codec C. Hoene, Ed.
Internet-Draft Universitaet Tuebingen
Intended status: Informational JM. Valin
Expires: November 2, 2012 Mozilla Corporation
K. Vos
Skype Technologies S.A.
J. Skoglund
Google
May 1, 2012
Summary of Opus listening test results
draft-ietf-codec-results-01
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 2, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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 2, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Opus listening tests on final bit-stream . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Google listening tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Google narrowband listening test . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Google wideband and fullband listening test . . . . . 5
2.1.3. Google stereo music listening test . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.4. Google transcoding test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.5. Google mandarin tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2. HydrogenAudio stereo music listening test . . . . . . . . 16
2.3. Nokia Interspeech 2011 listening test . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4. Universitaet Tuebingen stereo and binaural tests . . . . . 17
3. Conclusion on the requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1. Comparison to Speex (narrowband) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2. Comparison to iLBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3. Comparison to Speex (wideband) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.4. Comparison to G.722.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5. Comparison to G.722.1C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6. Comparison to AMR-NB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.7. Comparison to AMR-WB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. Pre-Opus listening tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.1. SILK Dynastat listening test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.2. SILK Deutsche Telekom test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.3. SILK Nokia test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.4. CELT 0.3.2 listening test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.5. CELT 0.5.0 listening test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix B. Opus listening tests on non-final bit-stream . . . . 27
B.1. First hybrid mode test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
B.2. Broadcom stereo music test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix C. In-the-field testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
1. Introduction
This document describes and examines listening test results obtained
for the Opus codec. Some of the test results presented are based on
older versions of the codec or on older versions of the SILK or CELT
components. While they do not necessarily represent the exact
quality of the current version, they are nonetheless useful for
validating the technology used and as an indication of a lower bound
on quality (based on the assumption that the codec has been improved
since they were performed).
Throughout this document, all statements about one codec being better
than or worse than another codec are based on 95% confidence. When
no statistically significant difference can be shown with 95%
confidence, then two codecs are said to be "tied".
In addition to the results summarized in this draft, Opus has been
subjected to many informal subjective listening tests, as well as
objective testing.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
2. Opus listening tests on final bit-stream
The following tests were performed on the Opus codec _after_ the bit-
stream was finalized.
2.1. Google listening tests
The tests followed the MUSHRA test methodology. Two anchors were
used, one lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz and one lowpass-filtered at 7.0
kHz. Both trained and untrained listeners participated in the tests.
The reference signals were manually normalized to the same subjective
levels according to the experimenters' opinion. Experiments with
automatic normalization with respect to both level and loudness (in
Adobe Audition) did not result in signals having equal subjective
loudness. The sample magnitude levels were kept lower than 2^14 to
provide headroom for possible amplification through the codecs.
However, the normalization exercise was not repeated with the
processed sequences as neither the experimenters nor any of the
subjects (which included expert listeners) noticed any significant
level differences between the conditions in the tests. The only
post-processing performed was to remove noticeable delays in the MP3
files, as one could identify the MP3 samples when switching between
conditions when the MP3 had the longer delay. The testing tool Step
from ARL was used for tests and all listeners were instructed to to
carefully listen through the conditions before starting the grading.
The results of the tests are a available on the testing slides
presented at the Prague meeting [Prague-80].
2.1.1. Google narrowband listening test
The test sequences in Test 1 were mono recordings (between 2 and 6
seconds long) of 4 different male and 4 different female speakers
sampled at 48 kHz in low background noise. 17 listeners were
presented with 6 stimuli according to Table 1 for each test sequence.
The corresponding bit rate for the reference is 48000 (sampling
frequency in Hz) x 16 (bits/sample) = 768 kbps. Since the anchors
are low-pass filtered they can also be downsampled for transmission
which corresponds to lower bit rates. Three narrowband codecs were
compared in this test: Opus NB, the royalty-free iLBC, and the
royalty-free Speex. The codecs all have an encoder frame length of
20 ms. Both Opus and Speex had variable rate whereas iLBC operated
at a fixed bit rate.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+-----------+----------------------+----------------+
| Type | Signal bandwidth | Bitrate |
+-----------+----------------------+----------------+
| Reference | 24 kHz (Fullband) | |
| | | |
| Anchor 1 | 3.5 kHz (Narrowband) | |
| | | |
| Anchor 2 | 7 kHz (Wideband) | |
| | | |
| iLBC | 4 kHz (Narrowband) | 15.2 kbps, CBR |
| | | |
| Opus NB | 4 kHz (Narrowband) | 11 kbps, VBR |
| | | |
| Speex NB | 3.5 kHz (Narrowband) | 11 kbps, VBR |
+-----------+----------------------+----------------+
Table 1: Narrowband mono voice: test conditions
The overall results of the narrowband test, i.e., averaged over all
listeners for all sequences, are presented in the Prague meeting
slides [Prague-80]. The results suggest that Opus at 11 kbps is
superior to both iLBC at 15 kpbs and Speex at 11 kbps. T-tests
performed by Greg Maxwell confirm that there is indeed a
statistically significant difference. Note also that Opus has a
slightly higher average score than the 3.5 kHz anchor, likely due to
the higher bandwidth of Opus.
