Ed W | 31 May 2012 20:25

Asterisk Feedback and tips

Hi Folks

Now that we kindly have an Asterisk codec provided, it's great for 
testing out voice quality.

I tweaked the Elastix RPM in order to add it to our office phone 
server.  Elastix is one of those drop in ready to go distros and other 
that you then live in the usual Centos RPM hell (I concede I don't 
really grok working with rpm...).  I anyone wants the tweaked .spec file 
then shout - it's nasty though...

What I did was to setup a "trunk" to call out and back in on the same 
server - this allows me to force a specific codec over that route and 
after that by careful choice of destination context I can dial out of 
the PBX as normal.

I setup prefixes so that I can dial:
40xxx dials the number using Codec2
41xxx dials the number using LPC10
42xxx dials the number using G732.1 5kbit

This is great for comparing quality of codecs quickly.

A snippet from my iax.conf (sip.conf would be similar) looks something like:

[codec2-out]
username=forced-codec2
type=peer
secret=something_secret
host=asterisk.example.com
(Continue reading)

Ed W | 1 Jun 2012 00:19

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

On 31/05/2012 19:25, Ed W wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> Now that we kindly have an Asterisk codec provided, it's great for
> testing out voice quality.
...
> I setup prefixes so that I can dial:
> 40xxx dials the number using Codec2
> 41xxx dials the number using LPC10
> 42xxx dials the number using G732.1 5kbit
>
> This is great for comparing quality of codecs quickly.

I have tested using
- the asterisk echo test
- calling between two snom phones on g711
- calling between a DECT handset and a nokia wifi phone (g711 & ilbc)
- compared with Inmarsat/Iridium satellite (4/3 kbit ish each)
- Codec2 at 2,500 baud

My observation are:
- Codec2 is distinctly superior to LPC10. Both are a bit buzzy, but 
LPC10 is distinctly more so. Voicing is somewhat similar with each though.
- Codec2 is substantially lower quality than 5kbit G723.1. Actually 
quite amazing how good G723.1 is!! (6kbit G723.1 is MOS 3.9 !)
- Codec2 gives me a bit of earache after just a few mins. Not measured 
it, but wondering if there is some harmonic distortion generated?
- Unsurprisingly multiple low quality codecs together are additively 
poor.  Dect + Codec2 has a noticable extra buzziness
- Quite a wide range of voice pitches are handled very nicely. I can 
(Continue reading)

Robert Staton | 1 Jun 2012 00:24
Picon
Favicon

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

I believe Inmarsat has more than one type of phone, with different codecs at different rates.  I have an Inmarsat Pro phone, and the bitrate is 2.4kbps.  I think the older phones use a higher bitrate.

--- On Thu, 5/31/12, Ed W <lists <at> wildgooses.com> wrote:

From: Ed W <lists <at> wildgooses.com>
Subject: Re: [Freetel-codec2] Asterisk Feedback and tips
To: freetel-codec2-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
Date: Thursday, May 31, 2012, 3:19 PM

On 31/05/2012 19:25, Ed W wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> Now that we kindly have an Asterisk codec provided, it's great for
> testing out voice quality.
...
> I setup prefixes so that I can dial:
> 40xxx dials the number using Codec2
> 41xxx dials the number using LPC10
> 42xxx dials the number using G732.1 5kbit
>
> This is great for comparing quality of codecs quickly.


I have tested using
- the asterisk echo test
- calling between two snom phones on g711
- calling between a DECT handset and a nokia wifi phone (g711 & ilbc)
- compared with Inmarsat/Iridium satellite (4/3 kbit ish each)
- Codec2 at 2,500 baud

My observation are:
- Codec2 is distinctly superior to LPC10. Both are a bit buzzy, but
LPC10 is distinctly more so. Voicing is somewhat similar with each though.
- Codec2 is substantially lower quality than 5kbit G723.1. Actually
quite amazing how good G723.1 is!! (6kbit G723.1 is MOS 3.9 !)
- Codec2 gives me a bit of earache after just a few mins. Not measured
it, but wondering if there is some harmonic distortion generated?
- Unsurprisingly multiple low quality codecs together are additively
poor.  Dect + Codec2 has a noticable extra buzziness
- Quite a wide range of voice pitches are handled very nicely. I can
listen to my kids, wife and myself (British english speakers) without
any problems. Upper end of my kids and wife's voice goes distinctly
harsh and buzzy (guys talk in a falsetto to repro).
- Extremely understandable speech with that 8khz kinda feeling, ie not
nasally
- Codec2 deals quite badly with music on hold and ring tones.  OK, even
GSM deals badly with music on hold, but the ring tones and other call
progress tones on the PSTN turn into farts and pops (amusing)

- Compared with Iridium/Inmarsat, those are both less buzzy and somewhat
easier to listen to
- Iridium I believe is somewhere between 2.4 and 3.4 Kbits (not clear
which). It is much more nasally sounding, but it's also smoother
sounding (less buzz).  I believe they use a narrower freq filter range
(hence the nasally sound), but the vocoder is less buzzy, on the flip
side Iridium is less easy to hear the non plosive sounds and is often a
little "honky" compared with codec2. Overall codec2 is easier to
understand, iridium is smoother on the ear.
- Inmarsat is far superior to either and usually sounds extremely clear
when the signal is good, normally close to G723.1.  However, it also
degrades very well with packet loss and sounds something like Iridium
under stress. I believe they use a 4+Kbit voice codec, but not sure

Overall seems very impressive.  I guess I wish for a touch more voice
quality at the 2,400 level.  What I mean by that is that it tends to
oscillate and "buzz" at pitches that are easily found in female and even
high voices - the actual voicing is great, satisfactory identification
of speaker from their voice, clear consonant sounds and non nasally
sounding - excellent.  Kids voices are a tough challenge and codec2 does
an admirable job, not much worse than GSM, but I think probably the same
as above - higher pitched voices might be slightly falling outside of
the oscillator prediction area and tend to buzz a little too much?
(could the predictor follow the voice range?)

I haven't tested in the presence of significant background noise. Which
is to say I stood next to a noisy road and the tv, but it seems the
handsets I own or the input filters are killing the background noise
enough that it wasn't audible, nor a problem at the levels I tried.  I'm
presuming this would be a tough challenge on any codec, but it seems
"normal" noise levels are no issue at all.


David, do you want to take a voice call over the PSTN using Codec2 just
for kicks?  I'm on GMT, propose a time and tel number offlist if so.  I
can also call on Iridium/Inmarsat

Thanks for your wonderful work!

Ed W


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5urNAH6kLmebB@public.gmane.org.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
Ed W | 1 Jun 2012 09:45

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

On 31/05/2012 23:24, Robert Staton wrote:
I believe Inmarsat has more than one type of phone, with different codecs at different rates.  I have an Inmarsat Pro phone, and the bitrate is 2.4kbps.  I think the older phones use a higher bitrate.

See I'm not so sure on that..?  Certainly the data pipe is 2,400 effective, but that doesn't mean it's the same used for voice

For example my uncertainty on the Iridium is that they have nearly a 3.5Kbit connection to the satellite, but they use a ton of FEC and frame packing on the data connection giving you the effective 2,400 pipe for user data.  However, on the voice channel they may well use a different encoding.  Some very brief notes in the sidebar here (google the numbers to get the source):
    http://www.mailasail.com/Support/Iridium-Bandwidth

I believe the Fleetbroadband (FBB) and ISatphone pro use the same voice codec?  The FBB has quite variable voice quality depending on whether you have the antenna static or rolling around on a boat.  Static quality is extremely high - I would say competitive with cellular and so perhaps equiv to G723.1.  However, it degrades reasonably under stress and sounds more like Iridium, however, I have no idea what level of error correction and loss of bandwidth that actually means in practice - certainly it's not doing a skype like loss concealment, it just continues at lower quality...

