IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Codec2, Any tests?
polemon
post Mar 22 2012, 21:41
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 1-April 09
Member No.: 68578



I was wondering, if someone has already played around with Codec2 by David Rowe.

The codec delivers impressive quality at 1500bps. I wonder what container I should use for archiving, as I don't have an interactive software that uses Codec2 right now. I wonder how I can run some tests with it, as I don't know of any decoder software right now.

Anyways, would be nice to know if this actually got any public exposure at all.


--------------------
-EOF-
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Mar 23 2012, 19:54
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 1575
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



The latest codec2 2000 bps produces the same quality as G.729 8000 bps (the second most used codec in basic telephony) and close to AMR-NB at the same 8000 bps.
It means it has a real-life telephone quality just at 2000 bps. 4x times more efficient than G.729 . Now, that's impressive.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2012
post Mar 23 2012, 22:46
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 7-February 12
Member No.: 96993



Still under heavy development. So, talk about archiving or any serious deployment is still early IMHO.

This might interest you, from the Opus/CELT guy:
http://jmspeex.livejournal.com/10446.html
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
polemon
post Mar 25 2012, 06:25
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 1-April 09
Member No.: 68578



Well I certainly know Codec2 is early development. Then again, Opus isn't quite finished as well...

Since both don't have minimal bitstream containers, and they're not supported in any existing container, it's quite difficult to do some exemplary testing. All I know, is that it looks really promising, and all. I just wish, development would hurry up a little. wink.gif


--------------------
-EOF-
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2012
post Mar 25 2012, 17:00
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 7-February 12
Member No.: 96993



QUOTE (polemon @ Mar 25 2012, 06:25) *
Well I certainly know Codec2 is early development. Then again, Opus isn't quite finished as well...

Since both don't have minimal bitstream containers, and they're not supported in any existing container, it's quite difficult to do some exemplary testing. All I know, is that it looks really promising, and all. I just wish, development would hurry up a little. wink.gif


You can test Codec2:
http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?page_id=452#quickstart

Just look at the script dir and replace the included test files with your own.

Opus is ready(1) from a technical POV. It's just stuck in bureaucratic and legal bullshit. It already has container support(2) , reference encoder/decoder tools(3) and even an excellent (even if flagged experimental) TVBR mode in the reference codec(4).

(1) https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec...t/msg02826.html
(2) https://wiki.xiph.org/OggOpus
(3) http://git.xiph.org/?p=users/greg/opus-tools.git;a=summary
http://git.xiph.org/?p=users/jm/opus-tools.git;a=summary
(4) http://git.xiph.org/?p=opus.git;a=shortlog.../heads/exp_wip4

This post has been edited by 2012: Mar 25 2012, 17:02
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Mar 25 2012, 17:56
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1575
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (2012 @ Mar 25 2012, 13:00) *
...and even an excellent (even if flagged experimental) TVBR mode in the reference codec(4).

It's actually on alpha (if not pre-alpha) stage and hardly usable.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2012
post Mar 25 2012, 19:09
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 7-February 12
Member No.: 96993



QUOTE (IgorC @ Mar 25 2012, 17:56) *
QUOTE (2012 @ Mar 25 2012, 13:00) *
...and even an excellent (even if flagged experimental) TVBR mode in the reference codec(4).

It's actually on alpha (if not pre-alpha) stage and hardly usable.


Hate to go offtopic. But, In what sense is it hardly usable?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Mar 25 2012, 20:15
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 1575
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



Have You actually tested it to call it an excellent? I have and my findings are different.

It's an experimental, not for use.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Mar 25 2012, 20:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2012
post Mar 25 2012, 20:53
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 7-February 12
Member No.: 96993



QUOTE (IgorC @ Mar 25 2012, 20:15) *
Have You actually tested it to call it an excellent?


Yes (exp_wip4 not before). But not with killer samples. So, I will take your word for it.

This post has been edited by 2012: Mar 25 2012, 20:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
polemon
post Mar 25 2012, 20:55
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 1-April 09
Member No.: 68578



Well, What I mean is, suppose I'd like to encode into Ogg/Opus, I'd like an encoder like oggenc for instance. Things like ffmpeg are a bit slow in development these days, though.

