Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates?
"Christian Hoene" <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de> Wed, 14 April 2010 12:43 UTC
Return-Path: <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B610C28C152 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.627, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1QIbixamilS for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (mx06.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.3.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B623A6BB8 for <codec@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoeneT60 (u-173-c009.cs.uni-tuebingen.de [134.2.173.9]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx06.uni-tuebingen.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id o3ECbMgx019280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:37:23 +0200
From: Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de>
To: 'stephen botzko' <stephen.botzko@gmail.com>
References: <062.89d7aa91c79b145b798b83610e45ce71@tools.ietf.org> <z2g6e9223711004131723qa66e5a82y3bea15ae44ae5ba0@mail.gmail.com> <4BC514CE.2080800@fas.harvard.edu> <20100413183602.86565rmv5hve5d6q@mail.skype.net> <4BC52068.1080906@fas.harvard.edu> <x2r6e9223711004131955p91007c5byc8b0fa19c21ac3e3@mail.gmail.com> <000c01cadbc1$86a14f10$93e3ed30$@de> <4bc5a8c4.07a5660a.30ee.5382@mx.google.com> <o2u6e9223711004140451s567cff9dwf12cbda8649a3f85@mail.gmail.com> <003d01cadbcb$32653ce0$972fb6a0$@de> <j2l6e9223711004140525t3332de9cx753c41e7d6bfc158@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <j2l6e9223711004140525t3332de9cx753c41e7d6bfc158@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:37:22 +0200
Message-ID: <004d01cadbcf$3b43c210$b1cb4630$@de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004E_01CADBDF.FECC9210"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcrbzZW2GrcfMTl/QbCd4SfdMD3YuQAAGFiw
Content-Language: de
X-AntiVirus: NOT checked by Avira MailGate (version: 3.0.0-4; host: mx06)
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates?
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:43:16 -0000
Hi Stephen, I am getting confused Do you mean that the parameter about sampling rate MUST be negotiated with SDP and not transmitted in-band? Or MUST NOT be negotiated inband but only transmitted inband? Inband means within RTP/RTCP/RTPextentions and/or the Internet CODEC payload. What do you think about my second question on sampling rate limits? With best regards, Christian --------------------------------------------------------------- Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone +49 7071 2970532 <http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/> http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/ From: stephen botzko [mailto:stephen.botzko@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:25 PM To: Christian Hoene Cc: Roni Even; codec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? All negotiation should be done with SDP (and should never be done in-band) And the RTP transport should be robust enough to permit seamless changes to any mode that is consistent with the negotiation (with no signaling). The first point I think is essential. The second reflects my own view on how RTP packetization should be done. Stephen Botzko On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Christian Hoene <hoene@uni-tuebingen.de> wrote: Hi, I am fine with dropping any SDP negotiation on codec parameters including sampling rate and channels. I like the idea of splitting signaling and transportation issues. But one question remain. We had the question on limiting the complexity for some kind of devices by choosing a lower sampling rate or a low number of channels. Shall this negotiation be done with SDP or inband? Christian --------------------------------------------------------------- Dr.-Ing. Christian Hoene Interactive Communication Systems (ICS), University of Tübingen Sand 13, 72076 Tübingen, Germany, Phone +49 7071 2970532 <http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/> http://www.net.uni-tuebingen.de/ From: stephen botzko [mailto:stephen.botzko@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:52 PM To: Roni Even Cc: Christian Hoene; codec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Good points, thanks for clarifying.. Personally I favor carrying those H.264 parameter sets on the media path, since there are situations (switched multipoint calls for one) where the timing matters. With that use case, if reliable-but-too-late delivery occurs, there are decoding errors even if there is no packet loss. Though of course SDP transmission alone may be suitable for other applications, and it is perfectly legal to send them both ways. Stephen Botzko 2010/4/14 Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Hi, Negotiation of codec parameters is not a tradition it is needed if there are optional modes that the decoder can support in order to allow the sender to know if the receiver can receive the specific mode. If there are mandatory modes you may be able to provide the information in-band but this is not negotiation. Also note that while the signaling may use reliable channel the media path is not reliable and may suffer packet loss that may cause the loss of important parameters. We have such example in the H.264 parameter sets where they can be carried in the SDP for reliability on in-band as part of the payload. Roni Even From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christian Hoene Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:59 