Comparison of narrowband and wideband speech codecs in noisy environnement
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 13

Comparison of Narrowband and Wideband Speech codecs in noisy environnement PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 94 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Workshop on Wideband Speech Quality in Terminals and Networks: Assessment and Prediction 8th and 9th June 2004 - Mainz, Germany. Comparison of Narrowband and Wideband Speech codecs in noisy environnement.

Download Presentation

Comparison of Narrowband and Wideband Speech codecs in noisy environnement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Comparison of narrowband and wideband speech codecs in noisy environnement

Workshop on Wideband Speech Quality in Terminals and Networks: Assessment and Prediction8th and 9th June 2004 - Mainz, Germany

Comparison of Narrowband and Wideband Speech codecs in noisy environnement

Noel Chateau [email protected], Laetitia Gros [email protected],

Catherine Quinquis [email protected], Jean Yves Monfort [email protected]


Content

Content

  • 3Gpp/VoIP context

  • Methodology

  • Description of Experiment

  • Results

  • Conclusion


3gpp voip context

3GPP/VoIP Context

  • Rel 99 : March 2000

    • only narrow band speech and Circuit switched communications

  • Rel4: March 2001

    • Packet switched for download

    • Selection of wide band speech codec

  • Rel5: March 2002

    • Packet switched conversationnal communications

    • narrow band and wide band codecs

  • Rel6: September 2004

    • Characterisation of default codecs for Packet switched conversationnal communications


3gpp characterisation of default codecs for packet switched conversationnal communications

3GPP/ Characterisation of default codecs for Packet switched conversationnal communications

  • 1st phase

    • AMR codec in quiet and noisy environment

    • AMRWB codec in quiet and noisy environment

  • 2nd phase

    • AMR and AMRWB versus legacy codecs in quiet environment

  • Further experiment

    • AMR and AMRWB versus legacy codecs in noisy environment : car noise


Methodology

Methodology

  • VoIP in UMTS

    • delay is one major issue

      • Interleaving due to radio environment

      • Buffering in decoder side to cope with jitter

      • IP transport

      • Packetisation in IP as well as on radio leg

    • Not only quality of codecs but acceptability of service

  • Conversation test

    • More accurate to assess acceptability of service


Experiment description

Experiment: Description

  • Noisy environment : car noise @ 60dB Pa

    • Car noise is in one of the room, the other room is quiet

  • Codecs under test

    • AMR (6.7 and 12.2 modes)

    • AMRWB (12.65 and 15.85 modes)

    • G.723.1@ 6.3 kb/s

    • G.729@ 8 kb/s

    • G.711@ 64 kb/s

    • G.722 @ 64 kb/s

  • Environmental conditions

    • IP packet loss : 0% or 3%


Experiment description1

PC 1 : VOIP Terminal Simulator

PC 3 : Network Simulator

PC 2 : VOIP Terminal Simulator

Network Board A

Network Board B

Hub 1

Hub 2

Experiment: Description


Results on voice quality criterion

Results on voice quality criterion

  • ANOVA

    • significant main effects: noise, PLP & codec

    • significant interactions: codec x PLP

  • Planned comparisons

    • Interaction bandth x noise for PLP=0%: NS

    • Interaction Bandth x PLP for Noise: NS

  • Tuckey tests show a superiority of some codecs on others for noisy and/or lossy conditions, but not systematic. Without noise and packet losses: no significant differences.

  • The superiority of WB Codecs is higher for noisy and packet-loss conditions, but there is no systematic benefit of WB in noise.

A N O V A


Results on understanding criterion

Results on understanding criterion

  • ANOVA

    • significant main effects: noise, PLP & codec

    • significant interactions: codec x PLP

  • Planned comparisons

    • Interaction bandth x noise for PLP = 0%: Signif.

    • Interaction Bandth x PLP for Noise: NS

  • Tuckey tests show an almost systematic superiority of WB and G.711 codecs on NB codecs (except AMR NB 12.2 kbs) for noisy and/or lossy conditions. Without noise and packet losses: no significant differences.

  • Considered globally, WB and G.711 codecs better resist to noise for PLP=0%.

A N O V A


Results on interaction criterion

Results on interaction criterion

  • ANOVA

    • significant main effects: noise, PLP & codec

    • significant interactions: codec x noise

  • Planned comparisons

    • Interaction bandth x noise for PLP = 0%: Signif.

    • Interaction Bandth x PLP for Noise: NS

  • Tuckey tests show only a few significant differences for noisy conditions only.

  • As for the understandy criterion, considered globally, WB codecs better resist to noise for PLP=0%.

A N O V A


Results on default perception criterion

Results on default perception criterion

  • ANOVA

    • significant main effects: noise, PLP & codec

    • significant interactions: codec x PLP

  • Planned comparisons

    • Interaction bandth x noise for PLP = 0%: NS

    • Interaction Bandth x PLP for Noise: NS

  • Tuckey tests show no significant differences between codecs for any condition.

  • The default perception criterion does not seem relevant to detect a possible advantage of WB codecs in noise.

A N O V A


Results on global quality criterion

Results on global quality criterion

  • ANOVA

    • significant main effects: noise, PLP & codec

    • significant interactions: none

  • Planned comparisons

    • Interaction bandth x noise for PLP = 0%: NS

    • Interaction Bandth x PLP for Noise: NS

  • Tuckey tests show an almost systematic superiority of WB and G.711 codecs on NB codecs (except AMR NB 12.2 kbs) for noisy and/or lossy conditions. Without noise and packet losses: no significant differences.

  • As for the voice-quality criterion, the superiority of WB Codecs is higher for noisy and packet-loss conditions, but there is no systematic benefit of WB in noise.

A N O V A


Summary of subjective tests results

Summary of subjective tests results

  • ANOVA is not useful for determining if WB codecs are significantly better than NB codecs in noisy environment but show that noise was the strongest experimental factor that affected the subjective data.

  • Planned comparisons and Tuckey tests show that:

    • the MOS differences between WB and NB are significantly larger in noisy conditions than in silent conditions for no packet losses, for "Understanding" and "Interactivity" criteria.

    • the MOS differences between WB and NB are often but not systematically larger in noisy and/or 3% packet-loss conditions than in the silent and 0 % packet-loss condition, for the "Voice quality" and "Global quality" criteria.

    • the differences between WB and NB is independant on the presence of noise and packet loss for the "Default perception" criterion.

  • It can be concluded that without packet loss, in noise, the advantage of WB compared to NB is that it enhances the comprehension and the interaction with the other partner, but not voice and global quality, since these criteria are highly affected by the presence of noise.


  • Login