Since it is practically a given, that Opus will be contained in Ogg, I have two questions: What encoder should I use to encode in Ogg/Opus, and does Opus support a minimal bitstream container, like FLAC.

Now, this is just for Opus, but the real questions are about Codec2. Basically, what container will it have, if it is gonna have one at all? A minimal bitsream container, maybe? The demo encoders aren't really that nicely usable. For plain demo purposes it's OK, but I can't really do practical tests with it, since I don't even know a decoder for it (or in that sense, a Codec2 player...).


--------------------
-EOF-
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
IgorC
post Mar 25 2012, 20:58
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1575
Joined: 3-January 05
From: ARG/RUS
Member No.: 18803



QUOTE (2012 @ Mar 25 2012, 16:53) *
QUOTE (IgorC @ Mar 25 2012, 20:15) *
Have You actually tested it to call it an excellent?


Yes (exp_wip4 not before). But not with killer samples. So, I will take your word for it.

Killer or not. It doesn't really make difference. wink.gif

Welcome to HA and please read TOS8 until make any claim.

This post has been edited by IgorC: Mar 25 2012, 21:03
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
punkrockdude
post Mar 25 2012, 21:22
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 244
Joined: 21-February 05
Member No.: 20022



I looked through the whole conference video. I understood somewhat of what was explaind and I enjoyed the geek talk a lot. Now I wish I had the skills to program audio codecs (and effects). Thank you for the link. Regards.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
polemon
post Mar 5 2013, 05:01
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 144
Joined: 1-April 09
Member No.: 68578



Hi, I hope you don't mind me resurrecting this old thread, but I think it's better than opening a new one.

I've seen people doing some voice chatting with the c2qso.sh shell script. Other than that, I'm waiting for the very low bitrates (1400bps and 1200bps), to reach maturity. I'd still like a container "endorse" Codec2, I see how it introduces a very large amount of overhead, but for things like audio books or even just recorded voice communications, a container would be nice. I wouldn't mind using Ogg/Codec2...

As an interactive codec, Codec2 has no immediate necessity for a container, but at the same time recording those (long) communications in a different codec, in a different container, is just dumb...

This may be a wrong place to bring it out, but remember Speex /can/ be contained in Ogg. Although -- on a personal note -- naming the tools went completely overboard: oggenc for Ogg/Vorbis with .ogg extension, and opusenc for Ogg/Opus with .opus extension. Anyway, I don't see why Codec2 shouldn't be contained in Ogg or some other container.

I was thinking of using a Raspberry PI as "encoding device", or even two of them as a test bed, a bit like a tin can telephone.


--------------------
-EOF-
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NullC
post Mar 8 2013, 01:27
Post #14





Group: Developer
Posts: 200
Joined: 8-July 03
Member No.: 7653



QUOTE (polemon @ Mar 4 2013, 20:01) *
As an interactive codec, Codec2 has no immediate necessity for a container, but at the same time recording those (long) communications in a different codec, in a different container, is just dumb...
This may be a wrong place to bring it out, but remember Speex /can/ be contained in Ogg. Although -- on a personal note -- naming the tools went completely overboard: oggenc for Ogg/Vorbis with .ogg extension, and opusenc for Ogg/Opus with .opus extension. Anyway, I don't see why Codec2 shouldn't be contained in Ogg or some other container.
I was thinking of using a Raspberry PI as "encoding device", or even two of them as a test bed, a bit like a tin can telephone.
AFAIK Codec2 is far from done, ... not great to fix a bunch of things in files before its done. Putting it in Ogg would be utterly trivial and a fine thing, though I don't know how necessary it would be given that codec2 is CBR so you can even do accurate seeking without a container.

With 1 second per page and 20ms packets the overhead would be 2248 bits per second. If you permitted multiple frames per packet (e.g. put he CBR rate in the header) then 1 second pages would let you have 224 bit/sec overhead... which is probably acceptably small considering you get error detection out of it.

This post has been edited by NullC: Mar 8 2013, 01:31
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: 19th September 2014 - 17:41