Subjective Assessment Methods for the Measurement of Digital Speech Coder Quality

  • Spiros Dimolitsas
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 224)


Standardization activities in digital speech coding over the past few years have resulted in an increasing need to develop and understand the methodologies used to subjectively assess new voice transmission systems before they are introduced into a telephone network. In this chapter a review of subjective methodologies for the assessment of telephone or good communications quality digital speech coding systems is provided. Technical aspects concerning the network applications and other characteristics relevant to the type of system under evaluation are briefly considered first, since these factors influence the selection of a suitable assessment methodology. Next, listener opinion tests are described. Finally, articulation and diagnostic tests as well as conversational opinion and field tests are briefly addressed.


Mean Opinion Score Opinion Score Speech Material Speech Codec Digital Speech 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    D. L. Richards, Telecommunication by Speech, New York: John Wiley, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    CCITT, “Methods for Subjective Determination of Transmission Quality,” Revised Rec. P.80, Geneva 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    CCITT, “Subjective Performance Assessment of Telephone-Band and Wideband Digital Codecs” Draft Rec. P. 83, Geneva 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. Dimolitsas, “Objective Speech Distortion Measures and Their Relevance to Speech Quality Assessment,” Proc. IEEE, Vol. 136, Pt. I, No. 5, pp. 317–324, October 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Spiros Dimolitsas. “Subjective Quality Quantification of Digital Voice Communications Systems”. IEE Proceedings, Part I: Communications, Speech and Vision. Volume 138, N. 6, pp. 585–595, December 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    CCITT, “Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) of Voice Frequencies,” Rec. G.711, Red Book, Vol. III.3, pp. 85–93, Malaga-Torremolinos, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    CCITT, “32-kbit/s Adaptive Differential Pulse Code Modulation (ADPCM),” Rec. G.721, Red Book, Vol. III.3, pp. 125–159, Malaga-Torremolinos, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    CCITT,. “Modulated Noise Reference Unit (MNRU),” Rec. P.81, Blue Book, Vol. V, pp. 198–203, Melbourne, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    CCITT, “Subjective Performance Assessments of Digital Processes Using the Modulated Noise Reference Unit (MNRU),” Suppl. 14, Blue Book, Vol. V, pp. 341–360, Melbourne, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. R. Rosenberger, “Quality Assessment Methods for Speech Coding,” Telecommunications Journal, Vol. 55, No. 12, 1988, pp. 820–825.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Colin South and Paolino Usai, “Subjective Performance of CCITT’s 16 kbil/s LD-CELP Algorithm with Voice Signals,” Proceedings, IEEE Global Communications Conference, Globecom’92, Orlando, FL, December 1992.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    CCITT, “Methods Used for Assessing Telephony Transmission Performance,” Suppl. No. sn2, Blue Book, Vol. V, pp. 237–248, Melbourne, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. E. P. Box, W. G. Hunter, and J. S. Hunter, Statistics for Experimenters: An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis and Model Building, New York: John Wiley, 1978.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    W. D. Voiers, “Evaluating Processed Speech Using the Diagnostic Rhyme Test,” Speech Technology, pp. 30–39, January/February 1983.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    W. D. Voiers, “Diagnostic Acceptability Measure for Speech Communications Systems,” International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Hartford, Connecticut, Proc. IEEE, 1977.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Bell System Technical Reference, “Transmission Parameters Affecting Voiceband Data. Transmission Measuring Techniques”,. May 1975 Publication 41009.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    S. Dimolitsas, F. L. Corcoran, M. Onufry, and H. G. Suyderhoud, “Evaluation of ADPCM Coders for Digital Circuit Multiplication Equipment,” COMSAT Technical Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 323–345, Fall 1987.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    CCITT, “Prediction of Transmission Qualities from Objective Measurements,” Suppl. No. 4, Red Book, Vol. V, pp. 214–236, Malaga-Torremolinos, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Spiros Dimolitsas
    • 1
  1. 1.COMSAT LaboratoriesCommunications Satellite CorporationClarksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations