mos and hr-fr impact

8/11/2019 MOS and HR-FR Impact

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mos-and-hr-fr-impact 1/46

Technical Specification

3G TR 26.975 V1.1.0 (2000-01)

3rd Generation Partnership Project;Technical Specification Group TSG-SA4: Codec;

Performance Characterization of the AM Speech Codec!3G T "#$%&' (ersion )$)$*+

The present document has been developed within the 3 rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP TM) and may be further elaborated for the purposes of 3GPP.The present document has not been subject to any approval process by the 3GPP Or anisational Partners and shall not be implemented.This !pecification is provided for future development wor" within 3GPP only. The Or anisational Partners accept no liability for any use of this!pecification.!pecifications and reports for implementation of the 3GPP TM system should be obtained via the 3GPP Or anisational Partners# Publications Offices.



3GPP

$eferenceDTS/TSG<name abbv>-0<WG no><s e! no> "

%eywords<#e$%o&' #e$%o&'*>

3GPP

Postal address

3GPP support office address650 Ro+,e 'es +! o es - So a n, o s

Va bonne - R 4Te . 33 8 92 98 82 00 a 33 8 93 65 87 16

&nternet,, //%%%.3: .o&:

Copyright Notification

'o part may be reproduced e cept as authori ed by written permission.The copyri ht and the fore oin restriction e tend to reproduction in

all media.

* +,,,- 3GPP Or ani ational Partners ( $&/- 01T!- 2T!&- T+- TT -TT0).ll ri hts reserved.

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+"



4on,en,s

oreword...........................................................................................................................................................

+ !cope......................................................................................................................................................4 $eferences...............................................................................................................................................

3 5efinitions and abbreviations..................................................................................................................3.+ 5efinitions...........................................................................................................................................................3.4 bbreviations.......................................................................................................................................................

6 General...................................................................................................................................................6.+ Project 7istory.....................................................................................................................................................6.4 Overview of the M$ 0oncept...........................................................................................................................6.3 unctional 5escription........................................................................................................................................6.6 Presentation of the followin sections..............................................................................................................

8 9uality in 0lean !peech and 2rror 0onditions......................................................................................

: 9uality under bac" round noise and 2rrors 0onditions........................................................................

; Performances in Tandemin and with variation of the input speech level...............................................

< Performances with the 0odec daptation turned on..............................................................................

, = 5>5T? Performances......................................................................................................................

+@ Performances with 5TM tones...........................................................................................................

++ Transparency to !i nalin tones............................................................................................................

+4 Performances with special input si nals................................................................................................

+3 Aan ua e 5ependency..........................................................................................................................

+6 Transmission 5elay...............................................................................................................................

+8 reBuency $esponse..............................................................................................................................

+: 0omple ity...........................................................................................................................................

7istory............................................................................................................................................................

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+3



o&e%o&'This Technical !pecification has been produced by the 3GPP.

The contents of the present document are subject to continuin wor" within the T!G and may chan e followinformal T!G approval. !hould the T!G modify the contents of this T!- it will be reCreleased by the T!G with anidentifyin chan e of release date and an increase in version number as followsD

=ersion 3.y.

whereD

the first di itD

+ presented to T!G for informationE

4 presented to T!G for approvalE

3 &ndicates T!G approved document under chan e control.

y the second di it is incremented for all chan es of substance- i.e. technical enhancements- corrections-updates- etc.

the third di it is incremented when editorial only chan es have been incorporated in the specificationE

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+4



1 S!o eThis technical report provides bac" round information on the performances of the daptive MultiC$ate ( M$) speechcodec. 2 perimental test results from the =erification and 0haracteri ation phases of testin are reported to illustrate

the behavior of M$ in multiple operational conditions.

2 Re;e&en!esThe followin documents contain provisions that- throu h reference in this te t- constitute provisions of the presentdocument.

• $eferences are either specific (identified by date of publication- edition number- version number- etc.) ornonCspecific.

• or a specific reference- subseBuent revisions do not apply.

• or a nonCspecific reference- the latest version applies.

F+ G!M @+.@6D H5i ital cellular telecommunications system (Phase 4I)E bbreviations and acronymsH.

F4 G!M @3.8@D HTransmission plannin aspects of the speech service in the G!M Public Aand Mobile 'etwor" (PAM') systemH.

F3 G!M @:.@<D H5i ital cellular telecommunications systemE 7alf rate speechE Performance of the G!M halfrate speech codecH.

F6 G!M @:.88D H5i ital cellular telecommunications systemE Performance 0haracteri ation of the G!M2nhanced ull $ate (2 $) speech codecH.

F8 G!M @<.:@D H5i ital cellular telecommunications systemE &nCband control of remote transcoders and rateadapters for ull $ate traffic channelsH.

F: G!M @<.:+D H5i ital cellular telecommunications systemE &nCband control of remote transcoders and rateadapters for 7alf $ate traffic channels H.

3 De; n , ons an' abb&ev a, ons

3.1 De; n , onsThe followin terminolo y is used throu hout this report.

Adaptive Multi-Rate (AMR) codec; !peech and channel codec capable of operatin at ross bitCrates of ++.6 "bit>s(Jhalf-rate K) and 44.< "bit>s (J full-rate K). &n addition- the codec may operate at various combinations of speech andchannel codin ( codec mode ) bitCrates for each channel mode .

Bit-rate change; 0han e of the codec mode bitCrates for a iven (7$> $) channel mode .

Channel mode; G!M 7alfCrate or fullCrate operation

Channel mode adaptation; The control and selection of the ( $ or 7$) channel mode .

Codec mode; or a iven channel mode - the bit partitionin between the speech and channel codecs.

Codec mode adaptation; The control and selection of the codec mode bitCrates.

Error Patterns

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+'



Error Insertion Device; $esult of offline simulations stored on files. To be used by the H2rror &nsertion 5eviceH tomodel the radio transmission from the output of the channel decoder and interleaver to the input of the deinterleaverand channel decoder.

ull-rate ( R); G!M ullCrate channel or G!M channel mode

!ross "it-rate; The bitCrate of the channel mode selected (44.< "bit>s or ++.6 "bit>s in G!M).

#al$-rate (#R); G!M 7alfCrate channel or G!M channel mode

In-Band %ignaling; !i nalin for codec mode indication and modification carried within the traffic channel.

&ut-o$-Band %ignaling; !i nalin on the G!M control channels to support lin" control

'oll ualit ; !peech Buality normally achieved on modern wireline telephones.

!ynonym with H&!5' BualityH in most western countries.

*ireline +ualit ; !peech Buality provided by modern wireline networ"s. 'ormally ta"en to imply Buality at least asood as that of 34"bit>s G.;4: or G.;4< +: "bit>s codecs.

3.2 bb&ev a, onsor the purposes of the present document- the followin abbreviations applyD

>5 nalo ue to 5i ital0$ bsolute 0ate ory $atin5P0M daptive 5ifferential Pulse 0ode ModulationM$ daptive MultiC$ate

/!0 /ase !tation 0ontroller /T! /ase Transceiver !tation0>& 0arrierCtoC&nterfere ratio

0& 0onfidence &nterval0'& 0omfort 'oise &nsertion0$0 0yclic $edundancy 0hec" 5> 5i ital to nalo ue5 T 5i ital udio Tape50$ 5e radation 0ate ory $atin5!P 5i ital !i nal Processor 5TM 5ual Tone Multi reBuency5T? 5iscontinuous Transmission for power consumption and interference reduction2 $ 2nhanced ull $ate2!P Product of 2 (2fficiency)- ! (!peed) and P (Percenta e of Power) of the 5!P

$ ull $ate (also G!M $)7 reBuency 7oppin

G.;4: &TL +:>46>34"bit>s 5P0M codecG.;4< &TL +:"bit>s A5C02AP codecG.;4, &TL <>:.6>++.< "bit>s speech codecG/2$ vera e ross bit error rateG!M Global !ystem for Mobile communications7$ 7alf $ate (also G!M 7$)&$! &ntermediate $eference !ystem&TLCT &nternational Telecommunication Lnion C Telecommunications !tandardi ation !ector M'$L Modulated 'oise $eference LnitMod. &$! Modified &$!MOP! Million of Operation per !econdsMO! Mean Opinion !coreM! Mobile !tationM!0 Mobile !witchin 0enter

P0M Pulse 0ode ModulationP!T' Public !witched Telecommunications 'etwor" 9 !peechCtoCspeech correlated noise power ratio in d/!5 !tandard 5eviation

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+#



!&5 !ilence 5escriptor !MG !pecial Mobile Group!'$ !i nal To 'oise $atioT07C ! Traffic 07annel daptive ull rate !peechT07C 7! Traffic 07annel daptive 7alf rate !peechT5M Time 5ivision Multiple ccessT O Tandem ree OperationtMOP! true Million of Operations per !econdsTL Typical Lrban at multipath propa ation profile at "m>s= 5 =oice ctivity 5etector wMOP! wei hted Million of Operations per !econds

Multiple 2rror Patterns were used durin the 0haracteri ation tests. They are identified by the propa ation 2rror0onditions from which they are derived. The followin conventions are usedD

20 2rror 0onditions at d/ 0>& simulatin a radio channel under static 0>& usin ideal reBuency7oppin in a TL3 multipath propa ation profile

520i 5ynamic 2rror 0ondition i simulatin a radio channel with a slowly varyin 0>& representativeof slow fadin conditions- under ideal reBuency 7oppin in a TL3 multipath propa ation profileunless otherwise stated. (, different 5ynamic 2rror 0onditions were used in the M$0haracteri ation Phase)

or abbreviations not iven in this subCclause- see G!M @+.@6 F+ .

8 Gene&a

8.1 &o=e!, s,o&$ollowin the standardi ation of the 2 $ speech codec- the !MG4 !peech 2 pert Group (!2G) and especially the

!9!G (!peech 9uality !trate y Group) were tas"ed by !MG to study possible strate ies for the continuousimprovement of the end to end performances of the speech service in G!M networ"s. !2G was specifically as"ed toevaluate the opportunity to desi n a robust ull $ate mode and>or an 2nhanced 7alf $ate mode.

The !9!G report- presented to !MG in +,,:- recommended to start a oneCyear feasibility study of a MultiC$ate speechcodec capable to offer at the same time a $obust ull $ate mode and an 2nhanced 7alf $ate mode providin wirelineBuality under low propa ation error conditions , .

The feasibility study was completed in 39,; and the results presented to !MG 43. /ased on the feasibility report-!MG approved a new $,< 1or" &tem for the development of the daptive MultiC$ate ( M$) !peech 0odec.

9ualification Phase was completed by the end of 49,< with the preCselection of 8 candidates amon the ++ proposals received by !MG++.

The selection tests too" place in the summer of +,,< and the results analy ed in !MG++ ; in !eptember +,,<.!MG++ reached a consensus on one solution and recommended to !MG to select the 2'!+ solution proposed by2ricsson- 'o"ia and !iemens as the basis of the M$ standard. This proposal was approved by !MG 4;.

The completion of the M$ development included a short optimi ation phase restricted to the codec proponentsfollowed by an e haustive =erification and 0haracteri ation Phase whose results are reported in this Technical $eport.

!MG later approved two additional 1or" &tems for the selection of a 'oise !uppresser and the development of a1ideband e tension of the M$ speech codec. The outcome of these 1or" &tems is not included in this Technical$eport.

8.2 ?ve&v e% o; , e @R 4on!e ,

Lnli"e previous G!M speech codecs ( $- 2 $- and 7$) which operate at a fi ed rate and constant error protectionlevel- the M$ speech codec adapts its error protection level to the local radio channel and traffic conditions. M$

, The !2G report also proposed to evaluate and standardi e the Tandem ree Operation of the G!M codecs and proposed the creation of a new !T0-later called !MG++- responsible for the end to end Buality of the speech service in G!M 'etwor"s.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+&



selects the optimum channel (half or full rate) and codec mode (speech and channel bit rates) to deliver the bestcombination of speech Buality and system capacity. This fle ibility provides a number of important benefitsD

C &mproved speech Buality in both halfCrate and fullCrate modes by means of codec mode adaptation i.e. byvaryin the balance between speech and channel codin for the same ross bitCrateE

C The ability to trade speech Buality and capacity smoothly and fle ibly by a combination of channel andcodec mode adaptationE this can be controlled by the networ" operator on a cell by cell basisE

C &mproved robustness to channel errors under mar inal radio si nal conditions in fullCrate mode. Thisincreased robustness to errors and hence to interference may be used to increase capacity by operatin ati hter freBuency reCuse patternE

C bility to tailor M$ operation to meet the different needs of operatorsE

C Potential for improved handover and power control resultin from additional si nalin transmitted rapidlyinCband.

The M$ codec concept is adaptable not only in terms of its ability to respond to chan in radio and traffic conditions but also to be customi ed to the specific needs of networ" operators. This allows the codec to be operated in manyways of which three important e amples areD

C ullCrate only for ma imum robustness to channel errors. This additional robustness may be used to e tendthe covera e in mar inal si nal conditions- or to improve the capacity by usin a ti hter freBuency reCuse-assumin hi h M$ M! penetration.

C 7alfCrate only for ma imum capacity advanta eE more than +@@N capacity increase achievable relative to$ or 2 $ (i.e. same as e istin 7$). !i nificant Buality improvements relative to the e istin 7$ will beiven for a lar e proportion of mobiles as a result of the codec mode adaptation to the channel conditions

and e cellent (wireline li"e) speech Buality in half rate mode for low error conditions.

C Mi ed half>full rate operation allowin a tradeCoff between Buality and capacity enhancements accordin tothe radio and traffic conditions and operator priorities.

8.3 +n!, ona Des!& , onThe M$ speech codec includes a set of fi ed rate speech codecs modes for half rate and full rate operation- with the

possibility to switch between the different modes as a function of the propa ation error conditions. 2ach codec mode provides a different level of error protection throu h a dedicated distribution of the available ross bit rate (44.< "bit>sin ull $ate and ++.6 "bit>s in 7alf rate) between source codin and channel codin .

The actual speech rate used for each speech frame depends on the e istin radio channel conditions. codecadaptation al orithm selects the optimi ed speech rate (or codec mode) as a function of the channel Buality. The mostrobust codec mode is selected in bad propa ation conditions. The codec mode providin the best Buality is selected in

ood propa ation conditions. The codec adaptation relies on channel Buality measurements performed in the M! andthe networ" and on in band information sent over the ir &nterface to ether with the speech data.

The followin dia ram shows the main information flows over the "ey system interfacesD

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+



@S ATS

" n# S ee! Da,a4o'e! @o'e Bn' !a, on (for uplink)

S+::es,e' 4o'e! @o'e (for downlink)

Do%n n# S ee! Da,a

4o'e! @o'e Bn' !a, on (for downlink)

4o'e! @o'e 4omman' (for uplink)

4o'e! 1'a ,a,.on

4o'e! 1'a ,a,.on

S<D

S<D S<5

S<5 4>5

4>5

4>D

4>D

4>56 40anne/ 5n!o'e& 4>D6 40anne/ De!o'e& S<56 S ee!0 5n!o'e& S<D6 S ee!0 De!o'e&

TR "

&n both directions- the speech data frames are associated with a 0odec Mode &ndication used by the receivin end toselect the correct channel and source decoders. &n the networ"- the 0odec Mode &ndication must also be sent to theTranscoder Lnits so that the correct source decodin is selected.

or the adaptation of the uplin" codec mode- the networ" must estimate the channel Buality- identify the best codec for the e istin propa ation conditions and send this information to the M! over the ir &nterface (0odec Mode0ommand 5ata field).

or the downlin" codec adaptation- the M! must estimate the downlin" channel Buality and send to the networ" aBuality information- which can be mapped in the networ" to a su ested codec mode.

&n theory- the codec mode can be chan ed every speech frame. &n practice- because of the propa ation delays andnecessary filterin in the codec adaptation functions- the codec mode should be adapted at a lower rate.

2ach lin" may use a different codec mode but it is mandatory for both lin"s to use the same channel mode (either fullrate or half rate).

The channel mode is selected by the $adio $esource mana ement function in the networ". &t is done at call set up orafter a handover. The channel type can further be chan ed durin a call as a function of the channel conditions.

The "ey characteristics of the selected M$ solution areD

C < codec modes in ull $ate mode includin the G!M 2 $ and &!+3: 2 $.C : codec modes in 7alf $ate mode (also supported in ull $ate)- includin the &!+3: 2 $.C Possibility to operate on a set of up to 6 codec modes selected at call set up or handover.C 0odec Mode &ndications multiple ed with the Lplin" 0odec Mode 0ommand and !u ested 5ownlin" 0odecMode every other frame.

Q &n band si nalin based on a 4 bits information field sent every other bloc" coded over the ir &nterface.

The full set of codec modes is listed in the followin tableD

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+%



Channel Source codec .it-rate

12.2 #b ,/s (GS@ R)10.2 #b ,/s7.95 #b ,/s

TC/01S0AM 7.80 #b ,/s (BS136 R)!TC/0A1S+ 6.70 #b ,/s

5.90 #b ,/s5.15 #b ,/s8.75 #b ,/s7.95 #b ,/s7.80 #b ,/s (BS136 R)

TC/0/S0AM 6.70 #b ,/s!TC/0A/S+ 5.90 #b ,/s

5.15 #b ,/s8.75 #b ,/s

Ta.le 4$"$): AM Speech Codec Modes

8.8 &esen,a, on o; , e ;o o% n: se!, onsThe followin sections provide a summary of the 0haracteri ation Phase test results and bac" round information onthe codec performances analy ed durin the =erification Phase.

!ections 8 to , summari e the codec subjective Buality performances under different representative environmentalconditions as measured durin the 0haracteri ation Phase of the project. n overview of the 0haracteri ation Phase isincluded in nne . dditional test results are also provided in nne 0 and 5.

!ections +@ to +: provide information on the codec characteristics as reported durin the =erification Phase includin D

C The transparence to 5TM tones-C The transparence to networ" si nalin tonesC The performances special input si nals

C The lan ua e and tal"er dependencyC The freBuency responseC The transmission delayC The comple ity

nne / lists the reference contributions used in these sections.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+)*



5 C+a ,$ n 4 ean S ee! an' &&o& 4on' , onsThe codec performances in clean speech and error conditions were measured in 2 periment +a ( ull $ate) and +b(7alf $ate) of the 0haracteri ation phase of testin . The clean speech performance reBuirements were set for the best

codec mode in each error condition as defined in the followin tableD

C I ull RateBest Codec

per$ormancere+uirement

#al$ RateBest Codec

per$ormance(re+uirement)

'o 2rrors 2 $ 'o 2rrors G.;4< no errors+, d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors G.;4< no errors+: d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors G.;4< no errors+3 d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors $ at +3 d/+@ d/ G.;4< 'o 2rrors $ at +@ d/; d/ G.;4< 'o 2rrors $ at ; d/6 d/ 2 $ at +@ d/ $ at 6 d/

Ta.le '$): 2est Codec Performance e uirements in Clean Speech and rror Conditions

summary of the essential test results is provided below. dditional results are included in nne 0.

The followin fi ures provide a raphical representation (in Mean Opinion !cores) of the M$ performances in cleanspeech in ull $ate mode , . i ure 8.+ compares the performance recorded for the best M$ full rate codec mode foreach impairment condition- with the correspondin performance of 2 $ and the related M$ project performancereBuirement.

Experiment 1a - Test Results

1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0

Conditions

M !

Se . Re + &.

@R- R

R

Se . Re + &. 8.01 8.01 8.01 3.65

@R- R 8.06 8.06 8.13 8.0E 3.96 3.59 2.66

R 8.01 8.01 3.65 3.05 1.53

o &&o&s 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 4/BF 7 'A 4/BF 8 'A 4/BF 1 'A

1i5ure '$): AM full rate0clean speech performances cur(e!2est AM Codec (s$ 1 (s$ Performance e uirements+

i ure 8.4 shows the performances recorded for all < M$ full rate codec modes in clean speech and error conditions.

Important .ote/ MO! values are provided in these fi ures $or in$ormation onl . Mean Opinion !cores can only berepresentative of the test conditions in which they were recorded (speech material- speech processin - listeninconditions- lan ua e- and cultural bac" round of the listenin subjectsR). Aistenin tests performed with otherconditions than those used in the M$ 0haracteri ation phase of testin could lead to a different set of MO! results.On the other hand- the relative performances of different codec under tests is considered more reliable and lessimpacted by cultural difference between listenin subjects. inally- it should be noted that a difference of @.4 MO!

between two test results was usually found not statistically si nificant.

, &n these fi ures- the performance of 2 $ at +3 d/ was arbitrarily set to the performance of 2 $ in 'o 2rrors conditions.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+))




1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0

Conditions

M !

R12.210.27.957.86.75.95.158.75

R 8.01 8.01 3.65 3.05 1.53

12.2 8.01 8.06 8.13 3.93 3.88 1.86

10.2 8.06 3.96 8.05 3.E0 2.08

7.95 3.91 8.01 8.0E 3.96 3.26 1.837.8 3.E3 3.98 3.9E 3.E8 3.11 1.39

6.7 3.77 3.E0 3.E6 3.29 1.E7

5.9 3.72 3.69 3.59 2.20

5.15 3.50 3.5E 3.88 2.83

8.75 3.50 3.52 3.83 2.66

o && o&s 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 4/BF 7 'A 4/BF 8 'A 4/BF 1 'A

1i5ure '$": 1amil6 of cur(es for 7periment )a !Clean speech in 1ull ate+

The M$ 0haracteri ation test results showed that the selected solution satisfies the M$ reBuirements in cleanspeech in ull $ate 0hannel. The previous results demonstrate that the combination of all < speech codec modes

provide a robust ull $ate speech codec down to 6 d/ 0>&.

The results also showed that the four hi hest codec modes (+4.4- [email protected] ;.,8 S ;.6) are eBuivalent to 2 $ in error freeconditions and barely affected by propa ation errors over a wide ran e 0hannel conditions (down to +@C; 0>&). Thefour lowest codec modes (:.;- 8.,- 8.+8 S 6.;8) are all jud ed in error free conditions to be eBuivalent to 2 $ at +@ d/0>&. The three lowest codec modes are statistically unaffected by propa ation errors down to 6 d/ 0>&.

The followin fi ures provide a raphical representation (in Mean Opinion !cores) of the M$ performances in cleanspeech in 7alf $ate mode 0. i ure 8.3 compares the performance recorded for the best M$ half rate codec mode foreach impairment condition- with the correspondin performance of the 2 $- G!M $ and G!M 7$ speech codecsand the related M$ project performance reBuirement.

i ure 8.3 shows the performances recorded for all : M$ half rate codec modes in clean speech and error conditions.

Important .ote/ Once a ain- MO! values are provided in these fi ures $or in$ormation onl . Mean Opinion !corescan only be representative of the test conditions in which they were recorded (speech material- speech processin -

listenin conditions- lan ua e- and cultural bac" round of the listenin subjectsR). Aistenin tests performed withother conditions than those used in the M$ 0haracteri ation phase of testin could lead to a different set of MO!results. On the other hand- the relative performances of different codec under tests is considered more reliable and lessimpacted by cultural difference between listenin subjects. inally- it should be noted that a difference of @.4 MO!

between two test results was usually found not statistically si nificant.

0 &n these fi ures- the performances of 2 $ at +3 d/ were arbitrarily set to the performances of 2 $ in 'o 2rrors conditions.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+)"



Experiment 1" - Test Results

1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0

Conditions

M !

Se . Re + &. @R- R

RRR

Se . Re + &. 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.18 2.78 1.50

@R- R 8.11 8.08 3.96 3.72 3.3E 3.10 2.00

R 8.21 8.21 3.78 3.38 1.5E

R 3.50 3.50 3.18 2.78 1.50

R 3.35 3.28 2.E0 1.92

o &&o&s 4/BF19 'A 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 4/BF 7 'A 4/BF 8 'A

1i5ure '$3: AM half rate0clean speech performances cur(e!2est AM Codec (s$ 1 (s$ GSM 1 (s$ GSM 1 (s$ Performance e uirements+


1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0

Conditions

M !

R7.95

7.86.75.95.158.75

RR

R 8.21 8.21 3.78 3.38 1.5E

7.95 8.11 8.08 3.96 3.37 2.53 1.60

7.8 3.93 3.93 3.95 3.52 2.78 1.7E

6.7 3.98 3.90 3.53 3.10 2.22 1.21

5.9 3.6E 3.E2 3.72 3.19 2.57 1.33

5.15 3.70 3.60 3.60 3.3E 2.E5 1.E8

8.75 3.59 3.86 3.82 3.30 3.10 2.00R 3.50 3.50 3.18 2.78 1.50

R 3.35 3.28 2.E0 1.92

o &&o&s 4/BF19 'A 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 4/BF 7 'A 4/BF 8 'A

1i5ure '$4: 1amil6 of cur(es for 7periment ). !Clean Speech in /alf ate+

The M$ 0haracteri ation test results showed that the selected solution complies with the M$ reBuirements inclean speech in 7alf $ate 0hannel. The results demonstrate that the combination of all : speech codec modes providea 7alf $ate speech codec eBuivalent to the &TL G.;4< (+: "bit>s) speech codec down to +: d/ 0>&. urthermore- theresults show that M$ can provide si nificantly better performances than G!M $ in the full ran e of test conditions-and si nificantly better performances than the G!M 7$ codec down to ; d/ 0>&.

The four hi hest codec modes (;.,8- ;.6- :.; and 8.,) were found si nificantly better than the G!M $ in error freeconditions down to +3 d/ 0>& and at least eBuivalent to the 2 $ at +@ d/ 0>& down to +: d/ 0>&. The three hi hest

modes (;.,8- ;.6 and :.;) are eBuivalent to the error free 2 $ in very low error conditions. The two lowest modeswere found at least eBuivalent to the G!M $ over the full ran e of test conditions.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+)3



6 C+a ,$ +n'e& ba!#:&o+n' no se an' &&o&s4on' , ons

The codec performances under bac" round noise and error conditions were measured in : different 2 periments of the0haracteri ation phase of testin D 2 p. 3a- 3b and 3c ( ull $ate) and 2 p. 3d- 3e and 3f (7alf $ate). The followin

bac" round noise types were included in the testsD !treet 'oise at +8 d/ !'$ (3a S 3d)- 0ar noise at +8 d/ !'$ (3bS 3e) and Office noise at 4@ d/ !'$ (3c S 3f). The correspondin performance reBuirements were set for the bestcodec mode in each error condition as defined in the followin tableD

C I ull RateBest Codec

per$ormancere+uirement

#al$ RateBest Codec

per$ormance(re+uirement)

'o 2rrors 2 $ 'o 2rrors 2 $ 'o 2rrors+, d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors+: d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors+3 d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors $ at +3 d/+@ d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors $ at +@ d/; d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors $ at ; d/6 d/ $ at +@ d/ $ at 6 d/

Ta.le #$): 2est Codec Performance e uirements under .ac85round noise and rror Conditions

summary of the essential test results is provided below. dditional results are included in nne 0.

The followin fi ures provide a raphical representation (in Mean Opinion !cores) of the performances recorded inull $ate in 2 periments 3a- 3b S 3c , .


1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0


Conditions

#M !

Se . Re + &. @R- R

RR

G.729

1i5ure #$): AM performance cur(es for 7periment 3a !1ull rate 9ith Street oise+


1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0


Conditions

#M !

Se . Re + &. @R- R

RR

G.729

, &n these fi ures- the performances of 2 $ at +3 d/ were arbitrarily set to the performances of 2 $ in 'o 2rrors conditions.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+)4



1i5ure #$": AM performance cur(es for 7periment 3. !1ull rate 9ith Car oise+

Experiment 3c - Test Results

1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0


Conditions

#M !

Se . Re + &. @R- R

RR

G.729

1i5ure #$3: AM performance cur(es for 7periment 3c !1ull rate 9ith ffice oise+

The M$ 0haracteri ation test results showed that the selected solution complies with the M$ reBuirements under bac" round noise in ull $ate 0hannel. The results demonstrate that the combination of the : hi hest speech codecmodes provide a robust ull $ate speech codec down to 6 d/ 0>&.

t hi h 0>& (down to +3 d/) the three hi hest codec modes (+4.4- [email protected] and ;.,8) were found eBuivalent to 2 $ inerror free condition. ll codecs modes down to the M$ 8., performed better than the G!M $ across all testconditions. couple of codecs (:.;- 8.,) still provide at 6 d/ 0>& a Buality eBuivalent to the G!M $ at +@ d/ 0>&..The two lowest modes (8.+8 and 6.;8) were usually found worse than the G!M $ at +@ d/ 0>& across the ran e oftest conditions 0.

0 The support of the two lowest modes in ull $ate is reBuired to allow Tandem ree Operation between a 7alf $ate M! and a ull $ate M!. They shouldnot be the primary choice for operation in ull $a te mode only

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+)'



The followin fi ures provide a raphical representation (in Mean Opinion !cores) of the performances recorded in7alf $ate in 2 periments 3d- 3e S 3f 1.

Experiment 3d - Test Results

1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0

o & &o& s 4/BF19 'A 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 4/BF 7 'A 4/BF 8 'A

Conditions

#M !

Se . Re + &. @R- R

RRR

1i5ure #$4: AM performance cur(es for 7periment 3d !/alf rate 9ith Street oise+

Experiment 3e - Test Results

1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0


Conditions

#M !

Se . Re + &. @R- R

RRR

1i5ure #$': AM performance cur(es for 7periment 3e !/alf rate 9ith Car oise+

Experiment 3f - Test Results

1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0


Conditions

#M !

Se . Re + &. @R- R

RRR

1i5ure #$#: AM performance cur(es for 7periment 3f !/alf rate 9ith ffice oise+

These results show that the hi hest M$ modes perform well under bac" round noise conditions in half rate channel

1 &n these fi ures- the performance of 2 $ at +3 d/ was arbitrarily set to the performances of 2 $ in 'o 2rrors conditions.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+)#



down to +: d/ 0>&. &n these conditions- the M$ performances are almost eBuivalent to 2 $ and si nificantly betterthan the G!M $ or G!M 7$ in the same test conditions.

'one of the codec modes is able to meet the initial project reBuirement at +@ d/ 0>&. ll codec modes are found worsethan the tar et $ at +@ d/ 0>& in these conditions. This is the only critical failure recorded in the characteri ation

phase.

t ; d/ 0>& and below the two lowest codec modes match or e ceed the performances of the G!M $ and G!M 7$.

7 e&;o&man!es n Tan'em n: an' % , va& a, on o; , en +, s ee! eve

2 periment 4 and 2 periment : of the 0haracteri ation Test plan were intended to evaluate the performances of theM$ 0odec modes in selfCtandemin and crossCtandemin and with variation of the input speech level.

n overview of the correspondin results is provided in the followin fi uresD

Experiment $ - Test Results

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

8.00

8.50

12.2 10.20 7.95 7.80 6.70 5.9 5.15 8.75

M !

D &e!,Tan'. % /12.2- RTan'. % /10.2Tan'. % /7.95Tan'. % /7.8Tan'. % /6.7Tan'. % /5.9Tan'. % /5.15Tan'. % /8.75Tan'. % / R

Tan'. % / R

1i5ure &$): 7periment " Test esults !cross-codec tandemin5+

Experiment $ - Test Results

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

8.00

8.50

R R R

M !

D &e!,Tan'. % /12.2- RTan'emTan'. % /10.2Tan'. % /7.95Tan'. % /7.8Tan'. % /6.7Tan'. % /5.9Tan'. % /5.15Tan'. % /8.75

1i5ure &$": AM Codec Tandemin5 performances 9ith e7istin5 GSM Codecs

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+)&



Experiment % - Test Results

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

8.00

8.50

R 12.2 10.20 7.95 7.80 6.70 5.9 5.15 8.75

Codec

M S

-16 'Aov

-26 'Aov

-36 'Aov

Tan'em

1i5ure &$3: Com.ined results for 7periment # !<nfluence of input speech le(el and Tandemin5+

Experiment % - Test Results

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

8

8.5

om na 10'A om na om na -10 'A Tan'em

Conditions

M !

G.729-11.8 R12.2 10.20G.729-E 7.957.80 6.70G.729-6.8 5.95.15 8.75

R R

1i5ure &$4: Com.ined results for 7periment # !<nfluence of input speech le(el and Tandemin5+ordered .6 impairment t6pe

The "ey performances demonstrated by 2 periment 4 test results areD

C Tandemin with the clean speech error free +4.4 and [email protected] modes of M$ do not si nificantly de radethe sin le encodin performances of any of the M$ codec or e istin G!M codecs.

C ny other tandemin confi uration involvin any two other M$ codecs introduce a si nificantde radation when compared to the sin le encodin performances of any of the two codecs involved in the

tandem confi uration. This de radation is however less si nificant than a tandem confi urationinvolvin either the G!M $ or the G!M 7$.

C ll tandemin confi urations between two M$ speech codecs (e cept the worst confi uration 8.+8C6.;8) are si nificantly better than the G!M $ or G!M 7$ in Tandem

2 periment : test results show that the different M$ speech codec were not si nificantly more impacted by the inputspeech level than 2 $. The hi hest codec modes (+4.4 down to ;.6) were enerally found eBuivalent for eachimpairment type (with variation of the input level or in tandem). The lowest codec modes were always found as leastas ood as the G!M $.

&n tandem conditions- the hi hest modes (down to ;.6 "bit>s) do not present a si nificant de radation compare to thesin le encodin condition. The lowest modes are at least as ood as the G!M $ in tandemin and always better thanthe G!M 7$.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+)



E e&;o&man!es % , , e 4o'e! 'a ,a, on ,+&ne' on2 periments 6a ( ull $ate) and 6b (7alf $ate) of the 0haracteri ation phase of testin were desi ned to evaluate the

M$ performances with the adaptation turned on in lon dynamic 0>& profiles representative of operational propa ation conditions. Multiple 0>& profile were enerated simulatin different behavior of the radio channel anddifferent slow fadin effects. One profile was used to enerate multiple 2rror Patterns representative of different

reBuency 7oppin operation modeD &deal freBuency hoppin - nonCideal freBuency hoppin limited to 6 freBuenciesand no freBuency hopin . Three different sets of codec modes were used in these 2 periments. They are defined in thefollowin tableD

Codec Modes for 7periment 4a

Codec Modes for 7periment 4.

Se, 1 12.2 7.95 5.9 7.95 6.7 5.9 5.15

Se, 2 12.2 7.95 6.7 5.9 8.75

Se, 3 12.2 7.80 6.7 5.15 7.80 5.15

Ta.le $): Sets of codec modes for 7periment 4a = 4.

The thresholds and 7ysteresis used for the codec adaptation in the different confi urations are listed in the followintableD

Adaptation Thresholds and /6steresis for 7periment 4a

Threshold ) /6steresis ) Threshold " /6steresis " Threshold 3 /6steresis 3

Se, 1 11.5 'A 2.0 'A 6.5 'A 2.0 'A

Se, 2 11.5 'A 2.0 'A

Se, 3 11.5 'A 2.0 'A 7.0 'A 2.0 'A 5.5 'A 2.0 'A

Adaptation Thresholds and /6steresis for 7periment 4.

Threshold ) /6steresis ) Threshold " /6steresis " Threshold 3 /6steresis 3

Se, 1 15.0 'A 2.0 'A 12.5 'A 2.5 'A 11.0 'A 2.0 'A

Se, 2 12.5 'A 2.0 'A 11.0 'A 2.0 'A

Se, 3 13.5 'A 2.0 'A

Ta.le $": Codec Mode Adaptation thresholds and /6steresis used in 7periment 4a = 4.

The results of 2 periments 6a and6b are presented in the followin fi uresD

Experiment &a - Test Results

1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0

D 41 D 41 DTH D 42 D 43 D 48 D 45 B'ea * D 46 on-B'ea *

D 46 onB'ea * DTH

D 47 o *

Conditions

M ! R

@R- R Se, 1 @R- R Se, 2 @R- R Se, 3

o,e D 45 D 46 I D 47 +se' , e same 4/B &o; eD 46 on 8 !a&& e&s

1i5ure $): 7periment 4a Test esults !>6namic rror conditions in 1ull ate+

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+)%



Experiment &" - Test Results

1.0

2.0

3.0

8.0

5.0

D 41 D 41 DTH D 42 D 43 D 48 D 45 B'ea * D 46 on-B'ea *

D 46 onB'ea * DTH

D 47 o *

Conditions

M ! R

@R- R Se, 1 @R- R Se, 2 @R- R Se, 3

o,e D 45 D 46 I D 47 +se' , e same 4/B &o; e D 46 on 8 !a&& e&sD 41 D 43 D 45 D 46 D 47 % , 3 'A : e& 4/B n R 4 anne sD 42 D 48 % , 6 'A : e& 4/B on R 4 anne s

1i5ure $": 7periment 4. Test esults !>6namic rror conditions in /alf ate+

The results of 2 periments 6a and 6b can be summari ed as followsD

C &n ull $ate- the three tested M$ codec sets were found si nificantly better than 2 $ in ideal or nonCideal freBuency hoppin cases. &n some cases- the benefit was hi her than + point MO!.

C &n 7alf $ate- the three codec sets were found si nificantly better than the G!M $ codec (tested at 3 d/or : d/ lower avera e 0>&) in most cases with ideal or nonCideal freBuency hoppin activated.

C The performances with nonCideal freBuency hoppin were usually found eBuivalent to the performanceswith ideal freBuency hoppin for the M$ codec. The 2 $ codec seemed sli htly more impacted in thiscase.

C 'o si nificant improvement compared to the references was identified in nonCfreBuency hoppin casesand low mobile speed in either full rate or half rate channels. The performances of all codecs withoutfreBuency hoppin activated were always found si nificantly worse than their performances when idealor nonCideal freBuency hoppin was used.

C 'o si nificant difference was found when 5T? was activated in the return lin" in either full rate or halfrate mode.

C There was no si nificant difference between the three codec sets used in full rate or half rate modes- evenwhen the set was limited to two codec modes.

9 V D/DTH e&;o&man!esThe objective of 2 periment ; of the characteri ation test plan was to evaluate the de radation induced by theactivation of the voice activity detection and discontinuous transmission on the lin" under test , . The e periment wasdivided in 6 subCe periments to separately test the effect on the ull $ate and 7alf $ate channel operation and thenthe performances of each = 5 al orithm (2'! solution and Motorola solution). The tests used a ;Cpoint 0omparison0ate ory $atin to amplify any possible de radation. They consisted in comparin a speech sample for which the= 5>5T? has been applied with the same speech sample without = 5>5T? but in the same channel

error>impairment condition. The ;Cpoint scale (0MO! C3 to I3) corresponded to Buality de radation defined asDMuch worse - 1orse - !li htly worse - bout the same - !li htly better - /etter and Much better .

The followin impairment type were included in each e periment and tested for multiple error conditions (6- +@ S +:d/ 0>& in ull $ate- ;- +3 S +, d/ in 7alf $ate)D

C !in le encodin in clean speech at nominal input levelC !in le encodin in clean speech +@ d/ below the nominal input levelC !in le encodin in clean speech +@ d/ above the nominal inputC !in le encodin in street noise at +8 d/ !'$ C Tandemin in street noise at +8 d/C !in le encodin in car noise at +8 d/C !in le encodin in office noise at 4@

The tests were performed with the adaptation turned on- usin the sets of codec modes + of Table :.+. 'evertheless- astatic 0>& profile was used for all test conditions involvin propa ation errors.

, The influence of discontinuous transmission on the in band si nalin (mode command and Buality reportin ) was tested in 2 periment 6a S 6b.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+"*



The tests also included a set of references usin the 2 $ codec with the ori inal 2 $ = 5 and the new M$ = 5al orithms in a subset of the impairment conditions- and the $ codec in clean speech with the ori inal $ = 5. null condition was also included in the test.

ll test results with one e ception showed that the activation of the M$ = 5>5T? do not introduce any si nificantde radation to the performances of M$. The difference between the scores obtained by the different conditions were

below their respective ,8N confidence interval indicatin that the de radation is not si nificantly different for eitherimpairment type. The same results were found for both = 5 solutions. direct comparison between the two = 5options in paired e periments (2 periments ;a and ;c in ull $ate and 2 periments ;b and ;d in 7alf $ate) did notallow to differentiate their respective performances.

The only condition showin a si nificantly hi her de radation level in all tests performed was for the G!M $ codecwith its own = 5 al orithm. 2ven then- the score obtained by the $>= 5 codec association was not as bad as a

bein Bualified as !li htly worse (first de radation level in the ;Cpoint 0MO! scale). &t was in the order of thede radation of a M'$L at 3@ d/ !>' compared with the ori inal speech sample.

10 e&;o&man!es % , DT@ ,ones

Twelve e periments were performed durin the verification phase to evaluate the transparency of the M$ codecmodes to 5TM tones. The correspondin test conditions are listed in Table +@.+. The e periments were limited toerror free conditions only.

The freBuency deviation was set for the duration of a di it- and was randomly chosen between C+.8 and I+.8N. Theran e of tone levels was chosen to avoid clippin in the di ital domain and to e ceed the minimum acceptable inputlevel for the Ainemaster unit used for the detection of 5TM tones.

set of ten codecs was tested in each e periment- comprisin the ei ht M$ modes- the fullCrate G!M speech codecand the Claw codecs alone (direct condition).

