Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec

Ron <ron@debian.org> Mon, 18 April 2011 11:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC3CE0754 for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jtW8qSbqaWr7 for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44685E068A for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjQIAMYkrE120qsf/2dsb2JhbACYGY1CeMM7hXEEhWCIIg
Received: from ppp118-210-171-31.lns20.adl6.internode.on.net (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([118.210.171.31]) by ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2011 21:22:51 +0930
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109274F8F3 for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:22:51 +0930 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id NlFErvEb4V-F for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0930 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 823994F8FE; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0930 (CST)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:22:46 +0930
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: codec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110418115246.GD31013@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <BLU0-SMTP54958DAFDD9DBFA2A5AD09D0910@phx.gbl> <613619677.239145.1303111675660.JavaMail.root@lu2-zimbra> <BANLkTimvcY3Dp3xKm73-ZZAPz5nmxOexmg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimvcY3Dp3xKm73-ZZAPz5nmxOexmg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:52:54 -0000

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:18:05AM -0400, Stephen Botzko wrote:
> in-line
> Stephen Botzko
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Koen Vos <koen.vos@skype.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > > I think where this discussion is going is that we need to be more
> > > precise in defining what we mean by "NB", "WB", "SWB" and "FB" if
> > > we want to make meaningful comparisons between codecs.
> >
> > The discussion so far was about whether to pre-distort test signals by
> > bandpass filtering.
> >
> 
> I think this might depend on what you want to learn from the test.
> 
> If you simply want to know which "sounds better" to the user, then perhaps
> bandpass filtering gets in the way.
> 
> If you want to see if there are there is an underlying difference in
> intelligibility or user tolerance for the coding artifacts,, then the
> bandpass filtering might be useful, since it controls for the known
> preference that users have for wider frequency response.

I think we can safely put the latter into the "category 3. tests", of
things that would be quite interesting to know if someone has time to
collect the data, but that aren't at all required knowledge to publish
a proposed standard of what we have.

Cheers,
Ron