Re: [codec] Summary of test results

"Christian Hoene" <> Thu, 16 June 2011 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CBE11E8234 for <>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-z+LUGh0wye for <>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6B311E80CF for <>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoeneT60 ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p5GKLvHv022681 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:22:16 +0200
From: Christian Hoene <>
To: 'Jean-Marc Valin' <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:21:58 +0200
Organization: Universitat Tubingen
Message-ID: <003401cc2c63$18e75520$4ab5ff60$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIDHyA/mhFsjgo19zs8cLgsQDkaRZRSgUvA
Content-Language: de
X-AntiVirus: NOT checked by Avira MailGate (version: 3.1.2; host: mx06)
Subject: Re: [codec] Summary of test results
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:12:50 -0000

Hi Jean-Marc,

> We've collected all the test results we could find for Opus (and pre-Opus)
> and how they relate to the requirements. We summarized it all in the
> following draft:

Thank you very much for your efforts.  Allow me to play again the role of
the critic. For the readers of Opus characterization document it would be
more useful to have the measured results in table (concrete figures). 

Also, in order to plan further listening-only tests, an overview of missing
test cases is missing. 

Do you plan to provide anything in this respect in a later update of the
document? How is going to coordinate future tests? Or do been already enough
tests been made?

Do you plan to have an additional informal IETF RFC with the
characterization results? This would make sense but it requires changes in
the charter...

 With best regards,