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 "#$%&' (ersion )$)$*+

Technical Specification

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.

"

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

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

$eference

<#e$%o&'() #e$%o&'*>

%eywords

3GPP Postal address 3GPP support office address

650 Ro+,e 'es -+!.o/es - So 0.a 1n,. o/.s Va/bonne - 2R1345 Te/.6 733 8 92 98 82 00 2a96 733 8 93 65 87 16

&nternet
0,, 6//%%%.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.

3GPP

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

4on,en,s
0ontents....................................................................................................................................................3 3oreword...................................................................................................................................................4 + !cope.....................................................................................................................................................5 6 $eferences..............................................................................................................................................5 3 7efinitions and abbreviations.................................................................................................................5
3.+ 7efinitions.............................................................................................................................................................5 3.6 .bbreviations.........................................................................................................................................................8

4 General...................................................................................................................................................9
4.+ Project :istory.......................................................................................................................................................9 4.6 Overview of the .M$ 0oncept.............................................................................................................................9 4.3 3unctional 7escription..........................................................................................................................................; 4.4 Presentation of the followin sections.................................................................................................................+<

5 =uality in 0lean !peech and 2rror 0onditions.....................................................................................++ 8 =uality under bac" round noise and 2rrors 0onditions........................................................................+4 9 Performances in Tandemin and with variation of the input speech level..............................................+9 ; Performances with the 0odec .daptation turned on.............................................................................+, 9.,5- 8.9- 5.,- 5.+5..................................................................................................................................+, 8.9- 5.,- 4.95...........................................................................................................................................+, 9.4<- 5.+5................................................................................................................................................+, , >.7?7T@ Performances.....................................................................................................................6< +< Performances with 7TM3 tones.........................................................................................................6+ ++ Transparency to !i nalin tones.........................................................................................................63 +6 Performances with special input si nals.............................................................................................64 +3 Aan ua e 7ependency........................................................................................................................64 +4 Transmission 7elay............................................................................................................................65 +5 3reBuency $esponse...........................................................................................................................6, +8 0omple(ity.........................................................................................................................................3< :istory....................................................................................................................................................48

3GPP

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

2o&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 followin formal T!G approval. !hould the T!G modify the contents of this T!- it will be reCreleased by the T!G with an identifyin 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 6 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- correctionsupdates- etc. ) the third di it is incremented when editorial only chan es have been incorporated in the specificationE

3GPP

'

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

S!o e

This technical report provides bac" round information on the performances of the .daptive MultiC$ate (.M$) speech codec. 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.

Re;e&en!es
$eferences are either specific (identified by date of publication- edition number- version number- etc.) or nonCspecific. 3or a specific reference- subseBuent revisions do not apply. 3or a nonCspecific reference- the latest version applies.

The followin documents contain provisions that- throu h reference in this te(t- constitute provisions of the present document.

F+G F6G F3G F4G F5G F8G

G!M <+.<4D H7i ital cellular telecommunications system (Phase 6I)E .bbreviations and acronymsH. G!M <3.5<D HTransmission plannin aspects of the speech service in the G!M Public Aand Mobile 'etwor" (PAM') systemH. G!M <8.<;D H7i ital cellular telecommunications systemE :alf rate speechE Performance of the G!M half rate speech codecH. G!M <8.55D H7i ital cellular telecommunications systemE Performance 0haracteri)ation of the G!M 2nhanced 3ull $ate (23$) speech codecH. G!M <;.8<D H7i ital cellular telecommunications systemE &nCband control of remote transcoders and rate adapters for 3ull $ate traffic channelsH. G!M <;.8+D H7i ital cellular telecommunications systemE &nCband control of remote transcoders and rate adapters for :alf $ate traffic channels H.

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

3.1 De;.n.,.ons
The 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 ++.4 "bit?s (Jhalf-rateK) and 66.; "bit?s (Jfull-rateK). &n addition- the codec may operate at various combinations of speech and channel codin (codec mode) bitCrates for each channel mode. Bit-rate change; 0han e of the codec mode bitCrates for a iven (:$?3$) channel mode. Channel mode; G!M :alfCrate or fullCrate operation Channel mode adaptation; The control and selection of the (3$ or :$) channel mode. Codec mode; 3or 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; $esult of offline simulations stored on files. To be used by the H2rror &nsertion 7eviceH to model the radio transmission from the output of the channel decoder and interleaver to the input of the deinterleaver and channel decoder. ull-rate ( R); G!M 3ullCrate channel or G!M channel mode !ross "it-rate; The bitCrate of the channel mode selected (66.; "bit?s or ++.4 "bit?s in G!M). #al$-rate (#R); G!M :alfCrate 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&!7' BualityH in most western countries. *ireline +ualit); !peech Buality provided by modern wireline networ"s. 'ormally ta"en to imply Buality at least as ood as that of 36"bit?s G.968 or G.96; +8 "bit?s codecs.

3.2 1bb&ev.a,.ons
3or the purposes of the present document- the followin abbreviations applyD .?7 .0$ .7P0M .M$ /!0 /T! 0?& 0& 0'& 0$0 7?. 7.T 70$ 7!P 7TM3 7T@ 23$ 2!P 3$ 3: G.968 G.96; G.96, G/2$ G!M :$ &$! &TLCT M'$L Mod. &$! MOP! MO! M! M!0 P0M P!T' = !7 .nalo ue to 7i ital .bsolute 0ate ory $atin .daptive 7ifferential Pulse 0ode Modulation .daptive MultiC$ate /ase !tation 0ontroller /ase Transceiver !tation 0arrierCtoC&nterfere ratio 0onfidence &nterval 0omfort 'oise &nsertion 0yclic $edundancy 0hec" 7i ital to .nalo ue 7i ital .udio Tape 7e radation 0ate ory $atin 7i ital !i nal Processor 7ual Tone Multi 3reBuency 7iscontinuous Transmission for power consumption and interference reduction 2nhanced 3ull $ate Product of 2 (2fficiency)- ! (!peed) and P (Percenta e of Power) of the 7!P 3ull $ate (also G!M 3$) 3reBuency :oppin &TL +8?64?36"bit?s .7P0M codec &TL +8"bit?s A7C02AP codec &TL ;?8.4?++.; "bit?s speech codec .vera e ross bit error rate Global !ystem for Mobile communications :alf $ate (also G!M :$) &ntermediate $eference !ystem &nternational Telecommunication Lnion C Telecommunications !tandardi)ation !ector Modulated 'oise $eference Lnit Modified &$! Million of Operation per !econds Mean Opinion !core Mobile !tation Mobile !witchin 0enter Pulse 0ode Modulation Public !witched Telecommunications 'etwor" !peechCtoCspeech correlated noise power ratio in d/ !tandard 7eviation
3GPP

&

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

!&7 !MG !'$ T0:C.3! T0:C.:! T7M. T3O tMOP! TL( >.7 wMOP!

!ilence 7escriptor !pecial Mobile Group !i nal To 'oise $atio Traffic 0:annel .daptive 3ull rate !peech Traffic 0:annel .daptive :alf rate !peech Time 7ivision Multiple .ccess Tandem 3ree Operation true Million of Operations per !econds Typical Lrban at multipath propa ation profile at ( "m?s >oice .ctivity 7etector wei hted Million of Operations per !econds

Multiple 2rror Patterns were used durin the 0haracteri)ation tests. They are identified by the propa ation 2rror 0onditions from which they are derived. The followin conventions are usedD 20( 720i 2rror 0onditions at ( d/ 0?& simulatin a radio channel under static 0?& usin ideal 3reBuency :oppin in a TL3 multipath propa ation profile 7ynamic 2rror 0ondition Mi simulatin a radio channel with a slowly varyin 0?& representative of slow fadin conditions- under ideal 3reBuency :oppin in a TL3 multipath propa ation profile unless otherwise stated. (, different 7ynamic 2rror 0onditions were used in the .M$ 0haracteri)ation Phase)

3or abbreviations not iven in this subCclause- see G!M <+.<4 F+G.

Gene&a/

8.1 <&o=e!, >.s,o&$

3ollowin the standardi)ation of the 23$ speech codec- the !MG6 !peech 2(pert Group (!2G) and especially the !=!G (!peech =uality !trate y Group) were tas"ed by !MG to study possible strate ies for the continuous improvement of the end to end performances of the speech service in G!M networ"s. !2G was specifically as"ed to evaluate the opportunity to desi n a robust 3ull $ate mode and?or an 2nhanced :alf $ate mode. The !=!G report- presented to !MG in +,,8- recommended to start a oneCyear feasibility study of a MultiC$ate speech codec capable to offer at the same time a $obust 3ull $ate mode and an 2nhanced :alf $ate mode providin wireline Buality under low propa ation error conditions ,. The feasibility study was completed in 3=,9 and the results presented to !MGM63. /ased on the feasibility report!MG approved a new $,; 1or" &tem for the development of the .daptive MultiC$ate (.M$) !peech 0odec. . =ualification Phase was completed by the end of 6=,; with the preCselection of 5 candidates amon the ++ proposals received by !MG++. The selection tests too" place in the summer of +,,; and the results analy)ed in !MG++M9 in !eptember +,,;. !MG++ reached a consensus on one solution and recommended to !MG to select the 2'!+ solution proposed by 2ricsson- 'o"ia and !iemens as the basis of the .M$ standard. This proposal was approved by !MGM69. The completion of the .M$ development included a short optimi)ation phase restricted to the codec proponents followed by an e(haustive >erification and 0haracteri)ation Phase whose results are reported in this Technical $eport. !MG later approved two additional 1or" &tems for the selection of a 'oise !uppresser and the development of a 1ideband e(tension of the .M$ speech codec. The outcome of these 1or" &tems is not included in this Technical $eport.

8.2 ?ve&v.e% o; ,0e 1@R 4on!e ,

Lnli"e previous G!M speech codecs (3$- 23$- and :$) which operate at a fi(ed rate and constant error protection
, The !2G report also proposed to evaluate and standardi)e the Tandem 3ree Operation of the G!M codecs and proposed the creation of a new !T0later called !MG++- responsible for the end to end Buality of the speech service in G!M 'etwor"s.

3GPP

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

level- the .M$ speech codec adapts its error protection level to the local radio channel and traffic conditions. .M$ selects the optimum channel (half or full rate) and codec mode (speech and channel bit rates) to deliver the best combination of speech Buality and system capacity. This fle(ibility provides a number of important benefitsD C C C &mproved speech Buality in both halfCrate and fullCrate modes by means of codec mode adaptation i.e. by varyin the balance between speech and channel codin for the same ross bitCrateE The ability to trade speech Buality and capacity smoothly and fle(ibly by a combination of channel and codec mode adaptationE this can be controlled by the networ" operator on a cell by cell basisE &mproved robustness to channel errors under mar inal radio si nal conditions in fullCrate mode. This increased robustness to errors and hence to interference may be used to increase capacity by operatin a ti hter freBuency reCuse patternE .bility to tailor .M$ operation to meet the different needs of operatorsE Potential for improved handover and power control resultin from additional si nalin transmitted rapidly inCband.

C C

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 many ways of which three important e(amples areD C 3ullCrate only for ma(imum robustness to channel errors. This additional robustness may be used to e(tend the covera e in mar inal si nal conditions- or to improve the capacity by usin a ti hter freBuency reCuseassumin hi h .M$ M! penetration. :alfCrate only for ma(imum capacity advanta eE more than +<<N capacity increase achievable relative to 3$ or 23$ (i.e. same as e(istin :$). !i nificant Buality improvements relative to the e(istin :$ will be iven 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. Mi(ed half?full rate operation allowin a tradeCoff between Buality and capacity enhancements accordin to the radio and traffic conditions and operator priorities.

8.3 2+n!,.ona/ Des!&. ,.on

The .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 (66.; "bit?s in 3ull $ate and ++.4 "bit?s in :alf rate) between source codin and channel codin . The actual speech rate used for each speech frame depends on the e(istin radio channel conditions. . codec adaptation al orithm selects the optimi)ed speech rate (or codec mode) as a function of the channel Buality. The most robust 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! and the 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
S<5 4>5

ATS " /.n# S ee!0 Da,a 4o'e! @o'e Bn'.!a,.on (for uplink) S+::es,e' 4o'e! @o'e (for downlink)
4>D

TR1"
S<D

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

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

4o'e! @o'e 4omman' (for uplink) 4o'e! @o'e Bn'.!a,.on (for downlink) Do%n/.n# S ee!0 Da,a
S<D 4>D 4>5 S<5

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&

&n both directions- the speech data frames are associated with a 0odec Mode &ndication used by the receivin end to select the correct channel and source decoders. &n the networ"- the 0odec Mode &ndication must also be sent to the Transcoder Lnits so that the correct source decodin is selected. 3or 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 Mode 0ommand 7ata field). 3or the downlin" codec adaptation- the M! must estimate the downlin" channel Buality and send to the networ" a Buality information- which can be mapped in the networ" to a Osu estedP codec mode. &n theory- the codec mode can be chan ed every speech frame. &n practice- because of the propa ation delays and necessary 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 full rate or half rate). The channel mode is selected by the $adio $esource mana ement function in the networ". &t is done at call set up or after a handover. The channel type can further be chan ed durin a call as a function of the channel conditions. The "ey characteristics of the selected .M$ solution areD C ; codec modes in 3ull $ate mode includin the G!M 23$ and &!+38 23$. C 8 codec modes in :alf $ate mode (also supported in 3ull $ate)- includin the &!+38 23$. C Possibility to operate on a set of up to 4 codec modes selected at call set up or handover. C 0odec Mode &ndications multiple(ed with the Lplin" 0odec Mode 0ommand and !u ested 7ownlin" 0odec Mode every other frame. Q &n band si nalin based on a 6 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 10.2 7.95 7.80 6.70 5.90 5.15 8.75 7.95 7.80 6.70 5.90 5.15 8.75 #b.,/s (GS@ 52R) #b.,/s #b.,/s #b.,/s (BS136 52R) #b.,/s #b.,/s #b.,/s #b.,/s #b.,/s #b.,/s (BS136 52R) #b.,/s #b.,/s #b.,/s #b.,/s

TC/01S0AM !TC/0A1S+

TC/0/S0AM !TC/0A/S+

Ta.le 4$"$): AM

Speech Codec Modes

8.8 <&esen,a,.on o; ,0e ;o//o%.n: se!,.ons

The followin sections provide a summary of the 0haracteri)ation Phase test results and bac" round information on the codec performances analy)ed durin the >erification Phase. !ections 5 to , summari)e the codec subjective Buality performances under different representative environmental conditions as measured durin the 0haracteri)ation Phase of the project. .n overview of the 0haracteri)ation Phase is included in .nne( .. .dditional test results are also provided in .nne( 0 and 7. !ections +< to +8 provide information on the codec characteristics as reported durin the >erification Phase includin D C C C C C C C The transparence to 7TM3 tonesThe transparence to networ" si nalin tones The performances special input si nals The lan ua e and tal"er dependency The freBuency response The transmission delay The comple(ity

.nne( / lists the reference contributions used in these sections.

3GPP

))

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

C+a/.,$ .n 4/ean S ee!0 an' 5&&o& 4on'.,.ons

The codec performances in clean speech and error conditions were measured in 2(periment +a (3ull $ate) and +b (:alf $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

'o 2rrors +, d/ +8 d/ +3 d/ +< d/ 9 d/ 4 d/

ull Rate Best Codec per$ormance re+uirement 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors G.96; 'o 2rrors G.96; 'o 2rrors 23$ at +< d/

#al$ Rate Best Codec per$ormance (re+uirement) G.96; no errors G.96; no errors G.96; no errors 3$ at +3 d/ 3$ at +< d/ 3$ at 9 d/ 3$ at 4 d/

Ta.le '$): 2est Codec Performance

e3uirements in Clean Speech and 4rror 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 clean speech in 3ull $ate mode,. 3i ure 5.+ compares the performance recorded for the best .M$ full rate codec mode for each impairment condition- with the correspondin performance of 23$ and the related .M$ project performance reBuirement.
5.0 M !

Experiment 1a - Test Results

8.0

3.0

2.0

Se/. ReD+.&. 1@R-2R 52R Conditions

1.0 Se/. ReD+.&. 1@R-2R 52R

3o 5&&o&s 8.01 8.06 8.01

4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 8.01 8.06 8.01 8.13 8.01

4/BF10 'A

4/BF 7 'A

4/BF 8 'A 3.65

4/BF 1 'A

8.0E 3.65

3.96 3.05

3.59 1.53

2.66

1i5ure '$): AM full rate0clean speech performances cur(e !2est AM Codec (s$ 41 (s$ Performance e3uirements+ 3i ure 5.6 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 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 with other 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 less impacted by cultural difference between listenin subjects. 3inally- it should be noted that a difference of <.6 MO! between two test results was usually found not statistically si nificant.

&n these fi ures- the performance of 23$ at +3 d/ was arbitrarily set to the performance of 23$ in 'o 2rrors conditions.

3GPP

)"

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

5.0

M !

Experiment 1a - Test Results

8.0

3.0 52R 12.2 10.2 7.95 7.8 6.7 5.9 5.15 8.75 3o 5&&o&s 8.01 8.01 8.06 3.91 3.E3 3.77 3.72 3.50 3.50 8.06 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 8.01 8.13 3.96 8.01 3.98 4/BF10 'A 3.65 3.93 8.05 8.0E 3.9E 3.E0 4/BF 7 'A 3.05 3.88 3.E0 3.96 3.E8 3.E6 3.69 3.5E 3.52

2.0

Conditions 4/BF 8 'A 1.53 1.86 2.08 3.26 3.11 3.29 3.59 3.88 3.83 1.83 1.39 1.E7 2.20 2.83 2.66 4/BF 1 'A

1.0 52R 12.2 10.2 7.95 7.8 6.7 5.9 5.15 8.75

1i5ure '$": 1amil6 of cur(es for 47periment )a !Clean speech in 1ull

ate+

The .M$ 0haracteri)ation test results showed that the selected solution satisfies the .M$ reBuirements in clean speech in 3ull $ate 0hannel. The previous results demonstrate that the combination of all ; speech codec modes provide a robust 3ull $ate speech codec down to 4 d/ 0?&. The results also showed that the four hi hest codec modes (+6.6- +<.6- 9.,5 S 9.4) are eBuivalent to 23$ in error free conditions and barely affected by propa ation errors over a wide ran e 0hannel conditions (down to +<C9 0?&). The four lowest codec modes (8.9- 5.,- 5.+5 S 4.95) are all jud ed in error free conditions to be eBuivalent to 23$ at +< d/ 0?&. The three lowest codec modes are statistically unaffected by propa ation errors down to 4 d/ 0?&. The followin fi ures provide a raphical representation (in Mean Opinion !cores) of the .M$ performances in clean speech in :alf $ate mode0. 3i ure 5.3 compares the performance recorded for the best .M$ half rate codec mode for each impairment condition- with the correspondin performance of the 23$- G!M 3$ and G!M :$ speech codecs and the related .M$ project performance reBuirement. 3i ure 5.3 shows the performances recorded for all 8 .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 !cores can 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 with other 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 less impacted by cultural difference between listenin subjects. 3inally- it should be noted that a difference of <.6 MO! between two test results was usually found not statistically si nificant.

&n these fi ures- the performances of 23$ at +3 d/ were arbitrarily set to the performances of 23$ in 'o 2rrors conditions.

3GPP

)3

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

5.0

M !

Experiment 1" - Test Results

8.0

3.0 Se/. ReD+.&. 1@R->R 52R 2R >R 3o 5&&o&s 3.99 8.11 8.21 3.50 3.35 4/BF19 'A 3.99 8.08 4/BF16 'A 3.99 3.96 3.72 8.21 3.50 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 3.18 3.3E 3.78 3.18 3.28

2.0

1.0 Se/. ReD+.&. 1@R->R 52R 2R >R

Conditions 4/BF 7 'A 2.78 3.10 3.38 2.78 2.E0 4/BF 8 'A 1.50 2.00 1.5E 1.50 1.92

!2est AM

1i5ure '$3: AM half rate0clean speech performances cur(e Codec (s$ 41 (s$ GSM 1 (s$ GSM 1 (s$ Performance e3uirements+
5.0 M !

Experiment 1" - Test Results

8.0

3.0

2.0

52R 7.95 7.8 6.7 5.9 5.15 8.75 2R >R Conditions 3o 5&&o&s 8.21 8.11 3.93 3.98 3.6E 3.70 3.59 3.50 3.35 8.08 3.93 3.96 3.95 3.90 3.E2 3.60 3.86 4/BF19 'A 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 8.21 3.37 3.52 3.53 3.72 3.60 3.82 3.50 4/BF10 'A 3.78 2.53 2.78 3.10 3.19 3.3E 3.30 3.18 3.28 4/BF 7 'A 3.38 1.60 1.7E 2.22 2.57 2.E5 3.10 2.78 2.E0 1.21 1.33 1.E8 2.00 1.50 1.92 4/BF 8 'A 1.5E

1.0 52R 7.95 7.8 6.7 5.9 5.15 8.75 2R >R

1i5ure '$4: 1amil6 of cur(es for 47periment ). !Clean Speech in /alf

ate+

The .M$ 0haracteri)ation test results showed that the selected solution complies with the .M$ reBuirements in clean speech in :alf $ate 0hannel. The results demonstrate that the combination of all 8 speech codec modes provide a :alf $ate speech codec eBuivalent to the &TL G.96; (+8 "bit?s) speech codec down to +8 d/ 0?&. 3urthermore- the results show that .M$ can provide si nificantly better performances than G!M 3$ in the full ran e of test conditionsand si nificantly better performances than the G!M :$ codec down to 9 d/ 0?&. The four hi hest codec modes (9.,5- 9.4- 8.9 and 5.,) were found si nificantly better than the G!M 3$ in error free conditions down to +3 d/ 0?& and at least eBuivalent to the 23$ at +< d/ 0?& down to +8 d/ 0?&. The three hi hest modes (9.,5- 9.4 and 8.9) are eBuivalent to the error free 23$ in very low error conditions. The two lowest modes were found at least eBuivalent to the G!M 3$ over the full ran e of test conditions.

3GPP

)4

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

C+a/.,$ +n'e& ba!#:&o+n' no.se an' 5&&o&s 4on'.,.ons

The codec performances under bac" round noise and error conditions were measured in 8 different 2(periments of the 0haracteri)ation phase of testin D 2(p. 3a- 3b and 3c (3ull $ate) and 2(p. 3d- 3e and 3f (:alf $ate). The followin bac" round noise types were included in the testsD !treet 'oise at +5 d/ !'$ (3a S 3d)- 0ar noise at +5 d/ !'$ (3b S 3e) and Office noise at 6< d/ !'$ (3c S 3f). The correspondin performance reBuirements were set for the best codec mode in each error condition as defined in the followin tableD
C-I ull Rate Best Codec per$ormance re+uirement 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors 3$ at +< d/ #al$ Rate Best Codec per$ormance (re+uirement) 23$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors 3$ at +3 d/ 3$ at +< d/ 3$ at 9 d/ 3$ at 4 d/

'o 2rrors +, d/ +8 d/ +3 d/ +< d/ 9 d/ 4 d/

Ta.le #$): 2est Codec Performance

e3uirements under .ac85round noise and 4rror 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 in 3ull $ate in 2(periments 3a- 3b S 3c,.
#M ! 5.0

Experiment 3a - Test Results

8.0

3.0 Se/. ReD+.&. 1@R-2R 52R 2R G.729 Conditions 1.0 3o 5&&o&s 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 4/BF 7 'A 4/BF 8 'A 4/BF 1 'A

2.0

1i5ure #$): AM

performance cur(es for 47periment 3a !1ull rate 9ith Street :oise+

#M ! 5.0

Experiment 3" - Test Results

8.0

3.0

2.0

Se/. ReD+.&. 1@R-2R 52R 2R G.729 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 4/BF 7 'A

Condi tions 4/BF 8 'A 4/BF 1 'A

1.0 3o 5&&o&s

&n these fi ures- the performances of 23$ at +3 d/ were arbitrarily set to the performances of 23$ in 'o 2rrors conditions.

3GPP

)'

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

1i5ure #$": AM

performance cur(es for 47periment 3. !1ull rate 9ith Car :oise+

Experiment 3c - Test Results

#M ! 5.0

8.0

3.0 Se/. ReD+.&. 1@R-2R 52R 2R G.729 Conditions 1.0 3o 5&&o&s 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 4/BF 7 'A 4/BF 8 'A 4/BF 1 'A

2.0

1i5ure #$3: AM

performance cur(es for 47periment 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 3ull $ate 0hannel. The results demonstrate that the combination of the 8 hi hest speech codec modes provide a robust 3ull $ate speech codec down to 4 d/ 0?&. .t hi h 0?& (down to +3 d/) the three hi hest codec modes (+6.6- +<.6 and 9.,5) were found eBuivalent to 23$ in error free condition. .ll codecs modes down to the .M$ 5., performed better than the G!M 3$ across all test conditions. . couple of codecs (8.9- 5.,) still provide at 4 d/ 0?& a Buality eBuivalent to the G!M 3$ at +< d/ 0?&.. The two lowest modes (5.+5 and 4.95) were usually found worse than the G!M 3$ at +< d/ 0?& across the ran e of test conditions0.

0 The support of the two lowest modes in 3ull $ate is reBuired to allow Tandem 3ree Operation between a :alf $ate M! and a 3ull $ate M!. They should not be the primary choice for operation in 3ull $ate mode only

3GPP

)#

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

The followin fi ures provide a raphical representation (in Mean Opinion !cores) of the performances recorded in :alf $ate in 2(periments 3d- 3e S 3f1.
#M ! 5.0

Experiment 3d - Test Results

8.0

3.0

2.0

Se/. ReD+.&. 1@R->R 52R 2R >R

Conditions 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 4/BF 7 'A 4/BF 8 'A

1.0 3o 5&&o&s

4/BF19 'A

4/BF16 'A

1i5ure #$4: AM

performance cur(es for 47periment 3d !/alf rate 9ith Street :oise+

#M ! 5.0

Experiment 3e - Test Results

8.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 3o 5&&o&s

Se/. ReD+.&. 1@R->R 52R 2R >R 4/BF19 'A 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A

Conditions 4/BF 7 'A 4/BF 8 'A

1i5ure #$': AM

performance cur(es for 47periment 3e !/alf rate 9ith Car :oise+

#M ! 5.0

Experiment 3f - Test Results

8.0

3.0 Se/. ReD+.&. 1@R->R 52R 2R >R Conditions 1.0 3o 5&&o&s 4/BF19 'A 4/BF16 'A 4/BF13 'A 4/BF10 'A 4/BF 7 'A 4/BF 8 'A

2.0

1i5ure #$#: AM

performance cur(es for 47periment 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 23$ at +3 d/ was arbitrarily set to the performances of 23$ in 'o 2rrors conditions.

3GPP

)&

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

down to +8 d/ 0?&. &n these conditions- the .M$ performances are almost eBuivalent to 23$ and si nificantly better than the G!M 3$ or G!M :$ 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 worse than the tar et 3$ at +< d/ 0?& in these conditions. This is the only critical failure recorded in the characteri)ation phase. .t 9 d/ 0?& and below the two lowest codec modes match or e(ceed the performances of the G!M 3$ and G!M :$.

<e&;o&man!es .n Tan'em.n: an' %.,0 va&.a,.on o; ,0e .n +, s ee!0 /eve/

2(periment 6 and 2(periment 8 of the 0haracteri)ation Test plan were intended to evaluate the performances of the .M$ 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
M ! 8.50 8.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 12.2 10.20 7.95 7.80 6.70 5.9 5.15 8.75 D.&e!, Tan'. % /12.2-52R Tan'. % /10.2 Tan'. % /7.95 Tan'. % /7.8 Tan'. % /6.7 Tan'. % /5.9 Tan'. % /5.15 Tan'. % /8.75 Tan'. % /2R Tan'. % />R

Experiment $ - Test Results

1i5ure &$): 47periment " Test

M ! 8.50 8.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 52R

esults !cross-codec tandemin5+

Experiment $ - Test Results

D.&e!, Tan'. % /12.2-52R Tan'em Tan'. % /10.2 Tan'. % /7.95 Tan'. % /7.8 Tan'. % /6.7 Tan'. % /5.9 Tan'. % /5.15 Tan'. % /8.75 2R >R

1i5ure &$": AM

Codec Tandemin5 performances 9ith e7istin5 GSM Codecs

3GPP

)-

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

M;S 8.50 8.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 52R 12.2 10.20 -16 'Aov/ -26 'Aov/ -36 'Aov/ Tan'em

Experiment % - Test Results

Codec 7.95 7.80 6.70 5.9 5.15 8.75

1i5ure &$3: Com.ined results for 47periment # !<nfluence of input speech le(el and Tandemin5+
M ! 8.5 8 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 3om.na/ 710'A 3om.na/ 3om.na/ -10 'A Tan'em G.729-11.8 12.2 G.729-E 7.80 G.729-6.8 5.15 2R 52R 10.20 7.95 6.70 5.9 8.75 >R

Experiment % - Test Results

Conditions

1i5ure &$4: Com.ined results for 47periment # !<nfluence of input speech le(el and Tandemin5+ ordered .6 impairment t6pe The "ey performances demonstrated by 2(periment 6 test results areD C C Tandemin with the clean speech error free +6.6 and +<.6 modes of .M$ do not si nificantly de rade the sin le encodin performances of any of the .M$ codec or e(istin G!M codecs. .ny other tandemin confi uration involvin any two other .M$ codecs introduce a si nificant de 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 uration involvin either the G!M 3$ or the G!M :$. .ll tandemin confi urations between two .M$ speech codecs (e(cept the worst confi uration 5.+5C 4.95) are si nificantly better than the G!M 3$ or G!M :$ in Tandem

2(periment 8 test results show that the different .M$ speech codec were not si nificantly more impacted by the input speech level than 23$. The hi hest codec modes (+6.6 down to 9.4) were enerally found eBuivalent for each impairment type (with variation of the input level or in tandem). The lowest codec modes were always found as least as ood as the G!M 3$. &n tandem conditions- the hi hest modes (down to 9.4 "bit?s) do not present a si nificant de radation compare to the sin le encodin condition. The lowest modes are at least as ood as the G!M 3$ in tandemin and always better than the G!M :$.

3GPP

)%

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

<e&;o&man!es %.,0 ,0e 4o'e! 1'a ,a,.on ,+&ne' on

2(periments 4a (3ull $ate) and 4b (:alf $ate) of the 0haracteri)ation phase of testin were desi ned to evaluate the .M$ 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 and different slow fadin effects. One profile was used to enerate multiple 2rror Patterns representative of different 3reBuency :oppin operation modeD &deal freBuency hoppin - nonCideal freBuency hoppin limited to 4 freBuencies and no freBuency hopin . Three different sets of codec modes were used in these 2(periments. They are defined in the followin tableD
Codec Modes for 47periment 4a S e, G 1 S e, G 2 S e, G 3 12.2) 7.95) 5.9 Codec Modes for 47periment 4. 7.95) 6.7) 5.9) 5.15

12.2) 7.95

6.7) 5.9) 8.75

12.2) 7.80) 6.7) 5.15

7.80) 5.15

Ta.le -$): Sets of codec modes for 47periment 4a = 4. The thresholds and :ysteresis used for the codec adaptation in the different confi urations are listed in the followin tableD
Adaptation Thresholds and /6steresis for 47periment 4a Threshold ) Se, G1 Se, G2 Se, G3 11.5 'A 11.5 'A 11.5 'A /6steresis ) 2.0 'A 2.0 'A 2.0 'A 7.0 'A 2.0 'A 5.5 'A 2.0 'A Threshold " 6.5 'A /6steresis " 2.0 'A Threshold 3 /6steresis 3

Adaptation Thresholds and /6steresis for 47periment 4. Threshold ) Se, G1 Se, G2 Se, G3 15.0 'A 12.5 'A 13.5 'A /6steresis ) 2.0 'A 2.0 'A 2.0 'A Threshold " 12.5 'A 11.0 'A /6steresis " 2.5 'A 2.0 'A Threshold 3 11.0 'A /6steresis 3 2.0 'A

Ta.le -$": Codec Mode Adaptation thresholds and /6steresis used in 47periment 4a = 4. The results of 2(periments 4a and4b are presented in the followin fi uresD

3GPP

"*

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

M ! 5.0

Experiment &a - Test Results

3o,e6 D545) D546 I D547 +se' ,0e same 4/B <&o;./e D546 on 8 !a&&.e&s

52R 1@R-2R Se, 1 1@R-2R Se, 2 1@R-2R Se, 3

8.0

3.0

2.0

Conditions 1.0 D541 D5417DTH D542 D543 D548 D545 (B'ea/ 2>* D546 (3onB'ea/ 2>* D546 (3on D547 (3o 2>* B'ea/ 2>*7DTH

1i5ure -$): 47periment 4a Test

M ! 5.0

esults !>6namic 4rror conditions in 1ull

ate+
2R 1@R->R Se, 1 1@R->R Se, 2 1@R->R Se, 3

Experiment &" - Test Results

3o,e6 D545) D546 I D547 +se' ,0e same 4/B <&o;./e) D546 on 8 !a&&.e&s D541) D543) D545) D546) D547 % .,0 3 'A 0.:0e& 4/B .n >R 40anne/s D542) D548 % .,0 6 'A 0.:0e& 4/B on >R 40anne/s

8.0

3.0

2.0 Conditions 1.0 D541 D5417DTH D542 D543 D548 D545 (B'ea/ 2>* D546 (3onB'ea/ 2>* D546 (3on B'ea/ 2>*7DTH D547 (3o 2>*

1i5ure -$": 47periment 4. Test

esults !>6namic 4rror conditions in /alf

ate+

The results of 2(periments 4a and 4b can be summari)ed as followsD C C C C &n 3ull $ate- the three tested .M$ codec sets were found si nificantly better than 23$ in ideal or nonC ideal freBuency hoppin cases. &n some cases- the benefit was hi her than + point MO!. &n :alf $ate- the three codec sets were found si nificantly better than the G!M 3$ codec (tested at 3 d/ or 8 d/ lower avera e 0?&) in most cases with ideal or nonCideal freBuency hoppin activated. The performances with nonCideal freBuency hoppin were usually found eBuivalent to the performances with ideal freBuency hoppin for the .M$ codec. The 23$ codec seemed sli htly more impacted in this case. 'o si nificant improvement compared to the references was identified in nonCfreBuency hoppin cases and low mobile speed in either full rate or half rate channels. The performances of all codecs without freBuency hoppin activated were always found si nificantly worse than their performances when ideal or nonCideal freBuency hoppin was used. 'o si nificant difference was found when 7T@ was activated in the return lin" in either full rate or half rate mode. There was no si nificant difference between the three codec sets used in full rate or half rate modes- even when the set was limited to two codec modes.

C C

V1D/DTH <e&;o&man!es

The objective of 2(periment 9 of the characteri)ation test plan was to evaluate the de radation induced by the activation of the voice activity detection and discontinuous transmission on the lin" under test ,. The e(periment was divided in 4 subCe(periments to separately test the effect on the 3ull $ate and :alf $ate channel operation and then
, The influence of discontinuous transmission on the in band si nalin (mode command and Buality reportin ) was tested in 2(periment 4a S 4b.

3GPP

")

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

the performances of each >.7 al orithm (2'! solution and Motorola solution). The tests used a 9Cpoint 0omparison 0ate ory $atin to amplify any possible de radation. They consisted in comparin a speech sample for which the >.7?7T@ has been applied with the same speech sample without >.7?7T@ but in the same channel error?impairment condition. The 9Cpoint scale (0MO!TC3 to I3) corresponded to Buality de radation defined asD OMuch worseP- O1orseP- O!li htly worseP- O.bout the sameP- O!li htly betterP- O/etterP and OMuch betterP. The followin impairment type were included in each e(periment and tested for multiple error conditions (4- +< S +8 d/ 0?& in 3ull $ate- 9- +3 S +, d/ in :alf $ate)D C C C C C C C !in le encodin in clean speech at nominal input level !in le encodin in clean speech +< d/ below the nominal input level !in le encodin in clean speech +< d/ above the nominal input !in le encodin in street noise at +5 d/ !'$ Tandemin in street noise at +5 d/ !in le encodin in car noise at +5 d/ !in le encodin in office noise at 6<

The tests were performed with the adaptation turned on- usin the sets of codec modes M+ of Table 8.+. 'evertheless- a static 0?& profile was used for all test conditions involvin propa ation errors. The tests also included a set of references usin the 23$ codec with the ori inal 23$ >.7 and the new .M$ >.7 al orithms in a subset of the impairment conditions- and the 3$ codec in clean speech with the ori inal 3$ >.7. . null condition was also included in the test. .ll test results with one e(ception showed that the activation of the .M$ >.7?7T@ do not introduce any si nificant de radation to the performances of .M$. The difference between the scores obtained by the different conditions were below their respective ,5N confidence interval indicatin that the de radation is not si nificantly different for either impairment type. The same results were found for both >.7 solutions. . direct comparison between the two >.7 options in paired e(periments (2(periments 9a and 9c in 3ull $ate and 2(periments 9b and 9d in :alf $ate) did not allow to differentiate their respective performances. The only condition showin a si nificantly hi her de radation level in all tests performed was for the G!M 3$ codec with its own >.7 al orithm. 2ven then- the score obtained by the 3$?>.7 codec association was not as bad as a bein Bualified as O!li htly worseP (first de radation level in the 9Cpoint 0MO! scale). &t was in the order of the de radation of a M'$L at 3< d/ !?' compared with the ori inal speech sample.

10

<e&;o&man!es %.,0 DT@2 ,ones

Twelve e(periments were performed durin the verification phase to evaluate the transparency of the .M$ codec modes to 7TM3 tones. The correspondin test conditions are listed in Table +<.+. The e(periments were limited to error free conditions only. The freBuency deviation was set for the duration of a di it- and was randomly chosen between C+.5 and I+.5N. The ran e of tone levels was chosen to avoid clippin in the di ital domain and to e(ceed the minimum acceptable input level for the Ainemaster unit used for the detection of 7TM3 tones. . set of ten codecs was tested in each e(periment- comprisin the ei ht .M$ modes- the fullCrate G!M speech codec and the .Claw codecs alone (direct condition).

E2periment + 6 3 4 5 8 9 ; , +< ++ +6

3o4 tone level (,) C8 d/m C+8 d/m C68 d/m C+8 d/m C+, d/m C+3 d/m C8 d/m C+8 d/m C68 d/m C+8 d/m C+, d/m C+3 d/m

#igh tone level (,) C8 d/m C+8 d/m C68 d/m C+8 d/m C+3 d/m C+, d/m C8 d/m C+8 d/m C68 d/m C+8 d/m C+3 d/m C+, d/m

'4ist < d/ < d/ < d/ < d/ C8 d/ 8 d/ < d/ < d/ < d/ < d/ C8 d/ 8 d/

Digit duration 5< ms 5< ms 5< ms 5< ms 5< ms 5< ms ;< ms ;< ms ;< ms ;< ms ;< ms ;< ms

re+uenc) deviation none none none I?C +.5N none none none none none I?C +.5N none none

3GPP

""

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

Ta.le )*$): 47perimental conditions for the e(aluation of the AM Tones

Codecs Transparenc6 to >TM1

'ote +D The levels are iven as measured at the input to the 7TM3 detector- however- since the 7.0 is calibrated accordin to &TLCT $ec. G.9++- <d/m in the analo ue section is eBuivalent to C8.+5d/ov in the di ital section.

'est se+uences/ 3or each e(periment- 6< test seBuences were processed per codec under test. 2ach test seBuence was produced by the 7TM3 enerator- and comprised a header of x ms followed by each of the +8 7TM3 di its as defined in &TLCT $ec. =.63. The ap between adjacent 7TM3 di its was eBual to the duration of the di its (see Table +). The len th of the header in seBuence number n- was set to xT6<<In milliseconds E where nT<..+,.

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 7TM3 di it and a speech codec frame (6<ms in len th). Thus each codec mode was subjected to 36< separate di its per e(periment. 'est Procedure/ 3or each test seBuence- the number of di its undetected by the 7TM3 detector was recorded. 'o attempt to identify 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 +<.6a for 2(periments + to 8 (5<ms di its)- and in Table +<.6b for 2(periments 9 to +6 (;<ms di its).

Codec mode .M$ mode < .M$ mode + .M$ mode 6 .M$ mode 3 .M$ mode 4 .M$ mode 5 .M$ mode 8 .M$ mode 9 3$ G!M 7irect (.Claw)

Rate (5"it-s) 4.95 5.+5 5.,< 8.9< 9.4< 9.,5 +<.6< +6.6< +3.<< C

E2p6 , 35.3N 36.;N +,.9N 9.;N 3.;N <.3N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N

E2p6 0 4<.,N 3;.4N 6<.3N 9.;N 5.<N +.3N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N

E2p6 1 3;.+N 34.9N 65.<N +<.8N 4.9N +.3N <.3N <.<N <.3N <.<N

E2p6 7 E2p6 8 E2p6 9 Mean 4+.3N 5<.<N 43.;N 4+.8N 3;.;N 56.5N 39.5N 3,.+N 65.3N 39.;N +,.+N 64.5N ;.;N 63.4N 8.3N +<.;N 4.+N +3.+N 6.6N 5.5N 6.6N ,.9N <.8N 6.8N <.<N <.3N <.<N <.+N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.8N <.<N <.6N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N

Ta.le )*$"a: Percenta5e of >TM1 di5its undetected 9hen passed throu5h different codecs 9ith '*ms >TM1 di5its$ The mean (alue is calculated o(er all si7 e7periments$

Codec mode .M$ mode < .M$ mode + .M$ mode 6 .M$ mode 3 .M$ mode 4 .M$ mode 5 .M$ mode 8 .M$ mode 9 3$ G!M 7irect (.Claw)

Rate (5"it-s) 4.95 5.+5 5.,< 8.9< 9.4< 9.,5 +<.6< +6.6< +3.<< C

E2p6 : 6+.3N +;.+N ;.;N +.8N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N

E2p6 ; 64.9N 6+.3N ++.8N +.8N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N

E2p6 < E2p6 ,= E2p6 ,, E2p6 ,0 69.5N 68.,N 35.,N 68.8N 65.,N 66.;N 33.4N 6;.+N ++.8N 9.;N 64.+N ,.4N 6.5N 6.5N 5.,N 3.;N <.3N <.8N 6.6N <.3N <.<N <.<N +.,N <.3N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N

Mean 69.+N 64.,N +6.6N 3.<N <.8N <.4N <.<N <.<N <.<N <.<N

Ta.le )*$".: Percenta5e of >TM1 di5its undetected 9hen passed throu5h different codecs 9ith -*ms >TM1 di5its$ 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 7TM3 si nals enerated with ne ative twist. To eliminate the 7TM3 detector as the cause of this effect- subsets of 2(periments 5 and 8 were repeated usin a proprietary networ" based 7TM3 detection al orithm. These additional e(periments also showed substantially worse performance in the presence of ne ative twist.
3GPP

"3

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

.n analysis of the processed files revealed that for 7TM3 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 the lower rate speech codecs. Conclusions/ The results for the fullCrate G!M speech codec appear to be consistent with results from previous tests. 'o detection errors were measured for the reference .Claw condition. 3or 5<ms 7TM3 di its- the +<.6 and +6.6 "bit?s .M$ modes appear to be essentially transparent to 7TM3 si nals under error free conditions- whereas the lower rate modes do not appear to be transparent. 3or ;<ms 7TM3 di its the 9.4- 9.,5- +<.6 and +6.6 "bit?s modes appear to be essentially transparent to 7TM3 si nals under 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 7MT3 si nals- and are therefore less transparent to di its with ne ative twist than positive twist. &t is noted that 7TM3 si nals are often enerated by P!T' telephones with ne ative twist- e. . C6d/- to account for the characteristics of the local loop.

11

T&ans a&en!$ ,o S.:na/.n: ,ones

The transparency to networ" si nalin tones was tested for all ; codec modes usin typical 3rench and German si nalin tones. rench %ignaling 'ones 3ive different types of 3rench networ" si nalin tones were testedD Two different dial tones- one rin in tone- a busy tone and a special information tone. The description of the different tones is iven belowD 0ontinuous 7&.A TO'2 number + at 44< :)- +<s duration 0ontinuous 7&.A TO'2 number 6 at 33<I44< :)- +<s duration $&'G&'G TO'2 at 44< :) with +.5Q3.5s form factor and a total si nal duration of +6.5s /L!U TO'2 at 44<:) with <.5Q<.5s form factor and a total si nal duration of +6.5s !P20&.A &'3O$M.T&O' TO'2 at ,5<?+4<<?+;<< :) and duration of (3V<.3Q6(<.<3)Q+.<s and a total si nal duration of +6.5 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 and a special information tone. The description of the different tones is iven below. 0ontinuous 7&.A TO'2 number + at 465 :)- +5s duration 0ontinuous 7&.A TO'2 number 6 at 45< :)- +5s duration $&'G&'G TO'2 number + at 465 :) with <.65Q4.<Q+.<Q4.<Q+.<Q4.95s form factor- +5s total duration $&'G&'G TO'2 number 6 at 45< :) with <.65Q4.<Q+.<Q4.<Q+.<Q4.95s form factor- +5s total duration /L!U TO'2 at 465:) with <.4;Q<.4;s form factor and a total duration of +<s !P20&.A &'3O$M.T&O' TO'2 at ,5<?+4<<?+;<< :) and 3V<.33Q+.<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+5 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 and fi(in the codec mode to the ; different possible modes. The si nalin tones were also tested with adaptation onunder static errors with 0?& T 9 d/. This was tested for 7T@ off and 7T@ on. The German si nalin tones at a level of C+5 d/m< were only tested under clear channel conditions with 7T@ activated. This was done to ensure that the artifact identified for the 3$ speech codec with low level si nalin tones and 7T@ did not appear in the case of .M$.
3GPP

"4

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

'est results The testin has been performed by informal listenin involvin trained listeners- their main concern bein to reco 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 7T@ O' and those performed with 7T@ O33 6. 3or the error free conditionsD the decoded tones were always easily reco ni)ed. Uet the perceived Buality was found to decrease when the codec rate decreases and for the two lowest bit rates (4.95 and 5.+5) the Buality was rather poor. 3. &n presence of channel errors in :alf $ate mode- the result was rather poor for the whole set of tones. &n 3ull $ate mode- the Buality was found acceptable with a sli ht de radation for the two dial tones. 'ote that the effect of errors was perceived for both channel modes- but more limited and clustered in some parts of the si nal in 3ull $ate mode. Conclusion .lthou h the Buality of networ" si nalin tones is audibly decreasin for lower bit rates and especially in presence of channel errors in :alf $ate mode- the si nalin tones were always easily reco ni)ed under all testin conditions. .dditionally- 7T@ activation did not create any de radation of the transparency of the .M$ codec towards si nalin tones. This conclusion is still valid for low amplitude si nalin tones..

12

<e&;o&man!es %.,0 s e!.a/ .n +, s.:na/s

The behavior of the .M$ speech codec in presence of multiple Jspecial input si nalsK was tested durin the >erification Phase. These tests includedD Overload conditions .dditional 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 evidence to su est that the .M$ speech channel e(hibits any si nificant problems- such as ross instability- in the presence of overload 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(hibit any 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 to the behavior of other wellC"nown speech codecs (23$- &!C84+- G.96,). 3inally- no si nificant problem was identified when testin the codec with si nals at very low si nal levels representative 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 different lan ua es (see .nne( .). Tests were performed inD 2n lish (L! S L%)- 3rench- 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.

3GPP

"'

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

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 previous G!M speech codecs F6- 3 S 4G. The reference system delay distribution for the downlin" and uplin" directions are provided in fi ures +4.+ and +4.6 respectively. The speech transcoders are assumed to be remote located from the /T! (+8 "bit?s or ; "bit?s subCmultiple(in on the .bis S .ter &nterfaces).
@S4
Techo Tmsc @a&:.n Tbsc Tsample

AS4
Tsps Tabisd @a&:.n Tbuff

ATS
Tencode @a&:.n Trftx Trxproc Tproc

@S
@a&:.n Td/a

1i5ure )4$):
@S4
Tmsc @a&:.n Tbsc

eference >o9nlin8 dela6 distri.ution

ATS

AS4
Tproc @a&:.n Tabisu

@S
@a&:.n Trftx Tencode Ttransc Tsample @a&:.n Ta/'

Trxproc

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 used for the parameter when not dependent of the type of speech codec or subCmultiple(in scheme over the .bis S .ter interfaces.
Tabisd Time reBuired to transmit the minimum number of speech data bits over the downlin" .bis interface to start encodin a radio speech frame. 7epends on the speech codec mode- the T$.L frame format and the .bis?.ter subCmultiple(in scheme. 'ote that most T$.L frame synchroni)ation bits can ideally be transmitted by anticipation and are usually not included in this parameter. Time reBuired to transmit the minimum number of speech data bits over the uplin" .bis interface to start decodin a speech frame. 7epends on the speech codec mode- the T$.L frame format and the .bis?.ter subC multiple(in scheme. 'ote that the T$.L frame synchroni)ation bits can ideally be transmitted by anticipation and are usually not included in this parameter. 7elay in the analo ue to di ital converter in the uplin" (implementation dependent). !et to +ms F4G. !witchin delay in the /!0 (implementation dependent). !et to <.5ms F6 S 4G. /ufferin time reBuired for the time ali nment procedure for the inCband control of the remote transcoder. !et to +.65 ms F6 S 4G. 7elay in the di ital to analo ue converter in the downlin" (implementation dependent). !et to +ms F6 S 4G. 7elay induced by the echo canceller (implementation dependent). !et to +ms F6 S 4G. Processin delay reBuired to perform the channel encodin (implementation dependent). 7epends on the channel codin comple(ity of each codec mode. !witchin delay in the M!0 (implementation dependent). !et to <.5ms F6 S 4G. Processin delay reBuired to perform the speech decodin (implementation dependent). 7epends on the speech decodin comple(ity of each codec mode. Time reBuired for the transmission of a speech frame over the air interface. 7erived from the radio framin structure and the interleavin scheme. 1orst case is 39.5 ms in 3ull $ate mode and 36.5 ms in :alf $ate mode F6 S 4G. Processin delay reBuired to perform the channel eBuali)ation- the channel decodin and !&7Cframe detection (implementation dependent). The channel decodin depends on the codec mode. The channel eBuali)ation part was set to 8.;4 ms in 3ull $ate mode and 3.5 ms in :alf $ate mode F4G. 7uration of the se ment of P0M speech samples operated on by the speech transcoderD 65 ms in all cases correspondin to 6< ms for the processed speech frame and 5 ms of loo" ahead.

Tabisu

Ta/d Tbsc Tbuff Td/a Techo TencodeD Tmsc Tproc Trftx

Trxproc

Tsample

3GPP

"#

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

Tsps

1orst case processin delay reBuired by the downlin" speech encoder before an encoded bit can be sent over the .ter?.bis interface ta"in into account the speed on the .ter?.bis interface (implementation dependent). 7epends on the speech codin comple(ity of each codec mode and on the subCmultiple(in rate on the .ter?.bis interface. /ecause of the priority iven to the decodin - T proc is also added to the overall downlin" transmission delay. M! speech encoder processin delay- from input of the last P0M sample to output of the final encoded bit (implementation dependent). 3or the evaluation of the transmission delay- it was assumed that the speech decodin has a hi her priority than the speech encodin - i.e. this delay is artificially increased by the speech decodin delay. &mplementation dependent mar ins in the different system components. !et as followsD M!0 Mar inD <.5 ms F6 S 4G /!0 Mar inD <.5 ms F6 S 4G /T! Mar inD <.45 ms downlin"- <.3 ms uplin" F6 S 4G M! Mar inD 6 ms in 3ull $ate- +., ms in :alf $ate F6 S 4G.

Ttransc

Mar in

The processin delays were estimated usin comple(ity fi ures for each codec mode. &n addition- to ta"e into account the dependence on the 7!P implementation- the computation was based on the same methodolo y used for the previous G!M speech codecs F4G. The 7!Ps runnin the speech and channel codec are modeled with the 3 followin parametersD E represents the 7!P 2fficiency. This corresponds to the ratio tMOP!?wMOP! of the codec implementation on the 7!P. % represents for the speed of the 7!PD Ma(imum 'umber of Operations that the 7!P can run in + second. This number is e(pressed in MOP!. P represents the percenta e of 7!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

D=

6< X ms ESP

3or compatibility reasons- the same 2!P parameter used for the 23$ processin delays computation F4G was usedD 2!PT65,. The followin tables provide the overall transmission delay parameters for each codec mode. The desi n objective for the .l orithmic $ound Trip Transmission 7elay (.$T7 T 6T sample I 6Trftx I Tabisu I Tabisd) was set to the 23$ .$T7 increased by +< ms in 3ull $ate mode- and the G!M :$ .$T7 increased by +< ms in :alf $ate mode. Tables +4.+ and +4.6 define the parameters impactin the computation of the transmission delays over the .bis?.ter interfaces (Tabisu S Tabisd) for the +8 "bit?s and ;"bit?s subCmultiple(in schemes respectively. The definition of different parameters is provided below. They are derived from the .M$ T$.L frame format provided in F5 S 8G. Min > o$ "its/ Minimum number of speech bits reBuired to start the ne(t operation (speech decodin in uplin" or channel encodin in downlin"). %)nc6 "its/ .dditional synchroni)ation bits in the T$.L frame (synchroni)ation header not included) before reachin 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 M7ata C M .nticip.).

This 2!P value was derived in +,,8- durin the 23$ standardi)ation. &t is based on a 4< M:) 7!P- with an efficiency of + and a 8<N 0PL availability. .ll processin delays would be improved assumin 7!P performances correspondin to the state of the art of 7!P technolo y.

3GPP

"&

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

Full Rate 16k Upl

Ta.le )4$): Ta.isu !ms+ = Ta.isd !ms+ computation ta.les for the )# 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5 scheme
Min @ S6nc$ Min @ Min @ Min @ Mode of .its .its >ata @ anticip$ @ e3uir$ Ta.isu Mode of .its >ata @ anticip$ @ e3uir$ Ta.isd &$%' >a/; &$%' &$4 &$4 70 3 67 E.375 Ra,e 160 3 157 19.625 #$& #$& 76 9 67 E.375 E# 160 9 151 1E.E75 '$% '$% 77 17 60 7.5 D%n/ 15E 17 181 17.625 '$)' '$)' 77 22 55 6.E75 157 22 135 16.E75 4$&' 4$&' 77 20 57 7.125 187 20 127 15.E75

Min @ S6nc$ Min @ Min @ Min @ Mode of .its .its >ata @ anticip$ @ e3uir$ Ta.isu Mode of .its >ata @ anticip$ @ e3uir$ Ta.isd )"$" 6 183 3E 2+// )"$" 316 83 273 17.125 105 6.625 )*$" 6 188 3E 316 83 273 17.125 106 6.625 Ra,e )*$" &$%' 6 188 3E 16# &$%' 259 83 216 13.5 106 6.625 &$4 &$4 6 188 3E 250 83 207 13 106 6.625 D%n/ #$& #$& 6 188 3E 23E 83 195 12.25 106 6.625 '$% '$% 6 188 3E 230 83 1E7 11.75 106 6.625 '$)' '$)' 6 188 3E 215 83 172 10.75 106 6.625 4$&' 4$&' 6 188 3E 208 83 161 10.125 106 6.625

>a/; Ra,e E# " /

Ta.le )4$": Ta.isu !ms+ = Ta.isd !ms+ computation ta.les for the - 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5 scheme Tables +4.3 and +4.4 provide the overall Lplin" and 7ownlin" transmission delay for the different 3ull $ate codec modes usin a +8 "bit?s subCmultiple(in scheme. Tables +4.5 and +4.8 provide the overall Lplin" and 7ownlin" transmission delay for the different :alf $ate codec modes usin a +8 "bit?s subCmultiple(in scheme. Tables +4.9 and +4.; provide the overall Lplin" and 7ownlin" transmission delay for the different :alf $ate codec modes usin an ; "bit?s subCmultiple(in scheme.

@S4 AS4

ATS

@S

"- 2R 16# De/a$ <a&ame,e& Tms! @a&:.n Tbs! T &o! @a&:.n Tab.s+ T&9 &o! eD T&9 &o! !0. 'e!. @a&:.n T&;,9 Ten!o'e T,&ans! Tsam /e Tma&:.n Ta/' To,a/ " /.n#

)"$" )*$" &$%' 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.E160 1.E320 1.9920 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.625 6.625 6.625 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 1.9360 1.7880 3.EE0 3 3 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 0.272 0.2EE 0.28E 12.976 12.6E0 13.256 25 25 25 2 2 2 1 1 1 101.0 100.5 103.3

&$4 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.7600 0.5 6.6 6.E8 1.32E0 3 37.5 0.232 12.108 25 2 1 99.8

#$& '$% '$)' 4$&' 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.3600 2.028 2.0160 2.0160 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.625 6.625 6.63 6.625 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 0.2560 0.2800 0.232 0.2320 3 3 3 3 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 0.256 0.28 0.232 0.232 13.50 11.0280 9.6560 11.280 25 25 25 25 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 100.3 97.5 96.1 97.7

1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 8 E.E 0 3 37.5 1.6 E 20 2 1 E9.8

41 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.27 0.5 6.8375 6.E8 1.96 3 37.5 0.32 12.17 20 2 1 98.5

Ta.le )4$3: ?plin8 Transmission >ela6 in 1ull ate Mode !in ms = )# 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5 scheme+

3GPP

"-

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

@S4

AS4

ATS

@S

D- 2R 16# De/a$ <a&ame,e& Te!0o Tms! @a&:.n Tbs! Tsam /e Ts s T &o! (Ts s) Tab.s' @a&:.n Tb+;; Ten!o'e @a&:.n T&;,9 T&9 &o! eD T&9 &o! !0. 'e!. T &o! @a&:.n T'/a To,a/ Do%n/.n#

)"$" )*$" &$%' 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 25 25 2.2E 2.2E 2.2E 1.E160 1.E320 1.9920 17.125 17.125 13.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.272 0.2EE 0.28E 0.85 0.85 0.85 37.5 37.5 37.5 6.E8 6.E8 6.E8 1.936 1.788 3.EE 1.E16 1.E32 1.992 2 2 2 1 1 1 102.3 102.1 100.9

&$4 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 2.2E 1.7600 13 0.5 1.25 0.232 0.85 37.5 6.E8 1.32E 1.76 2 1 97.8

#$& 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 2.2E 2.3600 12.25 0.5 1.25 0.256 0.85 37.5 6.E8 0.256 2.36 2 1 96.E

'$% 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 2.2E 2.028 11.75 0.5 1.25 0.28 0.85 37.5 6.E8 0.28 2.028 2 1 95.6

'$)' 4$&' 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 25 2.2E 2.2E 2.0160 2.0160 10.75 10.125 0.5 0.5 1.25 1.25 0.232 0.232 0.85 0.85 37.5 37.5 6.E8 6.E8 0.232 0.232 2.016 2.016 2 2 1 1 98.6 93.9

1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 20 1.6 17.8 0.5 1.25 1.6 0.85 37.5 E.E 0 1.5 2 1 96.1

41 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 20 2.3 17.375 0.5 1.25 1.6 0.85 37.5 6.E8 1.96 1.27 2 1 96.5

Ta.le )4$4: >o9nlin8 Transmission >ela6 in 1ull ate Mode !in ms = )# 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5 scheme+
"- >R16# De/a$ <a&ame,e& Tms! @a&:.n Tbs! T &o! @a&:.n Tab.s+ T&9 &o! eD T&9 &o! !0. 'e!. @a&:.n T&;,9 Ten!o'e T,&ans! Tsam /e Tma&:.n Ta/' To,a/ " /.n# &$%' &$4 #$& '$% '$)' 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.9920 1.7600 2.3600 2.0280 2.0160 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.625 6.6 6.625 6.625 6.63 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.1080 1.0E00 1.0000 0.9880 0.9120 3 3 3 3 3 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 0.152 0.152 0.188 0.136 0.188 13.256 12.108 13.50 11.0280 9.6560 25 25 25 25 25 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1 1 1 1 1 92.8 91.0 92.9 90.1 EE.7 4$&' 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0160 0.5 6.625 3.5 2.12E0 3 32.9 0.136 11.280 25 1.9 1 91.8 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 8 E.E 0 3 37.5 1.6 E 20 2 1 E9.8 41 / 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.27 1.71 0.5 0.5 6.8375 8.E125 6.E8 3.5 1.96 2.3 3 3 37.5 32.9 0.32 0.16 12.17 15.6 20 28.8 2 1.9 1 1 98.5 93.3

@S4 AS4

ATS

@S

Ta.le )4$': ?plin8 Transmission >ela6 in /alf ate Mode !in ms = )# 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5 scheme+
D- >R 16# De/a$ <a&ame,e& Te!0o Tms! @a&:.n Tbs! Tsam /e Ts s T &o! (Ts s) Tab.s' @a&:.n Tb+;; Ten!o'e @a&:.n T&;,9 T&9 &o! eD T&9 &o! !0. 'e!. T &o! @a&:.n T'/a To,a/ Do%n/.n# &$%' &$4 #$& 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 25 25 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.992 1.76 2.36 13.5 13 12.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.152 0.152 0.188 0.85 0.85 0.85 32.9 32.9 32.9 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.108 1.0E 1 1.9920 1.7600 2.3600 1.9 1.9 1.9 1 1 1 E9.5 EE.5 EE.9 '$% 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 1.78 2.028 11.75 0.5 1.25 0.136 0.85 32.9 3.5 0.988 2.0280 1.9 1 E7.6 '$)' 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 1.78 2.016 10.75 0.5 1.25 0.188 0.85 32.9 3.5 0.912 2.0160 1.9 1 E6.6 4$&' 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 1.78 2.016 10.125 0.5 1.25 0.136 0.85 32.9 3.5 2.12E 2.0160 1.9 1 E7.2 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 20 1.6 0 17.8 0.5 1.25 1.6 0.85 37.5 E.E 0 1.5 2 1 96.1 41 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 20 2.3 0 17.375 0.5 1.25 1.6 0.85 37.5 6.E8 1.96 1.27 2 1 96.5 / 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 28.8 7.E 0 E.375 0.5 1.25 0.16 0.85 32.9 3.5 2.3 1.71 1.9 1 EE.7

@S4

AS4

ATS

@S

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

3GPP

"%

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

@S4 AS4

ATS

@S

"- >RE# De/a$ <a&ame,e& Tms! @a&:.n Tbs! T &o! @a&:.n Tab.s+ T&9 &o! eD T&9 &o! !0. 'e!. @a&:.n T&;,9 Ten!o'e T,&ans! Tsam /e Tma&:.n Ta/' To,a/ " /.n#

&$%' 3/1

&$4 #$& '$% '$)' 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.7600 2.3600 2.0280 2.0160 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 E.3E E.375 7.500 7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.0E00 1.0000 0.9880 0.9120 3 3 3 3 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 0.152 0.188 0.136 0.188 12.108 13.50 11.0280 9.6560 25 25 25 25 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1 1 1 1 92.E 98.7 90.9 EE.9

4$&' 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0160 0.5 7.13 3.5 2.12E0 3 32.9 0.136 11.280 25 1.9 1 91.9

1 0)#8 41 0)#8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.27 0.5 0.5 8 6.8375 E.E 6.E8 0 1.96 3 3 37.5 37.5 1.6 0.32 E 12.17 20 20 2 2 1 1 E9.8 98.5

/ 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.71 0.5 9.75 3.5 2.3 3 32.9 0.16 15.6 28.8 1.9 1 9E.2

Ta.le )4$&: ?plin8 Transmission >ela6 in /alf

D- >R E# De/a$ <a&ame,e& Te!0o Tms! @a&:.n Tbs! Tsam /e Ts s T &o! (Ts s) Tab.s' @a&:.n Tb+;; Ten!o'e @a&:.n T&;,9 T&9 &o! eD T&9 &o! !0. 'e!. T &o! @a&:.n T'/a To,a/ Do%n/.n# &$%' 3/1 &$4 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 1.61 #$& 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 1.61

ate Mode !in ms = - 8.it0s su.-multiple7in5 scheme+

'$% 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 1.61 '$)' 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 1.61 4$&' 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 25 1.61 1 0)#8 41 0)#8 / 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 20 20 28.8 1.6 2.3 8.3 17.8 0.5 1.25 1.6 0.85 37.5 6.E8 1.96 1.5 2 1 96.1 17.375 0.5 1.25 1.6 0.85 37.5 E.E 0 1.27 2 1 96.5 17.5 0.5 1.25 0.16 0.85 32.9 3.5 2.3 1.71 1.9 1 98.8

@S4

AS4

ATS

@S

19.625 1E.E75 17.625 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.152 0.188 0.136 0.85 0.85 0.85 32.9 32.9 32.9 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.0E 1 0.988 1.7600 2.3600 2.0280 1.9 1.99 1.9 1 1 1 93.2 93.1 91.3

16.E75 15.E75 0.5 0.5 1.25 1.25 0.188 0.136 0.85 0.85 32.9 32.9 3.5 3.5 0.912 2.12E 2.0160 2.0160 1.9 1.9 1 1 90.6 90.E

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

15
'OT2D

2&eD+en!$ Res onse

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 7TM3 transparency.

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

Gaind/ T +<lo

6 6 +< F out(") ? inp(") G " T+ " T+

where inp(") and out(") are the input (ori inal) and output (processed) si nals and M is the total number of processed samples. The freBuency response was computed for all ; codec modes (+6.6- +<.6- 9.,5- 9.4- 8.9- 5.,- 5.+5 and 4.95 "bit?s)- in errorCfree condition- with 7T@ disabled. Tone si nals were enerated and processed in the ran e 5<C3,,; :) with a freBuency step of 6+ :). 2ach tone lasted ; seconds at a level of Q68 d/ovl. &n order to discard potential transition effects of the codec- the first 5+6 samples (84 ms at fcT; ":)) of the input S output si nals were not ta"en into account in the computation.
3GPP

3*

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

3i ure +5.+ provides the freBuency responses measured for the ; .M$ speech codecs. Table +5.+ lists the attenuation measured for each codec at the ed es of the telephone bandwidth. The usual definition of 3Cd/ bandwidth can be applied to the 4 hi hest bitCrates leadin to a bandwidth eBual or wider than the telephone band. !ome limitations appear for the 4 lower bitCrates. Input 3evel dependenc)/ The same computation was repeated with different input levelsD C+8 d/ovl and Q38 d/ovl to chec" the dependency of the 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 computations were repeated without discardin the first 5+6 samples and usin tones with a shorter len th (5<< ms). Once a ainvery similar curves were found in these conditions.

