[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 draft-ietf-codec-results

codec                                                          JM. Valin
Internet-Draft                                              Octasic Inc.
Intended status: Informational                                    K. Vos
Expires: December 18, 2011                       Skype Technologies S.A.
                                                             J. Skoglund
                                                                  Google
                                                           June 16, 2011


                 Summary of Opus listening test results
                      draft-valin-codec-results-00

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 December 18, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.



Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Pre-Opus listening tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  SILK Dynastat listening test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  SILK Deutsche Telekom test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  SILK Nokia test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.4.  CELT 0.3.2 listening test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.5.  CELT 0.5.0 listening test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Opus listening tests on non-final bit-stream . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  First hybrid mode test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Broadcom stereo music test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Opus listening tests on final bit-stream . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Google listening tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.1.  Google narrowband listening test . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.2.  Google wideband and fullband listening test  . . . . .  9
       4.1.3.  Google stereo music listening test . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.2.  HydrogenAudio stereo music listening test  . . . . . . . . 12
     4.3.  Nokia Interspeech 2011 listening test  . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  In-the-field testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Conclusion on the requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.1.  Comparison to Speex (narrowband) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.2.  Comparison to iLBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.3.  Comparison to Speex (wideband) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.4.  Comparison to G.722.1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.5.  Comparison to G.722.1C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.6.  Comparison to AMR-NB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     6.7.  Comparison to AMR-WB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20


















Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


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.
































Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


2.  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.

2.1.  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.

2.2.  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.

2.3.  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



Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


   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."

2.4.  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).

2.5.  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.
















Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


3.  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.

3.1.  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.

3.2.  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





Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


   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).




























Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


4.  Opus listening tests on final bit-stream

   The following tests were performed on the Opus codec _after_ the bit-
   stream was finalized.

4.1.  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].

4.1.1.  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.









Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


           +-----------+----------------------+----------------+
           |    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  |
           +-----------+----------------------+----------------+

                              Test 1 stimuli

                                  Table 1

   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.

4.1.2.  Google wideband and fullband listening test

   The eight test sequences for Test 1 were also used in Test 2. 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.













Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


          +-----------+----------------------+-----------------+
          |    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  |
          +-----------+----------------------+-----------------+

                              Test 2 stimuli

                                  Table 2

   The results from Test 2 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.

4.1.3.  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)




Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


   o  Electronica (Matmos)

   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 [9] (Nero 1.5.1 [10]), and MP3 [11,12]
   (Lame 3.98.4 [13]).  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   |
   |           |                   |             |                     |





Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


   |  Opus FB  |      ~20 kHz      |      5      |      128 kbps,      |
   |           |     (Fullband)    |             |   constrained VBR   |
   +-----------+-------------------+-------------+---------------------+

                              Test 3 stimuli

                                  Table 3

   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.

4.2.  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.

4.3.  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.







Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


5.  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
































Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


6.  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.

6.1.  Comparison to Speex (narrowband)

   The Opus codec was compared to Speex in narrowband mode in the Google
   narrowband test (Section 4.1.1).  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.

6.2.  Comparison to iLBC

   The Opus codec was compared to iLBC in the Google narrowband test
   (Section 4.1.1).  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.

6.3.  Comparison to Speex (wideband)

   The Opus codec was compared to Speex in wideband mode in the Google
   wideband and fullband test (Section 4.1.2).  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
   (Section 2.1) 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.

6.4.  Comparison to G.722.1

   In the Google wideband and fullband test (Section 4.1.2), 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 4.3) 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.







Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


6.5.  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 (Section 2.4) 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 4.3) 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.

6.6.  Comparison to AMR-NB

   In the Google narrowband test (Section 4.1.1), Opus was shown to out-
   perform AMR-NB at 12 kb/s.  On the other hand, in the Nokia
   Interspeech 2011 listening test (Section 4.3), 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.

6.7.  Comparison to AMR-WB

   In the Google wideband and fullband test (Section 4.1.2), 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 4.3),
   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.























Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


7.  Security Considerations

   No security considerations.
















































Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


8.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.
















































Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


9.  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.














































Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


10.  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",  20011.















Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                    June 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Jean-Marc Valin
   Octasic Inc.
   4101, Molson Street
   Montreal, Quebec
   Canada

   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


























Valin, et al.           Expires December 18, 2011              [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/