E2periment 3o4 tonelevel (,)

#igh tonelevel (,)

'4ist Digit duration re+uencdeviation

+ C: d/m C: d/m @ d/ 8@ ms none4 C+: d/m C+: d/m @ d/ 8@ ms none3 C4: d/m C4: d/m @ d/ 8@ ms none6 C+: d/m C+: d/m @ d/ 8@ ms I>C +.8N8 C+, d/m C+3 d/m C: d/ 8@ ms none: C+3 d/m C+, d/m : d/ 8@ ms none; C: d/m C: d/m @ d/ <@ ms none< C+: d/m C+: d/m @ d/ <@ ms none, C4: d/m C4: d/m @ d/ <@ ms none

+@ C+: d/m C+: d/m @ d/ <@ ms I>C +.8N++ C+, d/m C+3 d/m C: d/ <@ ms none+4 C+3 d/m C+, d/m : d/ <@ ms none

Ta.le )*$): 7perimental conditions for the e(aluation of the AM Codecs Transparenc6 to >TM1Tones

'ote +D The levels are iven as measured at the input to the 5TM detector- however- since the 5 0 is calibrated accordin to &TLCT $ec.G.;++- @d/m in the analo ue section is eBuivalent to C:.+8d/ov in the di ital section.

'est se+uences/

or each e periment- 4@ test seBuences were processed per codec under test. 2ach test seBuence was produced by the5TM enerator- and comprised a header of x ms followed by each of the +: 5TM di its as defined in &TLCT $ec.9.43. The ap between adjacent 5TM di its was eBual to the duration of the di its (see Table +). The len th of theheader in seBuence number n- was set to

x 4@@In milliseconds E where n @..+,.

This approach was ta"en to e ercise the speech codecs over the complete ran e of possible phase relationships between the start of a 5TM di it and a speech codec frame (4@ms in len th). Thus each codec mode was subjected to

34@ separate di its per e periment.'est Procedure/

or each test seBuence- the number of di its undetected by the 5TM detector was recorded. 'o attempt to identify

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+")



misdetected di its was made- althou h there were no out of seBuence di its observed.

Results/

The percenta e of undetected di its measured for each codec mode is iven in Table [email protected] for 2 periments + to :(8@ms di its)- and in Table [email protected] for 2 periments ; to +4 (<@ms di its).

Codec mode Rate (5"it s) E2p6 , E2p6 0 E2p6 1 E2p6 7 E2p6 8 E2p6 9 MeanM$ mode @ 6.;8 38.3N 6@.,N 3<.+N 6+.3N 8@.@N 63.<N 6+.:NM$ mode + 8.+8 34.<N 3<.6N 36.;N 3<.<N 84.8N 3;.8N 3,.+NM$ mode 4 8.,@ +,.;N [email protected] 48.@N 48.3N 3;.<N +,.+N 46.8NM$ mode 3 :.;@ ;.<N ;.<N +@.:N <.<N 43.6N :.3N +@.<NM$ mode 6 ;.6@ 3.<N 8.@N 6.;N 6.+N +3.+N 4.4N 8.8NM$ mode 8 ;.,8 @.3N +.3N +.3N 4.4N ,.;N @.:N 4.:N

M$ mode : [email protected]@ @.@N @.@N @.3N @.@N @.3N @.@N @.+NM$ mode ; +4.4@ @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N$ G!M +3.@@ @.@N @.@N @.3N @.@N @.:N @.@N @.4N

5irect ( Claw) C @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @[email protected] )*$"a: Percenta5e of >TM1 di5its undetected 9hen passed throu5h different codecs 9ith

'*ms >TM1 di5its$ The mean (alue is calculated o(er all si7 e7periments$

Codec mode Rate (5"it s) E2p6 : E2p6 E2p6 < E2p6 ,= E2p6 ,, E2p6 ,0 MeanM$ mode @ 6.;8 4+.3N 46.;N 4;.8N 4:.,N 38.,N 4:.:N 4;.+NM$ mode + 8.+8 +<.+N 4+.3N 48.,N 44.<N 33.6N 4<.+N 46.,NM$ mode 4 8.,@ <.<N ++.:N ++.:N ;.<N 46.+N ,.6N +4.4NM$ mode 3 :.;@ +.:N +.:N 4.8N 4.8N 8.,N 3.<N 3.@NM$ mode 6 ;.6@ @.@N @.@N @.3N @.:N 4.4N @.3N @.:NM$ mode 8 ;.,8 @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N +.,N @.3N @.6NM$ mode : [email protected]@ @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@NM$ mode ; +4.4@ @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N$ G!M +3.@@ @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N

5irect ( Claw) C @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @.@N @[email protected] )*$".: Percenta5e of >TM1 di5its undetected 9hen passed throu5h different codecs 9ith

*ms >TM1 di5its$ The mean (alue is calculated o(er all si7 e7periments$

urther o"servations/

&nspection of the results for the M$ speech codecs reveals notably worse performance for 5TM si nals eneratedwith ne ative twist. To eliminate the 5TM detector as the cause of this effect- subsets of 2 periments 8 and : wererepeated usin a proprietary networ" based 5TM detection al orithm. These additional e periments also showedsubstantially worse performance in the presence of ne ative twist.

n analysis of the processed files revealed that for 5TM di its enerated with ne ative or ero twist- the M$speech codecs have a tendency to add additional ne ative twist to the si nal. This effect is more pronounced for thelower rate speech codecs.

Conclusions/

The results for the fullCrate G!M speech codec appear to be consistent with results from previous tests. 'o detectionerrors were measured for the reference Claw condition.

or 8@ms 5TM di its- the [email protected] and +4.4 "bit>s M$ modes appear to be essentially transparent to 5TM si nalsunder error free conditions- whereas the lower rate modes do not appear to be transparent.

or <@ms 5TM di its the ;.6- ;.,8- [email protected] and +4.4 "bit>s modes appear to be essentially transparent to 5TM si nalsunder error free conditions- whereas the lower rate modes do not appear to be transparent.

The M$ codecs seem to have a tendency to add ne ative twist to 5MT si nals- and are therefore less transparent todi its with ne ative twist than positive twist. &t is noted that 5TM si nals are often enerated by P!T' telephoneswith ne ative twist- e. . C4d/- to account for the characteristics of the local loop.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+""



11 T&ans a&en!$ ,o S :na n: ,onesThe transparency to networ" si nalin tones was tested for all < codec modes usin typical rench and Germansi nalin tones.

rench %ignaling 'ones

ive different types of rench networ" si nalin tones were testedD Two different dial tones- one rin in tone- a busytone and a special information tone. The description of the different tones is iven belowD

0ontinuous 5& A TO'2 number + at 66@ 7 - +@s duration0ontinuous 5& A TO'2 number 4 at 33@I66@ 7 - +@s duration$&'G&'G TO'2 at 66@ 7 with +.8Q3.8s form factor and a total si nal duration of +4.8s/L!U TO'2 at 66@7 with @[email protected] form factor and a total si nal duration of +4.8s!P20& A &' O$M T&O' TO'2 at ,8@>+6@@>+<@@ 7 and duration of ([email protected] @.@3)Q+.@s and a total si nalduration of +4.8 s

The tone amplitude was set to C+@ d/m@.

!erman %ignaling 'ones

!i different types of German networ" si nalin tones were testedD Two dial tones- two rin in tones- a busy tone anda special information tone. The description of the different tones is iven below.

0ontinuous 5& A TO'2 number + at 648 7 - +8s duration0ontinuous 5& A TO'2 number 4 at 68@ 7 - +8s duration$&'G&'G TO'2 number + at 648 7 with @.48Q6.@Q+.@Q6.@Q+.@Q6.;8s form factor- +8s total duration$&'G&'G TO'2 number 4 at 68@ 7 with @.48Q6.@Q+.@Q6.@Q+.@Q6.;8s form factor- +8s total duration/L!U TO'2 at 6487 with @.6<[email protected]<s form factor and a total duration of +@s!P20& A &' O$M T&O' TO'2 at ,8@>+6@@>+<@@ 7 and [email protected]+.@s form factor and a total duration of +@s

The tone amplitude was set to C+@ d/m@.

dditionally- a set of si nalin tones was enerated at Q+8 d/m@- which is the lowest level recommended in &TLCT

2.+<@.

'est conditions

The si nalin tones at a level of C+@ d/m@ were tested under clean error conditions with no adaptation activated andfi in the codec mode to the < different possible modes. The si nalin tones were also tested with adaptation on- under static errors with 0>& ; d/.

This was tested for 5T? off and 5T? on.

The German si nalin tones at a level of C+8 d/m@ were only tested under clear channel conditions with 5T?activated. This was done to ensure that the artifact identified for the $ speech codec with low level si nalin tonesand 5T? did not appear in the case of M$.

'est resultsThe testin has been performed by informal listenin involvin trained listeners- their main concern bein toreco ni e the si nalin tones.

The test results can be summari ed as followsD

+. 'o si nificant difference was perceived between the tests performed with 5T? O' and those performed with5T? O

4. or the error free conditionsD the decoded tones were always easily reco ni ed. Uet the perceived Buality wasfound to decrease when the codec rate decreases and for the two lowest bit rates (6.;8 and 8.+8) the Buality wasrather poor.

3. &n presence of channel errors in 7alf $ate mode- the result was rather poor for the whole set of tones. &n ull$ate mode- the Buality was found acceptable with a sli ht de radation for the two dial tones. 'ote that the effectof errors was perceived for both channel modes- but more limited and clustered in some parts of the si nal in ull$ate mode.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+"3



Conclusion

lthou h the Buality of networ" si nalin tones is audibly decreasin for lower bit rates and especially in presence ofchannel errors in 7alf $ate mode- the si nalin tones were always easily reco ni ed under all testin conditions.

dditionally- 5T? activation did not create any de radation of the transparency of the M$ codec towards si nalintones. This conclusion is still valid for low amplitude si nalin tones..

12 e&;o&man!es % , s e! a n +, s :na sThe behavior of the M$ speech codec in presence of multiple Jspecial input si nalsK was tested durin the=erification Phase. These tests includedD

Overload conditionsdditional bac" round 'oises and Tal"ers

Music si nals&dle channel behavior

&n informal e pert listenin tests- coverin a wide ran e of overload levels and error conditions- there was no evidenceto su est that the M$ speech channel e hibits any si nificant problems- such as ross instability- in the presence ofoverload si nals.

!imilarly- tests in presence of multiple types of bac" round noises or with a hi her number of tal"ers did not e hibitany problem with any of the M$ speech codec modes.

The tests in presence of Music indicated that the M$ speech codec did not e hibit any problem when compared tothe behavior of other wellC"nown speech codecs (2 $- &!C:6+- G.;4,).

inally- no si nificant problem was identified when testin the codec with si nals at very low si nal levelsrepresentative of an idle channel.

13 an:+a:e De en'en!$The selection and characteri ation tests were performed by a lar e number of laboratories worldwide usin differentlan ua es (see nne ). Tests were performed inD

2n lish (L! S L%)- rench- German- &talian- Mandarin- !panish

The results reported by the different laboratories were consistent. 'o si nificant Buality difference was identified between the results reported by the different listenin laboratories for the different M$ 0odec Modes.

18 T&ansm ss on De a$The transmission delay of a communication usin M$ has been evaluated usin the same method as for the previousG!M speech codecs F4- 3 S 6 . The reference system delay distribution for the downlin" and uplin" directions are

provided in fi ures +6.+ and +6.4 respectively. The speech transcoders are assumed to be remote located from the /T!(+: "bit>s or < "bit>s subCmultiple in on the bis S ter &nterfaces).

Techo Tmsc @a&: n Tbsc Ts ample Tsps Tabisd @a&: n Tbuff Tencode @a&: n Trftx Trxproc T proc @a&: n Td/a

@S4 AS4 ATS @S

1i5ure )4$): eference >o9nlin8 dela6 distri.ution

Tmsc @a&:.n Tbsc T proc @a&:.n Tabisu Trxproc @a&:.n Trftx Tencode Ttransc Tsample @ a&: .n Ta /'

@S4 AS4 ATS @S

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+"4



1i5ure )4$": eference ?plin8 dela6 distri.ution

The definition of the different delay parameters is iven in the followin table. The table also provides the value usedfor the parameter when not dependent of the type of speech codec or subCmultiple in scheme over the bis S terinterfaces.

Tabisd Time reBuired to transmit the minimum number of speech data bits over the downlin" bis interface to startencodin a radio speech frame. 5epends on the speech codec mode- the T$ L frame format and the bis> tersubCmultiple in scheme. 'ote that most T$ L frame synchroni ation bits can ideally be transmitted byanticipation and are usually not included in this parameter.

Tabisu Time reBuired to transmit the minimum number of speech data bits over the uplin" bis interface to startdecodin a speech frame. 5epends on the speech codec mode- the T$ L frame format and the bis> ter subCmultiple in scheme. 'ote that the T$ L frame synchroni ation bits can ideally be transmitted by anticipationand are usually not included in this parameter.

Ta/d 5elay in the analo ue to di ital converter in the uplin" (implementation dependent). !et to +ms F6 .

Tbsc !witchin delay in the /!0 (implementation dependent). !et to @.8ms F4 S 6 .

Tbuff /ufferin time reBuired for the time ali nment procedure for the inCband control of the remote transcoder. !et to+.48 ms F4 S 6 .

Td/a 5elay in the di ital to analo ue converter in the downlin" (implementation dependent). !et to +ms F4 S 6 .

Techo 5elay induced by the echo canceller (implementation dependent). !et to +ms F4 S 6 .

Tencode D Processin delay reBuired to perform the channel encodin (implementation dependent). 5epends on the channelcodin comple ity of each codec mode.

Tmsc !witchin delay in the M!0 (implementation dependent). !et to @.8ms F4 S 6 .

T proc Processin delay reBuired to perform the speech decodin (implementation dependent). 5epends on the speechdecodin comple ity of each codec mode.

