Hello Marat and Steve,

The problem of comparing two versions of the codec is difficult.  It is 
very easy for a bug to slip in, so we need a good way of comparing.

Listening tests are unreliable.  We need an objective measure.

The best test I have come up with is comparing the two waveforms using a 
utility like some Octave code.  Plot the synthesised speech from the two 
versions on top of each other.  Plot the difference.  Measure the mean 
square error between them over a test utterance.  Minor differences (say 
1 part in 1000) are OK.

You need a file I/O system running on the target hardware for this, like 
semi-hosting or an equivalent tool in your IDE.

Sources of differences include float representation/precision, system 
calls with different initial states or implementations like random 
number generators, compiler differences.  Small round off errors can 
accumulate over many frames in a state based/recursive system like codec 2.

Fixed point code is actually easier to verify that float, as it can be 
bit exact across platforms.

When I ported codec 2 to the STM32F4 a few years ago I recall the only 
difference was in unvoiced speech, perhaps due to the noise generation. 
I accepted this two noise sequences can sound the same even though not 
identical in the time domain.  However I would love to see this fully 
tracked down.

It would be nice to have a standard go/no-go test for codec 2 porting, 
like I have for the fdmdv and cohpsk modems.

Cheers,

David

On 17/09/16 06:08, Marat Galyamov wrote:
> Hello.
> I try to use the Codec2 on the STM32F746 microcontroller. For a start, I
> took files of the codec and collected the project for the PC in the
> CodeBlocks IDE with the compiler GCC.
>
> Coding and decoding of the raw-file took place successfully, the
> regenerated file has high quality.
>
> Then I collected the project in the IAR IDE (for STM32F746-Discovery
> board) and added to it the same files of the codec which I used in the
> project for the PC.
> Coding and decoding took place successfully, quality of the regenerated
> file seemed a little worse, and if to compare contents of regenerated
> files, then in between there is a difference. Files of 48 kilobyte in
> size have about 400 different bytes - checked the special utility which
> compares files is byte-serial.
>
> Why between regenerated files (the PC and STM32) the difference is? How
> it can be corrected?
>
> Thanks. Excuse for my English.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Marat Galyamov
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freetel-codec2 mailing list
> Freetel-codec2@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freetel-codec2 mailing list
Freetel-codec2@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freetel-codec2

Reply via email to