While interesting and newsworthy, I'd assume from the start that this codec has the same advantages and pitfalls as other ML applications, i.e. works very well in 90% of cases and fails dramatically in 10% of edge cases. Even though the page specifies it is aimed at a completely different domain (not radio) I would say there is no chance it can replace Codec2 soon, and I think the same for LPCNet unfortunately. Sometimes 99.9 % of reliability of a robotic voice is better than 90% reliability of high quality voice. Amateur radio seems to me like a combination of all kinds of languages, foreign accents and all sorts of messy real world input.
That said, I'd still be interested to read a paper regarding their approach and improvements to state of the art. Adrian On February 28, 2021 2:16:16 AM UTC, David Rowe <da...@rowetel.com> wrote: >Hi Michael, > >Thanks for the post - very interesting. Sure is an exciting time for >speech coding. > >The speech quality of Lyra is vastly better than anything Codec 2 can >offer at a similar bit rate (3000 bits/s). Codec 2 would sound closer >to the Speex 3 kbit/s samples on the Lyra page. Lyra has reasonable CPU > >complexity (single thread of a modern smartphone), but that's still >much >higher than Codec 2 (which runs on microcontrollers). Lyra presently >has >no low bit rates modes (Codec 2 is commonly used at 700 bits/ for HF >radio applications). Codec 2 is open source and GPL Licensed. I'm not > >clear where Lyra stands on those issues. The latency of Lyra appears >quite high (90ms). > >Lyra is a Machine Learning (ML) based codec, so in a similar class to >Jean-Marc Valin's LPCNet, which is open source. Our initial attempt >with >using LPCNet in real world scenarios (e.g. FreeDV 2020 for HF radio) >shows a lot of promise, but has some speaker dependence and possibly >quantisation issues (it breaks down on some speakers - sounds great on >others). The Lyra team claim to have put a lot of work into >speaker-independence, and the project has a lot of resources behind it >:-) > >Codec 2 presently has one very part-time person working on the core >speech codec and several other people kindly contributing to other >parts >of Codec 2/FreeDV :-) > >At 3kbit/s Lyra would fit neatly into VHF/UHF radio type applications, >that would be a cool demo. > >Cheers, >David > >On 28/2/21 4:50 am, mgraves mstvp.com wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> While I’ve watched from afar, this is my first message to this list. >> >> I was wondering how Codec 2 compares to this latest effort from >> Google; Lyra. >> >> >https://ai.googleblog.com/2021/02/lyra-new-very-low-bitrate-codec-for.html?m=1 >> >> Michael Graves >> >> mgra...@mstvp.com <mailto:mgra...@mstvp.com> >> >> o: (713) 861-4005 >> >> c: (713) 201-1262 >> >> sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
