|
|
Comparison of MASC with other Voice
Compression Technologies
|
Compression Method
|
Company |
Bit
Rate (kbps) |
MOS
Score |
|
MASC ACM
|
Vianix |
from 5.0 |
4.0 |
|
G.726
ADPCM |
Lucent
Technologies |
32 |
3.85 |
|
G.728
LD-CELP |
Lucent
Technologies |
16 |
3.61 |
|
G.729
CS-ACELP |
l'Université de Sherbrooke |
8 |
3.92 |
|
G.729 x
2 Enc. |
Lucent
Technologies |
8 |
3.27 |
|
G.729a
CS-ACELP |
l'Université de Sherbrooke |
8 |
3.7 |
|
G.723.1
ACELP |
l'Université de Sherbrooke |
5.3 |
3.65 |
|
GSM HR |
ETSI |
5.6 |
3.5 |
|
IS
54/136 |
l'Université de Sherbrooke |
7.95 |
3.5 |
|
GSM EFR |
l'Université de Sherbrooke |
12.2 |
4.0 |
|
G.711
PCM |
------------ |
64 |
4.1 |
*Bit Rate
LOWER is BETTER for Storage and Bandwidth savings
*MOS
(Mean Opinion Score) is a test used to evaluate quality of Voice. On this scale, a score
of 4.0 is considered “toll” quality, the quality of speech heard through a
normal telephone line.
|
 |
Toll
quality voice (MOS 4.0) |
•
|
|
•Up
to 22x smaller than .wav
|
|
|
• 95%
smaller than .wav (storage & bandwidth)
•
|
|
|
Up
to 44% less bandwidth than G.729 & GSM voice codecs
|
|
|
MASC= MOS
4.0
|
|
|
•GSM=MOS
3.7
|
DWER (Delta Word Error Rate)
The percentage increase in word
error rate compared to the uncompressed wav file performance on major Speech
Recognition Engines.
|
|
• Industry
avg:
mu-law
(64 Kbps) PCM + 5%-8%
|
|
|
• GSM,
G.729 :
mu-law
(64 Kbps)PCM + > 10%
|
|
|
MASC :
mu-law
(64 Kbps) PCM +
1.5%-2.0%
|
|
|
• MASC
packetized format: seamless integration to TCP/IP
|
|
|
• User-defined
indexing allows for efficient data retrieval unlike other voice
compression technologies |
|