Trftx Time reBuired for the transmission of a speech frame over the air interface. 5erived from the radio framinstructure and the interleavin scheme. 1orst case is 3;.8 ms in ull $ate mode and 34.8 ms in 7alf $ate mode F4

S 6 .

Trxproc Processin delay reBuired to perform the channel eBuali ation- the channel decodin and !&5Cframe detection(implementation dependent). The channel decodin depends on the codec mode. The channel eBuali ation partwas set to :.<6 ms in ull $ate mode and 3.8 ms in 7alf $ate mode F6 .

T sample 5uration of the se ment of P0M speech samples operated on by the speech transcoderD 48 ms in all casescorrespondin to 4@ ms for the processed speech frame and 8 ms of loo" ahead.

T sps 1orst case processin delay reBuired by the downlin" speech encoder before an encoded bit can be sent over theter> bis interface ta"in into account the speed on the ter> bis interface (implementation dependent).

5epends on the speech codin comple ity of each codec mode and on the subCmultiple in rate on the ter> bisinterface. /ecause of the priority iven to the decodin - T proc is also added to the overall downlin" transmissiondelay.

Ttransc M! speech encoder processin delay- from input of the last P0M sample to output of the final encoded bit(implementation dependent). or the evaluation of the transmission delay- it was assumed that the speechdecodin has a hi her priority than the speech encodin - i.e. this delay is artificially increased by the speechdecodin delay.

Mar in &mplementation dependent mar ins in the different system components. !et as followsDM!0 Mar inD @.8 ms F4 S 6/!0 Mar inD @.8 ms F4 S 6/T! Mar inD @.68 ms downlin"- @.3 ms uplin" F4 S 6M! Mar inD 4 ms in ull $ate- +., ms in 7alf $ate F4 S 6 .

The processin delays were estimated usin comple ity fi ures for each codec mode. &n addition- to ta"e into accountthe dependence on the 5!P implementation- the computation was based on the same methodolo y used for the

previous G!M speech codecs F6 .

The 5!Ps runnin the speech and channel codec are modeled with the 3 followin parametersD

E represents the 5!P 2fficiency. This corresponds to the ratio tMOP!>wMOP! of the codec implementation on the5!P.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+"'



% represents for the speed of the 5!PD Ma imum 'umber of Operations that the 5!P can run in + second. Thisnumber is e pressed in MOP!.

P represents the percenta e of 5!P processin power assi ned to the codec.

The processin delay of a tas" of comple ity ? (in wMOP!) can then be computed usin the eBuationD

ESP X D 4@= ms

or compatibility reasons- the same 2!P parameter used for the 2 $ processin delays computation F6 was usedD2!P 48 , .

The followin tables provide the overall transmission delay parameters for each codec mode. The desi n objective forthe l orithmic $ound Trip Transmission 5elay ( $T5 4T sample I 4T rftx I T abisu I T abisd ) was set to the 2 $

$T5 increased by +@ ms in ull $ate mode- and the G!M 7$ $T5 increased by +@ ms in 7alf $ate mode.

Tables +6.+ and +6.4 define the parameters impactin the computation of the transmission delays over the bis> terinterfaces (T abisu S T abisd ) for the +: "bit>s and <"bit>s subCmultiple in schemes respectively. The definition ofdifferent parameters is provided below. They are derived from the M$ T$ L frame format provided in F8 S : .

Min > o$ "its/ Minimum number of speech bits reBuired to start the ne t operation (speech decodin in uplin" orchannel encodin in downlin").

% nc6 "its/ dditional synchroni ation bits in the T$ L frame (synchroni ation header not included) beforereachin the last reBuired bit.

Min > Data/ $an" of the last reBuired bit in the T$ L frame.

> Anticip6/ 'umber of bits that can be sent by anticipation.

> Re+uir6/ $esultin number of bits that must be received (Min 5ata C nticip.).

Min @ S6nc$ Min @Mode of .its .its >ata @ anticip$ @ e uir$ Ta.isu

Full )"$" 6 183 3E 105 6.625Rate )*$" 6 188 3E 106 6.62516k &$%' 6 188 3E 106 6.625Upl &$4 6 188 3E 106 6.625

#$& 6 188 3E 106 6.625'$% 6 188 3E 106 6.625

'$)' 6 188 3E 106 6.6254$&' 6 188 3E 106 6.625

Min @ Min @Mode of .its >ata @ anticip$ @ e uir$ Ta.isd

+ )"$" 316 83 273 17.125Ra,e )*$" 316 83 273 17.12516# &$%' 259 83 216 13.5

D%n &$4 250 83 207 13#$& 23E 83 195 12.25'$% 230 83 1E7 11.75

'$)' 215 83 172 10.754$&' 208 83 161 10.125

Ta.le )4$): Ta.isu !ms+ = Ta.isd !ms+ computation ta.les for the )# 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5 scheme

Min @ S6nc$ Min @Mode of .its .its >ata @ anticip$ @ e uir$ Ta.isu

a ; &$%' - - - - - -Ra,e &$4 70 3 67 E.375

E# #$& 76 9 67 E.375" '$% 77 17 60 7.5

'$)' 77 22 55 6.E754$&' 77 20 57 7.125

Min @ Min @Mode of .its >ata @ anticip$ @ e uir$ Ta.isd

a ; &$%' - - - - -Ra,e &$4 160 3 157 19.625

E# #$& 160 9 151 1E.E75D%n '$% 15E 17 181 17.625

'$)' 157 22 135 16.E754$&' 187 20 127 15.E75

Ta.le )4$": Ta.isu !ms+ = Ta.isd !ms+ computation ta.les for the 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5 scheme

Tables +6.3 and +6.6 provide the overall Lplin" and 5ownlin" transmission delay for the different ull $ate codecmodes usin a +: "bit>s subCmultiple in scheme.

Tables +6.8 and +6.: provide the overall Lplin" and 5ownlin" transmission delay for the different 7alf $ate codecmodes usin a +: "bit>s subCmultiple in scheme.

Tables +6.; and +6.< provide the overall Lplin" and 5ownlin" transmission delay for the different 7alf $ate codecmodes usin an < "bit>s subCmultiple in scheme.

, This 2!P value was derived in +,,:- durin the 2 $ standardi ation. &t is based on a 6@ M7 5!P- with an efficiency of + and a :@N 0PLavailability. ll processin delays would be improved assumin 5!P performances correspondin to the state of the art of 5!P technolo y.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+"#



" R 16#De a$ a&ame,e& )"$" )*$" &$%' &$4 #$& '$% '$)' 4$&' 1 1

@S4 Tms! 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5@a&: n 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

AS4 Tbs! 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5T &o! 1.E160 1.E320 1.9920 1.7600 2.3600 2.028 2.0160 2.0160 1.5 1.27

@a&: n 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

ATS Tab s+ 6.625 6.625 6.625 6.6 6.625 6.625 6.63 6.625 8 6.8375T& &o! e 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 E.E 6.E8

T& &o! ! . 'e!. 1.9360 1.7880 3.EE0 1.32E0 0.2560 0.2800 0.232 0.2320 0 1.96@a&: n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

T&;, 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5@S Ten!o'e 0.272 0.2EE 0.28E 0.232 0.256 0.28 0.232 0.232 1.6 0.32

T,&ans! 12.976 12.6E0 13.256 12.108 13.50 11.0280 9.6560 11.280 E 12.17Tsam e 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 20Tma&: n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Ta/' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1To,a " n# 101.0 100.5 103.3 99.8 100.3 97.5 96.1 97.7 E9.8 98.5

Ta.le )4$3: ?plin8 Transmission >ela6 in 1ull ate Mode !in ms = )# 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5scheme+

D R 16#De a$ a&ame,e& )"$" )*$" &$%' &$4 #$& '$% '$)' 4$&' 1 1@S4 Te! o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Tms! 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5@a&: n 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

AS4 Tbs! 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5Tsam e 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 20

Ts s 2.2E 2.2E 2.2E 2.2E 2.2E 2.2E 2.2E 2.2E 1.6 2.3T &o! (Ts s) 1.E160 1.E320 1.9920 1.7600 2.3600 2.028 2.0160 2.0160

Tab s' 17.125 17.125 13.5 13 12.25 11.75 10.75 10.125 17.8 17.375@a&: n 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

ATS Tb+;; 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Ten!o'e 0.272 0.2EE 0.28E 0.232 0.256 0.28 0.232 0.232 1.6 1.6

@a&: n 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85T&;, 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5

@S T& &o! e 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 E.E 6.E8T& &o! ! . 'e!. 1.936 1.788 3.EE 1.32E 0.256 0.28 0.232 0.232 0 1.96

T &o! 1.E16 1.E32 1.992 1.76 2.36 2.028 2.016 2.016 1.5 1.27@a&: n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

T'/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1To,a Do%n n# 102.3 102.1 100.9 97.8 96.E 95.6 98.6 93.9 96.1 96.5

Ta.le )4$4: >o9nlin8 Transmission >ela6 in 1ull ate Mode !in ms = )# 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5scheme+

" R16#De a$ a&ame,e& &$%' &$4 #$& '$% '$)' 4$&' 1 1 /

@S4 Tms! 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5@a&: n 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

AS4 Tbs! 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

T &o! 1.9920 1.7600 2.3600 2.0280 2.0160 2.0160 1.5 1.27 1.71@a&: n 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5ATS Tab s+ 6.625 6.6 6.625 6.625 6.63 6.625 8 6.8375 8.E125

T& &o! e 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 E.E 6.E8 3.5T& &o! ! . 'e!. 1.1080 1.0E00 1.0000 0.9880 0.9120 2.12E0 0 1.96 2.3

@a&: n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3T&;, 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 37.5 37.5 32.9

@S Ten!o'e 0.152 0.152 0.188 0.136 0.188 0.136 1.6 0.32 0.16T,&ans! 13.256 12.108 13.50 11.0280 9.6560 11.280 E 12.17 15.6

Tsam e 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 28.8Tma&: n 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2 2 1.9

Ta/' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1To,a " n# 92.8 91.0 92.9 90.1 EE.7 91.8 E9.8 98.5 93.3

Ta.le )4$': ?plin8 Transmission >ela6 in /alf ate Mode !in ms = )# 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5scheme+

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+"&



D R 16#De a$ a&ame,e& &$%' &$4 #$& '$% '$)' 4$&' 1 1 /

@S4 Te! o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Tms! 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

@a&: n 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5AS4 Tbs! 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Tsam e 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 28.8

Ts s 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.6 2.3 7.ET &o! (Ts s) 1.992 1.76 2.36 2.028 2.016 2.016 0 0 0

Tab s' 13.5 13 12.25 11.75 10.75 10.125 17.8 17.375 E.375@a&: n 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

ATS Tb+;; 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Ten!o'e 0.152 0.152 0.188 0.136 0.188 0.136 1.6 1.6 0.16

@a&: n 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85T&;, 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 37.5 37.5 32.9

@S T& &o! e 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 E.E 6.E8 3.5T& &o! ! . 'e!. 1.108 1.0E 1 0.988 0.912 2.12E 0 1.96 2.3

T &o! 1.9920 1.7600 2.3600 2.0280 2.0160 2.0160 1.5 1.27 1.71@a&: n 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2 2 1.9

T'/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1To,a Do%n n# E9.5 EE.5 EE.9 E7.6 E6.6 E7.2 96.1 96.5 EE.7

Ta.le )4$#: >o9nlin8 Transmission >ela6 in /alf ate Mode !in ms = )# 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5scheme+

" RE#De a$ a&ame,e& &$%' &$4 #$& '$% '$)' 4$&' 1 0)#8 1 0)#8 /

@S4 Tms! - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5@a&: n - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

AS4 Tbs! - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5T &o! - 1.7600 2.3600 2.0280 2.0160 2.0160 1.5 1.27 1.71

@a&: n - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5ATS Tab s+ - E.3E E.375 7.500 7 7.13 8 6.8375 9.75

T& &o! e - 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 E.E 6.E8 3.5T& &o! ! . 'e!. - 1.0E00 1.0000 0.9880 0.9120 2.12E0 0 1.96 2.3

@a&: n - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3T&;, - 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 37.5 37.5 32.9

@S Ten!o'e - 0.152 0.188 0.136 0.188 0.136 1.6 0.32 0.16T,&ans! - 12.108 13.50 11.0280 9.6560 11.280 E 12.17 15.6

Tsam e - 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 28.8Tma&: n - 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2 2 1.9

Ta/' - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1To,a " n# / 92.E 98.7 90.9 EE.9 91.9 E9.8 98.5 9E.2

Ta.le )4$&: ?plin8 Transmission >ela6 in /alf ate Mode !in ms = 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5 scheme+

D R E#De a$ a&ame,e& &$%' &$4 #$& '$% '$)' 4$&' 1 0)#8 1 0)#8 /

@S4 Te! o - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Tms! - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

@a&: n - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5AS4 Tbs! - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Tsam e - 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 28.8Ts s - 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.6 2.3 8.3

T &o! (Ts s) -Tab s' - 19.625 1E.E75 17.625 16.E75 15.E75 17.8 17.375 17.5@a&: n - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

ATS Tb+;; - 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25Ten!o'e - 0.152 0.188 0.136 0.188 0.136 1.6 1.6 0.16

@a&: n - 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85T&;, - 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 37.5 37.5 32.9

@S T& &o! e - 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.E8 E.E 3.5T& &o! ! . 'e!. - 1.0E 1 0.988 0.912 2.12E 1.96 0 2.3

T &o! - 1.7600 2.3600 2.0280 2.0160 2.0160 1.5 1.27 1.71@a&: n - 1.9 1.99 1.9 1.9 1.9 2 2 1.9

T'/a - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1To,a Do%n n# / 93.2 93.1 91.3 90.6 90.E 96.1 96.5 98.8

Ta.le )4$ : >o9nlin8 Transmission >ela6 in/alf ate Mode!in ms in 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5 scheme+

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+"



15 &e +en!$ Res onse 'OT2D The freBuency response is essentially iven as a piece of additional information. &t should not be used to

Bualify the codec performances in terms of perceived Buality or 5TM transparency.

