codec C. Hoene, Ed.
Internet-Draft Symonics GmbH
Intended status: Informational JM. Valin
Expires: November 18, 2013 Mozilla Corporation
K. Vos
Skype Technologies S.A.
J. Skoglund
Google
May 17, 2013
Summary of Opus listening test results
draft-ietf-codec-results-03
Abstract
This document describes and examines listening test results obtained
for the Opus codec and how they relate to the requirements.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 18, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Hoene, et al. Expires November 18, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2013
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Opus listening tests on final bit-stream . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Google listening tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. Google narrowband listening test . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.2. Google wideband and fullband listening test . . . . . 4
2.1.3. Google stereo music listening test . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.4. Google transcoding test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.5. Google mandarin tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. HydrogenAudio stereo music listening test . . . . . . . . 13
2.3. Nokia Interspeech 2011 listening test . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4. Universitaet Tuebingen stereo and binaural tests . . . . 13
3. Conclusion on the requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1. Comparison to Speex (narrowband) . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2. Comparison to iLBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3. Comparison to Speex (wideband) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4. Comparison to G.722.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5. Comparison to G.722.1C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6. Comparison to AMR-NB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7. Comparison to AMR-WB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Pre-Opus listening tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.1. SILK Dynastat listening test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.2. SILK Deutsche Telekom test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.3. SILK Nokia test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.4. CELT 0.3.2 listening test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.5. CELT 0.5.0 listening test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix B. Opus listening tests on non-final bit-stream . . . . 20
B.1. First hybrid mode test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B.2. Broadcom stereo music test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix C. In-the-field testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
datatracker.ietf.org