It seems hard to believe that the ISatphone Pro is using only 2.4kbit, but if so then it would very much be a benchmark to emulate...

Note I haven't heard dstar quality to compare

Should we propose a standard paragraph of speech to have a similarity on bunch of voice samples?

Ed W

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
Ed W | 2 Jun 2012 11:01

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

On 01/06/2012 08:45, Ed W wrote:
On 31/05/2012 23:24, Robert Staton wrote:
I believe Inmarsat has more than one type of phone, with different codecs at different rates.  I have an Inmarsat Pro phone, and the bitrate is 2.4kbps.  I think the older phones use a higher bitrate.


So some light digging suggests:

- Inmarsat Mini-M uses a 3.6Kbit AMBE codec with FEC bringing total up to 4.8Kbit (older M might have been IMBE)
- Inmarsat FleetBroadband uses what they call 3.1Khz 4kbit AMBE+2 (definitely better quality than Mini-M to my ear)
- Inmarsat Isatphone Pro is not clear. Lots of blurb simply says 2.4Kbit voice. Decent quality in practice, probably lower than FBB

- Iridium is not clear on codec.  They certainly have data channels of a touch under 3.5kbit before framing, and a user data channel is 2.4kbit + FEC.  I would guess that like the mini-M they use a 2.4Kbit+FEC AMBE codec.

I can go ask some engineers to confirm the above, but mainly I was interested just so that I can use them as sensible benchmarks.  No point getting over excited about a comparison with vastly larger kbit streams.  From this it seems like Iridium and Isatphone Pro are sensible benchmarks. 

(I guess it's obvious to those who work in this business that DVSI produced all the above (and quite a lot of the other low bandwidth codecs in use). Seems like they are your go to for low bandwidth stuff)


I will look at recording some samples on different equipment and combinations.

Ed W


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
Steve Underwood | 2 Jun 2012 15:46

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

On 06/02/2012 05:01 PM, Ed W wrote:
> - Iridium is not clear on codec.  They certainly have data channels of 
> a touch under 3.5kbit before framing, and a user data channel is 
> 2.4kbit + FEC.  I would guess that like the mini-M they use a 
> 2.4Kbit+FEC AMBE codec.
I don't know if they changed, but the original spec for Iridium used a 
codec called PSELP at 2.4kbps. Iridium came from Motorola's defence 
group, and a lot of what they did reused things developed for the 
military. I believe PSELP was among those things.

Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
David Rowe | 2 Jun 2012 20:58
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

Steve - I doubt any Self/Codebook excited Linear Prediction type codec
(which I presume the SELP in PSELP stands for) could work at 2.4 kbit/s

I Googled "Iridium Codec" and this came up:

DVSI AMBE-2020™

www.dvsinc.com/products/a2020.htmCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. UndoThe AMBE-2020™ Vocoder Chip is a low cost,
DSP-based voice codec for ... Satellite systems such as Iridium, ICO,
Inmarsat, Thuraya, ACeS, Optus and ...

- David

On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 21:46 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
> On 06/02/2012 05:01 PM, Ed W wrote:
> > - Iridium is not clear on codec.  They certainly have data channels of 
> > a touch under 3.5kbit before framing, and a user data channel is 
> > 2.4kbit + FEC.  I would guess that like the mini-M they use a 
> > 2.4Kbit+FEC AMBE codec.
> I don't know if they changed, but the original spec for Iridium used a 
> codec called PSELP at 2.4kbps. Iridium came from Motorola's defence 
> group, and a lot of what they did reused things developed for the 
> military. I believe PSELP was among those things.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Freetel-codec2 mailing list
> Freetel-codec2 <at> lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2 <at> lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
Bruce Perens | 2 Jun 2012 21:24
Gravatar

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

Hm. These guys need to know about us. Maybe we should submit a paper to 
a satellite conference.

