Andy Ross <andy@plausible.org> wrote:> > I wrote a trivial squelch feature* in 10 minutes that works > basically 100% of the time. > > * Zero the sample data if the maximum sample in a frame is less than > 4% of saturation or 20% of the maximum sample yet seen. It's about > 8 lines of code.Could you please explain how this differs from VAD? Tom
Ton Grandgent wrote:> Andy Ross wrotte: > > I wrote a trivial squelch feature* in 10 minutes that works > > basically 100% of the time. > > Could you please explain how this differs from VAD?Not knowing how VAD works, I can't say for sure. But enabling VAD wasn't catching the existing transients (see original post), and this does. So at the very least it differs in threshold. Andy
There are many ways to implement a VAD. What you described is actually perfectly equivalent to the most trivial (and least robust) VAD algorithm. Jean-Marc Andy Ross wrote:> Ton Grandgent wrote: >> Andy Ross wrotte: >>> I wrote a trivial squelch feature* in 10 minutes that works >>> basically 100% of the time. >> Could you please explain how this differs from VAD? > > Not knowing how VAD works, I can't say for sure. But enabling > VAD wasn't catching the existing transients (see original post), > and this does. So at the very least it differs in threshold. > > Andy > _______________________________________________ > Speex-dev mailing list > Speex-dev@xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/speex-dev >