Re: [codec] Summary of test results

Hi Stephan,

On 11-06-22 09:43 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> That said, I'm willing to accept the bitstream format to be considered
> frozen for testing purposes.

This is indeed the definition of "final" and "frozen" that we have been 
using from the start. We just got tired of including the small print next 
to these words :-)

	Jean-Marc

> Stephan
>
>
> On 6.22.2011 06:31 , "Koen Vos"<koen.vos@skype.net>  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.
>>
>> best,
>> koen.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Erik Norvell"<erik.norvell@ericsson.com>
>> To: "Jean-Marc Valin"<jean-marc.valin@octasic.com>
>> Cc: codec@ietf.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:00:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [codec] Summary of test results
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:jean-marc.valin@octasic.com]
>>> Sent: den 21 juni 2011 21:40
>>> To: Erik Norvell
>>> Cc: codec@ietf.org
>>> 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.
>>
>> Best,
>> Erik
>> _______________________________________________
>> codec mailing list
>> codec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>> _______________________________________________
>> codec mailing list
>> codec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec