similar to: Performance and Optimization

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

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

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

If more than one speaker receives the *same* signal, it doesn't matter the number of speakers. It only gets tricky when the speakers are playing slightly different signals (e.g. from a stereo song). Jean-Marc Quoting Greger Burman <greger at mobile-robotics.com>: > One thing I can think of is if you are using two or more speakers. If the > speakers are not at the exact same

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20090811/ad615b2a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: comunip.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1663 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/attachments/20090811/ad615b2a/attachment.gif

I actually forgot to mention that I'm using ultra-wideband mode, but seems like you understood that anyway. Is this true that Speex echo cancellation only performs well in narrowband mode !? I've been using 100 ms as the default tail length. I don't know what the ideal tail length would be. I have tried shorter and longer tails but it hasn't made any difference. Does

I believe there is a documentation error regarding speex_preprocess_ctl(preprocess_state, request, ptr); The manual states: SPEEX_PREPROCESS_SET_DENOISE Turns denoising on(1) or off(2) SPEEX_PREPROCESS_SET_AGC Turns automatic gain control (AGC) on(1) or off(2) I noticed that setting a value of 0 turns the setting off. Setting a value of 1 or 2 turns the setting on. While I do think 1 and 0 is more

First of all, thank you for your input Tim. That is very helpful. I would love to hear from other people with experience of AEC and Speex. I guess I have to split my question into to parts now. 1. Is it a fact that using the windows multimedia API (wave audio) for audio capture and playback makes it impossible to do echo cancellation with Speex AEC or other EC method due to inprecise timing? I

Hello. I have the following situation. AEC is used in network chat software over DirectSound API. Echo and reference signals are almost aligned (delay is no more than 30ms). When echo is emulated in notebook (built-in speakers + mic) everything goes fine and echo is cancelled. But when configuration includes stand-alone speakers and mic no echo is removed. Audio is in 22050 hz at 16 bit

On 2010-03-16 14:22, Josh Gargus wrote: >> If more than one speaker receives the *same* signal, it doesn't >> matter the number of speakers. It only gets tricky when the >> speakers are playing slightly different signals (e.g. from a stereo >> song). > > Does "tricky" mean that the Speex AEC won't handle such situations > well? Or just that you

Hello? I am a new user of speex.I am currently working on speex frames and I have some questions. I am using narrowband and long tail length, and it works very well with speex test DEMO. But it is very difficult to have speaker input in perfect sync with mic input. Speex does not work at all. Any suggestion? Regards? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

I'm trying to understand a bit more about the inner workings of the speex resampler. I want to do resampling on a voip stream. High quality and low latency is important. 1) What does speex_resampler_magic() do? 2) I find that resampling has quite an impact on performance and I'm trying to figure out where the cpu cycles are going and see what can be done to reduce the cost. I ran a profile

hy, recording and playback is working perfectly without speex. i have try to set samplerat from 6000 to 441000 and quality from 1 to 10 sam with complexy, but the best i can get is with 16000 samplerate, 5quality and 3complexy .. but still, the voice that came out is annoying, artificial, robot ,... Lp, Tim +--------------------------+ | email: rico at gama.us | | www: http://gama.us

Hi! I have some questions about that functions: fir_mem16, iir_mem16 and filter_mem16. Filtering is very slow on TI DSP, and i want to optimise it. Can somebody give me formulas which discribe work of this filters? Or any suggestions about how to transform code for better performance. I going to implement this functions in assembler, but it is hard to do without full understanding how functions

Kemal, It sounds like you are doing something wrong. I strongly recommend that you profile your application to see exactly where the CPU time is being spent. AMD happens to have a nice profiler called CodeAnalyst that they give away for free. And it's plenty usable on Intel CPUs as well. http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/DevelopWithAMD/0,,30_2252_3604,00.html Make sure you test a

-----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. > >

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, 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 am porting speex on ARM7TDMI, I have done some optimization, the result is that the encoder and decoder need about 60 MCPS for 5.96kbps bitrate and complexity 0. Can someone give me informtion about Speex optimization on ARM7? Another question, my ADC and DAC are 12 bits, but Speex codec is 16bits, Did someone try to modify speex to 12 bits? I think if I modify speex to 12 bits, the

Has anyone else experienced high CPU usage when using RSYNC in windows 2000 server? I am using the rsync.exe (and applicable DLL's) from the cygwin installation (I am not however running cygwin on this machine). The linux machine connecting to the windows rsync daemon has a very low performance hit when the session is running (see below). However, the windows machine, which has a much