Chandrakala Madhira
2017-Nov-27 04:07 UTC
[opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
Hi,
Can anyone let me know if this is a bug?
Thank you,
Chandrakala
----- Original Message -----
From: "Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com>
To: "Chandrakala Madhira" <chandrakala.madhira at
soctronics.com>
Cc: opus at xiph.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
Yes, yes, I can reproduce it now, but only on platforms that define a 16-bit int
by default (SA_Q15 is an opus_int rather than opus_int32). What system are you
compiling this for?
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Chandrakala Madhira < chandrakala.madhira at
soctronics.com > wrote:
Hi Logan,
Please find attached the input stream we are using testing.
Thank you,
Chandrakala
From: "Chandrakala Madhira" < chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com
>
To: "Logan Stromberg" < loganstromberg at gmail.com >
Cc: opus at xiph.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 9:53:55 AM
Subject: Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
Hi Logan,
Below is the configuration I am using. The remaining parameters have defaults.
The stream is a 16KHz stream. The bitrate selected is 16KHz. As the thread have
size limitations, I will try to attach the stream in next mail. At 125th frame
of this stream, the probability (SA_Q15) value is 0x0000859c. This value is
treated as a negative number in step-3.
-e voip 16000 1 16000 -framesize 10 -cvbr Input/dg105_16k.wav
Output/dg105_16k_16000Fs_mono_16000bps_10ms_vbr_voip.bit
Thank you,
Chandrakala
Thank you,
Chandrakala
From: "Logan Stromberg" < loganstromberg at gmail.com >
To: opus at xiph.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:38:16 AM
Subject: Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
Just for fun, I tried to reproduce such an overflow. I turned on all debug
macros, assertions, and checked arithmetic and then encoded 2 hours of mixed
speech/audio with these parameters:
Sample rate = 48000
Channels = 1
Application = OPUS_APPLICATION_AUDIO
Bitrate = 24 KB/s
Force Mode = MODE_SILK_ONLY
Signal Type = OPUS_SIGNAL_AUTO
Complexity = 10 Frame size = 480 samples (10ms)
No errors came up in encoding. Chandrakala, are these the encoding parameters
that you believe should trigger the error?
- Logan
<blockquote>
Hi,
We are looking at the VAD implementation used in opus. We are looking at the
code where speech probability is calculated based on which SNR is estimated.
Below is the part of the code I am talking about.
/*********************************/
/* Speech Probability Estimation */
/*********************************/
SA_Q15 = silk_sigm_Q15( silk_SMULWB( VAD_SNR_FACTOR_Q16, pSNR_dB_Q7 ) -
VAD_NEGATIVE_OFFSET_Q5 ); // step1: Calculate speech probability : comment by me
/* Power scaling */
if( speech_nrg <= 0 ) { // step2: update speech probability based on speech
energy : comment by me
SA_Q15 = silk_RSHIFT( SA_Q15, 1 );
} else if( speech_nrg < 32768 ) {
if( psEncC->frame_length == 10 * psEncC->fs_kHz ) {
speech_nrg = silk_LSHIFT_SAT32( speech_nrg, 16 ); // Energy is doubled here :
comment by me
} else {
speech_nrg = silk_LSHIFT_SAT32( speech_nrg, 15 );
}
/* square-root */
speech_nrg = silk_SQRT_APPROX( speech_nrg );
SA_Q15 = silk_SMULWB( 32768 + speech_nrg, SA_Q15 );
}
/* Smoothing coefficient */
smooth_coef_Q16 = silk_SMULWB( VAD_SNR_SMOOTH_COEF_Q18, silk_SMULWB(
(opus_int32)SA_Q15, SA_Q15 ) ); // step3: Update the smoothing factor based on
speech probability : comment by me
if( psEncC->frame_length == 10 * psEncC->fs_kHz ) {
smooth_coef_Q16 >>= 1;
}
Here, in step1, Speech probability is calculated whose value is expected to be
within [0, 1) in Q15 format. Then based on the speech energy levels, in Step2,
the probability is updated whose value shall also lie between [0, 1). Later in
Step3, the smooth coeff is calculated. This code do not have any issue when the
frame size is more than or equal to 20msec. But, if the frame size is 10ms, then
in step2, the energy is doubled (this may be done because the original Silk code
is for 20ms. To convert the energy for 20ms, it could have been doubled). When
this is done the probability which is updated in step2 becomes more than 1. When
this is used in multiplication in Step3, the value is treated as a negative
number because its a 32x16 multiplication. This is will result in a negative
smooth coefficient. Please let me know if this is a bug.
