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

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Jean-Mark,

For iLBC 13.3kb 30 ms packet mode is the default, most commonly used, and as
far as I know higher audio quality. I understand that you prefer to test
against the similar packet sizes, but it probably makes sense to test
against the most
common use cases for the codec.
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Jean-Marc Valin <[e-mail]>wrote:

> So here's some more specific comments on actual bitrates:
>
> 1) For narrowband Speex, the rates currently listed are 8, 12, 16 kb/s.
> Those should be changed to 8, 11, 15 kb/s to match the actual Speex
> bitrates.
>
> 2) For iLBC, the rates currently listed are 8, 12, 16 kb/s. I think we
> should only use 15.2 kb/s for iLBC. There's another rate, which is 13.33
> kb/s but that's for 30 ms frames so it's not very interesting.
>
> 3) For Speex wideband, the rates currently listed are 12, 24, 32 kb/s. I
> think Speex wideband around 12 kb/s is just crap. Worth testing would be
> 20.6 and 27.8 kb/s.
>
> 4) For super-wideband Speex, I recommend just dumping that. This Speex mode
> was a mistake right from the start and usually has worse quality than
> wideband Speex.
>
> Regarding super-wideband, one thing to keep in mind is that Opus defines
> super-wideband as having a 12 kHz audio bandwidth (24 kHz sampling rate).
> This makes comparisons with other codecs more difficult. The rates currently
> listed for super-wideband are 24, 32, 64 kb/s. I recommend running 24 kb/s
> in super-wideband and running 32 and 64 kb/s in fullband mode (even if the
> input is a 32 kHz signal).
>
> For the very low delay tests (10 ms frame size), I think all the listed
> rates should be using fullband mode except the 32 kb/s.
>
> That's it for now. Any thoughts?
>
>        Jean-Marc
>
>
>
> On 11-04-14 11:16 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
>
>> Hi Anisse,
>>
>> I gave some more thought on your proposed test plan and as Cullen
>> suggested, I think the main cause of disagreement is not that much on
>> the testing, but on the conditions for publishing (large number of BT,
>> NWT). Considering that ultimately, the decision to publish a spec is
>> always based on WG consensus, then I think that problem can be
>> completely bypassed. Once we make it up to the individuals to decide,
>> then we can focus on "simply" designing a good test.
>>
>> Overall I thought the conditions you were proposing in section 2 were
>> pretty reasonable. There's a few details like selecting existing rates
>> for codecs like Speex and iLBC, but that should be easy to solve. Once
>> these are sorted out, interested parties (we had several hands raised in
>> the last meeting) can start testing and we then let each individual
>> decide on whether the codec is any good based on the results of the tests.
>>
>> Sounds like a plan?
>>
>> Jean-Marc
>>
>>
>> On 11-04-13 03:32 AM, Anisse Taleb wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> Please find attached a first draft of a test plan of the IETF codec
>>> (Opus).
>>> The proposal does not claim to be complete, there are still many
>>> missing things, e.g. tandeming cases, tests with delay jitter, dtx
>>> etc. Consider it as a starting point for discussion where everyone is
>>> welcome to contribute in a constructive manner. Further updates are
>>> planned, but let's see first some initial comments.
>>>
>>> The attachment is a pdf version, please let me know if you would like
>>> to see another format and I would be glad to oblige.
>>>
>>> Comments and additions are welcome!
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> /Anisse
>>> (From La Jolla - San Diego).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> codec mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> codec mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>