Subjective and Objective Comparative Study of DAB+ Broadcast System

• Autorzy: Gilski P. , Stefański J.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/aoa-2017-0001

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Broadcasting services seek to optimize their use of bandwidth in order to maximize user’s quality of experience. They aim to transmit high-quality digital speech and music signals at the lowest bitrate. They intend to offer the best quality under available conditions. Due to bandwidth limitations, audio quality is in conflict with the number of transmitted radio programs. This paper analyzes whether the quality of real-time digital DAB+ broadcasted radio programs surpasses the quality offered by analog FM radio. We also perform a subjective and objective quality assessment comparative study of the HE-AAC v2 audio codec used in DAB+. The subjective studies were carried out using the MOS test methodology, whereas the objective tests were realized using the ViSQOLAudio metric. These studies were followed by a questionnaire concerning the migration from analog to digital radio domain.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

audio quality assessment; broadcasting; digital audio broadcasting; quality of experience; quality of service; radio communication

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki PAN ; Komitet Akustyki PAN ; Polskie Towarzystwo Akustyczne
• Czasopismo: Archives of Acoustics
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: Vol. 42, No. 1
• Strony: 3--11
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 35 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Gilski P.

• Faculty of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics, Gdańsk University of Technology, Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland

autor

Stefański J.

• Faculty of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics, Gdańsk University of Technology, Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. ANSI ATIS 0100005-2006 Standard (2006), Auditory non-intrusive quality estimation plus (ANIQUE+): Perceptual model for non-intrusive estimation of narrowband speech quality, Washington, USA.
• 2. Berg J., Bustad C., Jonsson L., Mossberg L., Nyberg D. (2013), Perceived Audio Quality of Realistic FM and DAB+ Radio Broadcasting Systems, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 61, 755–777.
• 3. Brachmański S., Kin M. (2013), Assessment of speech quality in Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB+) system, AES 134th Convention, Rome, Italy.
• 4. Cho S., Lee G., Bae B., Yang K., Ahn C. H., Lee S. I., Ahn C. (2007), System and Services of Terrestrial Digital Multimedia Broadcasting (T-DMB), IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 53, 171–178.
• 5. Dobrucki A., Kozłowski P. (2010), Evaluation of the quality of audio signals transmitted by the telecommunication channels, Przegląd Telekomunikacyjny + Wiadomości Telekomunikacyjne, 6, 235–241.
• 6. EBU Tech 3253 Technical Document (2008), Sound Quality Assessment Material recordings for subjective tests (SQUAM CD), Geneva, Switzerland.
• 7. ETSI EN 300 401 European Standard (2006), Radio Broadcasting Systems; Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) to mobile, portable and fixed receivers, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France.
• 8. ETSI ES 201 980 European Standard (2014), Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM); System Specification, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France.
• 9. ETSI TS 102 563 Technical Specification (2010), Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB); Transport of Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) audio, Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France.
• 10. ETSI TS 136 300 Technical Specification (2008), Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRAN); Overall description; Stage 2 (3GPP TS 36.300 version 8.4.0 Release 8), Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France.
• 11. European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC1003) (2012), Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience.
• 12. Gilski P., Stefański J. (2016), Digital Audio Broadcasting or Webcasting: A Network Quality Perspective, Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, 1, 9–15.
• 13. Hines A., Gillen E., Kelly D., Skoglund J., Kokaram A., Harte N. (2015), ViSQOLAudio: An objective audio quality metric for low bitrate codecs, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137, 449–455.
• 14. Hines A., Gillen E., Skoglund J., Kelly D., Kokaram A., Harte N. (2010), Perceived Audio Quality for Streaming Stereo Music, ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Orlando, USA.
• 15. Hines A., Skoglund J., Kokaram A., Harte N. (2015), ViSQOL: an objective speech quality model, EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing, 13, 1–18.
• 16. IEEE 802.11 Standard (2012), IEEE Standard for Information technology – Telecommunications and information exchange between systems Local and metropolitan area networks – Specific requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications. New York, USA.
• 17. ITU Recommendation BS.1116-1 (1997), Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems including multichannel sound systems, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 18. ITU Recommendation BS.1284 (2003), General methods for the subjective assessment of sound quality, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 19. ITU Recommendation BS.1387 (2001), Method for objective measurements of perceived audio quality, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 20. ITU Recommendation BS.1534-1 (2003), Method for the subjective assessment of intermediate quality level of coding systems, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 21. ITU Recommendation P.563 (2004), Single-ended method for objective speech quality assessment in narrow-band telephony applications, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 22. ITU Recommendation P.800 (1996), Methods for subjective determination of transmission quality, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 23. ITU Recommendation P.861 (1998), Objective quality measurement of telephone-band (300–3400 Hz) speech codecs, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 24. ITU Recommendation P.862 (2001), Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ): An objective method for end-to-end speech quality assessment of narrow-band telephone networks and speech codecs, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 25. ITU Recommendation P.862.2 (2007), Wideband extension to Recommendation P.862 for the assessment of wideband telephone networks and speech codecs, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 26. ITU Recommendation P.863 (2014), Perceptual objective listening quality assessment, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 27. Jekosch U. (2005), Voice and speech quality perception: assessment and evaluation. Springer series in signals and communication technology, Springer, Berlin.
• 28. Kin M. (2013), Subjective evaluation of sound quality of musical recordings transmitted via DAB+ system, AES 134th Convention, Rome, Italy.
• 29. Kozamernik F. (1997), Digital Audio Broadcasting – radio now and for the future, EBU Technical Review, Autumn, 2–27.
• 30. Meltzer S., Moser G. (2006), MPEG-4 HE-AAC v2 – audio coding for today’s digital media world, EBU Technical Review, January, 1–12.
• 31. Möller S., Chan W. Y., Côté N., Falk T. H., Raake A., Waltermann M. (2011), Speech quality estimation: models and trends, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 28, 18–28.
• 32. Pinson M. H., Schmidmer C., Janowski L., Pepion R., Huynh-Thu Q., Corriveau P., Younkin A., Le Callet P., Barkowsky M., Ingram W. (2013), Subjective and objective evaluation of an audiovisual subjective dataset for research and development, 5th International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), 30–31.
• 33. Počta P., Beerends J. G. (2015), Subjective and Objective Assessment of Perceived Audio Quality of Current Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Web-Casting Applications, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 61, 407–415.
• 34. QUALINET – COST IC 1003, http://www.qualinet.eu/ [access: 02.08.2015].
• 35. Zieliński S. (2015), Is a Multi-Slider Interface Layout Responsible for a Stimulus Spacing Bias in the MUSHRA Test?, Archives of Acoustics, 40, 4, 585–594.

Uwagi

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (zadania 2017).