On 06/02/2012 11:58 AM, David Rowe wrote:
> Steve - I doubt any Self/Codebook excited Linear Prediction type codec
> (which I presume the SELP in PSELP stands for) could work at 2.4 kbit/s
>
> I Googled "Iridium Codec" and this came up:
>
> DVSI AMBE-2020™
>
> www.dvsinc.com/products/a2020.htmCached - Similar
> You +1'd this publicly. UndoThe AMBE-2020™ Vocoder Chip is a low cost,
> DSP-based voice codec for ... Satellite systems such as Iridium, ICO,
> Inmarsat, Thuraya, ACeS, Optus and ...
>
> - David
>
> On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 21:46 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
>> On 06/02/2012 05:01 PM, Ed W wrote:
>>> - Iridium is not clear on codec.  They certainly have data channels of
>>> a touch under 3.5kbit before framing, and a user data channel is
>>> 2.4kbit + FEC.  I would guess that like the mini-M they use a
>>> 2.4Kbit+FEC AMBE codec.
>> I don't know if they changed, but the original spec for Iridium used a
>> codec called PSELP at 2.4kbps. Iridium came from Motorola's defence
>> group, and a lot of what they did reused things developed for the
>> military. I believe PSELP was among those things.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Live Security Virtual Conference
>> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
>> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
>> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
>> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Freetel-codec2 mailing list
>> Freetel-codec2@...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Freetel-codec2 mailing list
> Freetel-codec2@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2

Attachment (bruce.vcf): text/x-vcard, 266 bytes
Attachment (smime.p7s): application/pkcs7-signature, 4447 bytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
Steve Underwood | 3 Jun 2012 09:00

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

On 06/03/2012 02:58 AM, David Rowe wrote:
> Steve - I doubt any Self/Codebook excited Linear Prediction type codec
> (which I presume the SELP in PSELP stands for) could work at 2.4 kbit/s
The named PSELP puzzled us from the time Iridium was first announced, 
for the reason you give. Even though I was at Motorola then, and doing 
speech work, I never saw the name expanded from its initials. Googling 
PSELP doesn't seem to bring up any hits at all. A lot of low bit rate 
military codecs have been based on some from of LPC, even as low as 1200bps.
>
> I Googled "Iridium Codec" and this came up:
>
> DVSI AMBE-2020™
>
> www.dvsinc.com/products/a2020.htmCached - Similar
> You +1'd this publicly. UndoThe AMBE-2020™ Vocoder Chip is a low cost,
> DSP-based voice codec for ... Satellite systems such as Iridium, ICO,
> Inmarsat, Thuraya, ACeS, Optus and ...
They must have changed, or at least provided more options. It seems 
several systems which started out with other codecs later changed to 
AMBE, or made it an option. In the case of Inmarsat and Iridium I 
suspect that may be for reasons of interworking with terrestrial 
emergency services, which all went with AMBE. At these bit rates you 
*really* don't want the quality loss that ensues from a transcode.
>
> - David
>
> On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 21:46 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
>> On 06/02/2012 05:01 PM, Ed W wrote:
>>> - Iridium is not clear on codec.  They certainly have data channels of
>>> a touch under 3.5kbit before framing, and a user data channel is
>>> 2.4kbit + FEC.  I would guess that like the mini-M they use a
>>> 2.4Kbit+FEC AMBE codec.
>> I don't know if they changed, but the original spec for Iridium used a
>> codec called PSELP at 2.4kbps. Iridium came from Motorola's defence
>> group, and a lot of what they did reused things developed for the
>> military. I believe PSELP was among those things.
>>
>> Steve
>>
Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2 <at> lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
Ed W | 4 Jun 2012 13:00

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

On 03/06/2012 08:00, Steve Underwood wrote:
>> I Googled "Iridium Codec" and this came up:
>>
>> DVSI AMBE-2020™
>>
>> www.dvsinc.com/products/a2020.htmCached - Similar
>> You +1'd this publicly. UndoThe AMBE-2020™ Vocoder Chip is a low cost,
>> DSP-based voice codec for ... Satellite systems such as Iridium, ICO,
>> Inmarsat, Thuraya, ACeS, Optus and ...
> They must have changed, or at least provided more options. It seems
> several systems which started out with other codecs later changed to
> AMBE, or made it an option. In the case of Inmarsat and Iridium I
> suspect that may be for reasons of interworking with terrestrial
> emergency services, which all went with AMBE. At these bit rates you
> *really* don't want the quality loss that ensues from a transcode.

