Re: [codec] USAC as reference?

Stephen Botzko <> Fri, 15 April 2011 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58201E08CB for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.225
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.373, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T+aXQEr4l09a for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C091E0768 for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so2858353vws.31 for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Y6QjSMQpbicgIxVL2nGGNqQhp4alHuHgeCRBU3Lfg7E=; b=s0WjcTKyz4wdchpFfYmypbW7eNsWnMtibR1g454K3ZpJBYMnNqbMXZ/cu1cAPCi7oN b57F0fTvXYFnNnk8t/VoptRoFIOMmjjpjT9jGACzYFDQKQrv1OHJQALFxbCO1tjWzpYi RlZbNh3G9xB4/q6v6jwhAwXvXS3pT2MPQX2dw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=hRSai48yUpcpXe1GxbmKZdFGSaji4/FDcgKOtS+Nm3eVm/qyk6jaIiPvhbAJTaZSG3 lkrawajdWAnBvGS2aEBzh2aTtPskU0IRbh+3oPLGzDZGZalnEMtPW3spXlMYpTT+gfWu S1x5HXiYrSFu2vbuWgzTVs5XK6YoUQxafP9lE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id ay2mr3400365vdc.50.1302890959790; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <000301cbfabc$9e6584c0$db308e40$> <016201cbfb75$b22bc730$16835590$> <>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:09:19 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Stephen Botzko <>
To: Jean-Marc Valin <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec53f2ae7d6e6fe04a0f8f04c"
Subject: Re: [codec] USAC as reference?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:09:24 -0000

 If we can commit to having the bitstream frozen before the next round of
USAC verification tests, then we can certainly say that in the Liaison, and
request that they include it in their verification tests.

It's up to them to say no.

Stephen Botzko

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Jean-Marc Valin <> wrote:

> Hi David,
> On 11-04-15 10:02 AM, David Virette wrote:
>> The only reference quality implementation of USAC is owned by the initial
>> proponents of the codec. If the group wants to test OPUS vs USAC, the best
>> way is probably to inform MPEG that IETF would like to conduct some tests
>> comparing those two codecs. Regarding the inclusion of OPUS in the USAC
>> verification tests, the test plan and accompanying workplan have already
>> been agreed and the first round of testing will occur in June. However, it
>> is foreseen to have a second round of testing by the end of the year. It
>> could be proposed to include OPUS in this second phase. As Anisse said,
>> there will be an MPEG meeting in July, this leaves enough time to liaise
>> with MPEG before the next meeting. But I think that only a standardized
>> codec could be included in the USAC verification tests.
> I think it's indeed a good idea to liaise with MPEG before the next meeting
> to get Opus included in the second round of USAC testing. I think the
> condition that only standardized codecs can be included again supports the
> idea of first publishing Opus as a proposed standard to facilitate further
> testing.
> Cheers,
>        Jean-Marc
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list