similar to: Sound card problem in acoustic echo cancellation

Hi all, The conclusion of the discussion is that most sound cards indeed have different capture and playing frequencies for the unknown reasons. But we all know the adaptive filter of the AEC relies on the synchronization of the far-end and near-end sampling rates. Then Has anybody tried to use speex AEC in Windows system? How do you solve this problem? (I have tested speex AEC. In most

From: Steve Underwood <steveu at coppice.org> > It seems some cards use a PLL for their ADC, so they can lock to an > incoming SPDIF signal, but always use a local crystal clock source for > their DAC. These cards do not have their ADC and DAC synchronised. Do common on-board or PCI sound card lock to some incoming signal? Yes, there is a crystal oscillator and a PLL or divider to

Simply to say, in a quiet room, you can play a impulse signal and then find it's impulse response signal from the microphone. For example, if the delay between the impulse signal and its response signal range from 500 to 3000 cycles, you can buffer the far-end signal to 0-300 cycles and set the filter length to 4000. It is also called to align far-end signal and near-end signal. BTW: Speex

>>>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a scenario in a mobile VoIP app that requires echo cancellation but >>> is somewhat different from what's described in the docs. >>> >>> Audio is received from and sent to the network at 8000Hz. Each packet >>> contains 160 samples worth a playback of 20ms. >>> >>> But the hardware

Hi All, In order to deal with acoustic echo cancellation problems of most PCs which sound cards have different capture and play frequencies. I made a trial. At first, a 1000Hz sine wave is played for a long time via a speaker and its acoustic echo is recoreded. Seconds, get the frequency of the echo by a FFT analyser. So the difference between capture and play frequencies is obtained. Thirdly,

Hi All, Many Thanks to Underwood for her excellent review of our big trouble which prevent LMS-based AEC algorithms to be used in most computer. Maybe it can be summaried as follows: 1. Different sample rate of sampling and rendering does exists in most low-cost soundcards (In my experiments over more than 20 soundcards, the differences range from 0.5Hz to more than 50Hz when sample rate is set

Hi all, We all know that mismatch between clocks of ADCs of far-end voice and near-end voice is not allowed in a time-domain or frequency-domain LMS based AEC system. It means that capture and render audio streams must be synchronized to a same sample rate. However, I found that this restriction is removed in microsoft AEC from Windows XP SP1. Anyone knows how microsoft AEC do it? This technology

>I remember?I had to expose the echo cancelation level implementing a get_echo_level( ) function based on this: >http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/speex-dev/2008-September/006889.html This is really a good idea to determine the frequency difference between capture and play of the sound card. But it need constant far-end voice and a long time because it must repeat the process of

Thank you. But it will cost you a long time to get the accurate play and capture frequencies. Does your program test two frequencies of the sound card each time? Because different sound cards have different frequency errors. And the resampling program is also time consuming because the target frequency is so close to the sampling frequency of the input signal, isn't it? I have tested program

On 06/22/2011 04:57 AM, Arun Raghavan wrote: > On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 11:39 -0700, Arun Raghavan wrote: > [...] >> I'm also running this on x86 (x86_64, technically), and it's all >> floating-point, so I guess this is a regression somewhere. Will try to >> see if I can run it without any optimisations if possible, which I >> assume should serve as an adequate

Hi Underwood, Thank you for your help. I agree with your opinion. But it is almost impossible to further reduce the frequent difference between play and capture. 1. I used a 2^18 step FFT to analyse the echo frequency. So the freq resolution is 8000HZ/(2^17)=0.0625Hz. The analyser need at least 2^18/8000=32 seconds acoustic echo record signal from the microphone. Better freq resolution relies

Hi all, We have discussed so many about sampling rate asynchronous (or offset) between rendering (D/A converter) and capturing (A/D converter) of most PC soundcards. It seems all acoustic echo cancellers, include AEC in speex, can not deal with this trouble, because it causes a drift of echo path and also buffer overflow and underflow which jumps the delay of echo path seriously. Unfortunately,

On 06/22/2011 09:30 AM, Steve Kann wrote: > Speaking of AEC (thought not quite on topic for this thread), > > Has anyone on this list played with the GIPS code that google just > open-sourced? It looks like their AEC also has code to handle > differential sample rates, though I haven't really evaluated it > thoroughly. > > There is really a lot of code in the drop ?

2011/4/20 Li Maoquan <limaoquan2000 at 126.com> > Simply to say, in a quiet room, you can play a impulse signal and then find > it's impulse response signal from the > microphone. For example, if the delay between the impulse signal and its > response signal range from 500 to > 3000 cycles, you can buffer the far-end signal to 0-300 cycles and set the > filter length

Hi Shridhar, Sample rate conversion is not enough to solve this problem. I have tried this method several months ago. The first step is to measure the difference between sample rate of capturing and rendering. Then resampling (by what you said "sinc interpolation") one signal to eliminate the difference. The frequency step in my experiment is less than 0.1Hz. I have tried speex AEC

Hi Steve, Have you read this paper? (Heping Ding, David I. Havelock, Drift-Compensated Adaptive Filtering for Improving Speech Intelligibility in Cases with Asynchronous Inputs. EURASIP J. Adv. Sig. Proc. 2010:) Let me call is paper-Drift. It provided a method to evaluate Relative Sample Offset (RSO, d[i]) which is omitted in the microsoft paper (Challenges and Solutions for Designing Software

Hi Steve, > I don't know if this has only recently been put on line, but I never > noticed it until today - > www.iwaenc.org/proceedings/*2008*/contents/papers/9044.pdf > > That paper is from people at MS describing, in some detail, what the > Windows kernel echo canceller does to handle synchronisation issues. It > tracks both time varying sample clock drift and hiccups

On 04/13/2011 02:58 AM, Shridhar, Vasant wrote: > I am doing this right now with no problem. I am not using speex for this at the moment though. Group delay is the biggest problem. I implemented a version where the input and output sample rates are known up front. The routine than interpolates between the jitter. This should solve the problem. The crystals used to clock the input and

Hi All, I am a research associate in the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. One of my research interests is acoustic echo cancellation. Now I meet a big problem. When I was testing my own AEC module, I found that it was almost perfect in few computers but much worse in other computers. Then I tried AEC module in speex, it was almost the same result. Then I found the reason is that sound cards of

On 04/14/2011 07:26 PM, LiMaoquan2000 wrote: > Hi All, > Many Thanks to Underwood for her excellent review of our big trouble > which prevent LMS-based AEC algorithms to be used in most computer. > Maybe it can be summaried as follows: > 1. Different sample rate of sampling and rendering does exists in most > low-cost soundcards (In my experiments over more than 20 soundcards,