[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-valin-codec-results) 00 01 02 03

codec                                                      C. Hoene, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    Universitaet Tuebingen
Intended status: Informational                                 JM. Valin
Expires: April 26, 2012                              Mozilla Corporation
                                                                  K. Vos
                                                 Skype Technologies S.A.
                                                             J. Skoglund
                                                                  Google
                                                        October 24, 2011


                 Summary of Opus listening test results
                      draft-ietf-codec-results-00

Abstract

   This document describes and examines listening test results obtained
   for the Opus codec and how they relate to the requirements.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Opus listening tests on final bit-stream . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Google listening tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.1.1.  Google narrowband listening test . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.1.2.  Google wideband and fullband listening test  . . . . .  5
       2.1.3.  Google stereo music listening test . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.4.  Google transcoding test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.1.5.  Google mandarin tests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     2.2.  HydrogenAudio stereo music listening test  . . . . . . . . 16
     2.3.  Nokia Interspeech 2011 listening test  . . . . . . . . . . 17
     2.4.  Universitaet Tuebingen stereo and binaural tests . . . . . 17
   3.  Conclusion on the requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     3.1.  Comparison to Speex (narrowband) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     3.2.  Comparison to iLBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     3.3.  Comparison to Speex (wideband) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     3.4.  Comparison to G.722.1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     3.5.  Comparison to G.722.1C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     3.6.  Comparison to AMR-NB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     3.7.  Comparison to AMR-WB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   6.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Appendix A.  Pre-Opus listening tests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     A.1.  SILK Dynastat listening test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     A.2.  SILK Deutsche Telekom test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     A.3.  SILK Nokia test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     A.4.  CELT 0.3.2 listening test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     A.5.  CELT 0.5.0 listening test  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Appendix B.  Opus listening tests on non-final bit-stream  . . . . 27
     B.1.  First hybrid mode test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     B.2.  Broadcom stereo music test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   Appendix C.  In-the-field testing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   7.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31











Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


1.  Introduction

   This document describes and examines listening test results obtained
   for the Opus codec.  Some of the test results presented are based on
   older versions of the codec or on older versions of the SILK or CELT
   components.  While they do not necessarily represent the exact
   quality of the current version, they are nonetheless useful for
   validating the technology used and as an indication of a lower bound
   on quality (based on the assumption that the codec has been improved
   since they were performed).

   Throughout this document, all statements about one codec being better
   than or worse than another codec are based on 95% confidence.  When
   no statistically significant difference can be shown with 95%
   confidence, then two codecs are said to be "tied".

   In addition to the results summarized in this draft, Opus has been
   subjected to many informal subjective listening tests, as well as
   objective testing.
































Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


2.  Opus listening tests on final bit-stream

   The following tests were performed on the Opus codec _after_ the bit-
   stream was finalized.

2.1.  Google listening tests

   The tests followed the MUSHRA test methodology.  Two anchors were
   used, one lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz and one lowpass-filtered at 7.0
   kHz.  Both trained and untrained listeners participated in the tests.
   The reference signals were manually normalized to the same subjective
   levels according to the experimenters' opinion.  Experiments with
   automatic normalization with respect to both level and loudness (in
   Adobe Audition) did not result in signals having equal subjective
   loudness.  The sample magnitude levels were kept lower than 2^14 to
   provide headroom for possible amplification through the codecs.
   However, the normalization exercise was not repeated with the
   processed sequences as neither the experimenters nor any of the
   subjects (which included expert listeners) noticed any significant
   level differences between the conditions in the tests.  The only
   post-processing performed was to remove noticeable delays in the MP3
   files, as one could identify the MP3 samples when switching between
   conditions when the MP3 had the longer delay.  The testing tool Step
   from ARL was used for tests and all listeners were instructed to to
   carefully listen through the conditions before starting the grading.
   The results of the tests are a available on the testing slides
   presented at the Prague meeting [Prague-80].

2.1.1.  Google narrowband listening test

   The test sequences in Test 1 were mono recordings (between 2 and 6
   seconds long) of 4 different male and 4 different female speakers
   sampled at 48 kHz in low background noise. 17 listeners were
   presented with 6 stimuli according to Table 1 for each test sequence.
   The corresponding bit rate for the reference is 48000 (sampling
   frequency in Hz) x 16 (bits/sample) = 768 kbps.  Since the anchors
   are low-pass filtered they can also be downsampled for transmission
   which corresponds to lower bit rates.  Three narrowband codecs were
   compared in this test: Opus NB, the royalty-free iLBC, and the
   royalty-free Speex.  The codecs all have an encoder frame length of
   20 ms.  Both Opus and Speex had variable rate whereas iLBC operated
   at a fixed bit rate.









Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


           +-----------+----------------------+----------------+
           |    Type   |   Signal bandwidth   |     Bitrate    |
           +-----------+----------------------+----------------+
           | Reference |   24 kHz (Fullband)  |                |
           |           |                      |                |
           |  Anchor 1 | 3.5 kHz (Narrowband) |                |
           |           |                      |                |
           |  Anchor 2 |   7 kHz (Wideband)   |                |
           |           |                      |                |
           |    iLBC   |  4 kHz (Narrowband)  | 15.2 kbps, CBR |
           |           |                      |                |
           |  Opus NB  |  4 kHz (Narrowband)  |  11 kbps, VBR  |
           |           |                      |                |
           |  Speex NB | 3.5 kHz (Narrowband) |  11 kbps, VBR  |
           +-----------+----------------------+----------------+

              Table 1: Narrowband mono voice: test conditions

   The overall results of the narrowband test, i.e., averaged over all
   listeners for all sequences, are presented in the Prague meeting
   slides [Prague-80].  The results suggest that Opus at 11 kbps is
   superior to both iLBC at 15 kpbs and Speex at 11 kbps.  T-tests
   performed by Greg Maxwell confirm that there is indeed a
   statistically significant difference.  Note also that Opus has a
   slightly higher average score than the 3.5 kHz anchor, likely due to
   the higher bandwidth of Opus.

2.1.2.  Google wideband and fullband listening test

   The eight test sequences for the previous test were also used in this
   Test. 16 listeners rated the stimuli listed in Table 2.  In this test
   comparisons were made between four wideband codecs: Opus WB, the
   royalty-free Speex, the royalty-free ITU-T G.722.1, AMR-WB (ITU-T
   G.722.2), and two fullband codecs: Opus FB and the royalty-free ITU-T
   G.719.  All six codecs utilize 20 ms encoding frames.  Opus used
   variable bitrate, while other codecs used constant bit rate.















Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


          +-----------+----------------------+-----------------+
          |    Type   |   Signal bandwidth   |     Bitrate     |
          +-----------+----------------------+-----------------+
          | Reference |   24 kHz (Fullband)  |                 |
          |           |                      |                 |
          |  Anchor 1 | 3.5 kHz (Narrowband) |                 |
          |           |                      |                 |
          |  Anchor 2 |   7 kHz (Wideband)   |                 |
          |           |                      |                 |
          |  G.722.1  |   7 kHz (Wideband)   |   24 kbps, CBR  |
          |           |                      |                 |
          |  Speex WB |   7 kHz (Wideband)   |  23.8 kbps, CBR |
          |           |                      |                 |
          |   AMR-WB  |   7 kHz (Wideband)   | 19.85 kbps, CBR |
          |           |                      |                 |
          |  Opus WB  |   8 kHz (Wideband)   | 19.85 kbps, VBR |
          |           |                      |                 |
          |   G.719   |  ~20 kHz (Fullband)  |   32 kbps, CBR  |
          |           |                      |                 |
          |  Opus FB  |  ~20 kHz (Fullband)  |   32 kbps, CBR  |
          +-----------+----------------------+-----------------+

        Table 2: Wideband and fullband mono voice: test conditions

   The results from this test are depicted in the Prague meeting
   slides[Prague-80].  Opus at 32 kbps is almost transparent, although
   there is a small, but statistically significant, difference from the
   fullband reference material.  Opus at 20 kbps is significantly better
   than all the other codecs, including AMR-WB and the fullband G.719,
   and both low-pass anchors.

2.1.3.  Google stereo music listening test

   The sequences in this test were excerpts from 10 different stereo
   music files:

   o  Rock/RnB (Boz Scaggs)

   o  Soft Rock (Steely Dan)

   o  Rock (Queen)

   o  Jazz (Harry James)

   o  Classical (Purcell)

   o  Electronica (Matmos)




Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   o  Piano (Moonlight Sonata)

   o  Vocals (Suzanne Vega)

   o  Glockenspiel

   o  Castanets

   These sequences were originally recorded at a sampling frequency of
   44.1 kHz and were upsampled to 48 kHz prior to processing.  Test 3
   included comparisons between six codecs (c.f., Table 3): Opus at
   three rates, G.719, AAC-LC (Nero 1.5.1), and MP3 (Lame 3.98.4).
   G.719 is a mono codec, so the two channels were each coded
   independently at 32 kbps. 9 listeners participated in Test 3, and the
   results are depicted in the Prague meeting slides[Prague-80].  The
   codecs operated at constant (or comparable) bit rate.

   +-----------+-------------------+-------------+---------------------+
   |    Type   |  Signal bandwidth |  Frame size |       Bitrate       |
   |           |                   |     (ms)    |                     |
   +-----------+-------------------+-------------+---------------------+
   | Reference | 22 kHz (Fullband) |      -      |     (1536 kbps)     |
   |           |                   |             |                     |
   |  Anchor 1 |      3.5 kHz      |      -      |      (256 kbps)     |
   |           |    (Narrowband)   |             |                     |
   |           |                   |             |                     |
   |  Anchor 2 |  7 kHz (Wideband) |      -      |      (512 kbps)     |
   |           |                   |             |                     |
   |    MP3    |   16 kHz (Super   |     >100    |     96 kbps, CBR    |
   |           |     wideband)     |             |                     |
   |           |                   |             |                     |
   |   AAC-LC  |      ~20 kHz      |      21     |  64 kbps, CBR (bit  |
   |           |     (Fullband)    |             |      reservoir)     |
   |           |                   |             |                     |
   |   G.719   |      ~20 kHz      |      20     | 64 kbps (2x32), CBR |
   |           |     (Fullband)    |             |                     |
   |           |                   |             |                     |
   |  Opus FB  |      ~20 kHz      |      20     |       64 kbps,      |
   |           |     (Fullband)    |             |   constrained VBR   |
   |           |                   |             |                     |
   |  Opus FB  |      ~20 kHz      |      10     |       80 kbps,      |
   |           |     (Fullband)    |             |   constrained VBR   |
   |           |                   |             |                     |
   |  Opus FB  |      ~20 kHz      |      5      |      128 kbps,      |
   |           |     (Fullband)    |             |   constrained VBR   |
   +-----------+-------------------+-------------+---------------------+

