IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Coverdale <coverdale@sympatico.ca> Sat, 16 April 2011 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <coverdale@sympatico.ca>
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 B8D2BE0694 for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 04:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.095, BAYES_05=-1.11, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803]
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 yJXvM5BHf-6E for <codec@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 04:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s17.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s17.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.92]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B04BE0693 for <codec@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 04:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP45 ([65.55.111.72]) by blu0-omc2-s17.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 16 Apr 2011 04:42:16 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [65.93.173.170]
X-Originating-Email: [coverdale@sympatico.ca]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP45D80A749744A85182EC0CD0AF0@phx.gbl>
Received: from PaulNewPC ([65.93.173.170]) by BLU0-SMTP45.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 16 Apr 2011 04:42:14 -0700
From: Paul Coverdale <coverdale@sympatico.ca>
To: 'Koen Vos' <koen.vos@skype.net>, 'Anisse Taleb' <anisse.taleb@huawei.com>
References: <F5AD4C2E5FBF304ABAE7394E9979AF7C26BC684E@LHREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <1954673134.214770.1302930235411.JavaMail.root@lu2-zimbra>
In-Reply-To: <1954673134.214770.1302930235411.JavaMail.root@lu2-zimbra>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 07:42:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acv788H2EbHFmsUCTvqg8TVCcKjdTgANycjw
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2011 11:42:15.0015 (UTC) FILETIME=[55018F70:01CBFC2B]
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
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: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:42:16 -0000

Hi Koen,

You mean that VoIP applications have no filtering at all, not even
anti-aliassing?

...Paul

>-----Original Message-----
>From: codec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:codec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of Koen Vos
>Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 1:04 AM
>To: Anisse Taleb
>Cc: codec@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [codec] draft test and processing plan for the IETF Codec
>
>Hi Anisse,
>
>I noticed your plan tests with band-limited signals: Narrowband signals
>are
>filtered from 300-4000 Hz, Wideband from 50-7000 Hz, Superwideband from
>50-14000 Hz.
>
>However, VoIP applications have no such band-pass filters (which degrade
>quality and add complexity).  So results will be more informative to the
>WG
>and potential adopters of the codec if the testing avoids band-pass
>filtering as well.  We want test conditions to mimic the real world as
>closely as possible.
>
>Instead of band-pass filtering, tests on speech could use a simple high-
>pass
>filter with a cutoff around 50 Hz, as many VoIP applications do indeed
>have
>such a filter.
>
>best,
>koen.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email