The Low Bit-Rate Redundancy (LBRR) feature works by sometimes adding another copy of packet N-1 onto packet N. This means that a traditional decoder that wishes to use the LBRR info must increase its jitter buffer depth, and hence latency, by one packet, so that if packet K is dropped, there is time to receive and decode packet K+1. However, in the case of ASR I think this logic does not apply, and the latency penalty must only be paid in the rare case when the last packet before a data return event is dropped.<div>
<br></div><div>Expect-loss is not a simulation of loss. It is a way to tell the encoder "I expect that my network will drop X% of packets". The higher the value of X, the more the encoder will spend bits to avoid depending on previous packets that may not have arrived. This means increasing the use of LBRR, decreasing the use of sensitive long-term filters, and many other changes in encoding strategy.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Young, Milan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com" target="_blank">Milan.Young@nuance.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For the last couple months, Nuance has performed extensive testing on how the Opus codec performs in the speech recognition task. I’m hoping to publish a full report in the coming months, but until then all I have is a teaser. Opus performed
within about 1% of the WER (Word Error Rate) of unencoded audio. This is compared to about 5% for Speex, which was the previous codec of choice. Well done to you all!<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As Nuance considers migrating to Opus, we’d like to consider the topic of transport. Traditionally we’ve relied on TCP for reasons of reliability. Opus, with its packet redundancy features, offers an attractive real-time alternative that
we will soon be testing. But in order to apply an apples-apples comparison we need to model both data rates and latency in real world scenarios.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For UDP, I’m assuming that the redundancy feature adds no additional latency. Correct? On the data rate question, I see that the Opusenc tool provides an “expec-loss” parameter with the value expressed as a percentage. Could someone
please describe how this is implemented? Are you simply removing some percentage of packets from the result, or is there a more complex model underpinning the exercise?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Modeling TCP data rates and latency in similarly losssy scenarios seems much more difficult since dropped packets have cascading effects. Has anyone on this list considered this class of comparison? Any suggestions for modeling software
that could aid my search?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
opus mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:opus@xiph.org">opus@xiph.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus" target="_blank">http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>