IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Opus vs AMR-WB for packet loss

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Fri, 31 August 2012 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B513C21F8489 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.559, BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u-xVzNFNBAM5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B68D121F847F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-173-49-141-60.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.141.60] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1T7Ybx-0004FV-2H for rtcweb@ietf.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:18:41 -0500
Message-ID: <50412A0D.3020305@jesup.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:18:05 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <D79146E3783B6942A3E8BC43352BBB460579F14B@TK5EX14MBXC254.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <D79146E3783B6942A3E8BC43352BBB460579F16D@TK5EX14MBXC254.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAC8DBE4E9704C41BCB290C2F3CC921A162D2D09@nasanexd01h.na.qualcomm.com> <50412397.8090306@mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <50412397.8090306@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Opus vs AMR-WB for packet loss
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:18:43 -0000

On 8/31/2012 4:50 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> OK, here's something concrete for comparing Opus to AMR-WB in packet
> loss conditions. I've simulated 30% bursty packet loss in the
> following conditions:
> 1) AMR-WB mode 8 (23.85 kb/s)
> 2) Opus at 24 kb/s (no FEC)
> 3) Opus at 24 kb/s with FEC (24 kb/s is the total including FEC)
>
> I've uploaded the results at: http://jmvalin.ca/plc/
>
> I think everyone will agree that even without FEC, Opus sounds much
> better than AMR-WB. And when you turn FEC on, then you barely even
> notice the losses.

That's really, really good.  :-)  Especially with FEC.

-- 
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email