The freBuency response of the M$ codec was evaluated by computin the lo arithmic ain of the freBuency responseof each codec mode- accordin to the followin eBuationD

inp(")>out(")F+@loTGainM

+T"

4M

+T"

4+@d/ ∑∑

where inp(") and out(") are the input (ori inal) and output (processed) si nals and M is the total number of processedsamples.

The freBuency response was computed for all < codec modes (+4.4- [email protected] ;.,8- ;.6- :.;- 8.,- 8.+8 and 6.;8 "bit>s)- inerrorCfree condition- with 5T? disabled. Tone si nals were enerated and processed in the ran e 8@C3,,< 7 with afreBuency step of 4+ 7 . 2ach tone lasted < seconds at a level of Q4: d/ovl. &n order to discard potential transitioneffects of the codec- the first 8+4 samples (:6 ms at fc < "7 ) of the input S output si nals were not ta"en intoaccount in the computation.

i ure +8.+ provides the freBuency responses measured for the < M$ speech codecs. Table +8.+ lists the attenuationmeasured for each codec at the ed es of the telephone bandwidth. The usual definition of 3Cd/ bandwidth can beapplied to the 6 hi hest bitCrates leadin to a bandwidth eBual or wider than the telephone band. !ome limitationsappear for the 6 lower bitCrates.

Input 3evel dependenc /

The same computation was repeated with different input levelsD C+: d/ovl and Q3: d/ovl to chec" the dependency ofthe freBuency response to the input si nal level. !imilar curves were found in both curves.

'ransition "ehavior/

&n order to chec" if the potential transition behavior of the codec influences the shape of the curves- the computationswere repeated without discardin the first 8+4 samples and usin tones with a shorter len th (8@@ ms). Once a ain-very similar curves were found in these conditions.

'M R Codec (re)uency Response

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

50 870 E90 1310 1730 2150 2570 2990 3810 3E30

(re)uency *+,

*d.

12.2 #b ,/s

10.2 #b ,/s

7.95 #b ,/s

7.80 #b ,/s

6.70 #b ,/s

5.90 #b ,/s

5.15 #b ,/s

8.75 #b ,/s

1i5ure )'$): AM Speech Codec 1re uenc6 esponses

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+"%



AMR CodecModes?5"it s@

Attenuation $re+ 1=0 #

?dB@

Attenuation $re+ 17,= #

?dB@,060 [email protected]< C@.;:,=60 C@.+< C+.@4:6<8 C@.++ C3.<;:67 [email protected] C3.3496: [email protected] C6.::86< [email protected] C;.3<

86,8 [email protected]@ C<.:876:8 [email protected] C<.++

Ta.le )'$): Attenuation at the telephone .and limits

16 4om e ,$ Editor’s Note 2: Section based on the content of Tdoc S !"" "#$/%%& This document 'as produced before a finala(reement 'as reached on the format of the )bis and )ter T*)+ frames& The final format could ha,e an impact onthe dela fi(ures presented belo'&

The M$ speech codec modes comple ity were evaluated usin the methodolo y previously a reed for thestandardi ation of the G!M 7$ and G!M 2 $ speech codec.

or each codec mode- the comple ity is characteri ed by the followin itemsD

'umber of cyclesE

5ata memory si eE

Pro ram memory si e.

The actual values for these items will eventually depend on the final 5!P implementation. The methodolo y adoptedfor the standardi ation of previous G!M speech codecs provides a way to overcome this difficulty.

&n this methodolo y- the speech and channel codin functions are coded usin a set of basic arithmetic operations.2ach operation is allocated a wei ht representative of the number of instruction cycles reBuired to perform thatoperation on a typical 5!P device. The Theoretical 1orst 0ase comple ity (wMOP!) is then computed by a detailedcountin of the worst case number of basic operations reBuired to process a speech frame.

The wMOP! fi ure Buoted is a wei hted sum of all operations reBuired to perform the speech and>or channel codin .

'ote that in the course of the codec selection- the 1orst Observed rame comple ity was also measured by recordinthe worst case comple ity fi ure over the full set of speech samples used for the selection of the M$ codec.

&n the case of M$- the comple ity was further divided in the followin itemsD

!peech codin comple ity in terms of wMOP!- $ M- $OM Tables and Pro ram $OM

ull $ate and 7alf $ate channel comple ity in terms of wMOP!- $ M- $OM Tables and Pro ram $OM

The separation of the speech and channel comple ity was motivated by the fact that these functions were enerallyhandled by different system components in the networ" (speech transcodin functions in the T$ L and channelcodin >decodin in the /T!).

Table +:.+ presents the Theoretical 1orst 0ase (T10) comple ity (wMOP!) for the different M$ speech codecs inaddition to the 1orst Observed rame (1O ) reported durin the selection phase.

Tables +:.4 and +:.4 provide the same parameters for the ull $ate and 7alf $ate channel codecs.

Table +:.6- +:.8 and +:.: provide the $ M- $OM Tables and Pro ram $OM comple ity fi ures for the differentspeech and channel codecs.

or reference- the correspondin M$ project objectives are also provided in these tables.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+3*



Mode 12.2 10.2 7.95 7.4 6.7 5.9 5.15 4.75 TWC WOFSpeech encoder 14.05 13.66 14.18 13.03 14.03 11.35 9.65 11.63 14.18 13.14Speech decoder 2.31 2.33 2.53 2.24 2.49 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.19 EFR

Total Speech 16.36 15.99 16.71 15.27 16.52 13.92 12.22 14.20 16.75 15.33 15.21 24 ~ 1.6 EFR

Ta.le )#$): AM Speech Codec Theoretical orst Case Comple7it6 !in 9M PS+

Mode 12.2 10.2 7.95 7.4 6.7 5.9 5.15 4.75Constra nt !en"th 5 5 7 5 5 7 5 7 TWC WOFFR Channel Coder 0.34 0.36 0.31 0.29 0.32 0.3 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.33

FR Channel #ecoder 2.42 2.18 4.85 1.66 1.61 3.85 1.34 3.2 4.85 4.45 $R O%&Total Channel FR 2.76 2.54 5.16 1.95 1.93 4.15 1.63 3.49 5.21 4.78 2.69 5.7 ~ 2.1 HR

Ta.le )#$": AM 1ull ate Channel Codec Theoretical orst Case Comple7it6 !in 9M PS+

Mode 7.95 7.4 6.7 5.9 5.15 4.75Constra nt !en"th 5 5 5 5 5 7 TWC WOF$R Channel Coder 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.19

$R Channel #ecoder 1.38 1.35 1.25 1.18 1.14 2.66 2.66 2.64 $R O%

Total Channel $R 1.57 1.54 1.43 1.35 1.32 2.83 2.85 2.83 2.69 3 ~ 1.1 HRTa.le )#$3: AM /alf ate Channel Codec Theoretical orst Case Comple7it6 !in 9M PS+

Stat c #'na( c TotalSpeech encoder 1429 3039 4468Speech decoder 812 946 1758 EFR O%&ect

Total speech 2241 3039 5280 4711 10000 ~ 2.1 EFRChannel encoder FR 271 1843 2114Channel decoder FR 280 1915 2195 $R O%&ect

Total channel FR 551 1915 2466 3154 6600 ~ 2.1 HRChannel encoder $R 385 1317 1702Channel decoder $R 394 1420 1814 $R O%&ect

Total channel $R 779 1420 2199 3154 3500 ~ 1.1 HRChannel Meas * Control 107 66 173

Ta.le )#$4: AM Codec AM e uirements !in )# .its 9ords+

ROM EFR O%&ecSpeech 14571 5267 17000 ~ 3.2 EFR

$R O%&ecChannel 5049 900 5000 ~ 5.6 HR

Channel Meas * Control 187Total 19807

Ta.le )#$': AM Codec M Ta.les e uirements !in )# .its 9ords+

+ o, operatorsSpeech 4851

Channel 1279Channel Meas * Control 63

Total 6193Ta.le )#$': AM Codec Pro5ram M !in num.er of operators+

%ummar o$ the comple2it results/

The M$ comple ity parameters appear to be well within the initial constraints of the project.

The M$ speech codec comple ity is sli htly hi her than the 2 $ comple ity (in wMOP! and $ M)- but thecomplete set of ei ht codecs reBuires 3 times more $OM than the 2 $.

The channel codec comple ity matches the initial project objectives (twice the 7$ channel codec comple ity in ull

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+3)



$ate and once the 7$ channel codec comple ity in 7alf $ate). The $OM reBuired for the full set of codecs representsaround 8 times the $OM reBuired by the 7$ channel codec.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+3"



nne @R 4 a&a!,e& Ja, on ase ?ve&v e%

The M$ 0haracteri ation Tests were performed on version F4.@ of the M$ speech codec source code +. Two hostlaboratories ( rcon and 0OM! T- L! ) shared the responsibility of processin the speech samples initially provided

by the different listenin laboratories. The host laboratories crossCchec"ed the processin performed by the otherlaboratory and provided the results of this cross chec"in to the 2T!& secretariat.

2i ht listenin laboratories performed the correspondin subjective listenin tests in : different lan ua es (0hinese-2n lish- rench- German- &talian S !panish). ll listenin laboratories were reBuested to provide the results of thelistenin tests they performed on an 2 cel 1or"boo" provided by the or ani ation responsible for the Global analysisof the results.

The host laboratories and listenin laboratories also provided their own report and analysis to fulfil their contractualcommitment.

!even different e periments and +; subCe periments were specified in the M$ 0haracteri ation Test Plan. The primary objectives of the different e periments are listed belowD

2 periment +a S +bD Performances in 0lean !peech in a ull $ate (+a) and 7alf $ate (+b)2 periment 4D &nteroperability Performances in 0lean !peech (adaptation off)2 periment 3a- 3b S 3cD Performances under bac" round noise conditions in a ull $ate2 periment 3d- 3e S 3fD Performances under bac" round noise conditions in a 7alf $ate2 periment 6a S 6bD Performances in dynamic error conditions in a ull $ate (6a) and ull $ate (6b) (with

adaptation on)2 periment 8D Performances in combined error conditions in ull $ate and 7alf $ate (with

adaptation on)2 periment :D &nfluence of the input speech level and Tandemin performances in ull $ate and 7alf

$ate (adaptation off)2 periment ;a S ;bD Performance of the 2'! = 5>5T? in ull $ate (;a) and 7alf $ate (;b)2 periment ;a S ;bD Performance of the Motorola = 5>5T? in ull $ate (;c) and 7alf $ate (;e)

The followin table provides a summary of the impairment conditions included in each e periment.

E2p6 ullRate

#al$ Rate

Clean%peech

Bc5grd.oise

%taticErrors

D namicErrors

Adaptation&n

'andem

+a ? ? ?+b ? ? ?4 ? ? ? ?3a ? ? ?3b ? ? ?3c ? ? ?3d ? ? ?3e ? ? ?3f ? ? ?6a ? ? ? ?6b ? ? ? ?8 ? ? ? ? ? ?: ? ? ? ?;a ? ? ? ? ? ?;b ? ? ? ? ? ?;c ? ? ? ? ? ?;d ? ? ? ? ? ?

Ta.le A$): Summar6 of the AM Characterization Test conditions

2ach e periment was performed by two different laboratories in two different lan ua es as shown in the followintable.

, This version also includes version F . of the = 5 Option 4.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+33



3a"orator / Arcon A' ' rance'elecom

Ber5om .ortel Cone2ant B C&M%A'

Aan ua esLsedD

2n lish 2n lish!panish

rench German 2n lish 2n lish &talian 2n lish!panish0hinese

'umber of 0onditions

Tested 0

+a $ X .En( X .!er 0x$+b 7$ X .En( X .!er 1x0

4 X .!er X .En( 1x$3a $ X . ren X .En( 0x$3b $ X . ren X .En( 0x$3c $ X . ren X .En( 0x$3d 7$ X . ren X .En( 1x0 3e 7$ X . ren X .En( 1x0 3f 7$ X . ren X .En( 1x0 6a $ X .Span X .En( %x36b $ X .Span X .En( %x3

8 X .En( X .4ta 1x2: X .En( X .5hin 1x3

;a (2'!) X .En( X .Span 1x3;b (2'!) X .En( X .Span 1x3

;a (Motorola) X .En( X .Span 1x3;b (Motorola) X .En( X .Span 1x3

6ost lab: )rcon )rcon 57 S)T 57 S)T )rcon57 S)T

)*57N 57 S)T 57 S)T

Ta.le A$": Allocation of the 7periments to the Bistenin5 Ba.oratories

The 0haracteri ation tests were performed in prilCMay +,,,. The results were distributed over the M$ and !MG++reflectors before May 4+- +,,,.

The lobal analysis was under the responsibility of the G!M 'orth merica lliance.

The full set of results and report provided by the different laboratories were reviewed and approved in !MG++ ++(Wune 6C;- +,,,) in Tampere- inland. The final report was approved by !MG 4, (Wune 4+C48- +,,,) in MiamiC A-L!

0 &n this table- the first number represents the number of impairment conditions (propa ation errors- tandemin - input level- dynamic profileR). Thesecond number represents the number of codec modes or number of confi urations under test. or 2 periments ;- both numbers represent impairmenttypes

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+34



nne A @R Ve& ; !a, on ase ?ve&v e%

The selected M$ speech codec was jointly proposed by 2ricsson- 'o"ia and !iemens. &t was identified durin theselection phase by the acronym 2'!+.

The proponents had the responsibility to complete the codec optimi ation after the approval by !MG of the selection phase results. The optimi ation phase essentially consisted in bu fi in and optimi ation of the channel codin .

To complete the standardi ation- a number of Third Parties volunteered to participate to the verification phase bysubmittin contributions which served as the basis for this Technical $eport. They are listed below with reference tothe previous sections of this report.

