comparisons of fec and codec robustness on voip quality and bandwidth efficiency wenyu jiang henning...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Comparisons of FEC and Codec Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth EfficiencyBandwidth Efficiency
Wenyu JiangHenning Schulzrinne
Columbia UniversityICN 2002, Atlanta, GA
Aug 29, 2002
![Page 2: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction to VoIPIntroduction to VoIP The Internet is still best-effort
Subject to packet loss and delay jitter Options for repairing packet loss
Forward error correction (FEC) Low complexity; bit-exact recovery
Packet loss concealment (PLC) Receiver-only; no extra BW overhead
More robust (error resilient) codec better PLC quality, and higher bit-rate
Question: use FEC or a more robust codec?
![Page 3: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Metric of VoIP Quality Metric of VoIP Quality Mean Opinion Score (MOS) [ITU
P.830] Obtained via human-based listening
tests Listening (MOS) vs. conversational
(MOSc)
Grade
Quality
5 Excellent
4 Good
3 Fair
2 Poor
1 Bad 1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S
average loss probability
iLBC 14kb/sG.729 8kb/s
G.723.1 6.3kb/s
![Page 4: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
FEC and IP Header FEC and IP Header Overhead Overhead An (n,k) FEC code has (n-k)/k
overhead Typical IP/UDP/RTP header is 40
bytescodec media pkt
size (T=30ms)
rmedia rIP
iLBC(4,2) FEC
54 bytes 14.4 kb/s
25.1 kb/s
108 bytes 28.8 kb/s
39.5 kb/s
G.729(4,2) FEC
30 bytes 8 kb/s 18.7 kb/s
60 bytes 16 kb/s 26.7 kb/s
G.723.1(4,2) FEC
24 bytes 6.4 kb/s 17.1 kb/s
48 bytes 12.8 kb/s
23.5 kb/s
![Page 5: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Predicting MOS in VoIPPredicting MOS in VoIP The E-model: an alternative to
human-based MOS estimation Do need a first-time calibration from an
existing human MOS-loss curve In VoIP, the E-model simplifies to two
main factors: loss (Ie) and delay (Id) A gross score R is computed and
translated to MOS. Loss-to-Ie mapping is codec-
dependent and calibrated
![Page 6: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Predicting MOS in VoIP, Predicting MOS in VoIP, contdcontd
Example mappings From loss and
delay to their impairment scores and to MOS
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18
Ie (l
oss
impa
irmen
t)
average loss probability
G.729 T=20ms random loss
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Id (d
elay
impa
irmen
t)
delay (ms)
E-model Id
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
20 40 60 80 100
MO
S
R value
R to MOS mapping
![Page 7: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Predicting MOS under FECPredicting MOS under FEC Compute final loss probability pf after
FEC [Frossard 2001] Bursty loss reduces FEC performance Increasing the packet interval T makes
FEC more efficient under bursty loss [Jiang 2002]
Plug pf into the calibrated loss-to-Ie mapping
FEC delay is n*T for an (n,k) code Compute R value and translate to
MOS
![Page 8: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Quality Evaluation of FEC Quality Evaluation of FEC vs. Codec Robustnessvs. Codec Robustness
Codecs under evaluation iLBC: a recent loss-robust codec proposed
at IETF; frame-independent coding G.729: a near toll quality ITU codec G.723.1: an ITU codec with even lower bit-
rate, but also slightly lower quality. Utilize MOS curves from IETF
presentations for FEC MOS estimation Assume some loss burstiness
(conditional loss probability of 30%) Default packet interval T = 30ms
![Page 9: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
G.729+(5,3) FEC vs. iLBCG.729+(5,3) FEC vs. iLBC Ignoring delay effect, a larger T improves
FEC efficiency and its quality When considering delay, however, using
a 60ms interval is overkill, due to higher FEC delay (5*60 = 300ms)
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S
average loss probability
G.729+(5,3)G.729+(5,3),T=60ms
iLBC,no FEC 2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
G.729+(5,3)G.729+(5,3),T=60ms
iLBC, no FEC
![Page 10: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
G.729+(5,2) vs. G.729+(5,2) vs. iLBC+(3,2)iLBC+(3,2)
When iLBC also uses FEC, and still keeping similar gross bit-rate G.729 still prevails, except for low loss
conditions when considering delay
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S
average loss probability
G.729+(5,2)G.729+(5,2),T=60ms
iLBC+(3,2)2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
G.729+(5,2)G.729+(5,2),T=60ms
iLBC+(3,2) FEC
![Page 11: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
G.729+(7,2) vs. G.729+(7,2) vs. iLBC+(4,2)iLBC+(4,2)
Too much FEC redundancy (e.g., for G.729) very long FEC block and delay not always a good idea
iLBC wins in this case, when considering delay
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S
