IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephen Botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com> Tue, 12 April 2011 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
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 C0297E095C for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.655
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 KCpJa8st64bQ for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB24EE092A for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so6485867vxg.31 for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=poLn87SwOunoUa3QbYMWCHviXPVwMXMWUxTtRoloJbE=; b=UcBi/bJOoYYr2u78NsPErhTG/LdoM/lCiuegYkNs/AO5DT2nQuLJXIHJ2RMxrvuSkf X4W/DbGaFd/u0I+u8fk7woZ6TV3rLJVz/mh/jeV02hZc7Cy6O4qIWVWi2Ud+odGMuQzY sToRUKogxueOr+ysmf3STBrcn0dLeJ3hjvFPE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=nHutcEWJ3n/UCcrDAhUzbS1va5ZnR7TRdrxkcGSaGd0cmEk12xWrFjCLsY9UBKRcOE RFWLKrM6KVHZSX6cFPD1wzsQ9upI5PGcExNzX6RYmPi1ADkx8TvnMy1+aoG2HH+pxR0S 5VmrNonGxyLs1+Fpjn0TTt8fQ80mLe7c8ZUl0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.93.166 with SMTP id cv6mr10323224vdb.121.1302642379183; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.117.66 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110412193408.GR30415@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <4d9f7107.a7fed80a.542d.ffffa087@mx.google.com> <20110409030611.GG30415@audi.shelbyville.oz> <BLU0-SMTP9917A8ABBC14D6FFE833E6D0A90@phx.gbl> <20110410023345.GM30415@audi.shelbyville.oz> <BANLkTin1pTWfThu1mF=PnBKMz_0_=5f8rw@mail.gmail.com> <20110410180627.GN30415@audi.shelbyville.oz> <4DA2EA85.8010609@soundexpert.info> <F5AD4C2E5FBF304ABAE7394E9979AF7C26BC5E8D@LHREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <20110412051947.GP30415@audi.shelbyville.oz> <BANLkTik0=pv9VUO4y=4ADu-pvdj=ekEpOw@mail.gmail.com> <20110412193408.GR30415@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:06:19 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimN+Ax-9WjyWCpTr8jnvASOvGSatw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Botzko <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec501615147d7d404a0bf1092"
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] A concrete proposal for requirements and testing
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:06:21 -0000

in line
Stephen Botzko

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Ron <ron@debian.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:16:26AM -0400, Stephen Botzko wrote:
> > I don't see how anyone can think we've achieved consensus.  That is just
> > plain silly.  BTW, isn't up to *chairs* to call for consensus?
>
> That would have been why I didn't prefix that by "with hat".
>
> Do you actually have some things you would like to dispute about the
> queries which Jean-Marc raised?  *I'm* not seeing any.
>

I did provide some input already to the thread on the need for more speech
conditions and tandeming tests.

I personally do not object to removing GSM-FR and Speex-UWB.

I personally don't see much point in testing G.722 and Opus at the same
rate, though there could be some value in testing Opus at a lower rate
against G.722.  This might require adding an objective (or if we are gutsy a
new requirement).

on (4) I'd be interested in hearing Jean-Marc's view on what bit rate he
thinks provides roughly comparable quality.

I am not prepared to draw the conclusions in 1-7 yet (4 is not a conclusion,
but a question).  I am not trying to be contentious, but I think at least
the additional speech conditions need to be tested as well as clean speech.

Also, generally, I am thinking we can review the draft test plan w/o
worrying about what the previous tests have shown.  If there is overlap, it
still ought to confirm the older results, correct?  If the overall amount of
testing is too much, then we can talk about what to drop.


>
> Should we ask the chairs if they see any, and think we can finalise
> that part of the discussion before moving on to the next big one?
> What is the correct procedure for this?
>
> If a test is going to be proposed, clarifying what tests have already
> been proven to satisfaction, seems like a relevant precursor to that.
>
>  Ron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email