%ections Description Contri"uting &rgani ations8C, 0haracteri ation Tests The 0haracteri ation Tests ( nne ) were funded by the

G!M ssociation- with additional contributions from2ricsson- Motorola- 'o"ia- and !iemens

+@ Performances with 5TM Tones /T (Tdoc. !MG++ +@8>,,)++ Transparency to nnouncement Tones rance Telecom S TCMobil (Tdoc. !MG++ +3>,,)+4 Performances with !pecial &nput !i nals rance Telecom S 0one ant (Tdocs !MG++ +4>,, S

+@8>,,)Overload Performances /T (Tdoc !MG++ +@>,,)&dle 0hannel /ehavior /er"om S Aucent Technolo y (Tdocs !MG++ 86>,, S

88>,,)0hannel 0odin Performances durin 5T? 'ortel 'etwor"s (Tdoc !MG++ :<>,,)Mutin /ehavior 'ortel 'etwor"s S Philips (Tdocs !MG++ :4>,, S

:;>,,)+3 Aan ua e 5ependency 'o direct contribution+6 Transmission 5elay 'ortel 'etwor"s (Tdoc !MG++ +8<>,,)+8 reBuency $esponse 0!2AT (Tdoc !MG++ <>,,)+: 0omple ity lcatel- Philips- !T Microelectronics S Te as &nstruments

(Tdocs !MG++ ;8>,,- ++;>,,- +,6>,, and 3,<>,,)

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+3'



nne 4 '' , ona 4 a&a!,e& Ja, on Tes, Res+ ,s

This anne contains few additional results from the 0haracteri ation Tests. !pecifically- the followin sections providea summary of the speech Buality measured for each codec mode under the different error conditions tested in2 periments + and 3. number of actual test results are also provided to show the dispersion between tests performed

by different laboratories.

A16, Per$ormances in Clean %peech in ull Rate mode

The followin table shows the typical test results dispersion (in 2Buivalent 9) by comparin the results obtained forthe 4 tests performed for 2 periment +aD

C I Best Codecper$ormance(re+uirement)

'est ,/ A' ' (En glish) 'est 0/ Ber5om (!erman)9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta 9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta

'o 2rrors 2 $ 'o 2rrors [email protected], "8&28 3+.<8 +.8: 4;.<4 "2&28 4<.<+ @.,,+: d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors [email protected], "2&28 3@.:6 @.38 4;.<4 "2&28 4,.+4 +.3@+3 d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors [email protected], "2&28 3+.64 +.+3 4;.<4 "2&28 3+.+< 3.3:+@ d/ G.;4< 'o 2rrors '> "8&28 3@.:6 '> '> 1&%# [email protected] 8.;,; d/ G.;4< 'o 2rrors '> 0&18 4<.4< '> '> 1&%# 4<.@, 3.366 d/ 2 $ at +@ d/ 43.@3 #&%8 43.4: @.43 46.;8 #&%8 43.:; C+.@<

Ta.le A3$)-): 7ample of test result dispersion for 7periment )a !1ull rate in clean speech+

The followin tables summari e the performances of the different M$ codec modes under the tested error conditionswith respect to wellC"nown references in full rate mode and clean speechD

Re$erence , Re$erence 0E R .o Errors E R ,=dB C I

CodecMode

E+uivalent toRe$erence ,

E+uivalent toRe$erence 0

*orse than Re$60

,060 'o 2rrors down to +@ d/ 0>& ; d/ 0>& S below,=60 'o 2rrors down to +@ d/ 0>& ; / 0>& 6 d/ 0>&:6<8 'o 2rrors down to ; d/ 0>& 6 d/ 0>&:67 'o 2rrors down to ; d/ 0>& 6 d/ 0>&96: 'o 2rrors down to ; d/ 0>& 6 d/ 0>&86< 'o 2rrors down to 6 d/ 0>&

86,8 'o 2rrors down to 6 d/ 0>&76:8 'o 2rrors down to 6 d/ 0>&

Ta.le A3$)-": AM speech codec mode performances in clean speech in full rate

Re$erence , Re$erence 0E R .o Errors E R at ,= dB C I

ErrorCondition



*orse than Re$60

.o Errors +4.4- [email protected] ;.,8- ;.6 :. ;- 8.,- 8.+8- 6. ;8,1 dB C I +4.4- [email protected] ;.,8- ;.6 :. ;- 8.,- 8.+8- 6. ;8,= dB C I +4.4- [email protected] ;.,8- ;.6 :. ;- 8.,- 8.+8- 6. ;8: dB C I ;.,8- ;.6 [email protected] :.;- 8.,- 8.+8-6.;8 +4.47 dB C I 8.,- 8.+8- 6.;8 :.;- ;.,8- ;.6 and hi her modes

Ta.le A3$)-3: Performances of the AM speech codecs for different error conditions in clean speechin full rate

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+3#



A1606 Per$ormances in Clean %peech in #al$ Rate mode

The followin table shows the typical test results dispersion (in 2Buivalent 9) by comparin the results obtained forthe 4 tests performed for 2 periment +bD


'est ,/ A' ' (English) 'est 0/ Ber5om9eB

($e B.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta 9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta

'o 2rrors G.;4< no errors 4:.+3 1&%# 43.,6 C4.+, 48.44 1&%# 4<.;3 3.84+, d/ G.;4< no errors 4:.+3 1&%# 44.,6 C3.+, 48.44 1&%# 4;.4, 4.@<+: d/ G.;4< no errors 4:.+3 1&98 43.6+ C4.;4 48.44 1&%# 4;.@6 +.<3+3 d/ $ at +3 d/ '> #&%8 +,.:3 '> '> #&%8 43.8+ '>+@ d/ $ at +@ d/ +:.3: #&%8 +:.3@ C@.@: +<.,4 #&"# 44.4+ 3.4,; d/ $ at ; d/ +6.4+ 9&1# +s8.+6 @.,6 +:.;6 9&1# +,.;8 3.@@6 d/ $ at 6 d/ ;.;< 9&1# [email protected]: 4.;< 8.;4 9&1# +4.@, :.3;

Ta.le A3$"-): 7ample of test result dispersion for 7periment ). !/alf rate in clean speech+

The followin tables summari e the performances of the different M$ codec modes under the tested error conditionswith respect to wellC"nown references in half rate mode and clean speechD

Re$erence , Re$erence 0!6:0 .o Errors R .o Errors

CodecMode


*orse than Re$6,Better than Re$60


*orse than Re$60

:6<8 'o 2rrors down to +: d/ 0>& +3 d/ 0>& +@ d/ 0>& S below:67 'o 2rrors down to +: d/ 0>& +3 d/ 0>& +@ d/ 0>& S below96: 'o 2rrors down to +: d/ 0>& +3 d/ 0>& +@ d/ 0>& S below86< 'o 2rrors down to +3 d/ 0>& +@ d/ 0>& S below

86,8 'o 2rrors down to +3 d/ 0>& +@ d/ 0>& S below76:8 'o 2rrors down to +3 d/ 0>& +@ d/ 0>& S below

Ta.le A3$"-": AM speech codec mode performances in clean speech in half rate

Re$erence , Re$erence 0 Re$erence 1!6:0 .o Errors E R at ,= dB C I R at ,= dB C I

ErrorCondition



*orse than Re$60Better than Re$61


*orse than Re$61

.o Errors ;.,8- ;.6- :.; 8.,- 8.+8- 6.;8,< dB C I ;.,8- ;.6- :.; 8.,- 8.+8- 6.;8,9 dB C I ;.,8- ;.6- :.; 8.,- 8.+8- 6.;8,1 dB C I 8.,- 8.+8 :.;- 6.;8- ;.6- ;.,8,= dB C I 8.+8- 6.;8 8.,- :.; ;.6- ;.,8: dB C I 6.;8 8.+8- 8.,- :.;- ;.6- ;.,87 dB C I all

Ta.le A3$"-3: Performances of the AM speech codecs for different error conditions in clean speechin half rate

A1616 Per$ormances in Bac5ground .oise in ull Rate mode

The followin tables show the typical test results dispersion (in 2Buivalent 9) by comparin the results obtained forthe 4 tests performed for 2 periment 3a- 3b S 3cD


'est ,/ Cone2ant (En glish) 'est 0/ rance 'elecom ( rench)9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta 9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta

'o 2rrors 2 $ 'o 2rrors 4<.@8 "8&28 21&#0 [email protected], 48.<: "2&28 21&21 +.6@+: d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors 4<.@8 "2&28 21&#0 [email protected], 48.<: "2&28 20&"0 @.3@+3 d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors 4<.@8 "2&28 20&$3 C+.44 48.<: "8&28 20&%" +.@8+@ d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors 43.;8 "8&28 2$&23 6.6< 48.<: "8&28 2$&32 4.6:; d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors 43.;8 "8&28 29&10 +.@+ 48.<: 0&18 29&1" C+.+:6 d/ $ at +@ d/ 4@.,@ 0&18 23&00 4.;; 46.+8 #&%8 22&#1 C+.8,

Ta.le A3$3-): 7ample of test result dispersion for 7periment 3a !1ull rate in Street oise+

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+3&




'est ,/ Cone2ant (English) 'est 0/ rance 'elecom ( rench)9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta 9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta

'o 2rrors 2 $ 'o 2rrors 48.+, "8&28 20&$0 +.:; 4;.:; "8&28 2$&91 @.<@+: d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors 48.+, "2&28 2#&98 @.4+ 4;.:; "2&28 20&$# C@.<4+3 d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors 48.+, "2&28 2#&02 @.63 4;.:; "2&28 21&1% @.+3+@ d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors 43.6@ "8&28 21&10 6.3: 4:.44 "2&28 2%&98 3.+<; d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors 43.6@ "8&28 29&32 @.,4 4:.44 "8&28 2#&89 C+.+<6 d/ $ at +@ d/ 4@.,6 #&%8 2"&%2 @.,; 43.4: #&%8 22&99 C@.<3

Ta.le A3$3-": 7ample of test result dispersion for 7periment 3. !1ull rate in Car oise+



($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta 9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta

'o 2rrors 2 $ 'o 2rrors 3+.46 "8&28 33&8% +.<8 4,.3; "2&28 38&%8 +.83+: d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors 3+.46 "2&28 38&"2 C+.+4 4,.3; "2&28 38&%8 +.83+3 d/ 2 $ 'o 2rrors 3+.46 "8&28 3"&#0 @.34 4,.3; "2&28 38&%8 +.83+@ d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors 4:.:; "8&28 3"&#0 6.<, 4<.:4 "8&28 38&%8 4.4<; d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors 4:.:; 1&98 21&12 +.@6 4<.:4 0&18 2%&29 @.:46 d/ $ at +@ d/ 4+.34 #&%8 29&2" 4.<< 46.:< #&%8 2#&%3 +.4:

Ta.le A3$3-3: 7ample of test result dispersion for 7periment 3. !1ull rate in ffice oise+

The followin tables summari e the performances of the different M$ codec modes under the tested error conditionswith respect to wellC"nown references in full rate mode under bac" round noise conditionsD

Re$erence , Re$erence 0E R .o Errors R .o Errors

CodecMode


*orse than Re$6,Better than Re$6 0


*orse than Re$60

,060 'o 2rrors down to +3 d/ 0>& +@ d/ 0>& ; d/ 0>& S below,=60 'o 2rrors down to +@ d/ 0>& ; / 0>& 6 d/ 0>&:6<8 'o 2rrors down to +: d/ 0>& +3 d/ 0>& down to +@ d/ 0>& ; / 0>& 6 d/ 0>&:67 'o 2rrors down to +: d/ 0>& +3 d/ 0>& down to ; d/ 0>& 6 d/ 0>&96: 'o 2rrors down to +: d/ 0>& +3 d/ 0>& down to ; d/ 0>& 6 d/ 0>&86< 'o 2rrors down to ; d/ 0>& 2Buivalent to $ at

+@ d/ at 6 d/ 0>&

86,8 Lsually found below$ at +@ 0>&76:8 Lsually found below

$ at +@ 0>&

Ta.le A3$3-4: AM speech codec mode performances under .ac85round noise conditions in full rate

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+3



Re$erence , Re$erence 0E R .o Errors R .o Errors

ErrorCondition


*orse than Re$6,Better than Re$60


*orse than Re$60

.o Errors +4.4- [email protected] ;.,8 ;.6- :.; 8., 8.+8- 6.;8,1 dB C I +4.4- [email protected] ;.,8 ;.6- :.;- 8.,- 8.+8 8.+8- 6.;8,= dB C I [email protected] ;.,8- +4.4 ;.6- :.;- 8., 8.+8- 6.;8: dB C I [email protected] ;.,8- ;.6- :.;- 8., 8.+8- +4.4- 6.;87 dB C I ll

Ta.le A3$3-': Performances of the AM speech codecs for different error conditions under .ac85round noise conditions in full rate

A1676 Per$ormances in Bac5ground .oise in #al$ Rate mode

The followin tables show the typical test results dispersion (in 2Buivalent 9) by comparin the results obtained forthe 4 tests performed for 2 periment 3d- 3e S 3fD


'est ,/ Cone2ant (En glish) 'est 0/ rance 'elecom ( rench)9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta 9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta

'o 2rrors 2 $ 'o 2rrors 4+.3@ 1&98 2"&38 @.@@ 48.;3 1&%# 2#&#2 [email protected]+, d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors +,.,, 1&%# 28&#9 @.88 43.<: 1&98 29&"% @.33+: d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors +,.,, 1&%# 28&28 @.4+ 43.<: 1&%# 2#&$# +.,,+3 d/ $ at +3 d/ +<.4+ #&%8 "1&#0 C@.:8 48.4+ #&%8 22&%9 C4.4:+@ d/ $ at +@ d/ +;.8: #&"# "#&0% C+.<; 43.@, 9&1# 28&#8 C4.8,; d/ $ at ; d/ +6.,4 9&1# "#&"1 @.48 +,.,4 9&1# "$&09 C+.4<6 d/ $ at 6 d/ 6.+< 9&1# 1&38 3.+4 ;.43 9&1# ""&98 6.+;

Ta.le A3$4-): 7ample of test result dispersion for 7periment 3a !/alf rate in Street oise+



($eB.)

