Organisation internationale de normalisation

Comparison	20 kb/s
24 kb/s
(WD6+CE – WD6)	4 better, mean better	5 better, mean better
(WD6+CE – WD6+TW)	No differences	No differences

It was noted that when pooling only the cross-check sites, only one item was better for (WD6+CE – WD6) at 24 kb/s, with no difference at 20 kb/s.

The presentation also re-capped the complexity figures, presented earlier in the meeting.

The Chair called for a show of hands of experts that do not support adopting the CE technology, and 3 experts raised their hands.

Max Neuendorf, FhG, requested time to check the calculations that caused one listener to be excluded from the listening test (in the post-screening process).

The Chair proposed that the issue be brought up again on Thursday at 1400 hrs.

Max Neuendorf, FhG, presented

m19317

FhG listening test report on TCX windowing

Max Neuendorf

USAC-TCXW

The contribution presented the results of two listening tests for the 12 kb/s mono and 16 kb/s mono operating points.

The systems under test were:

A RM8+CE

B RM8 with alternate encoder “tuning”

C RM8

Absolute score analysis showed no differences

Difference scores analysis showed that

• 
  RM8+CE and RM8+alternative encoder had performance better than RM8 for many items.
  
• 
  RM8+CE was better than RM8+alternative encoder for 1 items.
  

Philippe Gournay, VoiceAge, presented

m19348

VoiceAge Report on Cross-check Listening Test for the Core Experiment on TCX Windowing

Philippe Gournay, Roch Lefebvre

USAC-TCXW

The contribution presented the results of two listening tests for the 12 kb/s mono and 16 kb/s mono operating points.

Absolute score analysis showed no differences

The presenter noted that, when analysing difference scores, there is no item for which RM8+CE is better than both RM8 and RM8+alternate encoder, at the 95% level of significance.

Miyoung Kim, Samsung, presented

m19236

Crosscheck report on TCX Windowing

Miyoung Kim, Eunmi Oh

USAC-TCXW

The contribution presented the results of a listening tests at 12 kb/s mono.

Absolute score analysis showed no differences

Difference scores analysis showed that

• 
  RM8+CE and RM8+alternative encoder had performance better than RM8 for only 1 items.
  
• 
  RM8+CE was better than RM8+alternative encoder for 1 items and mean.
  

Taejin Lee, ETRI, presented the following two contributions

m19216	ETRI listening test result for USAC CE on TCX Windowing	Taejin Lee, Seungkwon Beack, Minje Kim, Kyeongok Kang	USAC-TCXW
m19217	Finalization of CE on TCX windowing	Taejin Lee, Seungkwon Beack, Minje Kim, Kyeongok Kang	USAC-TCXW

Contribution noted that the CE technology has

• 
  Negligible increase in complexity
  
• 
  Modest increase in encoder/decoder latency (200 samples)
  

When all subjective data is pooled:

• 
  For RM8+CE – RM8+alternative encoder, there is no item worse, many items are better.
  

Max Neuendorf, FhG, stated that the CE is about increasing the quality of stationary tonal segments, and should be compared to the alternative FD coding mode.

ETRI experts stated that listening test data show that RM8+CE – RM8 has many items better, mean better and no item worse.