Slashdot Mirror


Codec2 — an Open Source, Low-Bandwidth Voice Codec

Bruce Perens writes "Codec2 is an Open Source digital voice codec for low-bandwidth applications, in its first Alpha release. Currently it can encode 3.75 seconds of clear speech in 1050 bytes, and there are opportunities to code in additional compression that will further reduce its bandwidth. The main developer is David Rowe, who also worked on Speex. Originally designed for Amateur Radio, both via sound-card software modems on HF radio and as an alternative to the proprietary voice codec presently used in D-STAR, the codec is probably also useful for telephony at a fraction of current bandwidths. The algorithm is based on papers from the 1980s, and is intended to be unencumbered by valid unexpired patent claims. The license is LGPL2. The project is seeking developers for testing in applications, algorithmic improvement, conversion to fixed-point, and coding to be more suitable for embedded systems."

23 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Presentation this week. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'll be presenting on Codec2 at the ARRL/TAPR Digital Communications Conference this weekend in Vancouver Washington, Near Portland. I'll try to get the video online.

    1. Re:Presentation this week. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am bringing the materials for a demo table with two laptops and real-time encode-decode, so people can try it themselves.

  2. Original Rationale by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative

    The original rationale for Codec2 is at Codec2.org. I've been promoting this issue for about four years, as I was bothered by the proprietary nature of the AMBE codec in D-STAR. But I didn't have the math, etc., to do the work myself. It was really fortunate that David became motivated to do the work without charge. He has a Ph.D. in voice coding. By the way, look over his web site rowetel.com for the other work he's done: two really nice Open Hardware projects - a PBX and a mesh telephony device, an Open Source echo canceler for digital telephony, used in Asterisk and elsewhere, and his own electric car conversion. He'd be my nomination for the MacArthur grant.

    1. Re:Original Rationale by Yaur · · Score: 4, Informative
      In a nutshell it looks like the rational for not just using Speex is:
      • better resilience to bit errors
      • better performance at ultra low bitrates
    2. Re:Original Rationale by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      that is basically it. Speex is built (as I understand it) for lossless transmission methods with little/no error correction needed. Radio, by its very nature is a very lossy medium, so something with better error tolerance is needed. Hence, Codec2 provides a nice route.

    3. Re:Original Rationale by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sound-card modem implementations over SSB would be practical. See FDMDV. We're still a little wide for that, but we'll get there.

    4. Re:Original Rationale by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      How does it compare to CELT?

      So far, we've really only compared it to g.729, and it does OK against that. CELT starts at 32 kilobits per second and we're at 2 kilobits, so it's not really for the same application. But I noticed that the Alpha, all-floating-point implementation with some known low-performance code encoded the 3.75 seconds in 0.06 seconds, and decoded them in 0.04, on my 2.4 GHz processor. I would think that a polished implementation could achieve low delay on a DSP chip or some flavors of embedded CPU.

    5. Re:Original Rationale by Yaur · · Score: 4, Informative

      With UDP the typical loss scenario is dropped packets but with radio single bit errors are more likely. This difference means that FEC strategies for one scenario are not directly applicable to the other.

      for UDP in packet FEC data is useless and your error correction scheme needs to be prepared to deal with losing a whole packets worth of data to be useful. For voice this is going to introduce too much latency so instead a typical codec might just try to interpolate the lost data. With radio on the other hand there is value to in packet error correction bits within the stream and in the event of an error you are going to have more data with which to guess what the audio should be like, especially if you know which bits are errored (or possibly errored)

    6. Re:Original Rationale by jmv · · Score: 5, Informative

      The fundamental difference is not that much the lossless vs lossy transmission, but the actual bit-rate. I designed Speex with a "sweet spot" around 16 kb/s, whereas David designed codec for a sweet spot around 2.4 kb/s. Speex does have a 2.4 kb/s mode, but the quality isn't even close to what David was able to achieve with codec2.

  3. what about LATENCY? by Kristopeit,MichaelDa · · Score: 4, Interesting
    why is seemingly the most important aspect of communication technology so often overlooked?

    i assume it's acceptable... but it angers me that someone thought it was relevant to give the exact number of bytes for a seemingly arbitrary 3.5 seconds of audio, but failed to say how long it take to encode that 3.5 seconds of audio, or what average latency can be expected after buffer conditions are met.

    1. Re:what about LATENCY? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      Right. Sorry. Real time on the x86 workstation I'm using. Not converted to fixed-point for weaker CPUs yet. Not tested on ARM, Blackfin, AVR, etc. Waiting for you to do that :-) Downloadable code. Reasonably portable. Type make and let fly.

    2. Re:what about LATENCY? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are currently 51 bits in a frame. That is the minimum that you can send, and you'd send 40 of those per second as the codec is presently implemented. A real data radio would add bandwidth for its data encapsulation, but would have to meet the time and bandwidth requirements of the codec payload.