2.1.2. Google wideband and fullband listening test
The eight test sequences for the previous test were also used in this
Test. 16 listeners rated the stimuli listed in Table 2. In this test
comparisons were made between four wideband codecs: Opus WB, the
royalty-free Speex, the royalty-free ITU-T G.722.1, AMR-WB (ITU-T
G.722.2), and two fullband codecs: Opus FB and the royalty-free ITU-T
G.719. All six codecs utilize 20 ms encoding frames. Opus used
variable bitrate, while other codecs used constant bit rate.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+-----------+----------------------+-----------------+
| Type | Signal bandwidth | Bitrate |
+-----------+----------------------+-----------------+
| Reference | 24 kHz (Fullband) | |
| | | |
| Anchor 1 | 3.5 kHz (Narrowband) | |
| | | |
| Anchor 2 | 7 kHz (Wideband) | |
| | | |
| G.722.1 | 7 kHz (Wideband) | 24 kbps, CBR |
| | | |
| Speex WB | 7 kHz (Wideband) | 23.8 kbps, CBR |
| | | |
| AMR-WB | 7 kHz (Wideband) | 19.85 kbps, CBR |
| | | |
| Opus WB | 8 kHz (Wideband) | 19.85 kbps, VBR |
| | | |
| G.719 | ~20 kHz (Fullband) | 32 kbps, CBR |
| | | |
| Opus FB | ~20 kHz (Fullband) | 32 kbps, CBR |
+-----------+----------------------+-----------------+
Table 2: Wideband and fullband mono voice: test conditions
The results from this test are depicted in the Prague meeting
slides[Prague-80]. Opus at 32 kbps is almost transparent, although
there is a small, but statistically significant, difference from the
fullband reference material. Opus at 20 kbps is significantly better
than all the other codecs, including AMR-WB and the fullband G.719,
and both low-pass anchors.
2.1.3. Google stereo music listening test
The sequences in this test were excerpts from 10 different stereo
music files:
o Rock/RnB (Boz Scaggs)
o Soft Rock (Steely Dan)
o Rock (Queen)
o Jazz (Harry James)
o Classical (Purcell)
o Electronica (Matmos)
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
o Piano (Moonlight Sonata)
o Vocals (Suzanne Vega)
o Glockenspiel
o Castanets
These sequences were originally recorded at a sampling frequency of
44.1 kHz and were upsampled to 48 kHz prior to processing. Test 3
included comparisons between six codecs (c.f., Table 3): Opus at
three rates, G.719, AAC-LC (Nero 1.5.1), and MP3 (Lame 3.98.4).
G.719 is a mono codec, so the two channels were each coded
independently at 32 kbps. 9 listeners participated in Test 3, and the
results are depicted in the Prague meeting slides[Prague-80]. The
codecs operated at constant (or comparable) bit rate.
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Type | Signal bandwidth | Frame size | Bitrate |
| | | (ms) | |
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+---------------------+
| Reference | 22 kHz (Fullband) | - | (1536 kbps) |
| | | | |
| Anchor 1 | 3.5 kHz | - | (256 kbps) |
| | (Narrowband) | | |
| | | | |
| Anchor 2 | 7 kHz (Wideband) | - | (512 kbps) |
| | | | |
| MP3 | 16 kHz (Super | >100 | 96 kbps, CBR |
| | wideband) | | |
| | | | |
| AAC-LC | ~20 kHz | 21 | 64 kbps, CBR (bit |
| | (Fullband) | | reservoir) |
| | | | |
| G.719 | ~20 kHz | 20 | 64 kbps (2x32), CBR |
| | (Fullband) | | |
| | | | |
| Opus FB | ~20 kHz | 20 | 64 kbps, |
| | (Fullband) | | constrained VBR |
| | | | |
| Opus FB | ~20 kHz | 10 | 80 kbps, |
| | (Fullband) | | constrained VBR |
| | | | |
| Opus FB | ~20 kHz | 5 | 128 kbps, |
| | (Fullband) | | constrained VBR |
+-----------+-------------------+-------------+---------------------+
Table 3: Stereo music: Test conditions
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
The results indicate that all codecs had comparable performance,
except for G.719, which had a considerably lower score. T-tests by
Greg Maxwell verified that the low-delay Opus at 128 kbps had a
significantly higher performance and that G.719 had a significantly
lower performance than the other four.