Thank you,
Chandrakala
_______________________________________________
opus mailing list
opus at xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus
</blockquote>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20171127/00d363b1/attachment.html>
Logan Stromberg
2017-Nov-27 17:10 UTC
[opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
Sorry, long holiday weekend in America. I can say with pretty high certainty that there is an overflow occurring and it is flipping smooth_coef_Q16 to be negative when it probably shouldn't be. I had originally thought it was only an issue where it was overflowing the 15th bit but not the 16th, which might still preserve the intended value for operations that ignore the sign bit (in cases where the 16-bit value is stored in a 32-bit int without sign-extension e.g. 0x00008b3b), but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The problem is even worse when opus_int is defined as 16-bit in the platform - SA_Q15 overflows to negative right here with a similar effect speech_nrg = silk_SQRT_APPROX(speech_nrg); SA_Q15 = silk_SMULWB(32768 + speech_nrg, SA_Q15); I can't speak for the logic where the speech energy gets doubled. It obviously seems intentional but I don't know why. Maybe so that smoothing is performed at a constant rate regardless of whether framesize is 10 or 20ms? On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Chandrakala Madhira < chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com> wrote:> Hi, > > Can anyone let me know if this is a bug? > > Thank you, > Chandrakala > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com> > *To: *"Chandrakala Madhira" <chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com> > *Cc: *opus at xiph.org > *Sent: *Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:12:39 PM > > *Subject: *Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD > implementation > > Yes, yes, I can reproduce it now, but only on platforms that define a > 16-bit int by default (SA_Q15 is an opus_int rather than opus_int32). What > system are you compiling this for? > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Chandrakala Madhira <chandrakala.madhira@ > soctronics.com> wrote: > >> Hi Logan, >> >> Please find attached the input stream we are using testing. >> >> Thank you, >> Chandrakala >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Chandrakala Madhira" <chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com> >> *To: *"Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com> >> *Cc: *opus at xiph.org >> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 22, 2017 9:53:55 AM >> >> *Subject: *Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD >> implementation >> >> Hi Logan, >> >> Below is the configuration I am using. The remaining parameters have >> defaults. The stream is a 16KHz stream. The bitrate selected is 16KHz. As >> the thread have size limitations, I will try to attach the stream in next >> mail. At 125th frame of this stream, the probability (SA_Q15) value is >> 0x0000859c. This value is treated as a negative number in step-3. >> >> -e voip 16000 1 16000 -framesize 10 -cvbr Input/dg105_16k.wav >> Output/dg105_16k_16000Fs_mono_16000bps_10ms_vbr_voip.bit >> >> Thank you, >> Chandrakala >> >> Thank you, >> Chandrakala >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com> >> *To: *opus at xiph.org >> *Sent: *Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:38:16 AM >> *Subject: *Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD >> implementation >> >> Just for fun, I tried to reproduce such an overflow. I turned on all >> debug macros, assertions, and checked arithmetic and then encoded 2 hours >> of mixed speech/audio with these parameters: >> >> Sample rate = 48000 >> Channels = 1 >> Application = OPUS_APPLICATION_AUDIO >> Bitrate = 24 KB/s >> Force Mode = MODE_SILK_ONLY >> Signal Type = OPUS_SIGNAL_AUTO >> Complexity = 10 >> Frame size = 480 samples (10ms) >> >> No errors came up in encoding. Chandrakala, are these the encoding >> parameters that you believe should trigger the error? >> >> - Logan >> >> Hi, >>> >>> We are looking at the VAD implementation used in opus. We are looking at >>> the code where speech probability is calculated based on which SNR is >>> estimated. Below is the part of the code I am talking about. >>> >>> /*********************************/ >>> /* Speech Probability Estimation */ >>> /*********************************/ >>> SA_Q15 = silk_sigm_Q15( silk_SMULWB( VAD_SNR_FACTOR_Q16, pSNR_dB_Q7 ) - >>> VAD_NEGATIVE_OFFSET_Q5 ); // step1: Calculate speech probability : comment >>> by me >>> >>> /* Power scaling */ >>> if( speech_nrg <= 0 ) { // step2: update speech probability based on >>> speech energy : comment by me >>> SA_Q15 = silk_RSHIFT( SA_Q15, 1 ); >>> } else if( speech_nrg < 32768 ) { >>> if( psEncC->frame_length == 10 * psEncC->fs_kHz ) { >>> speech_nrg = silk_LSHIFT_SAT32( speech_nrg, 16 ); // Energy is doubled >>> here : comment by me >>> } else { >>> speech_nrg = silk_LSHIFT_SAT32( speech_nrg, 15 ); >>> } >>> >>> /* square-root */ >>> speech_nrg = silk_SQRT_APPROX( speech_nrg ); >>> SA_Q15 = silk_SMULWB( 32768 + speech_nrg, SA_Q15 ); >>> } >>> >>> /* Smoothing coefficient */ >>> smooth_coef_Q16 = silk_SMULWB( VAD_SNR_SMOOTH_COEF_Q18, silk_SMULWB( >>> (opus_int32)SA_Q15, SA_Q15 ) ); // step3: Update the smoothing factor based >>> on speech probability : comment by me >>> >>> if( psEncC->frame_length == 10 * psEncC->fs_kHz ) { >>> smooth_coef_Q16 >>= 1; >>> } >>> >>> Here, in step1, Speech probability is calculated whose value is expected >>> to be within [0, 1) in Q15 format. Then based on the speech energy levels, >>> in Step2, the probability is updated whose value shall also lie between [0, >>> 1). Later in Step3, the smooth coeff is calculated. This code do not have >>> any issue when the frame size is more than or equal to 20msec. But, if the >>> frame size is 10ms, then in step2, the energy is doubled (this may be done >>> because the original Silk code is for 20ms. To convert the energy for 20ms, >>> it could have been doubled). When this is done the probability which is >>> updated in step2 becomes more than 1. When this is used in multiplication >>> in Step3, the value is treated as a negative number because its a 32x16 >>> multiplication. This is will result in a negative smooth coefficient. >>> Please let me know if this is a bug. >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Chandrakala >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opus mailing list >> opus at xiph.org >> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus >> >> >> > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20171127/cda17f94/attachment.html>
Jean-Marc Valin
2017-Nov-27 18:23 UTC
[opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
On 11/26/2017 11:07 PM, Chandrakala Madhira wrote:> Can anyone let me know if this is a bug?It's indeed a bug and we (well, mostly Koen) are looking into it. Might take some time though. Cheers, Jean-Marc> Thank you, > Chandrakala > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *"Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com> > *To: *"Chandrakala Madhira" <chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com> > *Cc: *opus at xiph.org > *Sent: *Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:12:39 PM > *Subject: *Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD > implementation > > Yes, yes, I can reproduce it now, but only on platforms that define a > 16-bit int by default (SA_Q15 is an opus_int rather than opus_int32). > What system are you compiling this for? > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Chandrakala Madhira > <chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com > <mailto:chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com>> wrote: > > Hi Logan, > > Please find attached the input stream we are using testing. > > Thank you, > Chandrakala > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *"Chandrakala Madhira" <chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com > <mailto:chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com>> > *To: *"Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com > <mailto:loganstromberg at gmail.com>> > *Cc: *opus at xiph.org <mailto:opus at xiph.org> > *Sent: *Wednesday, November 22, 2017 9:53:55 AM > > *Subject: *Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD > implementation > > Hi Logan, > > Below is the configuration I am using. The remaining parameters have > defaults. The stream is a 16KHz stream. The bitrate selected is > 16KHz. As the thread have size limitations, I will try to attach the > stream in next mail. At 125th frame of this stream, the probability > (SA_Q15) value is 0x0000859c. This value is treated as a negative > number in step-3. > > -e voip 16000 1 16000 -framesize 10 -cvbr Input/dg105_16k.wav > Output/dg105_16k_16000Fs_mono_16000bps_10ms_vbr_voip.bit > > Thank you, > Chandrakala > > Thank you, > Chandrakala > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *"Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com > <mailto:loganstromberg at gmail.com>> > *To: *opus at xiph.org <mailto:opus at xiph.org> > *Sent: *Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:38:16 AM > *Subject: *Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD > implementation > > Just for fun, I tried to reproduce such an overflow. I turned on all > debug macros, assertions, and checked arithmetic and then encoded 2 > hours of mixed speech/audio with these parameters: > > Sample rate = 48000 > Channels = 1 > Application = OPUS_APPLICATION_AUDIO > Bitrate = 24 KB/s > Force Mode = MODE_SILK_ONLY > Signal Type = OPUS_SIGNAL_AUTO > Complexity = 10 > Frame size = 480 samples (10ms) > > No errors came up in encoding. Chandrakala, are these the encoding > parameters that you believe should trigger the error? > > - Logan > > Hi, > > We are looking at the VAD implementation used in opus. We are > looking at the code where speech probability is