                  Table 3: Stereo music: Test conditions



Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   The results indicate that all codecs had comparable performance,
   except for G.719, which had a considerably lower score.  T-tests by
   Greg Maxwell verified that the low-delay Opus at 128 kbps had a
   significantly higher performance and that G.719 had a significantly
   lower performance than the other four.

2.1.4.  Google transcoding test

   If two telephone networks of different technology are coupled,
   frequently speech has to be transcoded: It must be decoded and
   encoded before it can be forward to the next network.  Then, two
   codecs are cooperating in a row, which is called tandem coding.

   In the following tests, Jan Skoglund studied the impact of
   transcoding if Opus call is forwarded to a cellular phone system.
   [Skoglund2011].  Two tests were conducted for both narrowband and
   wideband speech items.  The test conditions of the narrow-band tests
   are given in Table and the respective results in .  For the wide-band
   conditions and results refer to Table and .
































Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
   | Condition   | Value                                               |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
   | Laboratory  | Google                                              |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Examiner    | Jan Skoglund                                        |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Date        | August and September 2011                           |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Methodology | ITU-R BS.1534-1 (MUSHRA)                            |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Reference   | Two male and two female speakers from ITU-T P.501.  |
   | items       | Two male and two female speakers from McGill        |
   |             | database.  All recorded at 48kHz in a room with low |
   |             | background noise.                                   |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Listeners   | 19 listeners no listeners rejected / trained and    |
   |             | untrained English-speaking listeners                |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Anchor 1    | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz          |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Anchor 2    | Reference file resampled at 8 kHz, with MNRU at 15  |
   |             | dB SNR                                              |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | G.711 at 64 kbps -> Opus NB at 12.2 kbps, variable  |
   | Condition 1 | bit rate                                            |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | G.711 at 64 kbps -> AMR NB at 12.2 kbps, constant   |
   | Condition 2 | bit rate                                            |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | AMR NB at 12.2 kbps -> G.711 at 64 kbps -> Opus NB  |
   | Condition 3 | at 12.2 kbps                                        |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Opus NB at 12.2 kbps > G.711 at 64 kbps > AMR NB at |
   | Condition 4 | 12.2 kbps                                           |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | AMR NB at 12.2 kbps -> G.711 at 64 kbps -> AMR NB   |
   | Condition 5 | at 12.2 kbps                                        |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+

            Table 4: Narrowband tandem coding: test conditions










Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


          +------------------+-------------------------+--------+
          | Test Item        | Subjective MUSHRA score | 95% CI |
          +------------------+-------------------------+--------+
          | Reference        |                   99.47 |   0.36 |
          |                  |                         |        |
          | LP3.5            |                   63.49 |   3.01 |
          |                  |                         |        |
          | G.711->Opus      |                   54.51 |   2.85 |
          |                  |                         |        |
          | G.711->AMR       |                   54.13 |   2.67 |
          |                  |                         |        |
          | AMR->G.711->Opus |                   51.11 |   2.74 |
          |                  |                         |        |
          | Opus->G.711->AMR |                   50.95 |   2.76 |
          |                  |                         |        |
          | AMR->G.711->AMR  |                   47.81 |   2.95 |
          |                  |                         |        |
          | MNRU             |                   14.94 |   2.21 |
          +------------------+-------------------------+--------+

              Table 5: Tandem narrowband coding: test results






























Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
   | Condition   | Value                                               |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
   | Laboratory  | Google                                              |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Examiner    | Jan Skoglund                                        |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Date        | August and September 2011                           |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Methodology | MUSHRA                                              |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Reference   | Two male and two female speakers from ITU-T P.501.  |
   | items       | Two male and two female speakers recorded at Google |
   |             | at 48kHz in a room with low background noise        |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Listeners   | 18 listeners after post-screening / no listener     |
   |             | rejects / untrained and trained English speaking    |
   |             | listeners                                           |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Anchor 1    | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz (LP 3.5) |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Anchor 2    | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 7 kHz (LP 7)     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Opus WB at 19.85 kbps, variable bit rate (Opus)     |
   | Condition 1 |                                                     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | AMR WB at 19.85 kbps, constant bit rate (AMR WB)    |
   | Condition 2 |                                                     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | AMR WB at 19.85 kbps > Opus WB at 19.85 kbps        |
   | Condition 3 |                                                     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Opus WB at 19.85 kbps -> AMR WB at 19.85 kbps       |
   | Condition 4 |                                                     |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+

