Skip to main content

News about Scitation

In December 2016 Scitation will launch with a new design, enhanced navigation and a much improved user experience.

To ensure a smooth transition, from today, we are temporarily stopping new account registration and single article purchases. If you already have an account you can continue to use the site as normal.

For help or more information please visit our FAQs.

banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1.European Network on Quality of Experience in Multimedia Systems and Services (COST Action IC 1003), Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience, 2012.
2. A. Hines, E. Gillen, J. Skoglund, D. Kelly, A. Kokaram, and N. Harte, Perceived Audio Quality for Streaming Stereo Music ( ACM Multimedia, Orlando, 2014).
3. R. Heusdens and S. van de Par, “ Rate-distortion optimal sinusoidal modeling of audio and speech using psychoacoustical matching pursuits,” in 2002 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (May, 2002), Vol. 2, pp. II-1809II-1812.
4. B. C. J. Moore, “ Masking in the human auditory system,” in Audio Engineering Society Conference: Collected Papers on Digital Audio Bit-Rate Reduction (May, 1996).
5. T. Painter and A. Spanias, “ Perceptual coding of digital audio,” Proc. IEEE 88(4), 451515 (2000).
6. E. Zwicker and U. T. Zwicker, “ Audio engineering and psychoacoustics: Matching signals to the final receiver, the human auditory system,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 39(3), 115126 (1991).
7. S. Kandadai, J. Hardin, and C. D. Creusere, “ Audio quality assessment using the mean structural similarity measure,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2008. ICASSP 2008 (2008), pp. 221224.
8. J. You, U. Reiter, M. M. Hannuksela, M. Gabbouj, and A. Perkis, “ Perceptual-based quality assessment for audio–visual services: A survey,” Sign. Process.: Image Commun. 25(7), 482501 (2010).
9.ISO/IEC 13818-7:2006: Information Technology—Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio Information—Part 7: Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) ( International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006).
10. J.-M. Valin, K. Vos, and T. B. Terriberry, “ Definition of the Opus audio codec,” IETF (2012), URL RFC6716, (Last viewed 21 May 2015).
11.Rec.ITU-R.BS.1387: Perceptual Evaluation of Audio Quality (PEAQ) ( International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, 1998).
12.Rec.ITU-R.BS.1116-2: Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small Impairments in Audio Systems ( International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, 2014).
13. M. H. Pinson, C. Schmidmer, L. Janowski, R. Pepion, Q. Huynh-Thu, P. Corriveau, A. Younkin, P. Le Callet, M. Barkowsky, and W. Ingram, “ Subjective and objective evaluation of an audiovisual subjective dataset for research and development,” in 2013 Fifth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (2013), pp. 3031.
14. A. Hines, J. Skoglund, A. Kokaram, and N. Harte, “ Robustness of speech quality metrics to background noise and network degradations: Comparing ViSQOL, PESQ and POLQA,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (2013).
15. A. Hines, P. Pocta, and H. Melvin, “ Detailed comparative analysis of PESQ and VISQOL behaviour in the context of playout delay adjustments introduced by VOIP jitter buffer algorithms,” in 2013 Fifth International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (July, 2013), pp. 1823.
16. A. Hines, J. Skoglund, A. Kokaram, and N. Harte, “ ViSQOL: The virtual speech quality objective listener,” in 2012 International Workshop on Acoustic Signal Enhancement (IWAENC) (September, 2012), pp. 14.
17.ViSQOLAudio, “ MATLAB [computer program],” (Last viewed 21 May 2015).
18.Rec.ITU-R.BS.1534-1: Method for the Subjective Assessment of Intermediate Sound Quality (MUSHRA) ( International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, 2003).
19. S. Zielinski, P. Hardisty, C. Hummersone, and F. Rumsey, “ Potential biases in MUSHRA listening tests,” in Audio Engineering Society Convention 123 (2007).
20. C. Hoene, J.-M. Valin, K. Vos, and J. Skoglund, “ Summary of Opus listening test results—Internet-draft,” IETF (2012), (Last viewed 21 May 2015).
21. D. Marston and A. Mason, “ Cascaded audio coding,” EBU technical review (2005), (Last viewed 21 May 2015).
22.EBU Tech.3253-E: Sound Quality Assessment Material [SQUAM CD (Handbook)] ( EBU Technical Centre, Brussels, 1988).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



Streaming services seek to optimise their use of bandwidth across audio and visual channels to maximise the quality of experience for users. This letter evaluates whether objective quality metrics can predict the audio quality for music encoded at low bitrates by comparing objective predictions with results from listener tests. Three objective metrics were benchmarked: PEAQ, POLQA, and VISQOLAudio. The results demonstrate objective metrics designed for speech quality assessment have a strong potential for quality assessment of low bitrate audio codecs.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd