Hi,
Re 700C being equivalent to all other rates - that's a curious result -
all other reports (and the samples we have) show the quality improving
with bit rate. 700C tends to overlap 1300 in quality (better for some
samples, worse for others). 2400 and 3200 use much faster frame rates.
I can't
11.01.2020, 23:04, "David Rowe" :
> 2/ With noisy speech the MELP samples appear to have removed the
> interfering noise - the noise is suppressed in the output samples, and
> not faithfully reproduced. This suggests the MELP implementation you
> have used also has a pre-processing step to remove
Hi Maks Karpov,
I observed similar quality degradation on some of my voice samples, and sent
pathological samples to David for analysis. What I can say for sure is language
has nothing to do at all. I fixed my problems by lowering audio input levels,
filtering of input to take out very low
Hi [UTF-8?]ÐÐ°ÐºÑ [UTF-8?]ÐаÑпов
(Sorry no name in plain text)
I think we are comparing apples to oranges.
As I see it, Codec2 voice compression is about determining what
a human voice is doing and digitising that. And, to as low a data
bitrate as practical in carrying good
Hi Макс,
Nice work on your tests! OK so this is what I hear:
1/ On the noise free English samples, codec 2 at 1200/2400 is slightly
worse than MELP at the same rates. This is consistent with other tests
(e.g. academic papers using the two codecs as references).
2/ With noisy speech the MELP
Sorry for sending HTML message, I didn't expect it to mess up the archive.
Plaintext copy of previous message follows:
--
Hello!
Recently I had tested Codec2 on audio samples on both English and Russian
languages, using MELPe as a reference. Moreover, I used three noise modes: no
noise
Hello! Recently I had tested Codec2 on audio samples on both English and Russian languages, using MELPe as a reference. Moreover, I used three noise modes: no noise at all, gaussian noise and voice noise (e.g. when you are talking in a crowded room). As I don't have a source code for MELPe 600, I
