Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "Results of Automated Batch Tests"
2005 Sep 22
1
Fw: Results of Automated Batch Tests
The results are at www.rational.co.za/speex.csv
Each of the 11 quality settings is tested 3 times (narrow, wide and ultra
wide band). Strangely narrow band quality 11 outperforms all wide band
tests, but it can be due to my subsampling or some other inaudible effect
like delaying.
You can import it into Excel and sort it by SNR or other value. Divide the
bits by 24 to get the bps.
The
2005 Sep 21
0
Automated Batch Tests
Sounds like a great idea, except for the part about only running on
linux/cygwin. What would you need in order to make it cross-platform,
as libspeex is?
"Nic Roets" <speex@rational.co.za> wrote:
>
> I'm working on a patch that will batch test most of the code in
> libspeex. Here's the process (Feel free to suggest changes) :
> 1. Download the
2004 Aug 06
3
Quality
I was also wondering if there is a standard set of input sequences people
are using to test Speex. I haven't stumbled upon it/them yet.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-speex-dev@xiph.org [mailto:owner-speex-dev@xiph.org]On
> Behalf Of Jean-Marc Valin
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:24 PM
> To: speex
> Subject: Re: [speex-dev] Quality
>
>
> > I
2004 Aug 06
0
Quality
> I was wondering if the developers were using anything to "objectively" test
> the quality of the speex vocoder. For instance PSQM or one of the many
> derivatives. Mean Opinion Scoring seems an expensive route.
>
> Is there some open source software to use for this?
Well, I haven't found and open-source perceptual testing software, so
I've relied so far
2004 Aug 06
0
Quality
Le mer 26/02/2003 à 15:43, Rick Kane a écrit :
> I was also wondering if there is a standard set of input sequences people
> are using to test Speex. I haven't stumbled upon it/them yet.
I've got a few samples at: http://www.speex.org/audio/samples/
Jean-Marc
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-speex-dev@xiph.org [mailto:owner-speex-dev@xiph.org]On
2007 Jul 17
1
Quality degradation on new versions
Hi Jim,
First of all - thanks, turning the highpass filter off was what I needed,
and the waveforms
match now.
But, when i did the PESQ tests again I found an interesting result :
version 1.0.5 still got
a slightly better average score, but the standard deviation on version 1.2
beta1 was much smaller.
The cause for that is this - on some samples versions 1.0.5 and 1.2beta2
produced a single
2007 Jul 12
0
Quality degradation on new versions
Hi Aviv,
Does the audio sound bad?
You can try turning off the highpass filter (which was not in 1.0.5). This
code is from ti/testenc-TI-C5x.c in the source tree:
/* Turn this off if you want to measure SNR (on by default) */
tmp=0;
speex_encoder_ctl(st, SPEEX_SET_HIGHPASS, &tmp);
speex_decoder_ctl(dec, SPEEX_SET_HIGHPASS, &tmp);
- Jim
----- Original Message -----
From:
2015 May 08
0
[RFC PATCH v1 0/8] Ne10 fft fixed and previous
Hello Jean-Marc,
**Resending.. not sure why subject got removed earlier**
Below are the results that show test_unit_dft passes, but
test_unit_mdct fails (only for nfft=480, 960, 1920)
Note: Tested on BeagleboneBlack(Cortex-A8) fixed point on branch [1]
./test_unit_dft
nfft=32 inverse=0,snr = 88.394372
nfft=32 inverse=1,snr = 93.896470
nfft=128 inverse=0,snr = 89.185895
nfft=128 inverse=1,snr =
2015 May 08
0
(no subject)
Hi,
Can you apply this change to the MDCT test and run it again. See if more
(all) sizes pass. Given the results, I strongly suspect an overflow.
Jean-Marc
On 08/05/15 01:21 PM, Viswanath Puttagunta wrote:
> Hello Jean-Marc,
>
> Below are the results that show test_unit_dft passes, but
> test_unit_mdct fails (only for nfft=480, 960, 1920)
> Note: Tested on
2015 May 08
1
(no subject)
Hello Jean-Marc,
Yep, that was it.. with your patch, test_unit_mdct passes for all nfft.
So, what you do you suggest the next step here is?
