IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing

Paul Coverdale <coverdale@sympatico.ca> Fri, 08 April 2011 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <coverdale@sympatico.ca>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941503A695D for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.866
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dy-RJZFjCHEI for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s15.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s15.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.90]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FF13A699C for <codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP11 ([65.55.111.73]) by blu0-omc2-s15.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:32:16 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [67.70.131.179]
X-Originating-Email: [coverdale@sympatico.ca]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP11D0135F8FFEEEB308A1E9D0A70@phx.gbl>
Received: from PaulNewPC ([67.70.131.179]) by BLU0-SMTP11.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:32:14 -0700
From: Paul Coverdale <coverdale@sympatico.ca>
To: 'Koen Vos' <koen.vos@skype.net>, 'Roman Shpount' <roman@telurix.com>
References: <BANLkTimN1VduZ9kR2Mgp_w7=p6V1srHBiQ@mail.gmail.com> <21200823.2625297.1302284060278.JavaMail.root@lu2-zimbra>
In-Reply-To: <21200823.2625297.1302284060278.JavaMail.root@lu2-zimbra>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:32:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004D_01CBF5F9.BF0D1AC0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acv2Ez96c/2qqdL1T6qm0QsBmX99/wAAnvDA
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2011 18:32:14.0569 (UTC) FILETIME=[482D9D90:01CBF61B]
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:30:31 -0000

Koen Vos wrote: 

>quality has been shown to be good enough for the codec to be useful...

I think that’s where some people have difficulty. There’s been no systematic attempt to evaluate Opus against the performance requirements given in the codec requirements document (as thin as it is) in a controlled and repeatable manner.

…Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email