search for: peaq

Hi, *"That's in general not very reliable. You can get PEAQ to say all sorts of silly things." Can you provide me links for any more effective tools other than PEAQ? Which is more reliable for Speex resampler? * *"strongly suspect that it's just not compensating for the delay introduced by the resampler. Because higher quality means higher de...

Hello, ? I don?t know whether this is the right place to discuss such a question here. I?m sorry. ? I want to evaluate the CELT codec using a known MATLAB implementation of the PEAQ software. If anyone has used this test program he could see that one of the input parameters (3rd one) shifts the frames for both the reference and the under test audio signals. Another parameter (4th one) marks the end of data. My question is how to choose such parameters? Depending on what? Is th...

Hi, I just built a sample application with speex resampler in linux and I tried to resample 8K sine wave tone mono to 48k using speex_resample_process_int. I am using a tool called EAQUAL for audio quality. I find the quality of Speex resampler to be decreasing when I increase the quality q of the resampler init function. Can some one give me pointers regarding this?? As per the API, if the

On 2/18/08, Premkiran Mannava <loverays@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > *"That's in general not very reliable. You can get PEAQ to say all sorts > of silly things." > > Can you provide me links for any more effective tools other than PEAQ? > Which is more reliable for Speex resampler?* I can already tell you what Jean-Marc will say -- use your ears :) Manual testing is the best way to go for doing actual...

Hi Rhishi, PQevalaudio is very unreliable and buggy. I have compared to PEAQ and - as a result - now I am not using it anymore. With best regards, Christian Hoene Von: opus-bounces at xiph.org [mailto:opus-bounces at xiph.org] Im Auftrag von Rhishikesh Agashe Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Oktober 2013 12:35 An: opus at xiph.org Cc: Rasmi Mishra Betreff: [opus] ODG (...

...cm file,16 bit,48khz,litle endian. i use libopus 1.1-beta and opus-tools-0.1.7. The command for opus_demo is: opus_demo audio 48000 1 64000 -cvbr -framesize 10 in.pcm out.pcm For opusenc/dec: opusenc --raw --raw-chan 1 bitrate 64 -cvbr --framesize 10 in.pcm in.opus opusdec in.opus out.pcm the PEAQ value for opus_demo is -0.152 and for opus-tools is -0.449 Should I expect the same quality or are opus_demo and opusenc/dec different by definition? Thanks, Quilino

...n Mannava a ?crit : > I just built a sample application with speex resampler in linux and I > tried to resample 8K sine wave tone mono to 48k using > speex_resample_process_int. I am using a tool called EAQUAL for audio > quality. That's in general not very reliable. You can get PEAQ to say all sorts of silly things. > I find the quality of Speex resampler to be decreasing when I > increase the quality q of the resampler init function. Can some one > give me pointers regarding this?? I strongly suspect that it's just not compensating for the delay introduced by...

Hi, I checked the ODG (Objective Difference Grade) scores for a few reference vectors using the PQEvalAudio Tool and found that some of them show ODG scores as high as -3.5 If we look at the range as described in the link below, it looks unacceptable. http://www-mmsp.ece.mcgill.ca/documents/Software/Packages/AFsp/PQevalAudio.html Am I missing something or are these scores valid? Thanks and

Benjamin, Thanks for the prompt response. Are there other recommended methods to verify encoder implementations? Regards, Chris From: benjamin.m.schwartz at gmail.com [mailto:benjamin.m.schwartz at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Benjamin Schwartz Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 1:53 PM To: Wang, Chris Cc: opus at xiph.org Subject: Re: [opus] Questions Regarding Opus Test Vectors On Sun, Nov 10,

...hristian.hoene at symonics.com] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 17:30 To: Rhishikesh Agashe; opus at xiph.org Cc: Rasmi Mishra Subject: AW: [opus] ODG (Objective Difference Grade) scores for Opus Encoder using PQEvalAudio Tool Hi Rhishi, PQevalaudio is very unreliable and buggy. I have compared to PEAQ and - as a result - now I am not using it anymore. With best regards, Christian Hoene Von: opus-bounces at xiph.org<mailto:opus-bounces at xiph.org> [mailto:opus-bounces at xiph.org] Im Auftrag von Rhishikesh Agashe Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Oktober 2013 12:35 An: opus at xiph.org<mailto:o...

...d opus-tools-0.1.7. > > The command for opus_demo is: > > opus_demo audio 48000 1 64000 -cvbr -framesize 10 in.pcm out.pcm > > For opusenc/dec: > > opusenc --raw --raw-chan 1 bitrate 64 -cvbr --framesize 10 in.pcm in.opus > > opusdec in.opus out.pcm > > the PEAQ value for opus_demo is -0.152 and for opus-tools is -0.449 > > Should I expect the same quality or are opus_demo and opusenc/dec > different by definition? > > Thanks, > Quilino > _______________________________________________ > opus mailing list > opus at xiph.org &gt...

...command for opus_demo is: >> >> opus_demo audio 48000 1 64000 -cvbr -framesize 10 in.pcm out.pcm >> >> For opusenc/dec: >> >> opusenc --raw --raw-chan 1 bitrate 64 -cvbr --framesize 10 in.pcm in.opus >> >> opusdec in.opus out.pcm >> >> the PEAQ value for opus_demo is -0.152 and for opus-tools is -0.449 >> >> Should I expect the same quality or are opus_demo and opusenc/dec >> different by definition? >> >> Thanks, >> Quilino >> _______________________________________________ >> opus mailing...

...be enabled via the RESYNTH #define, at least for the CELT layer. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/codec-4.pdf covers a number of additional software tests we run. Determining the quality of a correctly-functioning encoder requires subjective (listening tests) and/or objective metrics (PEAQ, PESQ, etc.).

...t looks like for some portions of the frame the errors are completely harmless. But this is an artefact of the graph scaling: All errored cases sound worse than the non-errored, but some sound pretty close to the original when compared to the utter destruction of corrupting the first few bits. The PEAQ metric used here is not really designed for measuring highly corrupted signals, but after listening to some of the cases I believe that it gives a reasonable rough relative measure. (each of the BER lines represent processing almost 4000 hours of audio, so using human listening tests to generate t...

Hello, All of the Opus quality studies that I've seen focused on human-perceived quality. I'm interested to know of any experience with machined "perceived" quality, particularly related to speech recognition or biometrics. I'm also interested in folks thoughts on optimizing Opus for ASR. For example, removing certain classes of comfort noise, filtering non-speech bands,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Celts, I've become intrigued by the problem of spherical quantizers, so I decided to see if I could come up with something better than PVQ. What I wound up writing is something I call an "octagon quantizer. In two dimensions, PVQ uses a "diamond" (square) shape. An octagon code (OVQ) uses an octagon, which is a much better

Hi, We're testing CELT (version 0.7.1) error resilience capability. We've used already celtdec packet-loss options. Hence we know what to expect in case of whole packet loss. How does Celt respond to a broken encoded packet? Is it always better to discard it and decode the missing frame through decode_lost? We have the hardware capability of protecting the frame with multiple CRCs.