Regards,
Vish
On 8 May 2015 at 12:30, Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can you apply this change to the MDCT test and run it again. See if more
> (all) sizes pass. Given the results, I strongly suspect an
2015 May 08
2
(no subject)
Hello Jean-Marc,
Below are the results that show test_unit_dft passes, but
test_unit_mdct fails (only for nfft=480, 960, 1920)
Note: Tested on BeagleboneBlack(Cortex-A8) fixed point on branch [1]
./test_unit_dft
nfft=32 inverse=0,snr = 88.394372
nfft=32 inverse=1,snr = 93.896470
nfft=128 inverse=0,snr = 89.185895
nfft=128 inverse=1,snr = 93.537021
nfft=256 inverse=0,snr = 88.353151
nfft=256
2014 Feb 05
0
Make check failure on clone from 31 January
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Marcello Caramma (mcaramma)
<mcaramma at cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apologies if this is a known issue, but running make on revision e3187444692195957eb66989622c7b1ad8448b06 fails one of the tests when using fixed point configuration (floating point is ok) on my linux x86.
> Note that libopus1.1, as extracted from the tar ball, is OK.
>
>
2007 Jul 12
2
Quality degradation on new versions
Hi,
I have been using speex version 1.0.5 on a text-to-speech program. Recently
I upgraded to version 1.2beta1
and noticed that the waveform the I got after encoding and decoding on the
new versions (beta1,beta2) is much
more different than the original than on version 1.0.5. I also ran a PESQ
comparison test on 700 voice samples
and got better results in the older version (I used quality 9, and
2014 Feb 05
4
Make check failure on clone from 31 January
Hi,
Apologies if this is a known issue, but running make on revision e3187444692195957eb66989622c7b1ad8448b06 fails one of the tests when using fixed point configuration (floating point is ok) on my linux x86.
Note that libopus1.1, as extracted from the tar ball, is OK.
Specifically, the tests that fail are in celt/tests/test_unit_mdct:
nfft=32 inverse=0,snr = 85.341197
nfft=32 inverse=1,snr =
2012 Sep 02
1
CELT 0.11.3 tandem test fails
Hello,
I'm building packages for Slackware and I've just tried to upgrade
Slackware 13.37's CELT package to version 0.11.3, which apparently was
released last year, but I've omitted it because it was not announced on
the site. Anyway, now that I try build with the following configuration
in my SlackBuild script:
CFLAGS=$SLKCFLAGS -O2 \
CXXFLAGS=$SLKCFLAGS -O2 \
2001 May 09
4
Can compressed music sound better than uncompressed?
I quote from "Principles of Digital Audio" by Ken C. Pohlmann:
"Because perceptual coders tailor the coded signal to the ear's acuity, they
similarly tailor the required response of the playback system itself. Live
music does not pass through amplifiers and loudspeakers, it goes directly to
the ear. But recorded music must pass through the playback signal chain. Much
of the
2004 Aug 06
0
testenc and snr calculation
Actually, the SNR calculation in testenc has been broken for a while.
The reason for taking the last frame was that the codec would introduce
a one-frame latency. I changed that to half a frame (10 ms) a while ago
and never updated testenc.
Jean-Marc
Le lun 01/09/2003 à 13:12, Mike Dunn a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I'm new to the group. I'm looking at the speex code with an
2005 Jun 17
0
another aov results interpretation question
I commend you to (a) the recent article by Doug Bates on "Fitting
nonlinear mixed models in R" pp. 27-30 in the latest issue of "R News"
available from "www.r-project.org" -> Newsletter and (b) Doug's book
with Pinheiro (2000) Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS (Springer). I
suggest you try the same analysis using in "lmer", library(lme4), and
2008 May 29
2
FFT Resampler
Ok. I did some quality tests.
First off; never do quality tests with ints. I had serious problems
interpreting my results until it dawned on me that the signal
differences were just 0 or 1. So, after a lot of scratching my head,
these are done comparing the result from the _float versions (which is
how both resamplers work internally anyway).
What I did was this:
Load speex_wb.wav as one
2004 Aug 06
2
testenc and snr calculation
Hi all,
I'm new to the group. I'm looking at the speex code with an eye towards
maybe helping out with either codec optimization or fixed-point
implementation, The SNR calculation in testenc.c and testenc_uwb.c
doesn't make sense to me. The code is
{
float enoise=0, esig=0, snr;
for (i=0;i<FRAME_SIZE;i++)
{