2.1.4. Google transcoding test
If two telephone networks of different technology are coupled,
frequently speech has to be transcoded: It must be decoded and
encoded before it can be forward to the next network. Then, two
codecs are cooperating in a row, which is called tandem coding.
In the following tests, Jan Skoglund studied the impact of
transcoding if Opus call is forwarded to a cellular phone system.
[Skoglund2011]. Two tests were conducted for both narrowband and
wideband speech items. The test conditions of the narrow-band tests
are given in Table and the respective results in . For the wide-band
conditions and results refer to Table and .
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Condition | Value |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Laboratory | Google |
| | |
| Examiner | Jan Skoglund |
| | |
| Date | August and September 2011 |
| | |
| Methodology | ITU-R BS.1534-1 (MUSHRA) |
| | |
| Reference | Two male and two female speakers from ITU-T P.501. |
| items | Two male and two female speakers from McGill |
| | database. All recorded at 48kHz in a room with low |
| | background noise. |
| | |
| Listeners | 19 listeners no listeners rejected / trained and |
| | untrained English-speaking listeners |
| | |
| Anchor 1 | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz |
| | |
| Anchor 2 | Reference file resampled at 8 kHz, with MNRU at 15 |
| | dB SNR |
| | |
| Test | G.711 at 64 kbps -> Opus NB at 12.2 kbps, variable |
| Condition 1 | bit rate |
| | |
| Test | G.711 at 64 kbps -> AMR NB at 12.2 kbps, constant |
| Condition 2 | bit rate |
| | |
| Test | AMR NB at 12.2 kbps -> G.711 at 64 kbps -> Opus NB |
| Condition 3 | at 12.2 kbps |
| | |
| Test | Opus NB at 12.2 kbps > G.711 at 64 kbps > AMR NB at |
| Condition 4 | 12.2 kbps |
| | |
| Test | AMR NB at 12.2 kbps -> G.711 at 64 kbps -> AMR NB |
| Condition 5 | at 12.2 kbps |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
Table 4: Narrowband tandem coding: test conditions
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+------------------+-------------------------+--------+
| Test Item | Subjective MUSHRA score | 95% CI |
+------------------+-------------------------+--------+
| Reference | 99.47 | 0.36 |
| | | |
| LP3.5 | 63.49 | 3.01 |
| | | |
| G.711->Opus | 54.51 | 2.85 |
| | | |
| G.711->AMR | 54.13 | 2.67 |
| | | |
| AMR->G.711->Opus | 51.11 | 2.74 |
| | | |
| Opus->G.711->AMR | 50.95 | 2.76 |
| | | |
| AMR->G.711->AMR | 47.81 | 2.95 |
| | | |
| MNRU | 14.94 | 2.21 |
+------------------+-------------------------+--------+
Table 5: Tandem narrowband coding: test results
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Condition | Value |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Laboratory | Google |
| | |
| Examiner | Jan Skoglund |
| | |
| Date | August and September 2011 |
| | |
| Methodology | MUSHRA |
| | |
| Reference | Two male and two female speakers from ITU-T P.501. |
| items | Two male and two female speakers recorded at Google |
| | at 48kHz in a room with low background noise |
| | |
| Listeners | 18 listeners after post-screening / no listener |
| | rejects / untrained and trained English speaking |
| | listeners |
| | |
| Anchor 1 | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz (LP 3.5) |
| | |
| Anchor 2 | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 7 kHz (LP 7) |
| | |
| Test | Opus WB at 19.85 kbps, variable bit rate (Opus) |
| Condition 1 | |
| | |
| Test | AMR WB at 19.85 kbps, constant bit rate (AMR WB) |
| Condition 2 | |
| | |
| Test | AMR WB at 19.85 kbps > Opus WB at 19.85 kbps |
| Condition 3 | |
| | |
| Test | Opus WB at 19.85 kbps -> AMR WB at 19.85 kbps |
| Condition 4 | |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
Table 6: Tandem wideband coding: test conditions
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+--------------+--------------------------+--------+
| Test Item | Subjective BS.1587 Score | 95% CI |
+--------------+--------------------------+--------+
| Reference | 99.44 | 0.38 |
| | | |
| Opus | 78.38 | 2.16 |
| | | |
| LP7 | 74.24 | 2.24 |
| | | |
| AMR WB | 65.26 | 2.85 |
| | | |
| AMR WB->Opus | 63.97 | 2.95 |
| | | |
| Opus->AMR WB | 62.83 | 2.94 |
| | | |
| LP3.5 | 37.01 | 2.95 |
+--------------+--------------------------+--------+
Table 7: Tandem wideband coding: test results
Under the given statistical confidence, narrowband tandem coding
condition using AMR and/or Opus are of similar quality. However, the
results have indications that Opus outperforms AMR NB slightly. In
any case, narrow band transcoding is worse than a low pass filtering
at 3.5kbps.
