-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Well, my original email had 13 points, most of which seem to have been
ignored, including the low-pass filtering of speech and music, the
8.85 kb/s, and the VBR issue. So I guess I'm done with the reviewing.
Good luck with your test.
Cheers,
Jean-Marc
On 04/17/2013 09:50 AM, Alfons Martin wrote:
>
>
> AMR-WB
>
>
>
> Based on the feedback we changed the document.
>
> 1) No input bandwidth filtering for speech at all
>
> 2) “Make sure to tell the Opus encoder what the percentage of
> loss is so it can optimize the encoding for it.” – Ok, but we have
> to consider both cases.
>
> 3) “For AMR-WB the 8.85 mode is "intended to be used only
> temporarily during severe radio channel conditions or during
> network congestion". Right, better we use AMR-WB 12.65 with DTX in
> this case.
>
>
>
> We did not consider the following suggestion
>
> 1) “Opus should use VBR” – For direct comparison, we have to
> choose same mode as the other codec. For example, AMR-WB does not
> support VBR.
>
> 2) “If you're going to test packet loss, there should be at
> least one test with FEC -- probably the 23.85 one”. As for now, we
> are not sure whether the Opus FEC implementation is bug free (see
> FEC question email).
>
>
>
> AAC-eLD
>
> Based on the feedback we changed the document.
>
> 1) We will use SBR
>
> 2) “Mono and stereo should not be mixed in one experiment to
> avoid the influence of this factor on the assessment of the coding
> quality.” – agreed.
>
> 3) 24, 32, 48 kbit/s for mono at 32 kHz sample rate CHECK
>
> 4) For stereo 32, 48, 64 and 96 kbit/s could be used. CHECK
>
>
>
> We did not consider the following suggestion
>
> 1)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> General
>
> Based on the feedback we changed the document.
>
> 1) We will use loss rates 0, 1, 3, 6%
>
>
>
> We did not consider the following suggestion
>
> 1) We will keep the MNRU 16 anchor (MOS 2.2) because some of
> the samples will be worse than LP 3.5 but better than MOS 2.2. We
> skip LP 7 as it is optional.
>
> 2) We stick to MUSHRA as it is the only tests that covers a
> wide range of degradations.
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for your timely feedback.
>
>
> Alfons, Christian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRbuPdAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q935wIAIra0oye/5HW7LMQ4rt4vQ1d
iIlzzNxYuravA/IHYVdlh7pfkrdoFRTNtp7RXCI8lOQEVUC0QeSS4mibtVnQyCgM
PgOYvGXu2W3nQxBo12A5hFLZkFJ50Gpw42o7IaWA3G7JSCoSGvsCRQp56o+E9Nhe
jN1TwlmLS5kEgWSZk+DDWtyie/VGn/X/Q+fp/DzQHYBbVHLtnYMZAWigsAEyoIWL
0z4SkpMBIEo7lctedf23LROslbiefq61K9neRhqQLMMo46Nu23IzVPHqdgnbthxi
oaQcvXpLix25e9CyMhoOnfTIzCnwXKO3XLPq0jgA0CRX8B5WrTYXqzBWLtYlQD0=
=GViO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
codec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