yes, I think there is little doubt that DVSI have done nearly all of the 
codecs of anything of interest in "low bandwidth" in the last 10+ 
years.  I'm reasonably sure that DVSI did the Iridium codec, but not 
clear on the exact details, 2,400+FEC fits with what we know of the 
actual system capabilities. If anyone really cares I can actually go ask 
Iridium and Inmarsat for all the details, but I think we probably know 
enough now to move on - it's of cursory interest to know the exact 
details of someone else's system?

However, I haven't yet tried cascading Codec2 to satellite - this is one 
of my interesting use cases so I will try shortly - however, I'm 
expecting it to be rather poor..?

Oh, finally has everyone spotted this:
     http://www.opus-codec.org/

It's not 100% clear what it really is, but it states that it's a 
derivative of Skype SILK codec and Xiph's CELT codec.  The benchmarks 
all focus on the 64Kbit range and compare against stuff like AAC.  
However, it claims to work down to 6kbit and offer automatic "music" or 
"voice" implementations (might be of interest given the recent discussions?)

Ed W

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2 <at> lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
Bruce Perens | 1 Jun 2012 00:52
Gravatar

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

Ed,

Regarding the buzzy problem, capturing files with the compressed and 
uncompressed version of anything that sounds bad is important. David 
will do the listen-and-tweak if you can get these.

     Thanks

     Bruce
Attachment (bruce.vcf): text/x-vcard, 266 bytes
Attachment (smime.p7s): application/pkcs7-signature, 4447 bytes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
Anthony Cutler | 1 Jun 2012 04:51
Picon
Favicon

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

Ed,

thank you for a very thorough review. We need more reviews like yours.

73

From: Ed W <lists-XJavvHiACVh0ubjbjo6WXg@public.gmane.org>
To: freetel-codec2-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5urNAH6kLmebB@public.gmane.org.net
Sent: Thursday, 31 May 2012, 15:19
Subject: Re: [Freetel-codec2] Asterisk Feedback and tips

On 31/05/2012 19:25, Ed W wrote:
> Hi Folks
>
> Now that we kindly have an Asterisk codec provided, it's great for
> testing out voice quality.
...
> I setup prefixes so that I can dial:
> 40xxx dials the number using Codec2
> 41xxx dials the number using LPC10
> 42xxx dials the number using G732.1 5kbit
>
> This is great for comparing quality of codecs quickly.


I have tested using
- the asterisk echo test
- calling between two snom phones on g711
- calling between a DECT handset and a nokia wifi phone (g711 & ilbc)
- compared with Inmarsat/Iridium satellite (4/3 kbit ish each)
- Codec2 at 2,500 baud

My observation are:
- Codec2 is distinctly superior to LPC10. Both are a bit buzzy, but
LPC10 is distinctly more so. Voicing is somewhat similar with each though.
- Codec2 is substantially lower quality than 5kbit G723.1. Actually
quite amazing how good G723.1 is!! (6kbit G723.1 is MOS 3.9 !)
- Codec2 gives me a bit of earache after just a few mins. Not measured
it, but wondering if there is some harmonic distortion generated?
- Unsurprisingly multiple low quality codecs together are additively
poor.  Dect + Codec2 has a noticable extra buzziness
- Quite a wide range of voice pitches are handled very nicely. I can
listen to my kids, wife and myself (British english speakers) without
any problems. Upper end of my kids and wife's voice goes distinctly
harsh and buzzy (guys talk in a falsetto to repro).
- Extremely understandable speech with that 8khz kinda feeling, ie not
nasally
- Codec2 deals quite badly with music on hold and ring tones.  OK, even
GSM deals badly with music on hold, but the ring tones and other call
progress tones on the PSTN turn into farts and pops (amusing)