Opus at 20kbps outperforms AMR WB at a similar coding rate and
matches the quality of a 7kHz lowpass filtered signal. Tandem coding
with Opus does not reduce the quality of AMR WB encoded speech in the
studied conditions.
2.1.5. Google mandarin tests
Modern Standard Chinese - also called Mandarin - is a tonal language
that is spoken by about 845 million persons. In past, codecs have
been developed without consideration of the unique properties of
tonal languages. For the testing of Opus, Jan Skoglund has conducted
subjective listening-only tests to verify whether Opus can cope well
for Mandarin [Skoglund2011]. Two tests were conducted for both
narrow- and wide-band speech items. The test conditions of the
narrow-band tests are given in Table and the respective results in .
For the wide-band conditions and results refer to Table and Table
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Condition | Value |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Laboratory | Google |
| | |
| Examiner | Jan Skoglund |
| | |
| Date | August and September 2011 |
| | |
| Methodology | ITU-R BS.1534-1 (MUSHRA) |
| | |
| Reference | Two male and two female speakers from ITU-T P.501. |
| items | Two male and two female speakers recorded at Google |
| | at 48kHz in a room with low background noise. |
| | |
| Listeners | 21 listeners after post-screening / no listeners |
| | rejected / untrained Mandarin-speaking listeners |
| | |
| Anchor 1 | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz (LP 3.5) |
| | |
| Anchor 2 | Reference file resampled at 8 kHz, with MNRU at 15 |
| | dB SNR (MNRU) |
| | |
| Test | Opus NB at 11 kbps, variable bit rate (Opus 11) |
| Condition 1 | |
| | |
| Test | Speex NB at 11 kbps, variable bit rate (Speex 11) |
| Condition 2 | |
| | |
| Test | iLBC at 15.2 kbps, constant bit rate (iBLC 15) |
| Condition 3 | |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
Table 8: Narrowband mandarin: test conditions
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+-----------+----------------------------+--------+
| Test Item | Subjective BS.1534-1 Score | 95% CI |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------+
| Reference | 99.79 | 0.19 |
| | | |
| Opus 11 | 77.90 | 2.15 |
| | | |
| iLBC 15 | 76.76 | 2.08 |
| | | |
| LP 3.5 | 76.25 | 2.34 |
| | | |
| Speex 11 | 63.60 | 3.30 |
| | | |
| MNRU | 22.83 | 2.50 |
+-----------+----------------------------+--------+
Table 9: Mandarin narrowband speech: test results
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Condition | Value |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Laboratory | Google |
| | |
| Examiner | Jan Skoglund |
| | |
| Date | August and September 2011 |
| | |
| Methodology | MUSHRA |
| | |
| Reference | Two male and two female speakers from ITU-T P.501. |
| items | Two male and two female speakers recorded at Google |
| | at 48kHz in a room with low background noise |
| | |
| Listeners | 19 listeners after post-screening / Rejected 3 |
| | listeners having score correlation with the total |
| | average lower than R=0.8. |
| | |
| Anchor 1 | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz (LP 3.5) |
| | |
| Anchor 2 | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 7 kHz (LP 7) |
| | |
| Test | Opus WB at 19.85 kbps, variable bit rate (Opus 20) |
| Condition 1 | |
| | |
| Test | Speex WB at 23.8 kbps, constant bit rate (Speex 24) |
| Condition 2 | |
| | |
| Test | G.722.1 at 24 kbps, constant bit rate (G.722.1 24) |
| Condition 3 | |
| | |
| Test | Opus FB at 32 kbps, constant bit rate (Opus 32) |
| Condition 4 | |
| | |
| Test | G.719 at 32 kbps, constant bit rate (G.719 32) |
| Condition 5 | |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
Table 10: Mandarin wideband speech: test conditions
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+------------+--------------------------+--------+
| Test Item | Subjective BS.1587 Score | 95% CI |
+------------+--------------------------+--------+
| Reference | 98.95 | 0.59 |
| | | |
| Opus 32 | 98.13 | 0.72 |
| | | |
| G.719 32 | 93.43 | 1.51 |
| | | |
| Opus 20 | 81.59 | 2.48 |
| | | |
| LP 7 | 79.51 | 2.53 |
| | | |
| G.722.1 24 | 72.55 | 3.06 |
| | | |
| LP 3.5 | 54.57 | 3.44 |
| | | |
| Speex 24 | 53.63 | 4.23 |
+------------+--------------------------+--------+
Table 11: Mandarin wideband speech: test results
Under the given confidence intervals, the quality of Opus at 11 kbps
equals the quality of iLBC at 15 kbps and the quality aferlowpass
filtering at 3.5 kHz. Speex at 11 kbps does not perform as well.
