MELP / MELPe vocoder and IMBE vocoder
in [DSP]
|
Prev: TI 320C6713
Next: Software PLL (SPLL)
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 4 Feb 2006 14:39 NS wrote: >>> What's the difference between MELP and MELPe ? >> >> MELPe is brand name for MELP below 2400 bps. The main difference from >> the original MELP is in the advanced VQ of the parameters. > > > That's totally incorrect! "brand-name" for DoD & NATO standard? Where > did you get that from? I just can't believe what people can possibly > make up when they can't just admit they simply don't know???? You are mistaken. There is no DOD standard which is using the term MELPe. MELPe is somebody's brand name or trade mark, which can very well become a generic. >> >> MELPe 1200/2400 is adopted as a federal standard MIL-STD-3005. The >> documentation should be available. > > > It was also adopted an NATO standard. And again, not only 1200/2400 bps > but also 600 bps rate MELPe exists. As far as I know, 600 bps is not adopted as the standard yet. > All this you could read too at > Compandent's web site: You are so passionate about Compandent that I am guessing you are either on their salary or holding their shares. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
From: NS on 4 Feb 2006 18:05 > NS wrote: >>>> What's the difference between MELP and MELPe ? >>> >>> MELPe is brand name for MELP below 2400 bps. The main difference from >>> the original MELP is in the advanced VQ of the parameters. >> >> >> That's totally incorrect! "brand-name" for DoD & NATO standard? >> Where did you get that from? I just can't believe what people can >> possibly make up when they can't just admit they simply don't know???? > > You are mistaken. > There is no DOD standard which is using the term MELPe. MELPe is > somebody's brand name or trade mark, which can very well become a generic. All you are saying is nothing but speculations! You probably do not have the documentation because I do have, and they all use the term MELPe!!! >>> MELPe 1200/2400 is adopted as a federal standard MIL-STD-3005. The >>> documentation should be available. >> >> >> It was also adopted an NATO standard. And again, not only 1200/2400 >> bps but also 600 bps rate MELPe exists. > > As far as I know, 600 bps is not adopted as the standard yet. "As far as you know"... exactly! >> All this you could read too at Compandent's web site: > > You are so passionate about Compandent that I am guessing you are either > on their salary or holding their shares. or I simply appreciate professionals...
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 4 Feb 2006 18:25 NS wrote: >> There is no DOD standard which is using the term MELPe. MELPe is >> somebody's brand name or trade mark, which can very well become a >> generic. > > > All you are saying is nothing but speculations! > > You probably do not have the documentation because I do have, and they > all use the term MELPe!!! All you are saying is no more then words. No matter how many exclamation signs do you put after your statements. Be so kind to prove it with a valid reference. > >>> All this you could read too at Compandent's web site: >> >> >> You are so passionate about Compandent that I am guessing you are >> either on their salary or holding their shares. > > > or I simply appreciate professionals... Or you are simply an ignorant who just learned about MELP. VLV
From: NS on 4 Feb 2006 22:30 > NS wrote: >>> There is no DOD standard which is using the term MELPe. MELPe is >>> somebody's brand name or trade mark, which can very well become a >>> generic. >> >> >> All you are saying is nothing but speculations! >> >> You probably do not have the documentation because I do have, and they >> all use the term MELPe!!! > > All you are saying is no more then words. No matter how many exclamation > signs do you put after your statements. Be so kind to prove it with a > valid reference. You need to ask more nicely than that if you want people to help you or teach you... certainly not calling them "ignorant" But in any case, the documents are the official MELPe standard's documents. > Or you are simply an ignorant who just learned about MELP. If you say so..., but since you know even less than I do, what does that make you... ? :) BTW, you mentioned that the MELP's model is more adequate than MBE's, do you know what specifically is better in the model? Does your statement include also the MBE by Amitava Das and Allen Gersho?
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 4 Feb 2006 23:35
NS wrote: >>>> There is no DOD standard which is using the term MELPe. MELPe is >>>> somebody's brand name or trade mark, which can very well become a >>>> generic. >>> >>> All you are saying is nothing but speculations! >>> >>> You probably do not have the documentation because I do have, and >>> they all use the term MELPe!!! >> >> >> All you are saying is no more then words. No matter how many >> exclamation signs do you put after your statements. Be so kind to >> prove it with a valid reference. > > > You need to ask more nicely than that if you want people to help you or > teach you... certainly not calling them "ignorant" You are just boring anonimous. Have courage to admit your mistake. > BTW, you mentioned that the MELP's model is more adequate than MBE's, do > you know what specifically is better in the model? It is very simple: a speech is not made of the bandpass voiced/unvoiced hard decisions. MELP uses considerably more elaborate model for the excitation. The difference comes into play at low bitrates and high pitch values. > Does your statement > include also the MBE by Amitava Das and Allen Gersho? Sure. Their model is just another way of representing the parameters of the basic MBE. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com |