Cited by 16Speech and Audio ProcessingImage and Video Quality AssessmentMusic and Audio Processing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Can We Still Use PEAQ? A Performance Analysis of the ITU Standard for the Objective Assessment of Perceived Audio Quality

Open access
Delgado, Pablo M., Herre, Jurgen·2020·2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)

Abstract

The Perceptual Evaluation of Audio Quality (PEAQ) method as described in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) recommendation ITU-R BS.1387 has been widely used for computationally estimating the quality of perceptually coded audio signals without the need for extensive subjective listening tests. However, many reports have highlighted clear limitations of the scheme after the end of its standardization, particularly involving signals coded with newer technologies such as bandwidth extension or parametric multi-channel coding. Until now, no other method for measuring the quality of both speech and audio signals has been standardized by the ITU. Therefore, a further investigation of the causes for these limitations would be beneficial to a possible update of said scheme. Our experimental results indicate that the performance of PEAQ's model of disturbance loudness is still as good as (and sometimes superior to) other state-of-the-art objective measures, albeit with varying performance depending on the type of degraded signal content (i.e. speech or music). This finding evidences the need for an improved cognitive model. In addition, results indicate that an updated mapping of Model Output Values (MOVs) to PEAQ's Distortion Index (DI) based on newer training data can greatly improve performance. Finally, some suggestions for the improvement of PEAQ are provided based on the reported results and comparison to other systems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/qomex48832.2020.9123105

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 11 · Cited by 16

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. torcoli, 2018, Comparing the effect of audio coding artifacts on objective quality measures and on subjective ratings, Audio Engineering Society Convention, 144
  2. neuendorf, 2013, The iso/mpeg unified speech and audio coding standard-consistent high quality for all content types and at all bit rates, J Audio Eng Soc, 61, 956
  3. 2011, USAC verification test report N12232, International Organisation for Standardization Technical Report
  4. 2015, ITU-R Rec. BS.1534, Method for the Subjective Assessment of Intermediate Quality Levels of Coding Systems
  5. jekabsons, 2019, ARESLab Adaptive Regression Splines Toolbox for MATLAB
  6. 10.1109/TASL.2011.2109381 · DOI
  7. hines, 0, Visqol audio matlab implementation
  8. 10.1121/1.5092808 · DOI
  9. beerends, 1992, A perceptual audio quality measure based on a psychoacoustic sound representation, J Audio Eng Soc, 40, 963
  10. thiede, 2000, PEAQ - the ITU standard for objective measurement of perceived audio quality, J Audio Eng Soc, 48, 3
  11. 10.1109/TASL.2006.883259 · DOI
  12. 2015, ITU-R Rec. BS.1116, Methods for the subjective assessment of small impairments in audio systems
  13. 2014, ITU-T Rec. P. 863, Perceptual Objective Listening Quality Assessment
  14. kämpf, 2010, Standardization of PEAQ-MC: Extension of ITU-R BS.1387–1 to Multichannel Audio, AES 40th International Conference on Spatial Audio
  15. 10.1109/TBC.2015.2424373 · DOI
  16. 2001, ITU-R Rec. BS.1387, Method for objective measurements of perceived audio quality
  17. 10.1109/TBC.2017.2704421 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Delgado, P. M., & Herre, J.
Affiliations
International Audio Laboratories Erlangen (DE)
Venue
2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-05
Pages
1-6
OpenAlex
W3038000573
Cited by
16
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6
FWCI
1.39
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Publikationsdatenbank der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
  • Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
Keywords
cognitive models, bandwidth extension, distortion index

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Can We Still Use PEAQ? A Performance Analysis of the ITU Standard for the Objective Assessment of Perceived Audio Quality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/qomex48832.2020.9123105
The paper
Delgado, P. M., & Herre, J. (2020). Can We Still Use PEAQ? A Performance Analysis of the ITU Standard for the Objective Assessment of Perceived Audio Quality. 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX). https://doi.org/10.1109/qomex48832.2020.9123105