According to the listening-only tests, Opus at 32 kbps is better than
G.719 at 32 kbps. Opus at 20 kbps outperforms G.722.1 and Speex at
24 kbps. If one compares the Mandarin results with those for English
(Section 2.1.1 and Section 2.1.2), one can see that are pretty
consistent. The only difference is that using English stimuli Opus
at 20 kbps outperforms G.719 at 32 kbps. Probabily, this is due to
the fact that Mandarin speech does not contain as many high
frequency-rich consonants such as [s] as English.
2.2. HydrogenAudio stereo music listening test
In March 2011, the HydrogenAudio community conducted a listening test
comparing codec performance on stereo audio at 64 kb/s [ha-test].
The Opus codec was compared to the Apple and Nero implementations of
HE-AAC, as well as to the Vorbis codec. The test included 30 audio
samples, including known "hard to code" samples from previous
HydrogenAudio listening tests.
A total of 33 listeners participated in the test, 10 of which
provided results for all the audio samples. The results of test
showed that Opus out-performed both HE-AAC implementations as well as
Vorbis.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
2.3. Nokia Interspeech 2011 listening test
In 2011, Anssi Ramo from Nokia submitted [Ramo2011] the results of a
second listening test, focusing specifically on the Opus codec, to
Interspeech 2011. As in the previous test, the methodology used was
a 9-scale ACR MOS test with clean and noisy speech samples.
The results show Opus clearly out-performing both G.722.1C and G.719
on clean speech at 24 kb/s and above, while on noisy speech all
codecs and bit-rates above 24 kb/s are very close. It is also found
that the Opus hybrid mode at 28 kb/s has quality that is very close
to the recent G.718B standard at the same rate. At 20 kb/s, the Opus
wideband mode also out-performs AMR-WB, while the situation is
reversed for 12 kb/s and below. The only narrowband rate tested is 6
kb/s, which is below what Opus targets and unsurprisingly shows
poorer quality than AMR-NB at 5.9 kb/s.M
2.4. Universitaet Tuebingen stereo and binaural tests
Modern teleconferencing system use stereo or spatialy rendered speech
to enhance the conversation quality. Then, talkers can be identified
according to their acoustic locations. Opus allows to encode speech
in a stereo mode. In the tests conducted by Christian
Hoene[Hoene2011], the performance of Opus coding stereo and binaural
speech was studied.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Condition | Value |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Laboratory | Univesitaet Tuebingen |
| | |
| Examiner | Christian Hoene and Mansoor Hyder |
| | |
| Date | August 2011 |
| | |
| Methodology | ITU-R BS.1534-1 (MUSHRA) using a modified "rateit |
| | v0.1" software with German translations. |
| | |
| Reference | One German female voice recorded in stereo (8s). |
| items | Two female voices (stereo recording) mixed together |
| | (9 s). One moving talker binaural rendered with |
| | HTRF and an artificial room impulse response (13 |
| | s). Two voices binaural render at two different |
| | stationary positions. Acappella Song "Mein |
| | Fahrrad" by "Die Prinzen" (10.5s, mono) |
| | |
| Listeners | 20 German native speakers. Age between 20 and 59 |
| | (avg. 30.55). 9 male and 11 female. All have |
| | academic background. Three listeners were rejected |
| | because their rating showed a low correlation |
| | (R<0.8) to the average ratings. |
| | |
| Anchor | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz calling |
| | "sox in.wav -r48000 -c1 out.wav lowpass 3500" |
| | |
| Test | Opus in the SILK mode, 12kbps, stereo, 60ms calling |
| Condition 1 | "draft-ietf-codec-opus-07/test_opus 0 48000 2 12000 |
| | -cbr -framesize 60 -bandwidth NB" |
| | |
| Test | Opus in the SILK mode, 16kbps, stereo, 20ms calling |
| Condition 2 | "draft-ietf-codec-opus-07/test_opus 0 48000 2 16000 |
| | -cbr -framesize 20 -bandwidth WB" |
| | |
| Test | Opus in the HYBRID mode, 32kbps, stereo, 20ms |
| Condition 3 | calling "draft-ietf-codec-opus-07/test_opus 0 48000 |
| | 2 32000 -cbr -framesize 20 -bandwidth FB" |
| | |
| Test | Opus in the CELT mode, 64kbps, stereo, 20ms calling |
| Condition 4 | "draft-ietf-codec-opus-07/test_opus 1 48000 2 64000 |
| | -cbr -framesize 20 -bandwidth FB" |
| | |
| Test | AMR-WB+ at 12kbps, 80ms using |
| Condition 5 | 26304_ANSI-C_source_code_v6_6_0: Arguments: -rate |
| | 12 |
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
| Test | AMR-WB+ at 15.2kbps, 80ms using |
| Condition 6 | 26304_ANSI-C_source_code_v6_6_0: Arguments: -rate |
| | 16 |
| | |
| Test | AMR-WB+ at 32kbps, 60ms using |
| Condition 7 | 26304_ANSI-C_source_code_v6_6_0: Arguments: -rate |
| | 32 |
+-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
Table 12: Stereo and binaural speech coding: test conditions
+------------+----------------------------+--------+
| Test Item | Subjective BS.1534-1 Score | 95% CI |
+------------+----------------------------+--------+
| Reference | 97.36 | 1.31 |
| | | |
| Opus 64 | 95.58 | 1.76 |
| | | |
| AMR-WB+ 32 | 80.11 | 4.79 |
| | | |
| Opus 32 | 55.42 | 5.96 |
| | | |
| AMR-WB+ 16 | 49.69 | 6.05 |
| | | |
| LP 3.5 | 48.35 | 4.50 |
| | | |
| Opus 16 | 39.31 | 4.80 |
| | | |
| AMR-WP+ 12 | 35.40 | 5.79 |
| | | |
| Opus 12 | 16.99 | 3.49 |
+------------+----------------------------+--------+
Table 13: Binaural Speech: Test Results
According to the test results, Opus transmits binaural content well
at 64kbps. The other Opus results are not valid anymore as the codec
implementation have been updated.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
3. Conclusion on the requirements
The requirements call for the Opus codec to be better than Speex and
iLBC in narrowband mode, better than Speex and G.722.1 in wideband
mode, and better than G.722.1C in super-wideband/fullband mode.
3.1. Comparison to Speex (narrowband)
The Opus codec was compared to Speex in narrowband mode in the Google
narrowband test (Section 2.1.1). This test showed that Opus at 11
kb/s was significantly better than Speex at the same rate. In fact,
Opus at 11 kb/s was tied with the 3.5 low-pass of the original.
Considering the results, we conclude that the Opus codec is better
than the Speex codec.
3.2. Comparison to iLBC
The Opus codec was compared to iLBC in the Google narrowband test
(Section 2.1.1). This test showed that Opus at 11 kb/s was
significantly better than iLBC running at 15 kb/s. Considering the
results, we conclude that the Opus codec is better than the iLBC
codec.
3.3. Comparison to Speex (wideband)
The Opus codec was compared to Speex in wideband mode in the Google
wideband and fullband test (Section 2.1.2). This test showed that
Opus at 20 kb/s was significantly better than Speex at at 24 kb/s.
In fact, Opus at 20 kb/s was better than the 7 kHz low-pass of the
original. These results are consistent with an earlier Dynastat test
(Appendix A.1) that also concluded that SILK had significantly higher
quality than Speex in wideband mode at the same bit-rate.
Considering the results, we conclude that the Opus codec is better
than the Speex codec for wideband.
3.4. Comparison to G.722.1
In the Google wideband and fullband test (Section 2.1.2), Opus at 20
kb/s was shown to significantly out-perform G.722.1 operating at 24
kb/s. An indirect comparison point also comes from the Nokia
Interspeech 2011 listening test (Section 2.3) that shows Opus out-
performing AMR-WB at 20 kb/s, while AMR-WB is known to out-perform
G.722.1. Considering these results, we conclude that the Opus codec
is better than the G.722.1 codec for wideband.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
3.5. Comparison to G.722.1C
Opus has been compared to G.722.1C in multiple listening tests. As
early as 2008, an old version of the CELT codec (Appendix A.4) using
very short frames was found to have higher quality than G.722.1C at
48 kb/s. More recently, the Nokia Interspeech 2011 listening test
(Section 2.3) showed that Opus out-performed G.722.1C at 24 kb/s, 32
kb/s, and 48 kb/s. We thus conclude that the Opus codec is better
than the G.722.1C codec for superwideband/fullband audio.
3.6. Comparison to AMR-NB
In the Google narrowband test (Section 2.1.1), Opus was shown to out-
perform AMR-NB at 12 kb/s. On the other hand, in the Nokia
Interspeech 2011 listening test (Section 2.3), AMB-NB was found to
have better quality than Opus at 6 kb/s. This indicates that Opus is
better than AMR-NB at higher rates and worse at lower rates, which is
to be expected given Opus' emphasis on higher quality and higher
rates.
3.7. Comparison to AMR-WB
In the Google wideband and fullband test (Section 2.1.2), Opus at 20
kb/s was shown to out-perform AMR-WB at the same rate. This was also
confirmed by the Nokia Interspeech 2011 listening test (Section 2.3),
with also found AMR-WB to out-perform Opus at 12 kb/s and below. As
with AMR-NB, we conclude that Opus is better than AMR-WB at higher
rates and worse at lower rates.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
4. Security Considerations
No security considerations.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Anssi Ramo and the HydrogenAudio
community, who conducted some of the Opus listening test cited in
this draft.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
Appendix A. Pre-Opus listening tests
Several listening tests have been performed on the SILK and CELT
codecs prior to them being merged as part of the Opus codec.
A.1. SILK Dynastat listening test
The original (pre-Opus) SILK codec was characterized in a Dynastat
listening test [SILK-Dynastat]. The test included 32 conditions with
4 male and 4 female talkers. The test signals were wideband speech
with and without office background noise at 15 dB SNR. Packet loss
was tested at 2, 5, and 10% loss rates. The bitrates ranged from
8.85 kb/s to 64 kb/s. The codecs included in the test were SILK-WB,
AMR-WB, Speex-WB and G.722 (which ran at 64 kb/s).
The results showed that for clean speech (1) SILK out-performs AMR-WB
at all bit-rates except 8.85 kb/s (which was a tie); (2) SILK out-
performs Speex at all bit-rates; and (3) SILK running at 18.25 kb/s
and above out-performs G.722 at 64 kbps. For noisy speech, tested at
18.25 kb/s, SILK is tied with AMR-WB, and out-performs Speex. For 2,
5 and 10% packet loss, tested at 18.25 kb/s, SILK out-performs both
AMR-WB and Speex in all conditions.
A.2. SILK Deutsche Telekom test
In 2010 Deutsche Telekom published results [Wustenhagen2010] of their
evaulation of super-wideband speech and audio codecs. The test
included the version of SILK submitted to the IETF. The results
showed that for clean speech (item "speechsample") SILK was tied with
AMR-WB and G.718, and out-performed Speex. For noisy speech (item
"arbeit") SILK out-performed AMR-WB and G.718 at 12 and 24 kb/s, and
Speex at all bitrates. At bitrates above 24 kb/s SILK and G.718 were
tied.
A.3. SILK Nokia test
In 2010, Anssi Ramo from Nokia presented [Ramo2010] the results of a
listening test focusing on open-source codecs at Interspeech 2010.
The methodology used was a 9-scale ACR MOS test with clean and noisy
speech samples.
It was noted in the test that:
"Especially at around 16 kbit/s or above Silk is better than AMR-WB
at comparable bitrates. This is due to the fact that Silk wideband
is critically sampled up to 8 kHz instead of ITU- T or 3GPP defined 7
kHz. This added bandwidth (from 7 to 8 kHz) shows up in the results
favourable to Silk. It seems that Silk provides quite artifact free
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
voice quality for the whole 16- 24 kbit/s range with WB signals. At
32 and 40 kbit/s Silk is SWB and competes quite equally against
G.718B or G.722.1C although having a slightly narrower bandwidth than
the ITU-T standardized codecs."
A.4. CELT 0.3.2 listening test
The first listening tests conducted on CELT version 0.3.2 in 2009 and
published in 2010 [valin2010] included AAC-LD (Apple), G.722.1C and
MP3 (Lame). Two MUSHRA tests were conducted: a 48 kb/s test and a 64
kb/s test, both at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate. CELT was used with 256-
sample frames (5.8 ms). All codecs used constant bit-rate (CBR).
The algorithmic delay was 8.7 ms for CELT, 34.8 ms for AAC-LD, 40 ms
for G.722.1C and more than 100 ms for MP3.
The 48 kb/s test included two clean speech samples (one male, one
female) from the EBU SQAM database, four clean speech files (two
male, two female) from the NTT multi-lingual speech database for
telephonometry, and two music samples. In this test, CELT out-
performed AAC-LD, G.722.1C and MP3.
The 64 kb/s test included two clean speech samples (one male, one
female) from the EBU SQAM database, and six music files. In this
test, AAC-LD out-performed CELT, but CELT out-performed both MP3 and
G.722.1C (running at its highest rate of 48 kb/s).
A.5. CELT 0.5.0 listening test
Another CELT listening test was conducted in 2009 on version 0.5.0
and presented at EUSIPCO 2009 [valin2009]. In that test, CELT was
compared to G.722.1C and to the Fraunhofer Ultra Low-Delay (ULD)
codec on 9 audio samples: 2 clean speech samples and 7 music samples.
At 64 kb/s with 5.3 ms frames, CELT clearly out-performed G.722.1C
running at 48 kb/s with 20 ms frames. Also, at 96 kb/s and equal
frame size (2.7 ms), CELT clearly out-performed the ULD codec.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
Appendix B. Opus listening tests on non-final bit-stream
The following listening tests were conducted on the Opus codec on
versions prior to the bit-stream freeze. While Opus has evolved
since these tests were conducted, the results should be considered as
a _lower bound_ on the quality of the final codec.
