10.1. Design goals#
In short, the aim of speech coding methods is primarily to enable natural and efficient spoken communication over a geographical distance, given constraints on available resources. In other words, we want to be able to talk with a distant person with the aid of technology. Usually distance refers to location, but speech coding can be (and is often) used for storing speech signals (such that distance refers to distance in time). [Bäckström et al., 2017]
In particular, aspects of quality which we can be included in our design goals are for example:
Acoustic quality in the sense that the the reproduced acoustical signal should be similar to the original signal (measured for example in terms of signal to noise ratio or a perceptually weighted variant thereof).
Perceptual transparency refers to a property of high-accuracy coding systems, where a human listener cannot perceive a difference between the original and reconstructed signals. When discussing transparency, we however need to accurately define the methodology with which we measure transparency. Namely, if we compare small segments of an original and reconstructed signals, we can easily hear minute differences, which would never be perceived in a realistic use-case.
*Intelligibility *such that a listener can interpret the linguistic meaning of the reproduced signal.
Delay in the communication path, end-to-end, should be within reasonable limits (e.g. below 150 ms). A higher delay can impede the naturalness of a dialogue.
*Noisyness *caused by low-accuracy quantization and background noises should be minimized.
Distortions of the speech signal to the amount the original signal is perceived to be changed by the processing.
Naturalness of the speech signal refers to high natural vs. non-natural a speech signal sounds. For example, some types of non-natural speech signals could be such which sound robotic, metallic or muffled.
Listening effort refers to the effort a listener needs to use a telecommunications system, and it should be minimized. Effort can be both due to properties of the user-interface, but importantly also, the listener might have to exert effort to understand a distorted speech signal.
Annoyance is closely related to listening effort, in that a signal which is intelligible can have so severe distortions, noisiness or transmission delays that it is really annoying. Usually annoyance thus also increase listening effort.
Perception of distance is the a feeling that the participant has of the distance between participants. The main contributor to the perception of distance is probably room acoustics, such that if the distance between speaker and microphone is large, than the listener feels distant to the speaker. It affects for example the intimacy of a discussion, such that it is hard to feel intimate if the distance is large.
It is clear that different types of quality are prominent at different levels of coding-accuracy, which in turn is a function of available bitrate (bandwidth). As a rough characterization, with current technology, the quality-issues we optimize at different bitrates are:
At extremely low bitrates (below 1kbp/s), we cannot hope to encode speech at high quality. At best, we can hope to retain intelligibility.
At very low bitrates (1-2 kbp/s), intelligibility can usually be preserved, but speech signals can still be distorted and noisy, such that we want to minimize listening effort.
At low rates (3-8 kbps/s), we often have to balance between avoiding noisyness, distortions, annoyance and naturalness. In other words, we can often reduce noisyness by making the signal more muffled, but that would reduce naturalness. It is then very much a question of individual taste to choose which balance of distortions is best.
At medium rates (8-16 kbp/s), speech signals can already be coded with a high quality such that we can try to minimize the number of audible (perceivable) distortions. At these rates telecommunication systems can often, in practice, be transparent in the sense that users are not actively aware of any distortions, even if they would clearly notice distortions in a comparison with the original signal.
At high rates (above 16 kbp/s), it should in general be possible to encode speech signals at a perceptual transparent level. However, if computational resources are limited and in applications which require extremely low delay, distortions can still be audible.
Performance of a codec is however always a compromise between quality and resources. By increasing the amount of computational resources (or bandwidth) we can improve quality ad infinitum. The most important limited resources are
Bandwidth, that is, the bit-rate at which we can transmit data. It is limited by
physical constraints such as available radio channels,
power consumption (battery, ecology and price) and
infrastructure capacity (investment, complexity, power).
CPU, that is, the amount of operations per second that can be performed, which is further limited by
investment cost and
power consumption (battery, ecology and price).
Memory, that is, the amount of RAM and ROM which is needed for the system, which are limited by
investment cost and
power consumption (battery, ecology and price).
Furthermore, the use-case of the intended speech (and audio) codec has many important effects on the overall design. For example, the systems configuration can be one of the following:
One-to-one; the classic telephony conversation, where two phones transmit speech between them.
One-to-many; could be applicable for example in a setting like a radio-broadcast or in a storage application, where we encode once and have potentially multiple receivers/decoders. Since there are many receivers, we would then prefer that decoding the signal does not require much resources. In practice that means that the sender side (encoder) can use proportionally more resources.
Many-to-many; the typical teleconferencing application, often implemented with a cloud-server, such that merging of individual speakers can be done centrally, such that bandwidth to the many receivers can be saved.
*Many-to-one; *could be a distributed sensor-array scenario, where multiple devices in a room jointly record speech. Since we then have many encoders, they should be very simple and a majority of the intelligence and computational resources should be at the receiver end.
The overall design is also influenced by the type of transmission link. In particular, the first few generations of digital mobile phones operated with circuited-switched networks, where a fixed amount of bandwidth is allocated to every connection. Newer networks are however based on packet-switched designs, where data is transmitted essentially over the internet and capacity and routing is optimized on the fly. Packet-switched networks can in practice be much better optimized for overall cost and performance. However, a packet-switched network cannot guarantee a steady flow of packets, such that the receiver has to tolerate both delayed or missing packets as well as packets which arrive in the wrong order. Clearly this has an impact on both overall transmission delay of the system, as well as increases the computational complexity of the receiver. The costs are however usually balanced by the savings gained in network optimization.
A further important related aspect are assumptions about lost packets in general. In many storage and broadcast applications we can assume that packets are not lost and that all data is available at the receiver. It however much more common that we must assume that some packets are lost. Among the most important consequences of lost packets for the design is that in decoding the signal, we cannot assume that we have access to previous packets. Specifically, if decoding of the current packet depends on the previous packet, then a single lost packet would make us unable to decode any of the following packets. Clearly such sensitivity to lost packets is unacceptable in most real-world transmission systems. However, we could encode speech with much higher efficiency, if we were allowed to use previous packets to predict the current packet. The likelihood of lost packets thus dictates the compromise between sensitivity to lost packets and coding (compression) efficiency.