             Table 6: Tandem wideband coding: test conditions














Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


           +--------------+--------------------------+--------+
           |   Test Item  | Subjective BS.1587 Score | 95% CI |
           +--------------+--------------------------+--------+
           |   Reference  |           99.44          |  0.38  |
           |              |                          |        |
           |     Opus     |           78.38          |  2.16  |
           |              |                          |        |
           |      LP7     |           74.24          |  2.24  |
           |              |                          |        |
           |    AMR WB    |           65.26          |  2.85  |
           |              |                          |        |
           | AMR WB->Opus |           63.97          |  2.95  |
           |              |                          |        |
           | Opus->AMR WB |           62.83          |  2.94  |
           |              |                          |        |
           |     LP3.5    |           37.01          |  2.95  |
           +--------------+--------------------------+--------+

               Table 7: Tandem wideband coding: test results

   Under the given statistical confidence, narrowband tandem coding
   condition using AMR and/or Opus are of similar quality.  However, the
   results have indications that Opus outperforms AMR NB slightly.  In
   any case, narrow band transcoding is worse than a low pass filtering
   at 3.5kbps.

   Opus at 20kbps outperforms AMR WB at a similar coding rate and
   matches the quality of a 7kHz lowpass filtered signal.  Tandem coding
   with Opus does not reduce the quality of AMR WB encoded speech in the
   studied conditions.

2.1.5.  Google mandarin tests

   Modern Standard Chinese - also called Mandarin - is a tonal language
   that is spoken by about 845 million persons.  In past, codecs have
   been developed without consideration of the unique properties of
   tonal languages.  For the testing of Opus, Jan Skoglund has conducted
   subjective listening-only tests to verify whether Opus can cope well
   for Mandarin [Skoglund2011].  Two tests were conducted for both
   narrow- and wide-band speech items.  The test conditions of the
   narrow-band tests are given in Table and the respective results in .
   For the wide-band conditions and results refer to Table and Table









Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
   | Condition   | Value                                               |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
   | Laboratory  | Google                                              |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Examiner    | Jan Skoglund                                        |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Date        | August and September 2011                           |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Methodology | ITU-R BS.1534-1 (MUSHRA)                            |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Reference   | Two male and two female speakers from ITU-T P.501.  |
   | items       | Two male and two female speakers recorded at Google |
   |             | at 48kHz in a room with low background noise.       |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Listeners   | 21 listeners after post-screening / no listeners    |
   |             | rejected / untrained Mandarin-speaking listeners    |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Anchor 1    | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz (LP 3.5) |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Anchor 2    | Reference file resampled at 8 kHz, with MNRU at 15  |
   |             | dB SNR (MNRU)                                       |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Opus NB at 11 kbps, variable bit rate (Opus 11)     |
   | Condition 1 |                                                     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Speex NB at 11 kbps, variable bit rate (Speex 11)   |
   | Condition 2 |                                                     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | iLBC at 15.2 kbps, constant bit rate (iBLC 15)      |
   | Condition 3 |                                                     |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+

               Table 8: Narrowband mandarin: test conditions

















Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


            +-----------+----------------------------+--------+
            | Test Item | Subjective BS.1534-1 Score | 95% CI |
            +-----------+----------------------------+--------+
            | Reference |                      99.79 |   0.19 |
            |           |                            |        |
            | Opus 11   |                      77.90 |   2.15 |
            |           |                            |        |
            | iLBC 15   |                      76.76 |   2.08 |
            |           |                            |        |
            | LP 3.5    |                      76.25 |   2.34 |
            |           |                            |        |
            | Speex 11  |                      63.60 |   3.30 |
            |           |                            |        |
            | MNRU      |                      22.83 |   2.50 |
            +-----------+----------------------------+--------+

             Table 9: Mandarin narrowband speech: test results


































Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
   | Condition   | Value                                               |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
   | Laboratory  | Google                                              |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Examiner    | Jan Skoglund                                        |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Date        | August and September 2011                           |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Methodology | MUSHRA                                              |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Reference   | Two male and two female speakers from ITU-T P.501.  |
   | items       | Two male and two female speakers recorded at Google |
   |             | at 48kHz in a room with low background noise        |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Listeners   | 19 listeners after post-screening / Rejected 3      |
   |             | listeners having score correlation with the total   |
   |             | average lower than R=0.8.                           |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Anchor 1    | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz (LP 3.5) |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Anchor 2    | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 7 kHz (LP 7)     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Opus WB at 19.85 kbps, variable bit rate (Opus 20)  |
   | Condition 1 |                                                     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Speex WB at 23.8 kbps, constant bit rate (Speex 24) |
   | Condition 2 |                                                     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | G.722.1 at 24 kbps, constant bit rate (G.722.1 24)  |
   | Condition 3 |                                                     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Opus FB at 32 kbps, constant bit rate (Opus 32)     |
   | Condition 4 |                                                     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | G.719 at 32 kbps, constant bit rate (G.719 32)      |
   | Condition 5 |                                                     |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+

            Table 10: Mandarin wideband speech: test conditions











Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


            +------------+--------------------------+--------+
            |  Test Item | Subjective BS.1587 Score | 95% CI |
            +------------+--------------------------+--------+
            |  Reference |           98.95          |  0.59  |
            |            |                          |        |
            |   Opus 32  |           98.13          |  0.72  |
            |            |                          |        |
            |  G.719 32  |           93.43          |  1.51  |
            |            |                          |        |
            |   Opus 20  |           81.59          |  2.48  |
            |            |                          |        |
            |    LP 7    |           79.51          |  2.53  |
            |            |                          |        |
            | G.722.1 24 |           72.55          |  3.06  |
            |            |                          |        |
            |   LP 3.5   |           54.57          |  3.44  |
            |            |                          |        |
            |  Speex 24  |           53.63          |  4.23  |
            +------------+--------------------------+--------+

