similar to: About Sampling Rate Correction in acoustic echo

On 01/20/2011 04:26 AM, Steve Underwood wrote: > On 01/19/2011 06:44 PM, LiMaoquan2000 wrote: >> 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

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 01/19/2011 06:44 PM, LiMaoquan2000 wrote: > > 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

I can only evaluate this with my subjective point of view. I had a special test scenario doing chat with cheap webcam microphones and loudspeakers. Fraunhofers solution was the only one that could eliminate the echo. In double talk the quality gets lower but is still very good. You might want to ask Fraunhofer for a demo version to test for yourself. I have no details on the algorithms being

Thank you, Andreas Engel. I downloaded the white paper of the Fraunhofer Acoustic Echo Control. http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/bf/amm/download/whitepapers/Acoustic_Echo_Control-wp.pdf It said > "In the Fraunhofer Acoustic Echo Control, the frequency spectrum of the microphone signal is > modified so that the undesired echo components are removed from the signal transmitted to > the

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 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, 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,

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,

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

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

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

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

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

Then why ONE sound card have different capture and playback rate? It must be ONE single physical clock generator which is used by both ADC and DAC in the sound card, isn't it? If you are a hardware engineer. Will you design two different physical clock for ADC and DAC seperately? What on earth causes this problem? Who knows its intrinsic real reason? Isn't there any other solutions? For

(This is almost out of topic but anyway...) It is surprising how little research effort have been put into psy-acou models for CELP. The basic problem lies in that it is not easy to alter the LP model without distroying the minimum-phase property (ie. the stability of the predictor). That leaves us with psy-acou modelling of the noise-part only. However, my own research is in constrained

> Does anyone have an idea about the possibility to apply psychoacoustic > models as the ones in mp3 or AAC to a CELP coder? Thanks! > /Pontus This is (sort of) done in the decoder with the optional perceptual filtering. Speex tries to shape the noise so that it sounds more pleasant, I believe. To really use perceptual coding, one would require fine granular control over quantization

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

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 ? basically all of the GIPS DSP stuff (AGC, VAD, Denoise, echo canceller, etc),

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