Re: [codec] Comparing codec contributions
"Christian Hoene" <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de> Sun, 04 July 2010 13:03 UTC
Return-Path: <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
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 470D83A680D for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 34o0oeE7JzHQ for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx05.uni-tuebingen.de (mx05.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE3A3A65A6 for <codec@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoeneT60 ([178.2.212.149]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx05.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o64D2rPS002784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <codec@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jul 2010 15:03:02 +0200
From: Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
To: codec@ietf.org
References: <000601cb143e$ee851ca0$cb8f55e0$@de>
In-Reply-To: <000601cb143e$ee851ca0$cb8f55e0$@de>
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:02:53 +0200
Organization: Universität Tübingen
Message-ID: <001c01cb1b79$3d492e30$b7db8a90$@de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01CB1B8A.00D1FE30"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcsUPs/YWbkxGWUjSua5XovSyizTjQHNp71w
Content-Language: de
X-AntiVirus-Spam-Check: clean (checked by Avira MailGate: version: 3.0.0-4; spam filter version: 3.0.0/2.0; host: mx05)
X-AntiVirus: checked by Avira MailGate (version: 3.0.0-4; AVE: 8.2.4.2; VDF: 7.10.8.247; host: mx05); id=8638-jGKAR4
Subject: Re: [codec] Comparing codec contributions
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: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:03:33 -0000
Hello, Raymond identified a miscalculation in the former excel sheet. Here an updated version. In addition, you can selected the relative amount of processing delay freely (e.g., Koen: something around 1%, Raymond: something between 100% and 200%). The lower bound is limited by packet headers (464 bits for the moment) and algorithmic delay. With best regards, Christian This graph is for 10% processing overhead and 464 bits packet over. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hoene Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 10:18 AM To: codec@ietf.org Subject: [codec] Comparing codec contributions Hi, I just set up the attached excel sheet to compare the codec contributions. I just plotted the algorithmic delay/rate tradeoffs for different coding modes and frames per packet. As a packet overhead I assumed 464 bits. If you think the values in the Excel might be wrong, please feel free to correct them. 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/
- [codec] Comparing codec contributions Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] Comparing codec contributions Christian Hoene