2970532
> > http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 7:21 PM
> > To: Christian Hoene
> > Cc: codec@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [codec] #16: Multicast?
> >
> >
> > On May 27, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Christian Hoene wrote:
> >
> > > So, we have consensus on
> > > 1) low delay mode
> > > 2) low complexity mode (whatever this means)
> > > 3) technical understanding on how latency sums up on different
platforms
> >
> > From a Chair point of view, I don't think the Chairs could summarize or
> call
> > consensus on these three - however, I'm not sure that matters. If you
> think a key
> > piece of consensus has come out of this conversation and that it needs
to
> captured
> > in the archive, can you summarize what you think it is folks agree with
> and then the
> > chairs can make some sort of consensus call.
> >
> > Thanks, Cullen <with my chair hat on>
> >  =
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > codec mailing list
> > codec@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
> >
> 
> 