PM To: 'stephen botzko' Cc: codec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Hi , comments inline: From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of stephen botzko Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:55 AM To: bens@alum.mit.edu Cc: codec@ietf.org Subject: Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? When I said signaling I meant SDP, not anything in the bitstream itself. I was not excluding audio bandwidth changes mid-call as part of network adaptation. Though as we all agree this needs to be carefully designed. I agree it is best if the decoder does not require any knowledge of the SDP negotiation (or any other information beyond the RTP packet stream itself) in order to correctly decode the audio -- which I think is what you were concerned about. CH: Negotiating codec parameters with SDP has a long tradition. Take for example µLaw (RTP payload type 0): Here you negotiate the sampling rate. Also, the number of channels are negotiated for many codecs. I think sampling rate and number of channels can be done with SDP. However, I would avoid other codec specific parameters. Especially, in case of AMR the negotiation is quite complex should be avoided for the Internet CODEC. Christian It would be a nice property if reducing the acoustic bandwidth also allowed the MIPS to be reduced, but I do not think it is a requirement; I'd personally rather manage complexity with a Low Complexity profile (if that is really needed), since then I could keep the acoustic bandwidth (accepting a higher bit rate instead). Stephen Botzko On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz <bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: Koen Vos wrote: > Quoting "Benjamin M. Schwartz": >> 1. Why would high frequencies be unheard? Cheap speakers and microphones >> have difficulties with low frequencies, but not high frequencies, and >> routinely go all the way up past the limit of hearing. > > Not all hardware supports arbitrary/high sampling rates. PSTN gateways > don't go above 8 kHz. Same for some mobile devices. True. >> 2. Why would it need to be negotiated? For a suitably designed format, >> the encoder could choose not to waste bits on high frequencies without >> any >> negotiation or extra signalling. > > Without signaling, how would the encoder know that the farend decoder > will not take advantage of frequencies above a certain threshold? When I say signalling, I mean signalling within the codec bitstream. The encoder can change its behavior based on knowledge of the receiver's configuration, but the bitstream does not need any extra signalling to indicate the change in behavior. >>> Signaling the bandwidth, and defining the >>> internal codec rate as fullband should let us lock down the RTP >>> timestamp >>> rate at 48 kHz (which I think is desirable). >> >> I do agree that having "only one mode" would be ideal, to maximize >> interoperability. I wonder whether we can achieve high enough >> computational efficiency for this to be viable. > > Changing the RTP timestamp sampling rate causes no computational > complexity, does it? Perhaps an extra multiplication for each packet or > so? The point was that RTP timestamp sampling rate should disconnected > from the actual audio signals. Right, but Stephen also suggested "defining the internal codec rate as fullband". From this, I imagined a scenario in which all (compliant) IWAC implementations MUST decode all IWAC streams, which always have a sampling rate of 48 KHz. I think this is a great idea, to achieve really good interoperability. If the receiver is a PSTN gateway, then an "internal codec rate" of 8 KHz would presumably produce as good quality/bitrate with lower encoder and decoder complexity. However, if we can make IWAC sufficiently low-complexity, operating at 48 KHz may be acceptable. It will help if we can structure the codec so that operating at lower bandwidth is very efficient. For example, it may be possible to structure a transform codec such that unneeded high frequencies can cheaply be zero'd on encode and ignored on decode. --Ben
- [codec] #8: Sample rates? codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Benjamin M. Schwartz
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? 44.1kHz? Michael Knappe
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Roni Even
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? 44.1kHz? Brian West
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? Schwarz Albrecht
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? 44.1kHz? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? 44.1kHz? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? 44.1kHz? Christian Hoene
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? 44.1kHz? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? 44.1kHz? stephen botzko
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? codec issue tracker
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Roman Shpount
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Pascal Pochol
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Pascal Pochol
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Koen Vos
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Jean-Marc Valin
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Pascal Pochol
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Butrus Damaskus
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Pascal Pochol
- Re: [codec] requirements #8 (new): Sample rates? Gregory Maxwell
- Re: [codec] #8: Sample rates? codec issue tracker