[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[hts-users:03855] Re: objective evaluation


Thank you for your answer.
 
I have seen paper below.
 
"Analysis of Speaker Adaptation Algorithms for HMM-Based Speech Synthesis and a Constrained SMAPLR Adaptation Algorithm"
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUDIO, SPEECH, AND LANGUAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 17, NO. 1, JANUARY 2009
 


2013/9/23 Dietmar Schabus <schabus@xxxxxx>
Please tell us which paper you are talking about (where the table is from).

But this paper [1] (which I googled) seems to use similar measures (page
15): mel-cepstal distortion for spectral features, and logF0 RMSE
expressed in cent for fundamental frequency.

[1]
http://tcts.fpms.ac.be/publications/regpapers/2013/csl_hypohyper_bptdtd.pdf

Regards, Dietmar

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Dietmar Schabus | Researcher
phone +43 1 5052830-48 | fax -99 | schabus@xxxxxx |
http://userver.ftw.at/~schabus/

FTW Telecommunications Research Center Vienna
Donau-City-Straße 1/3 | 1220 Vienna | Austria | www.ftw.at


On 2013-09-23 02:49, Hea Young Park wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
> I did objective evaluation about HTS system that I had built.
> Below is my calculation about each distance.
> 본문 이미지 1
>   Unfortunately, as you can see, the range of mgc and lf0 distance from
> my objective evaluation is so many different from that of the papers
> (see, table below)
>
> 본문 이미지 2
>
> Please let me know if you find something wrong in my calculation.
>
> Below is the result of what I calculated.
>
>   - mgc distance : 1.948
>
>   - lf0 distance : 0.133
>




Follow-Ups
[hts-users:03856] AW: Re: objective evaluation, Toman, Markus
References
[hts-users:03853] objective evaluation, Hea Young Park
[hts-users:03854] Re: objective evaluation, Dietmar Schabus