similar to: cpu utilization across speex versions

I'm trying to make a design decision between a TI 6416 or DM642 (fixed point) and 6713 (floating point) platform. The application is a 32 channel speech encoder. (CBR only, 8khz, 8kbps) To get a feel for the computational load, I am running 1 second (50 frames) of voice through the encoder. My profile of the 6416 indicates I'm at 27.4M cycles/channel. I need to get below 720Mhz/32

I am studying the speex 1.0.5 C source code ,but i feel it is hard to understand the code ,especially the ltp.c and filters.c file. may you tell me the detail algorithm or the more detail notation of the source code of this two file.including below functions void open_loop_nbest_pitch(float *sw, int start, int end, int len, int *pitch, float *gain, int N, char *stack); float

> -----Message d'origine----- > De : Jean-Marc Valin [mailto:jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca] > Envoy? : dimanche, 14. juin 2009 20:46 > ? : Stephane Lesage > Cc : speex-dev at xiph.org > Objet : Re: [Speex-dev] Resampler saturation > > Just to make sure I understand, the two patches you sent are > two different ways to fix the problem, with the only >

I'm trying to get speex to encode a bit faster, mainly by rewriting a few functions in SSE and translating the GCC __asm__ to VC __asm. There's 2 functions I'm targeting, first is vq_nbest which consumes 40% of the time at high complexity and split_cb_search_shape_sign. Which consumes just over 30%. I've split out two functions from: cb_search_precompute_energy - loop at the

Hi all! Speex can encode voice in eight different bit-rates that can be invoked by setting the "Quality" parameter. Another parameter that is of importance to what I am trying to achieve is "Complexity". My questions deal with "Complexity". I know that the CPU requirements for complexity 10 is about 5 times higher than for complexity 1. I have verified it while

Dear Valin, Please, can you explain me the mean of the routines' parameters: 1. void vq_nbest(); 2. static void compute_weighted_codebook(); 3. static inline void target_update(); 4. void split_cb_search_shape_sign(); 5. void split_cb_shape_sign_unquant(); 6. void noise_codebook_quant(); 7. void noise_codebook_unquant(); and what they do briefly??? It's very difficult understand a

Hello! I'v downloaded speex lib 1.1.11.1. I am trying to port speex lib to Blackfin processor. I am using VisualDSP++ 4.0. If I am compiling source codes with using floating point everything ok. When I am compiling with FIXED_POINT defined everything's ok and code works about two times faster. But when I am defining BFIN_ASM I am getting several compiling errors in Blackfin assembler

Most asm statements clobber ASTAT bits (shifts, maxes, etc...) but do declare the register as clobbered. Same thing with CC in a few places. Some places make an attempt at clobbering some hardware loop registers, but it's very incomplete compared with how many asm statements actually use hardware loops. Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo.org> --- libspeex/bfin.h

Hi, I've attached a patch against SVN r14645 which adds GCC visibility information to all symbols exported from libspeex.so and libspeexdsp.so. It includes a configure.ac change to test that both the compiler flags and __attribute__((visibility)) works, and if so will #define EXPORT __attribute__((visibility("default"))) and if not #define EXPORT I've attached a diff output

Hi all. I'm starting to study how speex works because I would like to understand in deep how a CELP coder/decoder works. I have some difficult understanding the vector quantization performed in the split_cb_search_shape_sign function. It's a bit hard to understand. Could you please explain me the algorithm step by step? I'm indagating the 5950 bps narrowband. Thank you. Gio.

Hi, I've attached a patch against SVN r14645 which adds GCC visibility information to all symbols exported from libspeex.so and libspeexdsp.so. It includes a configure.ac change to test that both the compiler flags and __attribute__((visibility)) works, and if so will #define EXPORT __attribute__((visibility("default"))) and if not #define EXPORT I've attached a diff output

On 12/13/07, Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca> wrote: > Did you test what happens if you only enable arm4 assembly? Sure. I tested with "--enable-arm4-asm" and there was no difference. > Also, if you can do some investigation, it would be useful to check what bit > of assembly is causing the crash. Can you disable one at a time and check? ok. I'll try

Why haven't you tried using release build with compiler optimizations? It's quite possible that the performance picture could be substantially different. You might end up wasting a lot of time if you do much performance analysis or optimization on a debug build. Debug build not only has no optimization - it also has extra checks that may have a significant performance impact

I have a question about the overall performance of Speex and what I can do to improve it. I'm running Speex Windows x86, Visual C++ EE compiler. I will say right away that I've only compiled debug so far and used no compiler optimizations at all. I use the uwb-mode, preprocessing, denoising and echo cancellation. I've noticed that speex consumes a lot of cpu resources. When I run this

Quoting Greger Burman <greger at mobile-robotics.com>: > The reasons I have posted these questions are: 1) To find out if Speex can > take advantage of SIMD extensions. If you define _USE_SSE, CELT is already able to use SSE instructions. You must be careful on Windows though because it doesn't support C99 var-arrays and alloca() isn't properly aligned for SSE, so you have to

The reasons I have posted these questions are: 1) To find out if Speex can take advantage of SIMD extensions. 2) To maybe learn from someone with previous experience in optimizing Speex for moderns x86 architectures before I set off trying all kinds of things on my own. See answers inline: 2009/6/15 Tom Grandgent <tom at grandgent.com> > Why haven't you tried using release build

In the fir_mem_up filter, the inner loop does a mac on the y0, y1, y2, y3 variables. What is the range of values of those variables? I would like to move the SHR 1 outside the loop after the mac has been done. Will this result in a 32 bit overflow of the y0, y2, y2 and y3 variables? -Fritz On2 Technologies, Inc. http://www.on2.com

-----Original Message----- From: Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca> To: ??????? ??????? <altersoft at mail.ru> Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:54:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [Speex-dev] fir_mem16,iir_mem16 and filter_mem16 optimisations > > ??????? ??????? a ?crit : > > I have some questions about that functions: fir_mem16, iir_mem16 and filter_mem16. > >

I would like to use speex_preprocess() for voice activity detection. I read the comments in speex_preprocess.h and the relevant paragraphs in the Speex manual. Is there anywhere I can find more information on how to use this function? Thanks for your help, Steve _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today

Hi Jean-Marc, Hi Jim, I have also seen some problems with the 1.1.8 release on the C55x. So far I have boiled down the issues to the following: 1) We need our own "fixed_xx.h" header file. I don't know why, and haven't had time to investigate, but there is a definite improvement when I use the attached fixed_c55x.h file which has turned all the maths into inline functions.