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

[Stephen Botzko <[e-mail]>]

in-line

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Ron <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 <[e-mail]> 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.
>

Generally speaking, I think it is more productive to separate the test plan
development itself from the publication and test schedule.

>From my point of view, checking for underlying differences in
intelligibility and perception of coding artifacts is more valuable than the
simple "sounds better" test.  We already know that more bandwidth sounds
better if everything is equal, and sometimes it sounds better in short
samples even if everything is not equal.


>
> Cheers,
> Ron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>