5 *d.0

'MR Codec (re)uency Response

-5

-10

-15

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 (re)uency *+,-

-20

-25

-30

-35 50 870 E90 1310 1730 2150 2570 2990 3810 3E30

1i5ure )'$): AM

Speech Codec 1re3uenc6

esponses

AMR Codec Modes ?5"it-s@ ,060 ,=60 :6<8 :67 96: 86< 86,8 76:8

Attenuation A $re+B1=0 #C ?dB@ C<.6; C<.+; C<.++ C<.63 C<.36 C<.45 C<.3< C<.64

Attenuation A $re+B17,= #C ?dB@ C<.98 C+.<6 C3.;9 C3.36 C4.88 C9.3; C;.85 C;.++

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

16

4om /e9.,$

Editors Note 2: Section based on the content of Tdoc S !"" "#$/%%& This document 'as produced before a final a(reement 'as reached on the format of the )bis and )ter T*)+ frames& The final format could ha,e an impact on the dela- fi(ures presented belo'&
3GPP

3)

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

The .M$ speech codec modes comple(ity were evaluated usin the methodolo y previously a reed for the standardi)ation of the G!M :$ and G!M 23$ speech codec. 3or each codec mode- the comple(ity is characteri)ed by the followin itemsD 'umber of cyclesE 7ata memory si)eE Pro ram memory si)e. The actual values for these items will eventually depend on the final 7!P implementation. The methodolo y adopted for 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 that operation on a typical 7!P device. The Theoretical 1orst 0ase comple(ity (wMOP!) is then computed by a detailed countin 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 3rame comple(ity was also measured by recordin the 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 3ull $ate and :alf $ate channel comple(ity in terms of wMOP!- $.M- $OM Tables and Pro ram $OM The separation of the speech and channel comple(ity was motivated by the fact that these functions were enerally handled by different system components in the networ" (speech transcodin functions in the T$.L and channel codin ?decodin in the /T!). Table +8.+ presents the Theoretical 1orst 0ase (T10) comple(ity (wMOP!) for the different .M$ speech codecs in addition to the 1orst Observed 3rame (1O3) reported durin the selection phase. Tables +8.6 and +8.6 provide the same parameters for the 3ull $ate and :alf $ate channel codecs. Table +8.4- +8.5 and +8.8 provide the $.M- $OM Tables and Pro ram $OM comple(ity fi ures for the different speech and channel codecs. 3or reference- the correspondin .M$ project objectives are also provided in these tables.
Mode Speech encoder Speech decoder Total Speech )"$" 18.05 2.31 16.36 )*$" 13.66 2.33 15.99 &$%' &$4 #$& '$% 18.1E 13.03 18.03 11.35 2.53 2.28 2.89 2.57 16.71 15.27 16.52 13.92 '$)' 9.65 2.57 12.22 4$&' 11.63 2.57 18.20 TAC A;1 18.1E 13.18 2.57 2.19 41 ;. 16.75 15.33 15.21 jec 28 J 1.6 52R

Ta.le )#$): AM

Speech Codec Theoretical Aorst Case Comple7it6 !in 9M;PS+

Mode )"$" Constrain t Ben5th ' 1 Channel Coder 0.38 1 Channel >ecoder 2.82 Total Channel 1 2.76

)*$" ' 0.36 2.1E 2.58

&$%' &$4 #$& '$% & ' ' & 0.31 0.29 0.32 0.3 8.E5 1.66 1.61 3.E5 5.16 1.95 1.93 8.15

'$)' ' 0.29 1.38 1.63

4$&' & 0.29 3.2 3.89

TAC 0.36 8.E5 5.21

A;1 0.33 8.85 8.7E

/ ;.j 2.69 ecti 5.7 J 2.1 >R

Ta.le )#$": AM

1ull

ate Channel Codec Theoretical Aorst Case Comple7it6 !in 9M;PS+

Mode Constrain t Ben5th / Channel Coder / Channel >ecoder Total Channel /

&$%' &$4 #$& '$% ' ' ' ' 0.19 0.19 0.1E 0.17 1.3E 1.35 1.25 1.1E 1.57 1.58 1.83 1.35

'$)' ' 0.1E 1.18 1.32

4$&' & 0.17 2.66 2.E3

TAC 0.19 2.66 2.E5

A;1 0.19 2.68 2.E3

/ ;. 2.69 jec 3 J 1.1 >R

Ta.le )#$3: AM

/alf

ate Channel Codec Theoretical Aorst Case Comple7it6 !in 9M;PS+

3GPP

3"

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

Speech encoder Speech decoder Total speech Channel encoder 1 Channel decoder 1 Total channel 1 Channel encoder / Channel decoder / Total channel / Channel Meas = Control

Static >6namic 1829 3039 E12 986 2281 3039 271 1E83 2E0 1915 551 1915 3E5 1317 398 1820 779 1820 107 66

Total 886E 175E 52E0 2118 2195 2866 1702 1E18 2199 173

41 8711 / 3158 / 3158

10000 J 2.1 52R

6600

J 2.1 >R

;.ject i(e 3500 J 1.1 >R

Ta.le )#$4: AM

Codec

AM

e3uirements !in )# .its 9ords+

;M 41 ;.jec ti(e J 3.2 52R Speech 18571 5267 17000 / ;.jec ti(e J 5.6 >R Channel 5089 900 5000 Channel Meas = Control 1E7 Total 19E07

Ta.le )#$': AM

Codec

;M Ta.les

e3uirements !in )# .its 9ords+

Speech Channel Channel Meas = Control Total

@ of opera tors 8E51 1279 63 6193

Ta.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 23$ comple(ity (in wMOP! and $.M)- but the complete set of ei ht codecs reBuires 3 times more $OM than the 23$. The channel codec comple(ity matches the initial project objectives (twice the :$ channel codec comple(ity in 3ull $ate and once the :$ channel codec comple(ity in :alf $ate). The $OM reBuired for the full set of codecs represents around 5 times the $OM reBuired by the :$ channel codec.

3GPP

33

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

1nne9 16 1@R 40a&a!,e&.Ka,.on <0ase ?ve&v.e%

The .M$ 0haracteri)ation Tests were performed on version F6.<G of the .M$ speech codec source code +. Two host laboratories (.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 other laboratory and provided the results of this cross chec"in to the 2T!& secretariat. 2i ht listenin laboratories performed the correspondin subjective listenin tests in 8 different lan ua es (0hinese2n lish- 3rench- German- &talian S !panish). .ll listenin laboratories were reBuested to provide the results of the listenin tests they performed on an 2(cel 1or"boo" provided by the or ani)ation responsible for the Global analysis of the results. The host laboratories and listenin laboratories also provided their own report and analysis to fulfil their contractual commitment. !even different e(periments and +9 subCe(periments were specified in the .M$ 0haracteri)ation Test Plan. The primary objectives of the different e(periments are listed belowD 2(periment 2(periment 2(periment 2(periment 2(periment +a S +bD 6D 3a- 3b S 3cD 3d- 3e S 3fD 4a S 4bD Performances in 0lean !peech in a 3ull $ate (+a) and :alf $ate (+b) &nteroperability Performances in 0lean !peech (adaptation off) Performances under bac" round noise conditions in a 3ull $ate Performances under bac" round noise conditions in a :alf $ate Performances in dynamic error conditions in a 3ull $ate (4a) and 3ull $ate (4b) (with adaptation on) Performances in combined error conditions in 3ull $ate and :alf $ate (with adaptation on) &nfluence of the input speech level and Tandemin performances in 3ull $ate and :alf $ate (adaptation off) Performance of the 2'! >.7?7T@ in 3ull $ate (9a) and :alf $ate (9b) Performance of the Motorola >.7?7T@ in 3ull $ate (9c) and :alf $ate (9e)

2(periment 5D 2(periment 8D 2(periment 9a S 9bD 2(periment 9a S 9bD

The followin table provides a summary of the impairment conditions included in each e(periment.
E2p6 +a +b 6 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f 4a 4b 5 8 9a 9b 9c 9d ull Rate @ @ @ @ @ #al$ Rate @ @ Clean %peech @ @ @ Bc5grd .oise %tatic Errors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D)namic Errors Adaptation &n 'andem

@ @ @ @ @ @ @

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

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 followin table.

, This version also includes version F(.(G of the >.7 Option 6.

3GPP

34

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

3a"orator)/ Aan ua es LsedD +a 3$ +b :$ 6 3a 3$ 3b 3$ 3c 3$ 3d :$ 3e :$ 3f :$ 4a 3$ 4b 3$ 5 8 9a (2'!) 9b (2'!) 9a (Motorola) 9b (Motorola) 6ost lab:

Arcon 2n lish

A'D' 2n lish !panish X .En(/ X .En(/

rance 'elecom 3rench

Ber5om German X .!er/ X .!er/ X .!er/

.ortel 2n lish

Cone2ant 2n lish

EB &talian

C&M%A' 2n lish !panish 0hinese 'umber of 0onditions Tested0 0x$ 1x0 1x$ 0x$ 0x$ 0x$ 1x0 1x0 1x0 %x3 %x3 1x2 1x3 1x3 1x3 1x3 1x3

X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .4ta/ X .5hin/ X .Span/ X .Span/ X .Span/ X .Span/ )*57N 57 S)T 57 S)T

X .2ren/ X .2ren/ X .2ren/ X .2ren/ X .2ren/ X .2ren/ X .Span/ X .Span/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ X .En(/ )rcon

)rcon

57 S)T 57 S)T

)rcon 57 S)T

Ta.le A$": Allocation of the 47periments 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 6+- +,,,. 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++M++ (Wune 4C9- +,,,) in Tampere- 3inland. The final report was approved by !MGM6, (Wune 6+C65- +,,,) in MiamiC3AL!.

0 &n this table- the first number represents the number of impairment conditions (propa ation errors- tandemin - input level- dynamic profileR). The second number represents the number of codec modes or number of confi urations under test. 3or 2(periments 9- both numbers represent impairment types

3GPP

3'

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

1nne9 A6 1@R Ve&.;.!a,.on <0ase ?ve&v.e%

The selected .M$ speech codec was jointly proposed by 2ricsson- 'o"ia and !iemens. &t was identified durin the selection 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 by submittin contributions which served as the basis for this Technical $eport. They are listed below with reference to the previous sections of this report.
%ections 5C, +< ++ +6 Description 0haracteri)ation Tests Performances with 7TM3 Tones Transparency to .nnouncement Tones Performances with !pecial &nput !i nals Overload Performances &dle 0hannel /ehavior 0hannel 0odin Performances durin 7T@ Mutin /ehavior +3 +4 +5 +8 Aan ua e 7ependency Transmission 7elay 3reBuency $esponse 0omple(ity Contri"uting &rganiCations The 0haracteri)ation Tests (.nne( .) were funded by the G!M .ssociation- with additional contributions from 2ricsson- Motorola- 'o"ia- and !iemens /T (Tdoc. !MG++ +<5?,,) 3rance Telecom S TCMobil (Tdoc. !MG++ +3?,,) 3rance Telecom S 0one(ant (Tdocs !MG++ +6?,, S +<5?,,) /T (Tdoc !MG++ +<?,,) /er"om S Aucent Technolo y (Tdocs !MG++ 54?,, S 55?,,) 'ortel 'etwor"s (Tdoc !MG++ 8;?,,) 'ortel 'etwor"s S Philips (Tdocs !MG++ 86?,, S 89?,,) 'o direct contribution 'ortel 'etwor"s (Tdoc !MG++ +5;?,,) 0!2AT (Tdoc !MG++ ;?,,) .lcatel- Philips- !T Microelectronics S Te(as &nstruments (Tdocs !MG++ 95?,,- ++9?,,- +,4?,, and 3,;?,,)

3GPP

3#

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

1nne9 46 1''.,.ona/ 40a&a!,e&.Ka,.on Tes, Res+/,s

This anne( contains few additional results from the 0haracteri)ation Tests. !pecifically- the followin sections provide a summary of the speech Buality measured for each codec mode under the different error conditions tested in 2(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 =) by comparin the results obtained for the 6 tests performed for 2(periment +aD

C-I 'o 2rrors +8 d/ +3 d/ +< d/ 9 d/ 4 d/

Best Codec per$ormance (re+uirement) 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors G.96; 'o 2rrors G.96; 'o 2rrors 23$ at +< d/

=eB ($eB.) 3<.6, 3<.6, 3<.6, '?. '?. 63.<3

'est ,/ A'D' (English) /est .M$ Mode =eB. "8&28 3+.;5 "2&28 3<.84 "2&28 3+.46 "8&28 3<.84 0&18 6;.6; #&%8 63.68

7elta +.58 <.35 +.+3 '?. '?. <.63

=eB ($eB.) 69.;6 69.;6 69.;6 '?. '?. 64.95

'est 0/ Ber5om (!erman) /est .M$ 7elta Mode =eB. "2&28 6;.;+ <.,, "2&28 6,.+6 +.3< "2&28 3+.+; 3.38 1&%# 3<.55 5.9, 1&%# 6;.<, 3.34 #&%8 63.89 C+.<;

Ta.le A3$)-): 47ample of test result dispersion for 47periment )a !1ull rate in clean speech+ The followin tables summari)e the performances of the different .M$ codec modes under the tested error conditions with respect to wellC"nown references in full rate mode and clean speechD

