I determined that opusenc 0.1.8 was fine now that I have been more careful
how I compiled it. I therefore did a run last night with 1.0.3 and 1.1
using opusenc 0.1.8 and 0.9.14 with opusenc 0.1.2.
I did 30 repeats this time to try and cancel out any slight OS glitches. I
seem to get reasonably representative results.
It shows quite clearly a slight speed up in 1.1 at complexity 0-3, about
the same at 4, slightly slower at 5 & 6 and much slower at 7-10. Also it
appears that on this platform at least there is no point ever using
complexity 8 and 9 because at best they are the same speed as 10 and often
slightly slower. It will be interesting to see if that is the case on other
platforms.
Link to new graph: http://ubuntuone.com/0qHPOiOUglTMsTKtZGkHHC
[image: Inline images 1]
I will continue doing some benchmarking now I have automated on my set up.
Anyone got any definitive samples that would be good for benchmarking?
Best Regards,
Stuart Marsden
Tactical Communications Consultant
FinMars Consulting Ltd
UK: +441865589833
Finland: +358453046287
On 19 December 2013 20:06, Stuart Marsden <stuartmarsden at
finmars.co.uk>wrote:
> I wanted to roughly benchmark how the different version of libopus
> performed at each complexity level for a 6kbit/s output opus file. This was
> conducted on a Raspberry Pi so it is a constant hardware platform. This was
> done on an early Pi so only 256MB RAM but it was never used up so should
> not make a difference.
>
> I compiled the three final versions of each major release of libopus so
> that was 0.9.14, 1.0.3 & 1.1. These were all compiled natively on the
> machine using the current repo version of gcc 4.6.3 and with these
> optimisation flags:
>
> -O2 -pipe -march=armv6j -mtune=arm1176jzf-s -mfpu=vfp -mfloat-abi=hard
>
>
> These were compiled with floating point enabled. I will look at the fixed
> point version separately later.
>
> I used a clip of speech from a librevox recording which was resampled from
> 44.1khz to 48khz within audacity. The clip is 2 minutes long. I wrote a
> simple bash script that ran the encode at each complexity level and
> repeated 10 times to try and get a good average.
>
> The results can be seen in this graph
> http://ubuntuone.com/2gOdUG3h3MyjLY7gSYseRN
>
> [image: Inline images 1]
>
> This clearly shows what I had discovered in what appears to be a
> regression for complexity 7,8,9 and 10. From what Gregory said earlier then
> in fact this is because these levels are producing more quality than they
> did before. It is still good to know this profile though if you only have a
> little CPU to play with such as in embedded applications. The thing I
> cannot graph on this is encode quality. My ears are not good enough to hear
> the difference and unless there is an automated way to score it we will
> just have to assume that each complexity level does increase the quality.
>
> The graph also suggests that on this platform at least complexity level 9
> is pointless as it was slower than 10 and presumably produces worse
> results. This could of course have been some background task kicking in on
> the OS when this ran and the error bars are quite large so I will see if
> this maintained over other runs.
>
> All these speeds were taken from opusenc outputs and I used version 0.1.2
> of opus-tools which was compatible with all three versions of the library.
> I am running another test using 0.1.8 at the moment but it will only work
> with libopus 1.0.3 and 1.1. I think I observed that it was slightly slower
> but we will see if the results will bear that out.
>
> I also will run some tests at different bit rates and with music instead
> of voice as well and share the charts here. If anyone wants I can share the
> OpenOffice spreadsheet with the raw numbers and the bash script I used
> (though you have to do all the compiling yourself).
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Stuart Marsden
>
> Tactical Communications Consultant
> FinMars Consulting Ltd
> UK: +441865589833
> Finland: +358453046287
>
>
> On 18 December 2013 00:14, Stuart Marsden <stuartmarsden at
finmars.co.uk>wrote:
>
>> Gregory,
>>
>> That is good to know and if therefore the true apples to apples
>> comparison is 0.9.14 at comp 10 and 1.1 at comp 5 then things are fine.
My
>> ears are not good enough to hear the difference so for speed I would
target
>> comp 5 or lower.
>>
>> I just did a quick test and 0.9.14 at comp 10 was 3.872
>> 1.1 at comp 5 was 5.218
>>
>> So if the output is comparable then we do in fact see a speed
improvement.
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out. Is it documented? I admit I have only
read
>> some of the documentation.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Stuart Marsden
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17 December 2013 23:50, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Stuart Marsden
>>> <stuartmarsden at finmars.co.uk> wrote:
>>> > I have just started trying Opus with a view to using it in a
project.
>>> I am
>>> > interested in embedded hardware and tried it on the Raspberry
Pi using
>>> the
>>> > raspbian distro.
>>> >
>>> > The version of libopus in the repos is 0.9.14. I installed
this and
>>> tried
>>> > encoding 2 minutes of speech from a librevox recording. It
managed
>>> this at a
>>> > respectable pace for complexity 10:
>>>
>>> Complexity 10 is new analysis code that didn't exist in prior
>>> versions, setting complexity 5 gets you basically the same analysis
>>> that the 1.0 version had.
>>>
>>> On x86 and modern arm cores with fast FPUs the other speedups are
>>> enough that complexity 10 is about the same speed in the old
software
>>> or the new software (but with much higher and consistent VBR
quality).
>>> But on chips with slow FPUs the new analysis code is much slower,
in
>>> particular because it has not been entirely converted to fixed
point
>>> (e.g. in the fixed point builds) which is what I believe you're
seeing
>>> here.
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20131220/97b18ed1/attachment-0001.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 41961 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20131220/97b18ed1/attachment-0002.png
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 41601 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20131220/97b18ed1/attachment-0003.png