- Compared with Iridium/Inmarsat, those are both less buzzy and somewhat
easier to listen to
- Iridium I believe is somewhere between 2.4 and 3.4 Kbits (not clear
which). It is much more nasally sounding, but it's also smoother
sounding (less buzz).  I believe they use a narrower freq filter range
(hence the nasally sound), but the vocoder is less buzzy, on the flip
side Iridium is less easy to hear the non plosive sounds and is often a
little "honky" compared with codec2. Overall codec2 is easier to
understand, iridium is smoother on the ear.
- Inmarsat is far superior to either and usually sounds extremely clear
when the signal is good, normally close to G723.1.  However, it also
degrades very well with packet loss and sounds something like Iridium
under stress. I believe they use a 4+Kbit voice codec, but not sure

Overall seems very impressive.  I guess I wish for a touch more voice
quality at the 2,400 level.  What I mean by that is that it tends to
oscillate and "buzz" at pitches that are easily found in female and even
high voices - the actual voicing is great, satisfactory identification
of speaker from their voice, clear consonant sounds and non nasally
sounding - excellent.  Kids voices are a tough challenge and codec2 does
an admirable job, not much worse than GSM, but I think probably the same
as above - higher pitched voices might be slightly falling outside of
the oscillator prediction area and tend to buzz a little too much?
(could the predictor follow the voice range?)

I haven't tested in the presence of significant background noise. Which
is to say I stood next to a noisy road and the tv, but it seems the
handsets I own or the input filters are killing the background noise
enough that it wasn't audible, nor a problem at the levels I tried.  I'm
presuming this would be a tough challenge on any codec, but it seems
"normal" noise levels are no issue at all.


David, do you want to take a voice call over the PSTN using Codec2 just
for kicks?  I'm on GMT, propose a time and tel number offlist if so.  I
can also call on Iridium/Inmarsat

Thanks for your wonderful work!

Ed W


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2 <at> lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
David Rowe | 1 Jun 2012 10:41
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Asterisk Feedback and tips

Hello Ed & list,

Thank you for those experiments, very useful data points at this stage
in the Codec's development.  When I developed the Asterisk support I
also learnt a lot by talking to my two sons (different ages and hence
pitch ranges) using the codec.  Conversational tests show up a lot that
you miss when listening to the same utterances all day.

I agree on the buziness artefact - it's the phase synthesis.  The voiced
speech tend to be synthesised a bit too impulsively (energy concentrated
near one position in time).  The effect is worse when listened to
through a phone handset or headphones, better when through a small
laptop speaker (similar to a 2-way radio speaker).  Yes, the sharp
impulses can be tiring on the ear after a while.  I haven't worked out
how to fix this yet, but have some ideas.  

In contrast AMBE codecs tend to have a reverberant or underwater effect
to them, especially for males, once again due to the phase synthesis
algorithm they use.  They sound much better for females, the shorter
pitch period makes phase less of an issue.

I think the Inmarsat services use a 4 kbit/s AMBE codec.

Re the problems you had with high pitched voices, it could be the pitch
estimation algorithm breaking, or simply hitting it's limits (I hard
coded it arbitrarily to 50 - 400Hz).  If I can get some samples of it
failing I can track it down.  I think Asterisk has a monitor function, I
would need the input speech.  Curiously my 6 year old didn't have the
same problem - in fact he sounded clearer to me than on a GSM phone.

The problem with call progress tones is a new one on me, hadn't thought
to check that.  Thanks.

Sounds like we are in the ball park with Iridium at 2400 bit/s.  We are
behind other codecs at twice the bit rate, but that is to be expected.
So not bad for an open source codec that is still under development.

Sure Ed - I'll contact you off list to have a call over the codecs......