             Table 11: Mandarin wideband speech: test results

   Under the given confidence intervals, the quality of Opus at 11 kbps
   equals the quality of iLBC at 15 kbps and the quality aferlowpass
   filtering at 3.5 kHz.  Speex at 11 kbps does not perform as well.
   According to the listening-only tests, Opus at 32 kbps is better than
   G.719 at 32 kbps.  Opus at 20 kbps outperforms G.722.1 and Speex at
   24 kbps.  If one compares the Mandarin results with those for English
   (Section 2.1.1 and Section 2.1.2), one can see that are pretty
   consistent.  The only difference is that using English stimuli Opus
   at 20 kbps outperforms G.719 at 32 kbps.  Probabily, this is due to
   the fact that Mandarin speech does not contain as many high
   frequency-rich consonants such as [s] as English.

2.2.  HydrogenAudio stereo music listening test

   In March 2011, the HydrogenAudio community conducted a listening test
   comparing codec performance on stereo audio at 64 kb/s [ha-test].
   The Opus codec was compared to the Apple and Nero implementations of
   HE-AAC, as well as to the Vorbis codec.  The test included 30 audio
   samples, including known "hard to code" samples from previous
   HydrogenAudio listening tests.

   A total of 33 listeners participated in the test, 10 of which
   provided results for all the audio samples.  The results of test
   showed that Opus out-performed both HE-AAC implementations as well as
   Vorbis.




Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


2.3.  Nokia Interspeech 2011 listening test

   In 2011, Anssi Ramo from Nokia submitted [Ramo2011] the results of a
   second listening test, focusing specifically on the Opus codec, to
   Interspeech 2011.  As in the previous test, the methodology used was
   a 9-scale ACR MOS test with clean and noisy speech samples.

   The results show Opus clearly out-performing both G.722.1C and G.719
   on clean speech at 24 kb/s and above, while on noisy speech all
   codecs and bit-rates above 24 kb/s are very close.  It is also found
   that the Opus hybrid mode at 28 kb/s has quality that is very close
   to the recent G.718B standard at the same rate.  At 20 kb/s, the Opus
   wideband mode also out-performs AMR-WB, while the situation is
   reversed for 12 kb/s and below.  The only narrowband rate tested is 6
   kb/s, which is below what Opus targets and unsurprisingly shows
   poorer quality than AMR-NB at 5.9 kb/s.M

2.4.  Universitaet Tuebingen stereo and binaural tests

   Modern teleconferencing system use stereo or spatialy rendered speech
   to enhance the conversation quality.  Then, talkers can be identified
   according to their acoustic locations.  Opus allows to encode speech
   in a stereo mode.  In the tests conducted by Christian
   Hoene[Hoene2011], the performance of Opus coding stereo and binaural
   speech was studied.


























Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
   | Condition   | Value                                               |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
   | Laboratory  | Univesitaet Tuebingen                               |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Examiner    | Christian Hoene and Mansoor Hyder                   |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Date        | August 2011                                         |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Methodology | ITU-R BS.1534-1 (MUSHRA) using a modified "rateit   |
   |             | v0.1" software with German translations.            |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Reference   | One German female voice recorded in stereo (8s).    |
   | items       | Two female voices (stereo recording) mixed together |
   |             | (9 s).  One moving talker binaural rendered with    |
   |             | HTRF and an artificial room impulse response (13    |
   |             | s).  Two voices binaural render at two different    |
   |             | stationary positions.  Acappella Song "Mein         |
   |             | Fahrrad" by "Die Prinzen" (10.5s, mono)             |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Listeners   | 20 German native speakers.  Age between 20 and 59   |
   |             | (avg. 30.55). 9 male and 11 female.  All have       |
   |             | academic background.  Three listeners were rejected |
   |             | because their rating showed a low correlation       |
   |             | (R<0.8) to the average ratings.                     |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Anchor      | Reference file lowpass-filtered at 3.5 kHz calling  |
   |             | "sox in.wav -r48000 -c1 out.wav lowpass 3500"       |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Opus in the SILK mode, 12kbps, stereo, 60ms calling |
   | Condition 1 | "draft-ietf-codec-opus-07/test_opus 0 48000 2 12000 |
   |             | -cbr -framesize 60 -bandwidth NB"                   |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Opus in the SILK mode, 16kbps, stereo, 20ms calling |
   | Condition 2 | "draft-ietf-codec-opus-07/test_opus 0 48000 2 16000 |
   |             | -cbr -framesize 20 -bandwidth WB"                   |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Opus in the HYBRID mode, 32kbps, stereo, 20ms       |
   | Condition 3 | calling "draft-ietf-codec-opus-07/test_opus 0 48000 |
   |             | 2 32000 -cbr -framesize 20 -bandwidth FB"           |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | Opus in the CELT mode, 64kbps, stereo, 20ms calling |
   | Condition 4 | "draft-ietf-codec-opus-07/test_opus 1 48000 2 64000 |
   |             | -cbr -framesize 20 -bandwidth FB"                   |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | AMR-WB+ at 12kbps, 80ms using                       |
   | Condition 5 | 26304_ANSI-C_source_code_v6_6_0: Arguments: -rate   |
   |             | 12                                                  |



Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   | Test        | AMR-WB+ at 15.2kbps, 80ms using                     |
   | Condition 6 | 26304_ANSI-C_source_code_v6_6_0: Arguments: -rate   |
   |             | 16                                                  |
   |             |                                                     |
   | Test        | AMR-WB+ at 32kbps, 60ms using                       |
   | Condition 7 | 26304_ANSI-C_source_code_v6_6_0: Arguments: -rate   |
   |             | 32                                                  |
   +-------------+-----------------------------------------------------+

       Table 12: Stereo and binaural speech coding: test conditions

           +------------+----------------------------+--------+
           | Test Item  | Subjective BS.1534-1 Score | 95% CI |
           +------------+----------------------------+--------+
           | Reference  |                      97.36 |   1.31 |
           |            |                            |        |
           | Opus 64    |                      95.58 |   1.76 |
           |            |                            |        |
           | AMR-WB+ 32 |                      80.11 |   4.79 |
           |            |                            |        |
           | Opus 32    |                      55.42 |   5.96 |
           |            |                            |        |
           | AMR-WB+ 16 |                      49.69 |   6.05 |
           |            |                            |        |
           | LP 3.5     |                      48.35 |   4.50 |
           |            |                            |        |
           | Opus 16    |                      39.31 |   4.80 |
           |            |                            |        |
           | AMR-WP+ 12 |                      35.40 |   5.79 |
           |            |                            |        |
           | Opus 12    |                      16.99 |   3.49 |
           +------------+----------------------------+--------+

                  Table 13: Binaural Speech: Test Results

   According to the test results, Opus transmits binaural content well
   at 64kbps.  The other Opus results are not valid anymore as the codec
   implementation have been updated.













Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


3.  Conclusion on the requirements

   The requirements call for the Opus codec to be better than Speex and
   iLBC in narrowband mode, better than Speex and G.722.1 in wideband
   mode, and better than G.722.1C in super-wideband/fullband mode.

3.1.  Comparison to Speex (narrowband)

   The Opus codec was compared to Speex in narrowband mode in the Google
   narrowband test (Section 2.1.1).  This test showed that Opus at 11
   kb/s was significantly better than Speex at the same rate.  In fact,
   Opus at 11 kb/s was tied with the 3.5 low-pass of the original.
   Considering the results, we conclude that the Opus codec is better
   than the Speex codec.

3.2.  Comparison to iLBC

   The Opus codec was compared to iLBC in the Google narrowband test
   (Section 2.1.1).  This test showed that Opus at 11 kb/s was
   significantly better than iLBC running at 15 kb/s.  Considering the
   results, we conclude that the Opus codec is better than the iLBC
   codec.

3.3.  Comparison to Speex (wideband)

   The Opus codec was compared to Speex in wideband mode in the Google
   wideband and fullband test (Section 2.1.2).  This test showed that
   Opus at 20 kb/s was significantly better than Speex at at 24 kb/s.
   In fact, Opus at 20 kb/s was better than the 7 kHz low-pass of the
   original.  These results are consistent with an earlier Dynastat test
   (Appendix A.1) that also concluded that SILK had significantly higher
   quality than Speex in wideband mode at the same bit-rate.
   Considering the results, we conclude that the Opus codec is better
   than the Speex codec for wideband.

3.4.  Comparison to G.722.1

   In the Google wideband and fullband test (Section 2.1.2), Opus at 20
   kb/s was shown to significantly out-perform G.722.1 operating at 24
   kb/s.  An indirect comparison point also comes from the Nokia
   Interspeech 2011 listening test (Section 2.3) that shows Opus out-
   performing AMR-WB at 20 kb/s, while AMR-WB is known to out-perform
   G.722.1.  Considering these results, we conclude that the Opus codec
   is better than the G.722.1 codec for wideband.







Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


3.5.  Comparison to G.722.1C

   Opus has been compared to G.722.1C in multiple listening tests.  As
   early as 2008, an old version of the CELT codec (Appendix A.4) using
   very short frames was found to have higher quality than G.722.1C at
   48 kb/s.  More recently, the Nokia Interspeech 2011 listening test
   (Section 2.3) showed that Opus out-performed G.722.1C at 24 kb/s, 32
   kb/s, and 48 kb/s.  We thus conclude that the Opus codec is better
   than the G.722.1C codec for superwideband/fullband audio.

3.6.  Comparison to AMR-NB

   In the Google narrowband test (Section 2.1.1), Opus was shown to out-
   perform AMR-NB at 12 kb/s.  On the other hand, in the Nokia
   Interspeech 2011 listening test (Section 2.3), AMB-NB was found to
   have better quality than Opus at 6 kb/s.  This indicates that Opus is
   better than AMR-NB at higher rates and worse at lower rates, which is
   to be expected given Opus' emphasis on higher quality and higher
   rates.

