Re: [codec] Summary of test results

Stephan Wenger <> Wed, 22 June 2011 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FD021F84D3 for <>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NmPqxiTsIIuC for <>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0E321F84CF for <>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unverified []) by (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 4849-1743317 for multiple; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:43:46 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:43:40 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <>
To: Koen Vos <>, Erik Norvell <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [codec] Summary of test results
In-Reply-To: <1826386229.2244245.1308749493214.JavaMail.root@lu2-zimbra>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:43:48 -0000

I don't think that anything is final from an IETF's viewpoint until an RFC
is issued.  The WG could still decide to make changes in the bitstream
format if it were so inclined.  The IESG could require the WG to do so.
In the IETF, it's not the group of authors/contributors who can declare a
project finished, it's the community at large.

That said, I'm willing to accept the bitstream format to be considered
frozen for testing purposes.


On 6.22.2011 06:31 , "Koen Vos" <> wrote:

>Hi Erik,
>> However, the only way to make correct statements about the performance
>> of the final Opus codec is to test this final codec.
>We took the MPEG approach to standardization (like with MP3/AAC), which
>means that the codec is defined by its bit-stream rather than its
>bit-exact behavior.  For this reason, the version tested from February is
>the final Opus.  Besides, the encoder hasn't actually changed in any
>meaningful way since February.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Erik Norvell" <>
>To: "Jean-Marc Valin" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:00:10 AM
>Subject: Re: [codec] Summary of test results
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jean-Marc Valin []
>> Sent: den 21 juni 2011 21:40
>> To: Erik Norvell
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [codec] Summary of test results
>> On 11-06-21 09:04 AM, Erik Norvell wrote:
>> > Thank you for compiling this summary of pre-Opus tests. It should
>> > definitely help in designing the listening test on the final Opus.
>> Just to clarify, the Opus bit-stream *is* final and, as far as these
>> tests (for both speech and music) are concerned, has been since
>> February.
>> The latest draft also has the final stereo bit-stream for voice, but
>> all the rest is long frozen.
>There are a number of tests which are older than that which are still
>referenced when making statements about Opus performance.
>In addition, a frozen bit-stream is not equal to frozen quality. If the
>codec itself is still permitted to change its quality may be affected.
>> > One comment to section 3: "While Opus has evolved since these tests
>> > were conducted, the results should be considered as a
>> _lower bound_ on
>> > the quality of the final codec."
>> >
>> > I would like to think that the sum is always greater than
>> it's parts,
>> > but it is definitely possible to make something worse by
>> working on it.
>> > Hence, statements about Opus performance must be based on
>> tests made
>> > on the final codec.
>> Of course it's not a guarantee, but there's definitely value in those
>> tests results in that it's unlikely that everything always worked fine
>> and then we just screwed everything up at the end (if that was the
>> case we would have realised it in the other tests).
>I agree the tests are valuable as quality indicators for the codec by the
>time they were conducted. However, the only way to make correct
>statements about the performance of the final Opus codec is to test this
>final codec. To deduce that performance from tests of previous versions
>is bound to include some amount of speculation.
>codec mailing list
>codec mailing list