similar to: Question about UWB

Speex tells me that the decoder is always 5 ms, but it says that the encoder is 5 ms for NB, 8.9375 ms for WB, and 10.90625 ms for UWB. Is there an extra frame of delay in the encoder that isn't otherwise accounted for? John Ridges Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > Quoting John Ridges <jridges at masque.com>: > >> I also need to know the precise delays from Speex but I used

JM, I also need to know the precise delays from Speex but I used the SPEEX_GET_LOOKAHEAD control requests to determine them (plus the "speex_resampler_get_output_latency" function from the resampler). The returned values from the Speex lookahead request don't seem to match with the values you gave Alexander. Am I doing this wrong? Thanks, John Ridges speex-dev-request at

Hi, I am currently encoding 32 Khz/Qual-10/UWB encode mode, with MANUAL_ALLOC enabled ( similar to the c5x/c6x configuration). In file sb_celp.c, I noticed the scratch memory grow during recursive (UWB -> WB) calls to 'sb_encode'. 1. 'stack' was not tracked (with 'tmp_stack' as done at other palaces) after/before - auto-correlation/Levinson-Durbin scope (~line

Hi Jean-Marc, > Can you confirm I'm understanding everything correctly? You encode > with > the same encoder and then decode with either A) blackfin assembly and > fixed-point or B) fixed-point only on Blackfin. Then A) sounds bad and > B) sounds good. If you do the same in narrowband, it sounds OK. Is > that > correct? If that's the case, it's *probably* some

Hello, To start with, thanks a lot for making such a great voice codec available! Having recently upgrading to speex rc1, It occurred to us that there seems to have been a regression in the quality of encoding since version beta1. We are compressing some 22khz wave files in wb mode with maximum quality / complexity in VBR, and the result was really great with speex beta1. With rc1 (or beta3),

Hello all, I'm testing the Speex codec for my diploma thesis on a BF-533 Blackfin under uCLinux (2005R3 RC3 release). I successfully compiled the Speex (1.1.11-svn) and I can encode/decode wav-files on my STAMP-board using the speexenc/speexdec sample apps. But I encountered that the decoded file sounds strange/noisy, when compiling with "--enable-blackfin-asm" +

----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Chemeris" <Alexander.Chemeris at sipez.com> To: "Vincent Burel" <vincent.burel at vb-audio.com> Cc: "Conrad Parker" <conrad at metadecks.org>; <speex-dev at xiph.org>; "Jean-Marc Valin" <jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:31 PM Subject: Re:

Thanks, I look forward to seeing what you find out. BTW, I was wondering if you tried replacing the SIG2WORD16 macro using the vqmovns_s32 intrinsic? I'm sure it would be faster than the C code, but in the grand scheme of things it might not make much difference. On 11/13/2015 12:15 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote: >> On Nov 13, 2015, at 1:51 PM, John Ridges <jridges at masque.com>

By my reckoning the confluent hypergoemetric functions should have the following values: M(-.25;1;-.5) = 1.11433 M(-.25;1;-1) = 1.21088 M(-.25;1;-1.5) = 1.29385 M(-.25;1;-2) = 1.36627 M(-.25;1;-2.5) = 1.43038 M(-.25;1;-3) = 1.48784 M(-.25;1;-3.5) = 1.53988 M(-.25;1;-4) = 1.58747 M(-.25;1;-4.5) = 1.63134 M(-.25;1;-5) = 1.67206 M(-.25;1;-5.5) = 1.71009 M(-.25;1;-6) = 1.74579 M(-.25;1;-6.5) =

Hi, Can someone please tell me how should I go about changing the frame size which is hardcoded to 160 for NB and WB and 320 for UWB. For NB speech(8KHz) the framesize of 160 is 20ms frame but for WB and UWB its 10ms. What are the parameters being affected by simply changing the framesize and sub-frame size in "modes.c" How to change the buffer size and how its affected. can we have a

I got the approximation from a Google book: http://books.google.com/books?id=2CAqsF-RebgC&pg=PA385 Page 392, formula (10.33) Using this formula, you're right, hypergeom_gain() would *not* converge to 1 for large x, but would instead be gamma(1.25)/sqrt(sqrt(x)) which would approach zero. Now if the formula for the hypergeometric gain were instead gamma(1.5) * M(-.5;1;-x) / sqrt(x)

Hi Jonathan, I'm sorry to bring this up again, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I was very surprised by your benchmarks so I took a little closer look. I think what's happening is that it's a little unfair to compare the ARM64 inline assembly to the C code, because looking at the C macros in "fixed_generic.h" for MULT16_32_Q16 and MULT16_32_Q15 you find

> Ok, here is cleaned up and fixed version. > > * Function is named speex_get_num_frames() now and return > number of frames, as you suggested. > * WB layers sizes are taken from wb_skip_table[], while NB frame > sizes are calculated with speex_mode_query(). Looking better. Just make sure to remove the stuff that isn't C99-compatible (e.g. // comments). > I've

Thanks for the confirmation Jean-Marc. I kind of suspected from the comments that it was the confluent hypergoemetric function, which I was trying to evaluate using Kummer's equation, namely: M(a;b;x) is the sum from n=0 to infinity of (a)n*x^n / (b)n*n! where (a)n = a(a+1)(a+2) ... (a+n-1) But when I use Kummer's equation, I don't get the values in the "hypergeom_gain"

Hi Jean Marc and List, So I have started finally fiddling around with Ultra-wideband mode. It appears to be very similar in operation to Wide mode, except that when peering into the packet structure it looks like (and these are kind of questions as much as statements here): 1. update rate 0 is not used in UWB- only 1-4? 2. The total bits used for each UWB update rate seem to be as follows:

> On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:47 PM, John Ridges <jridges at masque.com> wrote: > > Any speedup from the intrinsics may just be swamped by the rest of the encode/decode process. But I think you really want SIG2WORD16 to be (vqmovns_s32(PSHR32((x), SIG_SHIFT))) Yes, you?re right. I forgot to run the vectors under qemu with my previous version (oh, the embarrassment!) Fixed forthcoming

Hi list! There seem to be some oddities in using ABR. The first thing I notice is that because "abr_count" increases without bound, after a while the weight of the bitrate history will completely swamp any change in the current bitrate and the ABR adjustment will essentially stop happening. This seems to be true in any mode (not just UWB) and perhaps a solution is to cap

Hello Jean-Marc, and thanks a lot for your quick answer! 2009/12/16 Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca>: > On 15/12/09 10:37, Blaise Potard wrote: >> >> Having recently upgrading to speex rc1, It occurred to us that there >> seems to have been a regression in the quality of encoding since >> version beta1. > > Just curious, did you identify

hi, I have a small and quick question. When speex divide the UWB speech signal into High and low bands, JMV said to me in HA that : "For ultra-wideband (0-16 kHz, 32 kHz sampling), I first split the band into wideband (0-8 kHz) and "very high band" (8-16 kHz). Then, the wideband itself is split into low (0-4 kHz) and high (4-8 kHz) band. So there's a total of 3 bands

Quoting John Ridges <jridges at masque.com>: > Speex tells me that the decoder is always 5 ms, but it says that the > encoder is 5 ms for NB, 8.9375 ms for WB, and 10.90625 ms for UWB. Is > there an extra frame of delay in the encoder that isn't otherwise > accounted for? Oh, delay = frame_size + lookahead If you have a frame size of 20 ms, then there's no choice but