average loss probability
G.729+(7,2)iLBC+(4,2)
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
G.729+(7,2)iLBC+(4,2)
![Page 12: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
G.729+(3,1) vs. G.729+(3,1) vs. iLBC+(4,2)iLBC+(4,2)
Using less FEC redundancy may actually help, if the FEC block is shorter
Now G.729 performs similar to iLBC
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S
average loss probability
G.729+(3,1)iLBC+(4,2)
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
G.729+(3,1)iLBC+(4,2)
![Page 13: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Comparison with G.723.1Comparison with G.723.1 MOS(G.723.1) < MOS(iLBC) at zero loss
iLBC dominates more low loss areas compared with G.729, whether delay is considered or not
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S
average loss probability
G.723.1+(2,1)G.723.1+(2,1),T=60ms
iLBC, no FEC
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
G.723.1+(2,1)G.723.1+(2,1),T=60ms
iLBC,no FEC
![Page 14: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
G.723.1+(3,1) vs. G.723.1+(3,1) vs. iLBC+(3,2)iLBC+(3,2)
iLBC is still better for low loss G.723.1 wins for higher loss
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S
average loss probability
G.723.1+(3,1)G.723.1+(3,1),T=60ms
iLBC+(3,2)2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
G.723.1+(3,1)G.723.1+(3,1),T=60ms
iLBC+(3,2)
![Page 15: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
G.723.1+(4,1) vs. G.723.1+(4,1) vs. iLBC+(4,2)iLBC+(4,2) iLBC dominates in this case whether delay is
considered or not, (4,2) code already suffices for iLBC (4,1) code’s performance essentially “saturates”
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S
average loss probability
G.723.1+(4,1)G.723.1+(4,1),T=60ms
iLBC+(4,2)2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
G.723.1+(4,1)G.723.1+(4,1),T=60ms
iLBC+(4,2)
![Page 16: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
The Best of Both WorldsThe Best of Both Worlds Observations, when considering delay:
iLBC is usually preferred in low loss conditions G.729 or G.723.1 + FEC better for high loss
Example: max bandwidth 14 kb/s Consider delay impairment (use MOSc)
G.729+(5,3)
G.723.1+(2,1),T=60ms
iLBC
33.23.43.63.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
Max BW: 14 kb/s
2.82.62.42.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
iLBC,no FECG.729+(5,3)
G.723.1+(2,1),T=60ms
![Page 17: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Max Bandwidth: 21-28 Max Bandwidth: 21-28 kb/skb/s
iLBC
G.729+(5,2)
2.83
3.23.43.63.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
Max BW: 21 kb/s
2.62.4
G.729+(3,1)G.729+(5,2)
iLBC
33.23.43.63.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
Max BW: 28 kb/s
2.82.62.42.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
iLBC, no FECG.729+(3,1)G.729+(5,2)
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
iLBC, no FECG.729+(5,2)
![Page 18: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Effect of Max Bandwidth Effect of Max Bandwidth on Achievable Qualityon Achievable Quality
14 to 21 kb/s: significant improvement in MOSc
From 21 to 28 kb/s: marginal change due to increasing delay impairment by FEC
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
MO
S_c
average loss probability
Max BW: 14 kb/sMax BW: 21 kb/sMax BW: 28 kb/s
![Page 19: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
ConclusionsConclusions Compared listening and conversational
MOS achieved by conventional vs. robust codecs, with same BW constraint
iLBC is better under low loss conditions Conventional codec + FEC is better
under high loss, but Usefulness of FEC redundancy saturates
beyond a certain point considering delay At roughly a max BW of 21 kb/s Reveals max achievable quality with current
FEC mechanism
![Page 20: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Future WorkFuture Work
Implement the MOS prediction and optimization procedure in software
Investigate the effect of jitter on conventional vs. robust codecs FEC cannot reduce jitter unless there
are many out-of-order packets PLC in a robust codec like iLBC incurs
a much lower delay, thus may be preferable to FEC
![Page 21: Comparisons of FEC and Codec Robustness on VoIP Quality and Bandwidth Efficiency Wenyu Jiang Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University ICN 2002, Atlanta,](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022051401/5697c0221a28abf838cd366d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
ReferencesReferences W. Jiang and H. Schulzrinne, Comparison
and optimization of packet loss repair methods on VoIP perceived quality under bursty loss, NOSSDAV 2002
P. Frossard, FEC performance in multimedia streaming, IEEE Comm Letter 3/2001
ITU-T, Subjective performance assessment of telephone-band and wideband digital codecs, Recommendation P.830 2/1996