3.7.  Comparison to AMR-WB

   In the Google wideband and fullband test (Section 2.1.2), Opus at 20
   kb/s was shown to out-perform AMR-WB at the same rate.  This was also
   confirmed by the Nokia Interspeech 2011 listening test (Section 2.3),
   with also found AMR-WB to out-perform Opus at 12 kb/s and below.  As
   with AMR-NB, we conclude that Opus is better than AMR-WB at higher
   rates and worse at lower rates.























Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


4.  Security Considerations

   No security considerations.
















































Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.
















































Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Anssi Ramo and the HydrogenAudio
   community, who conducted some of the Opus listening test cited in
   this draft.














































Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


Appendix A.  Pre-Opus listening tests

   Several listening tests have been performed on the SILK and CELT
   codecs prior to them being merged as part of the Opus codec.

A.1.  SILK Dynastat listening test

   The original (pre-Opus) SILK codec was characterized in a Dynastat
   listening test [SILK-Dynastat].  The test included 32 conditions with
   4 male and 4 female talkers.  The test signals were wideband speech
   with and without office background noise at 15 dB SNR.  Packet loss
   was tested at 2, 5, and 10% loss rates.  The bitrates ranged from
   8.85 kb/s to 64 kb/s.  The codecs included in the test were SILK-WB,
   AMR-WB, Speex-WB and G.722 (which ran at 64 kb/s).

   The results showed that for clean speech (1) SILK out-performs AMR-WB
   at all bit-rates except 8.85 kb/s (which was a tie); (2) SILK out-
   performs Speex at all bit-rates; and (3) SILK running at 18.25 kb/s
   and above out-performs G.722 at 64 kbps.  For noisy speech, tested at
   18.25 kb/s, SILK is tied with AMR-WB, and out-performs Speex.  For 2,
   5 and 10% packet loss, tested at 18.25 kb/s, SILK out-performs both
   AMR-WB and Speex in all conditions.

A.2.  SILK Deutsche Telekom test

   In 2010 Deutsche Telekom published results [Wustenhagen2010] of their
   evaulation of super-wideband speech and audio codecs.  The test
   included the version of SILK submitted to the IETF.  The results
   showed that for clean speech (item "speechsample") SILK was tied with
   AMR-WB and G.718, and out-performed Speex.  For noisy speech (item
   "arbeit") SILK out-performed AMR-WB and G.718 at 12 and 24 kb/s, and
   Speex at all bitrates.  At bitrates above 24 kb/s SILK and G.718 were
   tied.

A.3.  SILK Nokia test

   In 2010, Anssi Ramo from Nokia presented [Ramo2010] the results of a
   listening test focusing on open-source codecs at Interspeech 2010.
   The methodology used was a 9-scale ACR MOS test with clean and noisy
   speech samples.

   It was noted in the test that:

   "Especially at around 16 kbit/s or above Silk is better than AMR-WB
   at comparable bitrates.  This is due to the fact that Silk wideband
   is critically sampled up to 8 kHz instead of ITU- T or 3GPP defined 7
   kHz.  This added bandwidth (from 7 to 8 kHz) shows up in the results
   favourable to Silk.  It seems that Silk provides quite artifact free



Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   voice quality for the whole 16- 24 kbit/s range with WB signals.  At
   32 and 40 kbit/s Silk is SWB and competes quite equally against
   G.718B or G.722.1C although having a slightly narrower bandwidth than
   the ITU-T standardized codecs."

A.4.  CELT 0.3.2 listening test

   The first listening tests conducted on CELT version 0.3.2 in 2009 and
   published in 2010 [valin2010] included AAC-LD (Apple), G.722.1C and
   MP3 (Lame).  Two MUSHRA tests were conducted: a 48 kb/s test and a 64
   kb/s test, both at a 44.1 kHz sampling rate.  CELT was used with 256-
   sample frames (5.8 ms).  All codecs used constant bit-rate (CBR).
   The algorithmic delay was 8.7 ms for CELT, 34.8 ms for AAC-LD, 40 ms
   for G.722.1C and more than 100 ms for MP3.

   The 48 kb/s test included two clean speech samples (one male, one
   female) from the EBU SQAM database, four clean speech files (two
   male, two female) from the NTT multi-lingual speech database for
   telephonometry, and two music samples.  In this test, CELT out-
   performed AAC-LD, G.722.1C and MP3.

   The 64 kb/s test included two clean speech samples (one male, one
   female) from the EBU SQAM database, and six music files.  In this
   test, AAC-LD out-performed CELT, but CELT out-performed both MP3 and
   G.722.1C (running at its highest rate of 48 kb/s).

A.5.  CELT 0.5.0 listening test

   Another CELT listening test was conducted in 2009 on version 0.5.0
   and presented at EUSIPCO 2009 [valin2009].  In that test, CELT was
   compared to G.722.1C and to the Fraunhofer Ultra Low-Delay (ULD)
   codec on 9 audio samples: 2 clean speech samples and 7 music samples.
   At 64 kb/s with 5.3 ms frames, CELT clearly out-performed G.722.1C
   running at 48 kb/s with 20 ms frames.  Also, at 96 kb/s and equal
   frame size (2.7 ms), CELT clearly out-performed the ULD codec.
















Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


Appendix B.  Opus listening tests on non-final bit-stream

   The following listening tests were conducted on the Opus codec on
   versions prior to the bit-stream freeze.  While Opus has evolved
   since these tests were conducted, the results should be considered as
   a _lower bound_ on the quality of the final codec.

