Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Are different implementations meaningless? (Read 2422 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Are different implementations meaningless?

It is clear that mp3 and mp4 (aac) audio codecs very much depent on the quality of implementation (psychoacoustic model, which parts of signal should be more quantized than others, etc. etc...). Different implementation - different quality (lame, dolby, blade, quicktime...).

Does the same thing relate to speech codecs, for example the latest AMR wideband? Since the implementation is very much standardized, can quality of the encoded speech be improved in some way? Or different implementations are meaningless or impossible?

I would appriciate very much if someone familiar with speech or AMR could give me the answer.

Are different implementations meaningless?

Reply #1 –
Quality improvement can be acheived with preprocessing - noise or redundancy reduction. I think it's also possible to integrate simple psycho acoustic principles to the coding process, but I don't know how common it is in practice.

/Pontus