calculated based > on which SNR is estimated. Below is the part of the code I am > talking about. > > /*********************************/ > /* Speech Probability Estimation */ > /*********************************/ > SA_Q15 = silk_sigm_Q15( silk_SMULWB( VAD_SNR_FACTOR_Q16, > pSNR_dB_Q7 ) - VAD_NEGATIVE_OFFSET_Q5 ); // step1: Calculate > speech probability : comment by me > > /* Power scaling */ > if( speech_nrg <= 0 ) { // step2: update speech probability > based on speech energy : comment by me > SA_Q15 = silk_RSHIFT( SA_Q15, 1 ); > } else if( speech_nrg < 32768 ) { > if( psEncC->frame_length == 10 * psEncC->fs_kHz ) { > speech_nrg = silk_LSHIFT_SAT32( speech_nrg, 16 ); // Energy is > doubled here : comment by me > } else { > speech_nrg = silk_LSHIFT_SAT32( speech_nrg, 15 ); > } > > /* square-root */ > speech_nrg = silk_SQRT_APPROX( speech_nrg ); > SA_Q15 = silk_SMULWB( 32768 + speech_nrg, SA_Q15 ); > } > > /* Smoothing coefficient */ > smooth_coef_Q16 = silk_SMULWB( VAD_SNR_SMOOTH_COEF_Q18, > silk_SMULWB( (opus_int32)SA_Q15, SA_Q15 ) ); // step3: Update > the smoothing factor based on speech probability : comment by me > > if( psEncC->frame_length == 10 * psEncC->fs_kHz ) { > smooth_coef_Q16 >>= 1; > } > > Here, in step1, Speech probability is calculated whose value is > expected to be within [0, 1) in Q15 format. Then based on the > speech energy levels, in Step2, the probability is updated whose > value shall also lie between [0, 1). Later in Step3, the smooth > coeff is calculated. This code do not have any issue when the > frame size is more than or equal to 20msec. But, if the frame > size is 10ms, then in step2, the energy is doubled (this may be > done because the original Silk code is for 20ms. To convert the > energy for 20ms, it could have been doubled). When this is done > the probability which is updated in step2 becomes more than 1. > When this is used in multiplication in Step3, the value is > treated as a negative number because its a 32x16 multiplication. > This is will result in a negative smooth coefficient. Please let > me know if this is a bug. > > > Thank you, > Chandrakala > > > _______________________________________________ > opus mailing list > opus at xiph.org <mailto:opus at xiph.org> > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > opus mailing list > opus at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus >
Jean-Marc Valin
2018-Feb-16 07:42 UTC
[opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
Hi Chandrakala, Logan, Can you confirm that the attached patch fixes the overflow problem? Koen, can you confirm the fix makes sense? Cheers, Jean-Marc On 11/27/2017 12:10 PM, Logan Stromberg wrote:> Sorry, long holiday weekend in America. > I can say with pretty high certainty that there is an overflow occurring > and it is flipping smooth_coef_Q16 to be negative when it probably > shouldn't be. I had originally thought it was only an issue where it was > overflowing the 15th bit but not the 16th, which might still preserve > the intended value for operations that ignore the sign bit (in cases > where the 16-bit value is stored in a 32-bit int without sign-extension > e.g. 0x00008b3b), but that doesn't seem to be the case here. > The problem is even worse when opus_int is defined as 16-bit in the > platform - SA_Q15 overflows to negative right here with a similar effect > speech_nrg = silk_SQRT_APPROX(speech_nrg); > SA_Q15 = silk_SMULWB(32768 + speech_nrg, SA_Q15); > > I can't speak for the logic where the speech energy gets doubled. It > obviously seems intentional but I don't know why. Maybe so that > smoothing is performed at a constant rate regardless of whether > framesize is 10 or 20ms? > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Chandrakala Madhira > <chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com > <mailto:chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Can anyone let me know if this is a bug? > > Thank you, > Chandrakala > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *"Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com > <mailto:loganstromberg at gmail.com>> > *To: *"Chandrakala Madhira" <chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com > <mailto:chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com>> > *Cc: *opus at xiph.org <mailto:opus at xiph.org> > *Sent: *Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:12:39 PM > > *Subject: *Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD > implementation > > Yes, yes, I can reproduce it now, but only on platforms that define > a 16-bit int by default (SA_Q15 is an opus_int rather than > opus_int32). What system are you compiling this for? > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Chandrakala Madhira > <chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com > <mailto:chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com>> wrote: > > Hi Logan, > > Please find attached the input stream we are using testing. > > Thank you, > Chandrakala > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *"Chandrakala Madhira" > <chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com > <mailto:chandrakala.madhira at soctronics.com>> > *To: *"Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com > <mailto:loganstromberg at gmail.com>> > *Cc: *opus at xiph.org <mailto:opus at xiph.org> > *Sent: *Wednesday, November 22, 2017 9:53:55 AM > > *Subject: *Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD > implementation > > Hi Logan, > > Below is the configuration I am using. The remaining parameters > have defaults. The stream is a 16KHz stream. The bitrate > selected is 16KHz. As the thread have size limitations, I will > try to attach the stream in next mail. At 125th frame of this > stream, the probability (SA_Q15) value is 0x0000859c. This value > is treated as a negative number in step-3. > > -e voip 16000 1 16000 -framesize 10 -cvbr Input/dg105_16k.wav > Output/dg105_16k_16000Fs_mono_16000bps_10ms_vbr_voip.bit > > Thank you, > Chandrakala > > Thank you, > Chandrakala > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *"Logan Stromberg" <loganstromberg at gmail.com > <mailto:loganstromberg at gmail.com>> > *To: *opus at xiph.org <mailto:opus at xiph.org> > *Sent: *Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:38:16 AM > *Subject: *Re: [opus] Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD > implementation > > Just for fun, I tried to reproduce such an overflow. I turned on > all debug macros, assertions, and checked arithmetic and then > encoded 2 hours of mixed speech/audio with these parameters: > > Sample rate = 48000 > Channels = 1 > Application = OPUS_APPLICATION_AUDIO > Bitrate = 24 KB/s > Force Mode = MODE_SILK_ONLY > Signal Type = OPUS_SIGNAL_AUTO > Complexity = 10 > Frame size = 480 samples (10ms) > > No errors came up in encoding. Chandrakala, are these the > encoding parameters that you believe should trigger the error? > > - Logan > > Hi, > > We are looking at the VAD implementation used in opus. We > are looking at the code where speech probability is > calculated based on which SNR is estimated. Below is the > part of the code I am talking about. > > /*********************************/ > /* Speech Probability Estimation */ > /*********************************/ > SA_Q15 = silk_sigm_Q15( silk_SMULWB( VAD_SNR_FACTOR_Q16, > pSNR_dB_Q7 ) - VAD_NEGATIVE_OFFSET_Q5 ); // step1: Calculate > speech probability : comment by me > > /* Power scaling */ > if( speech_nrg <= 0 ) { // step2: update speech probability > based on speech energy : comment by me > SA_Q15 = silk_RSHIFT( SA_Q15, 1 ); > } else if( speech_nrg < 32768 ) { > if( psEncC->frame_length == 10 * psEncC->fs_kHz ) { > speech_nrg = silk_LSHIFT_SAT32( speech_nrg, 16 ); // Energy > is doubled here : comment by me > } else { > speech_nrg = silk_LSHIFT_SAT32( speech_nrg, 15 ); > } > > /* square-root */ > speech_nrg = silk_SQRT_APPROX( speech_nrg ); > SA_Q15 = silk_SMULWB( 32768 + speech_nrg, SA_Q15 ); > } > > /* Smoothing coefficient */ > smooth_coef_Q16 = silk_SMULWB( VAD_SNR_SMOOTH_COEF_Q18, > silk_SMULWB( (opus_int32)SA_Q15, SA_Q15 ) ); // step3: > Update the smoothing factor based on speech probability : > comment by me > > if( psEncC->frame_length == 10 * psEncC->fs_kHz ) { > smooth_coef_Q16 >>= 1; > } > > Here, in step1, Speech probability is calculated whose value > is expected to be within [0, 1) in Q15 format. Then based on > the speech energy levels, in Step2, the probability is > updated whose value shall also lie between [0, 1). Later in > Step3, the smooth coeff is calculated. This code do not have > any issue when the frame size is more than or equal to > 20msec. But, if the frame size is 10ms, then in step2, the > energy is doubled (this may be done because the original > Silk code is for 20ms. To convert the energy for 20ms, it > could have been doubled). When this is done the probability > which is updated in step2 becomes more than 1. When this is > used in multiplication in Step3, the value is treated as a > negative number because its a 32x16 multiplication. This is > will result in a negative smooth coefficient. Please let me > know if this is a bug. > > > Thank you, > Chandrakala > > > _______________________________________________ > opus mailing list > opus at xiph.org <mailto:opus at xiph.org> > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus > <http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > opus mailing list > opus at xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus >-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: vad_overflow_fix.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 953 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20180216/29299d0d/attachment.bin>
Maybe Matching Threads
- Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
- Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
- Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
- Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation
- Reg an issue with smoothing factor in VAD implementation