  4. Re:Serindipidy. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

    Congratulations on the license, OM. We haven't yet explored how to wedge this into D-STAR, but sending it as data rather than voice would be one way. All of the D-STAR radios except the latest one, the IC-92AD, use a plug-in daughter board to hold the AMBE chip, and it might be that somebody could make a dual-chip version of this board sometime. Since AMBE is proprietary we are stuck using their chip if we want to be compatible, unless the repeater does the conversion for us using a DV-Dongle. They sell TI DSP chips with their program burned in, and don't give out the algorithm.

    It may be that on D-STAR the AMBE chip also does the modulation for a data transmission, just doesn't run the codec. But the modulation is known and there is a sound-card software implementation of D-STAR that interoperates with it. I don't have any D-STAR equipment to test. The folks on dstar_development@yahoogroups.com know a lot more about D-STAR.

    73
    K6BP

  5. Re:Great news by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think you could cut the sample rate in half and get acceptable performance, but I've not tried. Currently I think it's 25 microsecond frames, and each frame has one set of LSPs and two sets of voicing information so it's interpolated into 12.5 microsecond frames. Those lower bandwidth codecs do 50 microsecond frames. Go forth and hack upon it if you'd like to see. Also, there are some optimizations that are obvious to David and Jean-Marc (and which I barely understand) that haven't been added yet. One is that the LSPs are monotonic and nothing has been done to remove that redundancy. Delta coding or vector quantization might be ways to do that. I understand delta coding but would not be the one to do VQ. Another is that there is a lot of correlation of the LSPs between adjacent frames, so you don't necessarily have to send the entire LSP set every frame. And there is probably lots of other opportunity for compression that I have no concept of.

  6. Re:Serindipidy. by __aajfby9338 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Congratulations on your new license!

    The proprietary AMBE codec bothers me, too. I think that a closed, license-encumbered, proprietary codec is entirely inappropriate for ham radio use.

  7. Re:Serindipidy. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

    The repeater can rebroadcast the data, but that data would be AMBE encoded, and AMBE is both trade-secret in its implementation and patented in some of its algorithms. There may be an AMBE chip in the repeater, I've not played with one. The usual way one converts to and from AMBE on a PC is with a device called the DV-Dongle, which contains the AMBE chip. This costs lots of money and is not nearly so powerful as the CPU of the computer it's plugged into, which is one reason to be fed up with proprietary codecs.

    So, if you had some newer, Codec2-based radios, and some older D-STAR radios, linking repeaters might be a good way to get them to talk to each other.

    This is hand-waving about a lot of issues, like we've not designed the next generation of data radio to put Codec2 into. One might guess that such a thing could use IPV6, and better modulation than just FM, and FEC, etc.

  8. Really early latency figures by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

    It encoded those 3.75 seconds in 0.06 seconds and decoded in 0.04 seconds on my AMD Phenom 9750 2.4 GHz, one core only, compiled with GCC and the -O3 switch. That's all of the overhead of the program starting and exiting, too. It's using floating, not fixed point.

    This, it seems, bodes well for low latency of the final implementation on a DSP chip.

  9. English only ? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At such high compression rates, one could wonder if the optimizations to transmit clear speech make assumptions about the language used. Does it work well with French ? Arabic ? Chinese ?

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:English only ? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The basic assumptions are based on the mechanics of the vocal tract, and I suspect not high-level enough to differ across languages, but obviously it would be nice to hear from speakers of other languages who test it. We could also use a larger corpus of spoken samples for testing.

  10. Re:Packet loss? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

    We don't know yet, but I don't see how it could be worse than AMBE in D-STAR, which makes various eructions when faced with large packet loss. I did various sorts of bit-error injection inadvertently while debugging yesterday, and right now you still get comprehensible voice with significant corruption of the LSP data. This, IMO, indicates an opportunity for more compression. Handling the problems of the radio link is more a problem for forward error correction, etc.

  11. Mumble integration ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the fastest ways to ensure its testing and distribution is to use it in Mumble - the low latency voice chat software (with an iPhone client as well).
    Mumble is typically used by gaming clans for their chat rooms and it Codec2 would be tested in real-life conditions.

    1. Re:Mumble integration ? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of the fastest ways to ensure its testing and distribution is to use it in Mumble - the low latency voice chat software (with an iPhone client as well). Mumble is typically used by gaming clans for their chat rooms and it Codec2 would be tested in real-life conditions.

      Is there an existing Mumble developer whom we could get interested in this? It might be that we should take some of the Alpha-isms out of the code first.

    2. Re:Mumble integration ? by Inda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is this really Slashdot? Do I have a DNS error?

      These are the stories I used to enjoy. I don't realy understand them, but they make a good read.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.