Advertisement

Radioelectronics and Communications Systems

, Volume 59, Issue 11, pp 502–509 | Cite as

Objective estimation of the quality of radical noise suppression algorithms

  • A. Prodeus
  • V. S. Didkovskyi
Article

Abstract

There are compared six noise suppression algorithms with application of objective factors of the speech signal quality, and also with application of through quality factor of the system of automated speech recognition in form of speech recognition accuracy. It is shown that radical noise suppression algorithms are worse than traditional noise suppression algorithms by both restored speech quality and speech recognition accuracy due to essential signal distortion.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Benesty, J. Chen, Y. Huang, I. Cohen, Noise Reduction in Speech Processing (Springer-Verlag, Berlin–Heidelberg, 2009).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Ephraim, D. Malah, “Speech enhancement using a minimum-mean square error short-time spectral amplitude estimator,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. 32, No. 6, 1109 (Dec. 1984), DOI: 10.1109/TASSP. 1984.1164453.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y. Ephraim, D. Malah, “Speech enhancement using a minimum mean-square error log-spectral amplitude estimator,” IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process. 33, No. 2, 443 (Apr. 1985), DOI: 10.1109/TASSP. 1985.1164550.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Brooks, VOICEBOX: Speech Processing Toolbox for MATLAB, Imperial College London, Electrical Engineering Department, http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/hp/staff/dmb/voicebox/voicebox.html.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Plapous, C. Marro, L. Mauuary, P. Scalart, “A two-step noise reduction technique,” Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP, 17–21 May 2004 (IEEE, 2004), Vol. 1, pp. 289–292, DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.2004.1325979.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Plapous, C. Marro, P. Scalart, “Improved signal-to-noise ratio estimation for speech enhancement,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Language Process. 14, No. 6, 2098 (Nov. 2006), DOI: 10.1109/TASL.2006.872621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Hu, Philipos C. Loizou, “Evaluation of objective quality measures for speech enhancement,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Language Process. 16, No. 1, 229 (Jan. 2008), DOI: 10.1109/TASL. 2007.911054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jianfen Ma, Yi Hu, Philipos C. Loizou, “Objective measures for predicting speech intelligibility in noisy conditions based on new band-importance functions,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, No. 5, 3387 (May 2009), DOI: 10.1121/1.3097493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Young, G. Evermann, M. Gales, et al., The HTK Book (University Engineering Department, Cambridge, 2009).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Ellis, PLP and RASTA (and MFCC, and inversion) in Matlab, http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/resources/matlab/rastamat/.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Recommendation P.862 (2001) Amendment 2 (11/05), http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.862-200511-I!Amd2/en.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Prodeus, “Calculation of Speech Recognition Quality Factor WB-PESQ in MATLAB,” Proc. of 14th Int. Theoretical and Practical Conf. on New Network Technologies in Ukraine, 17–19 Sept. 2012, Partenit (Science issue Vesnik UNIIS, Kyiv, 2012), pp. 70–76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Allerton Press, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”KyivUkraine

Personalised recommendations