Codec Mode ,060 ,=60 :6<8 :67 96: 86< 86,8 76:8

Re$erence , E R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence , 'o 2rrors down to +< d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +< d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to 9 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to 9 d/ 0?&

Re$erence 0 E R A ,=dB C-I E+uivalent to Re$erence 0 9 / 0?& 'o 2rrors down to 9 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to 4 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to 4 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to 4 d/ 0?&

*orse than Re$60 9 d/ 0?& S below 4 d/ 0?& 4 d/ 0?& 4 d/ 0?& 4 d/ 0?&

Ta.le A3$)-": AM

speech codec mode performances in clean speech in full rate

Error Condition .o Errors ,1 dB C-I ,= dB C-I : dB C-I 7 dB C-I

Re$erence , E R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence , +6.6- +<.6- 9.,5- 9.4 +6.6- +<.6- 9.,5- 9.4 +6.6- +<.6- 9.,5- 9.4 9.,5- 9.4

Re$erence 0 E R at ,= dB C-I E+uivalent to Re$erence 0 8.9- 5.,- 5.+5- 4.95 8.9- 5.,- 5.+5- 4.95 8.9- 5.,- 5.+5- 4.95 +<.6- 8.9- 5.,- 5.+5-4.95 5.,- 5.+5- 4.95

*orse than Re$60

+6.6 8.9- 9.,5- 9.4 and hi her modes

Ta.le A3$)-3: Performances of the AM

speech codecs for different error conditions in clean speech in full rate

3GPP

3&

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

A1606 Per$ormances in Clean %peech in #al$ Rate mode The followin table shows the typical test results dispersion (in 2Buivalent =) by comparin the results obtained for the 6 tests performed for 2(periment +bD

C-I 'o 2rrors +, d/ +8 d/ +3 d/ +< d/ 9 d/ 4 d/

Best Codec per$ormance (re+uirement) G.96; no errors G.96; no errors G.96; no errors 3$ at +3 d/ 3$ at +< d/ 3$ at 9 d/ 3$ at 4 d/

=eB ($eB.) 68.+3 68.+3 68.+3 '?. +8.38 +4.6+ 9.9;

'est ,/ A'D' (English) /est .M$ Mode =eB. 1&%# 63.,4 1&%# 66.,4 1&98 63.4+ #&%8 +,.83 #&%8 +8.3< 9&1# +s5.+4 9&1# +<.58

7elta C6.+, C3.+, C6.96 '?. C<.<8 <.,4 6.9;

=eB ($eB.) 65.66 65.66 65.66 '?. +;.,6 +8.94 5.96

'est 0/ Ber5om /est .M$ Mode =eB. 1&%# 6;.93 1&%# 69.6, 1&%# 69.<4 #&%8 63.5+ #&"# 66.6+ 9&1# +,.95 9&1# +6.<,

7elta 3.56 6.<; +.;3 '?. 3.6, 3.<< 8.39

Ta.le A3$"-): 47ample of test result dispersion for 47periment ). !/alf rate in clean speech+ The followin tables summari)e the performances of the different .M$ codec modes under the tested error conditions with respect to wellC"nown references in half rate mode and clean speechD

Codec Mode :6<8 :67 96: 86< 86,8 76:8

Re$erence , !6:0; .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence , 'o 2rrors down to +8 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +8 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +8 d/ 0?&

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

Re$erence 0 R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence 0 +3 d/ 0?& +3 d/ 0?& +3 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +3 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +3 d/ 0?&

*orse than Re$60 +< d/ 0?& S below +< d/ 0?& S below +< d/ 0?& S below +< d/ 0?& S below +< d/ 0?& S below +< d/ 0?& S below

'o 2rrors down to +3 d/ 0?&

Ta.le A3$"-": AM

speech codec mode performances in clean speech in half rate

Error Condition .o Errors ,< dB C-I ,9 dB C-I ,1 dB C-I ,= dB C-I : dB C-I 7 dB C-I

Re$erence , !6:0; .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence , 9.,5- 9.4- 8.9 9.,5- 9.4- 8.9 9.,5- 9.4- 8.9

Re$erence 0 E R at ,= dB C-I E+uivalent to Re$erence 0 5.,- 5.+5- 4.95 5.,- 5.+5- 4.95 5.,- 5.+55.,- 5.+5

*orse than Re$60 Better than Re$61

Re$erence 1 R at ,= dB C-I E+uivalent to Re$erence 0

*orse than Re$61

4.95 8.9- 4.95- 9.4- 9.,5 5.+5- 4.95

5.,- 8.9 4.95

9.4- 9.,5 5.+5- 5.,- 8.9- 9.4- 9.,5 all

Ta.le A3$"-3: Performances of the AM

speech codecs for different error conditions in clean speech in half rate

A1616 Per$ormances in Bac5ground .oise in ull Rate mode The followin tables show the typical test results dispersion (in 2Buivalent =) by comparin the results obtained for the 6 tests performed for 2(periment 3a- 3b S 3cD

C-I 'o 2rrors +8 d/ +3 d/ +< d/ 9 d/ 4 d/

Best Codec per$ormance (re+uirement) 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors 3$ at +< d/

'est ,/ Cone2ant (English) =eB /est .M$ 7elta ($eB.) Mode =eB. 6;.<5 "8&28 21&#0 C<.4, 6;.<5 "2&28 21&#0 C<.4, 6;.<5 "2&28 20&$3 C+.66 63.95 "8&28 2$&23 4.4; 63.95 "8&28 29&10 +.<+ 6<.,< 0&18 23&00 6.99

'est 0/ =eB ($eB.) 65.;8 65.;8 65.;8 65.;8 65.;8 64.+5

rance 'elecom ( rench) /est .M$ 7elta Mode =eB. "2&28 21&21 +.4< "2&28 20&"0 <.3< "8&28 20&%" +.<5 "8&28 2$&32 6.48 0&18 29&1" C+.+8 #&%8 22&#1 C+.5,

Ta.le A3$3-): 47ample of test result dispersion for 47periment 3a !1ull rate in Street :oise+

3GPP

3-

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

C-I 'o 2rrors +8 d/ +3 d/ +< d/ 9 d/ 4 d/

Best Codec per$ormance (re+uirement) 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors 3$ at +< d/

'est ,/ Cone2ant (English) =eB /est .M$ 7elta ($eB.) Mode =eB. 65.+, "8&28 20&$0 +.89 65.+, "2&28 2#&98 <.6+ 65.+, "2&28 2#&02 <.43 63.4< "8&28 21&10 4.38 63.4< "8&28 29&32 <.,6 6<.,4 #&%8 2"&%2 <.,9

'est 0/ =eB ($eB.) 69.89 69.89 69.89 68.66 68.66 63.68

rance 'elecom ( rench) /est .M$ 7elta Mode =eB. "8&28 2$&91 <.;< "2&28 20&$# C<.;6 "2&28 21&1% <.+3 "2&28 2%&98 3.+; "8&28 2#&89 C+.+; #&%8 22&99 C<.;3

Ta.le A3$3-": 47ample of test result dispersion for 47periment 3. !1ull rate in Car :oise+
C-I 'o 2rrors +8 d/ +3 d/ +< d/ 9 d/ 4 d/ Best Codec per$ormance (re+uirement) 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors 23$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors 3$ at +< d/ 'est ,/ Cone2ant (English) =eB /est .M$ 7elta ($eB.) Mode =eB. 3+.64 "8&28 33&8% +.;5 3+.64 "2&28 38&"2 C+.+6 3+.64 "8&28 3"&#0 <.36 68.89 "8&28 3"&#0 4.;, 68.89 1&98 21&12 +.<4 6+.36 #&%8 29&2" 6.;; 'est 0/ =eB ($eB.) 6,.39 6,.39 6,.39 6;.86 6;.86 64.8; rance 'elecom ( rench) /est .M$ 7elta Mode =eB. "2&28 38&%8 +.53 "2&28 38&%8 +.53 "2&28 38&%8 +.53 "8&28 38&%8 6.6; 0&18 2%&29 <.86 #&%8 2#&%3 +.68

Ta.le A3$3-3: 47ample of test result dispersion for 47periment 3. !1ull rate in ;ffice :oise+ The followin tables summari)e the performances of the different .M$ codec modes under the tested error conditions with respect to wellC"nown references in full rate mode under bac" round noise conditionsD
Re$erence , E R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence , 'o 2rrors down to +3 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +< d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +8 d/ 0?& Re$erence 0 R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence 0 9 / 0?& 9 / 0?& +3 d/ 0?& down to 9 d/ 0?& +3 d/ 0?& down to 9 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to 9 d/ 0?&

Codec Mode ,060 ,=60 :6<8 :67 96: 86< 86,8 76:8

*orse than Re$6, Better than Re$6 0 +< d/ 0?& +3 d/ 0?& down to +< d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +8 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +8 d/ 0?&

*orse than Re$60 9 d/ 0?& S below 4 d/ 0?& 4 d/ 0?& 4 d/ 0?& 4 d/ 0?& 2Buivalent to 3$ at +< d/ at 4 d/ 0?& Lsually found below 3$ at +< 0?& Lsually found below 3$ at +< 0?&

Ta.le A3$3-4: AM

speech codec mode performances under .ac85round noise conditions in full rate

3GPP

3%

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

Error Condition .o Errors ,1 dB C-I ,= dB C-I : dB C-I 7 dB C-I

Re$erence , E R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence , +6.6- +<.6- 9.,5 +6.6- +<.6 +<.6

*orse than Re$6, Better than Re$60 9.4- 8.9 9.,5 9.,5- +6.6

Re$erence 0 R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence 0 5., 9.4- 8.9- 5.,- 5.+5 9.4- 8.9- 5., +<.6- 9.,5- 9.4- 8.9- 5.,

*orse than Re$60 5.+5- 4.95 5.+5- 4.95 5.+5- 4.95 5.+5- +6.6- 4.95 .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 =) by comparin the results obtained for the 6 tests performed for 2(periment 3d- 3e S 3fD

C-I 'o 2rrors +, d/ +8 d/ +3 d/ +< d/ 9 d/ 4 d/

Best Codec per$ormance (re+uirement) 23$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors 3$ at +3 d/ 3$ at +< d/ 3$ at 9 d/ 3$ at 4 d/

'est ,/ Cone2ant (English) =eB /est .M$ 7elta ($eB.) Mode =eB. 6+.3< 1&98 2"&38 <.<< +,.,, 1&%# 28&#9 <.55 +,.,, 1&%# 28&28 <.6+ +;.6+ #&%8 "1&#0 C<.85 +9.58 #&"# "#&0% C+.;9 +4.,6 9&1# "#&"1 <.65 4.+; 9&1# 1&38 3.+6

'est 0/ =eB ($eB.) 65.93 63.;8 63.;8 65.6+ 63.<, +,.,6 9.63

rance 'elecom ( rench) /est .M$ 7elta Mode =eB. 1&%# 2#&#2 C<.66 1&98 29&"% <.33 1&%# 2#&$# +.,, #&%8 22&%9 C6.68 9&1# 28&#8 C6.5, 9&1# "$&09 C+.6; 9&1# ""&98 4.+9

Ta.le A3$4-): 47ample of test result dispersion for 47periment 3a !/alf rate in Street :oise+
C-I 'o 2rrors +, d/ +8 d/ +3 d/ +< d/ 9 d/ 4 d/ Best Codec per$ormance (re+uirement) 23$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors 3$ at +3 d/ 3$ at +< d/ 3$ at 9 d/ 3$ at 4 d/ 'est ,/ Cone2ant (English) =eB /est .M$ 7elta ($eB.) Mode =eB. 66.9+ 1&%# 22&38 C<.4+ 6<.6; 1&98 2"&## +.6; 6<.6; 1&98 28&2$ <.<< +9.8< 0&18 "%&#9 +.,4 +9.8< #&"# "0&0" C<.,, +4.5+ 9&1# "#&8" <.5< 6.3, 9&1# 1&2# 4.;8 'est 0/ =eB ($eB.) 69.68 63.+9 63.+9 64.3< 63.<, 6+.68 8.98 rance 'elecom ( rench) /est .M$ 7elta Mode =eB. 1&%# 2#&00 C+.5, 1&%# 29&12 +.55 1&%# 29&12 +.55 #&%8 23&"1 C+.+3 9&1# 28&30 C6.93 9&1# "%&#3 C+.94 9&1# ""&93 4.89

Ta.le A3$4-": 47ample of test result dispersion for 47periment 3. !/alf rate in Car :oise+
C-I 'o 2rrors +, d/ +8 d/ +3 d/ +< d/ 9 d/ 4 d/ Best Codec per$ormance (re+uirement) 23$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors G.96,?3$ 'o 2rrors 3$ at +3 d/ 3$ at +< d/ 3$ at 9 d/ 3$ at 4 d/ 'est ,/ Cone2ant (English) =eB /est .M$ 7elta ($eB.) Mode =eB. 39.38 0&18 31&#3 <.+9 69.95 1&%# 21&39 C<.4+ 69.95 1&%# 20&03 C+.+6 +,.6< #&%8 22&$" 3.8+ +,.6; 9&1# "%&8# C<.63 +9.<9 9&1# "1&$1 <.;< 8.9+ 9&1# "8&"3 3.46 'est 0/ =eB ($eB.) 3+.,< 6;.6, 6;.6, 69.,, 69.<, 66.4, +6.63 rance 'elecom ( rench) /est .M$ 7elta Mode =eB. 1&%# 38&8$ C+.;6 1&%# 2%&2% +.<< 1&%# 2%&$8 +.5+ #&%8 21&%8 C<.+< #&%8 2#&29 C+.;4 9&1# 29&"9 +.85 9&1# "0&03 C+.;6

Ta.le A3$4-3: 47ample of test result dispersion for 47periment 3. !/alf rate in ;ffice :oise+ The followin tables summari)e the performances of the different .M$ codec modes under the tested error conditions with respect to wellC"nown references in half rate mode under bac" round noise conditionsD

3GPP

4*

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

Codec Mode :6<8 :67 96: 86< 86,8 76:8

Re$erence , E R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence , 'o 2rrors down to +8 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors 'o 2rrors

Re$erence 0 R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence 0 +8 d/ 0?& +8 to +3 d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +3 d/ 0?&

(see 'ote below) *orse than Re$60 Better than Re$61

Re$erence 1 #R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence 1 +3 d/ 0?& +3 d/ 0?& +< d/ 0?&

*orse than Re$61 +< d/ 0?& S below +< d/ 0?& S below +< d/ 0?& S below 9 d/ 0?& S below 9 d/ 0?& S below 9 d/ 0?& S below

'o 2rrors down to +3 d/ 0?&

+< d/ 0?& 'o 2rrors down to +< d/ 0?&

Ta.le A3$4-4: AM

speech codec mode performances under .ac85round noise conditions in half rate

Codec Mode .o Errors ,9 dB C-I ,1 dB C-I ,= dB C-I : dB C-I 7 dB C-I

Re$erence , E R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence , 9.,5- 9.4- 8.9 9.,5

Re$erence 0 R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence 0 5., 9.4- 8.9- 5., 5.,- 8.9

(see 'ote above) *orse than Re$60 Better than Re$61 5.+5 5.+5 5.+5

Re$erence 1 #R .o Errors E+uivalent to Re$erence 1 4.95 4.95 4.95- 9.,5- 9.4 5.,- 5.+5- 4.95

*orse than Re$61

9.,5- 9.4- 8.9 4.95 2Buivalent to 3$ at 9 d/ 0?& 5.+5 S 4.95 better than 3$ at 4 d/ 0?&

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

3GPP

4)

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

1nne9 D6 1@R <e&;o&man!es as a ;+n!,.on o; 25R an' RA5R

&n this anne(- the characteri)ation test results are charted as a function of the 3rame 2rasure $ate (32$) or $esidual /it 2rror $ate ($/2$) as measured for each 2rror Pattern used for the subjective listenin tests. They are provided as an indication of the Buality de radation to be e(pected for the implementation of the .M$ speech codec in 3G networ"s. &n the followin dia rams- the Buality de radation is e(pressed in MO! (or 7MO!) obtained by comparin the MO! (or 7MO!) obtained by the different codecs for each impairment condition with the MO! (or 7MO!) obtained by the 23$ in 2rror 3ree in the same e(periment. The results were compiled as e(plained belowD C C C C C C C C &n all cases- the results represent the avera e scores obtained over all tests performed for each e(periment as compiled in F7+G The reference is always 23$ in 2rror 3ree as measured in the same e(periment. The charts in clean speech (3i ures 7+aC7+d) were obtained from the 0haracteri)ation test results for 2(periments +a and +b (Test performed by .TST and /er"om) The charts in 0ar 'oise (3i ures 7.aC76d) were obtained from the 0haracteri)ation test results for 2(periments 3b and 3e (Test performed by 3rance Telecom and 0one(ant) The charts in !treet 'oise (3i ures 73aC73d) were obtained from the 0haracteri)ation test results for 2(periments 3a and 3d (Test performed by 3rance Telecom and 0one(ant) The charts in Office 'oise (3i ures 74aC74e) were obtained from the 0haracteri)ation test results for 2(periments 3c and 3f (Test performed by 3rance Telecom and 0one(ant) &n all cases- the actual results were manually altered to smoothen the shape of the curves. The reference 32$ and $/2$ were e(tracted from F6G (document prepared in +6?,; for the selection of the .M$ 0hannel 0odin scheme).

&t should also be noted that the dia rams function of the 32$ are affected by the $esidual /it 2rror $ate for each test condition- while the dia rams function of the $/2$ are also function of the 32$ present for each test condition. The two sets of dia rams cannot be considered totally independent. 3inally- it should be pointed out that the 32$ and $/2$ estimates used to derive these dia rams are based on the limited number of error patterns used for the .M$ characteri)ation phase. These could be affected by some inaccuracies 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 !4 to $+ and !6 re ardin the robustness of the .M$ !peech 0odec ($ef F3G and F4G). The followin section is e(tracted from a Aiaison !tatement sent to $+ F3Gthe same reference is also used in F4G (Aiaison to !6)D The frame error rate re:uired for producin( hi(h speech :ualit- 'ith onl- small :ualit- de(radation compared to error free speech is t-picall- 2E* ; 8&#<& This re:uirement (uarantees retainin( the maximum :ualit- of= e&(&= the !S E2* codec& The :ualit- then de(rades (racefull- 'ith increasin( frame error rate& This 2E* limit should be considered as a conser,ati,e fi(ure&

3GPP

4"

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

D1. Res+/,s .n 4/ean S ee!0 .n @?S6

M ! 0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 14 !1 Tests in Clean Speech+

M ! 0.50
0.00

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 14 !/ Tests in Clean Speech+

0.00

-0.50

-0.50

-1.00

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

12.2 10.2 7.95 2R 7.8 2R 6.7 2R 5.9 2R 5.15 2R 8.75 2R

-1.50

-2.00

7.95 >R 7.8 >R 6.7 >R 5.9 >R 5.15 >R 8.75 >R

-2.50 (ER 0.100L 1.000L 10.000L 100.000L -3.00 0.001L 0.010L 0.100L 1.000L 10.000L (ER 100.000L

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

1i5ure >)a: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 14 !1 Test esults+

M !
0.50

1i5ure >).: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 14 !/ Test esults+

M !
0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 24 !1 Tests in Clean Speech+

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 24 !/ Tests in Clean Speech+

0.00

0.00

-0.50

-0.50

-1.00

-1.00

7.95 >R 7.8 >R

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

12.2 10.2 7.95 2R 7.8 2R 6.7 2R 5.9 2R 5.15 2R 8.75 2R R.ER

-1.50

6.7 >R 5.9 >R 5.15 >R

-2.00

-2.50

8.75 >R R.ER

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.100L

1.000L

10.000L

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.100L

1.000L

10.000L

1i5ure >)c: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 24 !1 Test esults+

1i5ure >)d: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 24 !/ 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 3rame 2rasure $ate is lower than <.5N. &n some instances- the ran e can even be e(tended to +N 32$ without any Buality de radation. &t is also interestin to note that at +N 32$ de radation- the hi hest codec modes (+6.6 and +<.6) are still eBuivalent to the second tier of codec modes (9.,5 to 5.,) in error free. !imilarly- the middle ran e codec modes (9.,5 to 5.,) present the same Buality at +N 32$ than the lower rate codec modes (5.+5 S 4.95) in error free conditions. The e(periments in :alf $ate have sli htly increased the differences between the codecs and with 23$ 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 different codec modes do not present any si nificant Buality de radation when the $/2$ is below <.+N.

3GPP

43

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

D2. Res+/,s .n 4a& 3o.se6

#M ! 0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 14 !1 Tests in Car :oise+

#M ! 0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 14 !/ Tests in Car :oise+

0.00

0.00

-0.50

-0.50

-1.00

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

12.2 10.2 7.95 2R 7.8 2R 6.7 2R 5.9 2R 5.15 2R 8.75 2R

-1.50 7.95 >R 7.8 >R 6.7 >R 5.9 >R 5.15 >R 8.75 >R

-2.00

-2.50 (ER 0.100L 1.000L 10.000L 100.000L -3.00 0.001L

(ER 0.100L 1.000L 10.000L 100.000L

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.010L

1i5ure >"a: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 14 !1 Test esults+

#M !
0.50

1i5ure >".: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 14 !/ Test esults+

#M !
0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 24 !1 Tests in Car :oise+

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 24 !/ Tests in Car :oise+

0.00

0.00

-0.50

-0.50

-1.00

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

12.2 10.2 7.95 2R 7.8 2R 6.7 2R 5.9 2R 5.15 2R 8.75 2R R.ER

-1.50

7.95 >R 7.8 >R 6.7 >R 5.9 >R 5.15 >R 8.75 >R R.ER

-2.00

-2.50

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.100L

1.000L

10.000L

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.100L

1.000L

10.000L

1i5ure >"c: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 24 !1 Test esults+

1i5ure >"d: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 24 !/ Test esults+

0omments on the previous resultsD &n car noise- no si nificant de radation is observed when the 32$ stays below +N and the difference in Buality between the different codecs is sli htly amplified compared to the results clean speech.

3GPP

44

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

D3. Res+/,s .n S,&ee, 3o.se6

#M ! 0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 14 !1 Tests in Street :oise+

#M ! 0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 14 !/ Tests in Street :oise+

0.00

0.00

-0.50

-0.50

-1.00

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

12.2 10.2 7.95 2R 7.8 2R 6.7 2R 5.9 2R 5.15 2R 8.75 2R

-1.50 7.95 >R -2.00 7.8 >R 6.7 >R 5.9 >R 5.15 >R 8.75 >R -3.00 0.001L (ER 0.100L 1.000L 10.000L 100.000L

-2.50 (ER 0.100L 1.000L 10.000L 100.000L

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.010L

1i5ure >3a: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 14 !1 Test esults+

#M !
0.50

1i5ure >3.: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 14 !/ Test esults+

#M !
0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 24 !1 Tests in Street :oise+

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 24 !/ Tests in Street :oise+

0.00

0.00

-0.50

-0.50

-1.00

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

12.2 10.2 7.95 2R 7.8 2R 6.7 2R 5.9 2R 5.15 2R 8.75 2R R.ER

-1.50

7.95 >R 7.8 >R 5.9 >R 5.15 >R

-2.00

-2.50

8.75 >R R.ER

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.100L

1.000L

10.000L

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.100L

1.000L

10.000L

1i5ure >3c: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 24 !1 Test esults+

1i5ure >3d: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 24 !/ Test esults+

0omments on the previous resultsD The results in street noise are in line with the previous results.

3GPP

4'

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

D8. Res+/,s .n ?;;.!e 3o.se6

#M ! 0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 14 !1 Tests in ;ffice :oise+

#M ! 0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 14 !/ Tests in ;ffice :oise+

0.00

0.00

-0.50

-0.50

-1.00

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

12.2 10.2 7.95 2R 7.8 2R 6.7 2R 5.9 2R 5.15 2R 8.75 2R

-1.50 7.95 >R 7.8 >R 6.7 >R 5.9 >R 5.15 >R 8.75 >R

-2.00

-2.50 (ER 0.100L 1.000L 10.000L 100.000L -3.00 0.001L

(ER 0.100L 1.000L 10.000L 100.000L

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.010L

1i5ure >4a: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 14 !1 Test esults+

#M !
0.50

1i5ure >4.: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 14 !/ Test esults+

#M !
0.50

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 24 !1 Tests in ;ffice :oise+

Percei(ed 3ualit6 !>M;S+ de5radation as a function of the 24 !/ Tests in ;ffice :oise+

0.00

0.00

-0.50

-0.50

-1.00

-1.00

-1.50

-2.00

-2.50

12.2 10.2 7.95 2R 7.8 2R 6.7 2R 5.9 2R 5.15 2R 8.75 2R R.ER

-1.50

7.95 >R 7.8 >R 6.7 >R 5.9 >R 5.15 >R 8.75 >R R.ER

-2.00

-2.50

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.100L

1.000L

10.000L

-3.00 0.001L

0.010L

0.100L

1.000L

10.000L

1i5ure >4c: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 24 !1 Test esults+

1i5ure >4d: Cualit6 >e5radation function of 24 !/ Test esults+

0omments on the previous resultsD !ame comment for the results in Office 'oise

Re;e&en!es ,o 1nne9 D6
F7+GD .M$ 0haracteri)ation 0ombined Test $esults (spreadsheet)D !MG++ Tdoc 643?,,- !MG++M+<- Wune 4C+++,,,- Tampere- 3inland F76GD .nne( 3 to the A! to !MG6 1P/ on alternative .M$ channel codin schemesD JObjective test results for alternative .M$ channel codin schemesK from 2ricsson?'o"ia?!iemens !MG++ Tdoc 36,?,;- !MG++M;/is7ecember +9- +,,;- Aondon :eathrow- L% F76GD !4 A! to T!GC$+ J$esponse to the T!GC$+ A! on !peech !ervicesK Tdoc +;5$?,,- T!GC!4M3- March 64C68+,,,- Uo"osu"a- Wapan F74GD !4 A! to T!GC!6- !6 =o! and $3 J2rror resilience in realCtime pac"et multimedia payloadsK Tdoc +9,$?,,T!GC!4M5- Wune +4C+8- +,,,- Miami- 3ACL!.

3GPP

4#

3G T

"#$%&' ,)$)$* !"***-*)+

>.s,o&$
Document histor)
v+.<.< v+.+.< 7ecember +,,, Wanuary 6<<< /ased on G!M <8.95 v9.<.<- Presented to T!GC!.M8 for information Modification of document number to 68.,95 &ntroduction on Thresholds and :ysteresis for 2(periment 4a S 4b &ntroduction of .nne( 7

3GPP