/est

Mode

M$

9eB.

5elta 9eB

($eB.)

/est

Mode

M$

9eB.

5elta

'o 2rrors 2 $ 'o 2rrors 44.;+ 1&%# 22&38 [email protected]+ 4;.4: 1&%# 2#&00 C+.8,+, d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors [email protected]< 1&98 2"&## +.4< 43.+; 1&%# 29&12 +.88+: d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors [email protected]< 1&98 28&2$ @.@@ 43.+; 1&%# 29&12 +.88+3 d/ $ at +3 d/ +;.:@ 0&18 "%&#9 +.,6 46.3@ #&%8 23&"1 C+.+3+@ d/ $ at +@ d/ +;.:@ #&"# "0&0" C@.,, 43.@, 9&1# 28&30 C4.;3; d/ $ at ; d/ +6.8+ 9&1# "#&8" @.8@ 4+.4: 9&1# "%&#3 C+.;66 d/ $ at 6 d/ 4.3, 9&1# 1&2# 6.<: :.;: 9&1# ""&93 6.:;

Ta.le A3$4-": 7ample of test result dispersion for 7periment 3. !/alf rate in Car oise+



($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta 9eB

($eB.)/est

ModeM$

9eB.5elta

'o 2rrors 2 $ 'o 2rrors 3;.3: 0&18 31&#3 @.+; 3+.,@ 1&%# 38&8$ C+.<4+, d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors 4;.;8 1&%# 21&39 [email protected]+ 4<.4, 1&%# 2%&2% +.@@

+: d/ G.;4,> $ 'o 2rrors 4;.;8 1&%# 20&03 C+.+4 4<.4, 1&%# 2%&$8 +.8++3 d/ $ at +3 d/ +,.4@ #&%8 22&$" 3.:+ 4;.,, #&%8 21&%8 C@.+@+@ d/ $ at +@ d/ +,.4< 9&1# "%&8# [email protected] 4;.@, #&%8 2#&29 C+.<6; d/ $ at ; d/ +;.@; 9&1# "1&$1 @.<@ 44.6, 9&1# 29&"9 +.:86 d/ $ at 6 d/ :.;+ 9&1# "8&"3 3.64 +4.43 9&1# "0&03 C+.<4

Ta.le A3$4-3: 7ample of test result dispersion for 7periment 3. !/alf rate in ffice oise+

The followin tables summari e the performances of the different M$ codec modes under the tested error conditionswith respect to wellC"nown references in half rate mode under bac" round noise conditionsD

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+3%



Re$erence , Re$erence 0 Re$erence 1E R .o Errors R .o Errors (see 'ote below) #R .o Errors

CodecMode





*orse than Re$61

:6<8 'o 2rrors downto +: d/ 0>&

+3 d/ 0>& +@ d/ 0>& S below

:67 'o 2rrors +: d/ 0>& +3 d/ 0>& +@ d/ 0>& S below96: 'o 2rrors +: to +3 d/ 0>& +@ d/ 0>& S below86< 'o 2rrors down

to +3 d/ 0>&+@ d/ 0>& ; d/ 0>& S below

86,8 'o 2rrors downto +3 d/ 0>&

+@ d/ 0>& ; d/ 0>& S below

76:8 'o 2rrors downto +@ d/ 0>&

; d/ 0>& S below

Ta.le A3$4-4: AM speech codec mode performances under .ac85round noise conditions in half rate

Re$erence , Re$erence 0 Re$erence 1E R .o Errors R .o Errors (see 'ote above) #R .o Errors

CodecMode





*orse than Re$61

.o Errors ;.,8- ;.6- :.; 8., 8.+8 6.;8,9 dB C I ;.,8 ;.6- :.;- 8., 8.+8 6.;8,1 dB C I 8.,- :.; 8.+8 6.;8- ;.,8- ;.6,= dB C I 8.,- 8.+8- 6.;8 ;.,8- ;.6- :.;: dB C I 6.;8 2Buivalent to

$ at ; d/ 0>&7 dB C I 8.+8 S 6.;8 better

than $ at 6 d/ 0>&

Ta.le A3$4-': Performances of the AM speech codecs for different error conditions under .ac85round noise conditions in half rate

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+4*



nne D @R e&;o&man!es as a ;+n!, on o; R an'RA R&n this anne - the characteri ation test results are charted as a function of the rame 2rasure $ate ( 2$) or $esidual/it 2rror $ate ($/2$) as measured for each 2rror Pattern used for the subjective listenin tests. They are provided asan indication of the Buality de radation to be e pected for the implementation of the M$ speech codec in 3Gnetwor"s.

&n the followin dia rams- the Buality de radation is e pressed in ∆ MO! (or ∆ 5MO!) obtained by comparin theMO! (or 5MO!) obtained by the different codecs for each impairment condition with the MO! (or 5MO!) obtained

by the 2 $ in 2rror ree in the same e periment.

The results were compiled as e plained belowD

C &n all cases- the results represent the avera e scores obtained over all tests performed for each e perimentas compiled in F5+

C The reference is always 2 $ in 2rror ree as measured in the same e periment.

C The charts in clean speech ( i ures 5+aC5+d) were obtained from the 0haracteri ation test results for 2 periments +a and +b (Test performed by TST and /er"om)

C The charts in 0ar 'oise ( i ures 5.aC54d) were obtained from the 0haracteri ation test results for 2 periments 3b and 3e (Test performed by rance Telecom and 0one ant)

C The charts in !treet 'oise ( i ures 53aC53d) were obtained from the 0haracteri ation test results for 2 periments 3a and 3d (Test performed by rance Telecom and 0one ant)

C The charts in Office 'oise ( i ures 56aC56e) were obtained from the 0haracteri ation test results for 2 periments 3c and 3f (Test performed by rance Telecom and 0one ant)

C &n all cases- the actual results were manually altered to smoothen the shape of the curves.

C The reference 2$ and $/2$ were e tracted from F4 (document prepared in +4>,< for the selection of the M$ 0hannel 0odin scheme).

&t should also be noted that the dia rams function of the 2$ are affected by the $esidual /it 2rror $ate for each testcondition- while the dia rams function of the $/2$ are also function of the 2$ present for each test condition. Thetwo sets of dia rams cannot be considered totally independent.

inally- it should be pointed out that the 2$ and $/2$ estimates used to derive these dia rams are based on thelimited number of error patterns used for the M$ characteri ation phase. These could be affected by someinaccuracies that could e plain the difference in shapes between the different speech codec modes.

These results can also be compared to previous indications provided by !6 to $+ and !4 re ardin the robustness of the M$ !peech 0odec ($ef F3 and F6 ). The followin section is e tracted from a Aiaison !tatement sent to $+ F3 -

the same reference is also used in F6 (Aiaison to !4)DThe frame error rate re uired for producin( hi(h speech ualit 'ith onl small ualit de(radation compared toerror free speech is t picall E* ; 8&#<& This re uirement (uarantees retainin( the maximum ualit of= e&(&=the !S E * codec& The ualit then de(rades (racefull 'ith increasin( frame error rate& This E* limit

should be considered as a conser,ati,e fi(ure&

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+4)



D1. Res+ ,s n 4 ean S ee! n ∆ @?S

Percei(ed ualit6 !M S+ de5radation as a function of the 1 !1 Tests in Clean Speech+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K 100.000K

(ER

M !

12.210.27.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R5.15 R8.75 R

Percei(ed ualit6 !M S+ de5radation as a function of the 1 !/ Tests in Clean Speech+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K 100.000K

(ER

M !

7.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R5.15 R8.75 R

1i5ure >)a: ualit6 >e5radation function of 1 1i5ure >).: ualit6 >e5radation function of 1!1 Test esults+ !/ Test esults+

Percei(ed ualit6 !M S+ de5radation as a function of the 2!1 Tests in Clean Speech+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K

R.ER

M !

12.210.27.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R5.15 R8.75 R

Percei(ed ualit6 !M S+ de5radation as a function of the 2!/ Tests in Clean Speech+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K

R.ER

M !

7.95 R

7.8 R

6.7 R

5.9 R

5.15 R

8.75 R

1i5ure >)c: ualit6 >e5radation function of 2 1i5ure >)d: ualit6 >e5radation function of 2!1 Test esults+ !/ Test esults+

0omments on the previous resultsD

&n clean speech- it appears that all codec modes do not show any si nificant Buality de radation when the rame2rasure $ate is lower than @.8N. &n some instances- the ran e can even be e tended to +N 2$ without any Bualityde radation.

&t is also interestin to note that at +N 2$ de radation- the hi hest codec modes (+4.4 and [email protected]) are still eBuivalentto the second tier of codec modes (;.,8 to 8.,) in error free. !imilarly- the middle ran e codec modes (;.,8 to 8.,)

present the same Buality at +N 2$ than the lower rate codec modes (8.+8 S 6.;8) in error free conditions.

The e periments in 7alf $ate have sli htly increased the differences between the codecs and with 2 $ as could have been e pected- but the same trends can be observed.

The results as a function of the $/2$ are also very similar with a different ran e of acceptable $/2$. The differentcodec modes do not present any si nificant Buality de radation when the $/2$ is below @.+N.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+4"



D2. Res+ ,s n 4a& o sePercei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 1

!1 Tests in Car oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K 100.000K

(ER

#M !

12.210.27.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R5.15 R8.75 R

Percei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 1 !/ Tests in Car oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K 100.000K

(ER

#M !

7.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R5.15 R8.75 R

1i5ure >"a: ualit6 >e5radation function of 1 1i5ure >".: ualit6 >e5radation function of 1

!1 Test esults+ !/ Test esults+

Percei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 2!1 Tests in Car oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K

R.ER

#M !

12.210.27.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R

5.15 R8.75 R

Percei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 2!/ Tests in Car oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K

R.ER

#M !

7.95 R

7.8 R6.7 R

5.9 R

5.15 R

8.75 R

1i5ure >"c: ualit6 >e5radation function of 2 1i5ure >"d: ualit6 >e5radation function of 2!1 Test esults+ !/ Test esults+


&n car noise- no si nificant de radation is observed when the 2$ stays below +N and the difference in Buality between the different codecs is sli htly amplified compared to the results clean speech.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+43



D3. Res+ ,s n S,&ee, o sePercei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 1

!1 Tests in Street oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K 100.000K

(ER

#M !

12.210.27.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R5.15 R8.75 R

Percei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 1 !/ Tests in Street oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K 100.000K

(ER

#M !

7.95 R

7.8 R6.7 R

5.9 R5.15 R

8.75 R

1i5ure >3a: ualit6 >e5radation function of 1 1i5ure >3.: ualit6 >e5radation function of 1


Percei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 2!1 Tests in Street oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K

R.ER

#M !

12.210.27.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R

5.15 R8.75 R

Percei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 2!/ Tests in Street oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K

R.ER

#M !

7.95 R

7.8 R

5.9 R

5.15 R

8.75 R

1i5ure >3c: ualit6 >e5radation function of 2 1i5ure >3d: ualit6 >e5radation function of 2!1 Test esults+ !/ Test esults+


The results in street noise are in line with the previous results.

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+44



D8. Res+ ,s n ?;; !e o sePercei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 1

!1 Tests in ffice oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K 100.000K

(ER

#M !

12.210.27.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R5.15 R8.75 R

Percei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 1 !/ Tests in ffice oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K 100.000K

(ER

#M !

7.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R5.15 R8.75 R

1i5ure >4a: ualit6 >e5radation function of 1 1i5ure >4.: ualit6 >e5radation function of 1


Percei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 2!1 Tests in ffice oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K

R.ER

#M !

12.210.27.95 R7.8 R6.7 R5.9 R

5.15 R8.75 R

Percei(ed ualit6 !>M S+ de5radation as a function of the 2!/ Tests in ffice oise+

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

0.001K 0.010K 0.100K 1.000K 10.000K

R.ER

#M !

7.95 R

7.8 R6.7 R

5.9 R

5.15 R8.75 R

1i5ure >4c: ualit6 >e5radation function of 2 1i5ure >4d: ualit6 >e5radation function of 2!1 Test esults+ !/ Test esults+


!ame comment for the results in Office 'oise

Re;e&en!es ,o nne D

F5+ D M$ 0haracteri ation 0ombined Test $esults (spreadsheet)D !MG++ Tdoc 463>,,- !MG++ +@- Wune 6C++-+,,,- Tampere- inland

F54 D nne 3 to the A! to !MG4 1P/ on alternative M$ channel codin schemesD JObjective test results for alternative M$ channel codin schemesK from 2ricsson>'o"ia>!iemens !MG++ Tdoc 34,>,<- !MG++ </is-5ecember +;- +,,<- Aondon 7eathrow- L%

F54 D !6 A! to T!GC$+ J$esponse to the T!GC$+ A! on !peech !ervicesK Tdoc +<8$>,,- T!GC!6 3- March 46C4:-+,,,- Uo"osu"a- Wapan

F56 D !6 A! to T!GC!4- !4 9o! and $3 J2rror resilience in realCtime pac"et multimedia payloadsK Tdoc +;,$>,,-T!GC!6 8- Wune +6C+:- +,,,- Miami- ACL!

3GPP

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+4'



s,o&$Document histor

v+.@.@ 5ecember +,,, /ased on G!M @:.;8 v;.@.@- Presented to T!GC! : for information

v+.+.@ Wanuary 4@@@ Modification of document number to 4:.,;8&ntroduction on Thresholds and 7ysteresis for 2 periment 6a S 6b&ntroduction of nne 5

3G T "#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+4#

mos and hr-fr impact

Documents