<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/18/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Premkiran Mannava</b> <<a href="mailto:loverays@gmail.com">loverays@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br><br><i><span class="q">"That's in general not very reliable. You can get PEAQ to say all sorts<br>of silly things."<br><br></span>Can you provide me links for any more effective tools other than PEAQ? Which is more reliable for Speex resampler?</i></blockquote>
<div><br>I can already tell you what Jean-Marc will say -- use your ears :)<br>Manual testing is the best way to go for doing actual quality determining.<br>To prevent regressions though, a tool like PEAQ might be useful -- not so much the actual quality level it determines, but the value changing a lot could then get you to do another manual test.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><span class="q"><i>"strongly suspect that it's just not compensating for the delay<br>
introduced by the resampler. Because higher quality means higher delay,<br>you'd find that PEAQ doesn't like it when you increase the resampler<br>
quality. You can easily remove the delay (well, not remove it but skip<br>the zeros it produces) by calling speex_resampler_skip_zeros() once,<br>before you start the processing."<br></i><br></span><i>When I use speex_resampler_skip_zeros() for 44100 to 48000 conversion, I got a very bad quality value when I used PEAQ. Do you suggest me not to use this function for fractional rate conversions?</i></blockquote>
<div><br>Doesn't this tell you that PEAQ doesn't work well with speex?<br><br></div></div>-- <br>Keith Kyzivat<br><br>SIPez LLC.<br>SIP VoIP, IM and Presence Consulting<br><a href="http://www.SIPez.com">http://www.SIPez.com</a><br>
tel: +1 (617) 273-4000