Thanks,

David

On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 23:19 +0100, Ed W wrote:
> On 31/05/2012 19:25, Ed W wrote:
> > Hi Folks
> >
> > Now that we kindly have an Asterisk codec provided, it's great for
> > testing out voice quality.
> ...
> > I setup prefixes so that I can dial:
> > 40xxx dials the number using Codec2
> > 41xxx dials the number using LPC10
> > 42xxx dials the number using G732.1 5kbit
> >
> > This is great for comparing quality of codecs quickly.
> 
> 
> I have tested using
> - the asterisk echo test
> - calling between two snom phones on g711
> - calling between a DECT handset and a nokia wifi phone (g711 & ilbc)
> - compared with Inmarsat/Iridium satellite (4/3 kbit ish each)
> - Codec2 at 2,500 baud
> 
> My observation are:
> - Codec2 is distinctly superior to LPC10. Both are a bit buzzy, but 
> LPC10 is distinctly more so. Voicing is somewhat similar with each though.
> - Codec2 is substantially lower quality than 5kbit G723.1. Actually 
> quite amazing how good G723.1 is!! (6kbit G723.1 is MOS 3.9 !)
> - Codec2 gives me a bit of earache after just a few mins. Not measured 
> it, but wondering if there is some harmonic distortion generated?
> - Unsurprisingly multiple low quality codecs together are additively 
> poor.  Dect + Codec2 has a noticable extra buzziness
> - Quite a wide range of voice pitches are handled very nicely. I can 
> listen to my kids, wife and myself (British english speakers) without 
> any problems. Upper end of my kids and wife's voice goes distinctly 
> harsh and buzzy (guys talk in a falsetto to repro).
> - Extremely understandable speech with that 8khz kinda feeling, ie not 
> nasally
> - Codec2 deals quite badly with music on hold and ring tones.  OK, even 
> GSM deals badly with music on hold, but the ring tones and other call 
> progress tones on the PSTN turn into farts and pops (amusing)
> 
> - Compared with Iridium/Inmarsat, those are both less buzzy and somewhat 
> easier to listen to
> - Iridium I believe is somewhere between 2.4 and 3.4 Kbits (not clear 
> which). It is much more nasally sounding, but it's also smoother 
> sounding (less buzz).  I believe they use a narrower freq filter range 
> (hence the nasally sound), but the vocoder is less buzzy, on the flip 
> side Iridium is less easy to hear the non plosive sounds and is often a 
> little "honky" compared with codec2. Overall codec2 is easier to 
> understand, iridium is smoother on the ear.
> - Inmarsat is far superior to either and usually sounds extremely clear 
> when the signal is good, normally close to G723.1.  However, it also 
> degrades very well with packet loss and sounds something like Iridium 
> under stress. I believe they use a 4+Kbit voice codec, but not sure
> 
> Overall seems very impressive.  I guess I wish for a touch more voice 
> quality at the 2,400 level.  What I mean by that is that it tends to 
> oscillate and "buzz" at pitches that are easily found in female and even 
> high voices - the actual voicing is great, satisfactory identification 
> of speaker from their voice, clear consonant sounds and non nasally 
> sounding - excellent.  Kids voices are a tough challenge and codec2 does 
> an admirable job, not much worse than GSM, but I think probably the same 
> as above - higher pitched voices might be slightly falling outside of 
> the oscillator prediction area and tend to buzz a little too much? 
> (could the predictor follow the voice range?)
> 
> I haven't tested in the presence of significant background noise. Which 
> is to say I stood next to a noisy road and the tv, but it seems the 
> handsets I own or the input filters are killing the background noise 
> enough that it wasn't audible, nor a problem at the levels I tried.  I'm 
> presuming this would be a tough challenge on any codec, but it seems 
> "normal" noise levels are no issue at all.
> 
> 
> David, do you want to take a voice call over the PSTN using Codec2 just 
> for kicks?  I'm on GMT, propose a time and tel number offlist if so.  I 
> can also call on Iridium/Inmarsat
> 
> Thanks for your wonderful work!
> 
> Ed W
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Freetel-codec2 mailing list
> Freetel-codec2@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/

Gmane