B.1.  First hybrid mode test

   In July 2010, the Opus codec authors conducted a preliminary MUSHRA
   listening test to evaluate the quality of the recently created
   "hybrid" mode combining the SILK and CELT codecs.  That test was
   conducted at 32 kb/s and compared the following codecs:

   o  Opus hybrid mode (fullband)

   o  G.719 (fullband)

   o  CELT (fullband)

   o  SILK (wideband)

   o  BroadVoice32 (wideband)

   The test material consisted of two English speech samples from the
   EBU SQAM (one male, one female) database and six speech samples
   (three male, three female) from the NTT multi-lingual speech database
   for telephonometry.  Although only eight listeners participated to
   the test, the difference between the Opus hybrid mode and all other
   codecs was large enough to obtain 95% confidence that the Opus hybrid
   mode provided better quality than all other codecs tested.  This test
   is of interest because it shows that the hybrid clearly out-performs
   the codecs that it combines (SILK and CELT).  It also out-performs
   G.719, which is the only fullband interactive codec standardized by
   the ITU-T.  These results were presented [Maastricht-78] at the 78th
   IETF meeting Maastricht.

B.2.  Broadcom stereo music test

   In December 2010, Broadcom conducted an ITU-R BS.1116-style
   subjective listening test comparing different configurations of the
   CELT-only mode of the IETF Opus codec along with MP3 and AAC-LC.  The
   test included stereo 10 audio samples sampled at 44.1 kHz and
   distributed as follows:

   o  2 pure speech





Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


   o  2 vocal

   o  2 solo instruments

   o  1 rock-and-roll

   o  1 pop

   o  1 classical orchestra

   o  1 jazz

   A total of 17 listeners participated to the test.  The results of the
   test are a available on the testing slides presented at the Prague
   meeting [Prague-80].  Although at the time, Opus was not properly
   optimised for 44.1 kHz audio, the quality of the Opus codec at 96
   kb/s with 22 ms frame was significantly better than MP3 and only
   slightly worse than AAC-LC.  Even in ultra low-delay mode (5.4 ms),
   Opus still outperformed MP3.  The test also confirmed the usefulness
   of the prefilter/postfilter contribution by Raymond Chen, showing
   that this contribution significantly improves quality for small
   frames (long frames were not tested with the prefilter/postfilter
   disabled).




























Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


Appendix C.  In-the-field testing

   Various versions of Opus (or SILK/CELT components) are currently in
   use in production in the following applications:

   o  Skype: VoIP client used by hundreds of millions of people

   o  Steam: Gaming distribution and communications platform with over
      30 million users

   o  Mumble: Gaming VoIP client with more than 200 thousand users

   o  Soundjack: Client for live network music performances

   o  Freeswitch: Open-source telephony platform

   o  Ekiga: Open-source VoIP client

   o  CHNC: Radio station using CELT for its studio-transmitter link
































Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


7.  Informative References

   [valin2010]
              Valin, J., Terriberry, T., Montgomery, C., and G. Maxwell,
              "A High-Quality Speech and Audio Codec With Less Than 10
              ms delay",  2010.

   [valin2009]
              Valin, J., Terriberry, T., and G. Maxwell, "A High-Quality
              Speech and Audio Codec With Less Than 10 ms delay",  2010.

   [Wustenhagen2010]
              Wuestenhagen, U., Feiten, B., Kroll, J., Raake, A., and M.
              Waeltermann, "Evaluation of Super-Wideband Speech and
              Audio Codecs",  2010.

   [Ramo2010]
              Ramo, A. and H. Toukomaa, "Voice Quality Evaluation of
              Recent Open Source Codecs",  2010.

   [Ramo2011]
              Ramo, A. and H. Toukomaa, "Voice Quality Characterization
              of IETF Opus Codec",  2011.

   [Maastricht-78]
              Valin, J. and K. Vos, "Codec Prototype",  2010.

   [Prague-80]
              Chen, R., Terriberry, T., Maxwell, G., Skoglund, J., and
              H. Nguyet, "Testing results",  2011.

   [SILK-Dynastat]
              Skype, "SILK Datasheet",  2009.

   [ha-test]  Dyakonov, "Results of the public multiformat listening
              test @ 64 kbps",  2011.

   [Skoglund2011]
              Skoglund, "Listening tests of Opus at Google",
              September 2011.

   [Hoene2011]
              Hoene and Hyder, "MUSHRA Listening Tests - Focusing on
              Stereo Voice Coding", August 2011.







Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                Codec Quality                 October 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Christian Hoene (editor)
   Universitaet Tuebingen
   Sand 13
   Tuebingen,   72076
   Germany

   Email: hoene@uni-tuebingen.de


   Jean-Marc Valin
   Mozilla Corporation
   650 Castro Street
   Mountain View, CA  94041
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 903-0800
   Email: jmvalin@jmvalin.ca


   Koen Vos
   Skype Technologies S.A.
   Stadsgarden 6
   Stockholm,   11645
   Sweden

   Email: koen.vos@skype.net


   Jan Skoglund
   Google


   Email: jks@google.com
















Hoene, et al.            Expires April 26, 2012                [Page 31]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/