IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
speex vs iLBC, comparison
sonicboom
post Jun 18 2004, 02:36
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 18-June 04
Member No.: 14745



Hi. Ignoring the fact that iLBC is not open source, and concentrating purely on voice quality...

Does anyone have quantitative info / comparisons or opinions (I am going to regret I said that word) on the quality of Speex versus that of iLBC. Also, is one more suited to low bandwidth application than the other?

Cheers.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jmvalin
post Jun 21 2004, 19:24
Post #2


Xiph.org Speex developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 475
Joined: 21-August 02
Member No.: 3134



QUOTE (sonicboom @ Jun 17 2004, 08:36 PM)
Does anyone have quantitative info / comparisons or opinions (I am going to regret I said that word) on the quality of Speex versus that of iLBC. Also, is one more suited to low bandwidth application than the other?

(Disclaimer: I'm the author of Speex)

I've set up a
Speex codec comparison page on the Speex site that compares codec features (not quality). You can also listen to Speex samples here.

As for Speex vs iLBC specifically, I think I won't be the only one think that Speex sounds better at equal bit-rate. This is not because I'm saying I'm better than the guys who wrote iLBC, but because of a basic design decision taken by the iLBC author(s). The main difference between iLBC and other CELP-based codecs (like Speex and most other codecs) is that iLBC encodes frames independently from each other. This tends to increase robustness to packet losses (can't say how much) at the price of higher bit-rate for equal quality. However, it's been suggested that a better way of handling packet loss is to use the lower bit-rate of CELP codecs to add redundency (send some packets twice).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
luckybug
post Jul 26 2005, 04:09
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 6-August 03
Member No.: 8207



QUOTE
However, it's been suggested that a better way of handling packet loss is to use the lower bit-rate of CELP codecs to add redundency (send some packets twice).

agree. tongue.gif
In addition, packet loss compensation technique for voice aslo usefull.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th July 2014 - 11:47