1990
DOI: 10.1109/29.56067
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Objective and subjective optimization of APC system performance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1991
1991
1999
1999

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We found in some previous work on forward adaptive APC that the structure in Fig. 3 gave the best results [53] by a slight margin. This ordering also seems preferable for backward adaptation, since the algorithm…”
Section: Tree Codersmentioning
confidence: 72%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We found in some previous work on forward adaptive APC that the structure in Fig. 3 gave the best results [53] by a slight margin. This ordering also seems preferable for backward adaptation, since the algorithm…”
Section: Tree Codersmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…However, the subjective quality and intelligibility at 9.6 kb/s is quite good with an extremely low level of granular noise. In comparison to 9.6 kb/s APC systems that we have studied extensively [53], the 9.6 kb/s multitree coder exhibits none of the spectral distortions of heavily center clipped APC systems and far less granular noise than SNRSEG optimized APC systems. We have not conducted performance comparisons with multipulse LPC and CELP at 9.6 kb/s.…”
Section: Performance Comparisonsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Unfortunately, as shown in Part II of this paper [3] and in [4]- [6], when they are used to evaluate more general coding and transmission systems, SNR and SNRseg often show little, if any, correlation to perceived speech quality. The continued popularity of these two estimators is likely due to their history, their simplicity, and the lack of a widely tested and accepted replacement.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%