B.1. First hybrid mode test
In July 2010, the Opus codec authors conducted a preliminary MUSHRA
listening test to evaluate the quality of the recently created
"hybrid" mode combining the SILK and CELT codecs. That test was
conducted at 32 kb/s and compared the following codecs:
o Opus hybrid mode (fullband)
o G.719 (fullband)
o CELT (fullband)
o SILK (wideband)
o BroadVoice32 (wideband)
The test material consisted of two English speech samples from the
EBU SQAM (one male, one female) database and six speech samples
(three male, three female) from the NTT multi-lingual speech database
for telephonometry. Although only eight listeners participated to
the test, the difference between the Opus hybrid mode and all other
codecs was large enough to obtain 95% confidence that the Opus hybrid
mode provided better quality than all other codecs tested. This test
is of interest because it shows that the hybrid clearly out-performs
the codecs that it combines (SILK and CELT). It also out-performs
G.719, which is the only fullband interactive codec standardized by
the ITU-T. These results were presented [Maastricht-78] at the 78th
IETF meeting Maastricht.
B.2. Broadcom stereo music test
In December 2010, Broadcom conducted an ITU-R BS.1116-style
subjective listening test comparing different configurations of the
CELT-only mode of the IETF Opus codec along with MP3 and AAC-LC. The
test included stereo 10 audio samples sampled at 44.1 kHz and
distributed as follows:
o 2 pure speech
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
o 2 vocal
o 2 solo instruments
o 1 rock-and-roll
o 1 pop
o 1 classical orchestra
o 1 jazz
A total of 17 listeners participated to the test. The results of the
test are a available on the testing slides presented at the Prague
meeting [Prague-80]. Although at the time, Opus was not properly
optimised for 44.1 kHz audio, the quality of the Opus codec at 96
kb/s with 22 ms frame was significantly better than MP3 and only
slightly worse than AAC-LC. Even in ultra low-delay mode (5.4 ms),
Opus still outperformed MP3. The test also confirmed the usefulness
of the prefilter/postfilter contribution by Raymond Chen, showing
that this contribution significantly improves quality for small
frames (long frames were not tested with the prefilter/postfilter
disabled).
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
Appendix C. In-the-field testing
Various versions of Opus (or SILK/CELT components) are currently in
use in production in the following applications:
o Skype: VoIP client used by hundreds of millions of people
o Steam: Gaming distribution and communications platform with over
30 million users
o Mumble: Gaming VoIP client with more than 200 thousand users
o Soundjack: Client for live network music performances
o Freeswitch: Open-source telephony platform
o Ekiga: Open-source VoIP client
o CHNC: Radio station using CELT for its studio-transmitter link
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
7. Informative References
[valin2010]
Valin, J., Terriberry, T., Montgomery, C., and G. Maxwell,
"A High-Quality Speech and Audio Codec With Less Than 10
ms delay", 2010.
[valin2009]
Valin, J., Terriberry, T., and G. Maxwell, "A High-Quality
Speech and Audio Codec With Less Than 10 ms delay", 2010.
[Wustenhagen2010]
Wuestenhagen, U., Feiten, B., Kroll, J., Raake, A., and M.
Waeltermann, "Evaluation of Super-Wideband Speech and
Audio Codecs", 2010.
[Ramo2010]
Ramo, A. and H. Toukomaa, "Voice Quality Evaluation of
Recent Open Source Codecs", 2010.
[Ramo2011]
Ramo, A. and H. Toukomaa, "Voice Quality Characterization
of IETF Opus Codec", 2011.
[Maastricht-78]
Valin, J. and K. Vos, "Codec Prototype", 2010.
[Prague-80]
Chen, R., Terriberry, T., Maxwell, G., Skoglund, J., and
H. Nguyet, "Testing results", 2011.
[SILK-Dynastat]
Skype, "SILK Datasheet", 2009.
[ha-test] Dyakonov, "Results of the public multiformat listening
test @ 64 kbps", 2011.
[Skoglund2011]
Skoglund, "Listening tests of Opus at Google",
September 2011.
[Hoene2011]
Hoene and Hyder, "MUSHRA Listening Tests - Focusing on
Stereo Voice Coding", August 2011.
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Codec Quality May 2012
Authors' Addresses
Christian Hoene (editor)
Universitaet Tuebingen
Sand 13
Tuebingen, 72076
Germany
Email: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de
Jean-Marc Valin
Mozilla Corporation
650 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
USA
Phone: +1 650 903-0800
Email: jmvalin@jmvalin.ca
Koen Vos
Skype Technologies S.A.
Stadsgarden 6
Stockholm, 11645
Sweden
Email: koen.vos@skype.net
Jan Skoglund
Google
Email: jks@google.com
Hoene, et al. Expires November 2, 2012 [Page 31]
