Rate-Aware Learned Speech Compression

Guangchuan Chi; Jun Xu; Li Song; Yuelin Hu; Yuhan Liu; Zhengxue Cheng

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Rate-Aware Learned Speech Compression

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A learned speech codec that replaces residual vector quantization with a channel-wise entropy model and CNN-RWKV mixture blocks claims 53.51% average BD-Rate savings.

desk verdict Plausible new architecture combination, but the headline BD-RATE numbers are unaudited because the comparison protocol is never specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11999 v1 pith:NVTRUI24 submitted 2025-01-21 eess.AS cs.SD

Jun Xu , Zhengxue Cheng , Guangchuan Chi , Yuhan Liu , Yuelin Hu , Li Song This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.AScs.SD

keywords speechcompressionneuralcodecchannel-wiseentropymodelresidualvectorquantizationrate-distortionoptimizationCNN-RWKVmixtureblockViSQOLPESQ

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the main bottleneck in neural speech codecs is not the encoder or decoder but the quantizer: residual vector quantization (RVQ) forces discrete tokens, causes codebook collapse, and is hard to train. The authors replace RVQ with a channel-wise entropy model that predicts a Gaussian distribution for each slice of the latent, encodes residuals, and is trained end-to-end with a rate-distortion loss. They also redesign the backbone as multi-scale CNN-RWKV mixture blocks to capture both local and long-range structure. On LibriTTS, they report 53.51% average BD-Rate bitrate savings over OPUS, EVS, Lyra-v2, EnCodec, and FunCodec, along with 0.26 BD-ViSQOL and 0.44 BD-PESQ gains. If these numbers hold, learned speech compression can roughly halve the bitrate for the same perceived quality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the channel-wise entropy model aided by CRM blocks. The entropy model divides the latent $y$ into slices $y_0, y_1, \dots, y_{s-1}$, uses a hyperprior encoder-decoder to compute $F_{\text{mean}}$ and $F_{\text{scale}}$, and then a slice network estimates $(\mu_i, \sigma_i)$ from the hyperprior features and already-decoded slices; a latent residual prediction network estimates the quantization residual. The CRM block is a 1x1 convolution that splits channels into a convolutional SEANet path and an RWKV attention path, down/up-sampled for computational balance, then concatenates and fuses the two branches. Together these components carry the argument by replacing discrete codebook quantization with continuous distribution modeling, so no codebook can collapse and the rate-distortion loss is differentiable end-to-end.

What would settle it

Re-run the comparison on the LibriTTS test-clean and test-other subsets with the same sample rate and matched operating points for OPUS, EVS, Lyra-v2, EnCodec, FunCodec, and the proposed model, computing ViSQOL and PESQ on the identical resampled waveforms. If the average BD-Rate saving is not close to 53.51% or the BD-ViSQOL and BD-PESQ gains vanish, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a rate-aware learned speech codec built from an STFT-domain encoder-decoder, a channel-wise entropy model, and CNN-RWKV mixture blocks outperforms both traditional and neural baselines. The quantizer is replaced by a hyperprior-based channel-wise entropy model: the latent $y$ is sliced, each slice is encoded using estimated Gaussian parameters $\Phi_i=(\mu_i,\sigma_i)$ produced from a hyperprior and previously decoded slices, and a latent residual prediction network refines the reconstructed slice before decoding. The backbone uses CRM blocks, where a 1x1 convolution splits features into a convolutional SEANet path and an RWKV attention path with down/up-sampling, then fuses them. The authors argue this removes codebook collapse, permits end-to-end rate-distortion training, and makes the encoder-decoder flexible across bitrates, yielding reported average 53.51% BD-Rate saving and ViSQOL/PESQ gains.

Load-bearing premise

The reported bitrate savings assume that every compared codec was evaluated at matched bitrates, sample rates, and operating points; the paper does not state these alignment details, so the central comparison cannot be audited from the manuscript alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported gains are reproducible, the same quality as existing neural codecs would be delivered at roughly half the bitrate in the tested range.
The RVQ bottleneck is removable: codebooks and two-stage training can be replaced by a single end-to-end rate-distortion objective.
The channel-wise entropy model makes bitrate scalable by training with different Lagrange multipliers, avoiding per-bitrate codebook retraining.
RWKV-based attention keeps linear computational complexity, so the architecture remains compatible with streaming speech input.
Speech codecs built this way could lower bandwidth consumption for real-time communication and spoken-language applications.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension: applying the same entropy-model swap to music and general audio codecs would show whether the gains are specific to speech or common to learned audio compression.
If RVQ is replaced by entropy coding, downstream systems that rely on discrete tokens, such as language-model conditioning, may need a separate tokenizer because the codec no longer outputs a codebook index stream.
The multi-scale CNN-RWKV backbone could transfer to other compression domains such as learned image or video compression, where mixing local and non-local features has similar value.
The decisive check would be a re-evaluation with matched operating points and a single objective protocol; without that, the exact magnitude of the 53.51% figure remains an open question.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The real contribution here is the combination, not the SOTA claim. Replacing RVQ with a channel-wise entropy model (the Minnen–Singh/ELIC line) inside a speech codec, and mixing SEANet conv blocks with RWKV attention in a multi-scale backbone, is a sensible transfer of ideas that have already worked in image compression. The ablation in Fig. 4b supports the core claim that the entropy model beats RVQ over the whole bitrate range, and the training loss (L1 + multi-scale Mel) is not the evaluation metric, so the gain is not circular. That part is solid.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress test flags: the 53.51% BD-RATE headline cannot be audited. The paper never reports how bitrates were measured and matched for each codec, how the 24 kHz LibriTTS signals were resampled or bandlimited before PESQ (only defined for 8/16 kHz) and ViSQOL, or whether all codecs ran on identical utterances. The RD curves have only five codecs, no error bars, no operating-point tables, and no code. A systematic offset of 10–20% on the bitrate axis of one baseline can move BD-RATE by more than the claimed margin, so the magnitude of the gain is genuinely unverifiable from the manuscript. This is not a proof of a load-bearing flaw; it is a missing-evidence problem.

That said, the architecture is plausible, the components are all established, and the authors clearly know the relevant literature. I would not call the thinking sloppy — the paper is coherent in its own terms. The problem is that the central quantitative claim is an empirical SOTA claim, and empirical SOTA claims need a reproducible evaluation protocol. Without code, data, bitrate-matching details, and error bars, the paper is not refereeable as-is.

Who is this for? Researchers working on neural speech codecs who want to see a clean entropy-model baseline and a reasonable CNN–RWKV backbone. They will get a good starting point, but they should not trust the reported numbers without replicating. It deserves a serious peer review — an editor should send it to a referee, asking the authors for code, detailed protocol, and per-operating-point results. If the numbers hold after that, it is a useful practical contribution. If not, the architecture alone is still worth publishing in a workshop or as a preprint.

Recommendation: send to peer review with a strong request for reproducibility; do not desk reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a learned speech compression scheme that replaces the residual vector quantizer (RVQ) with a channel-wise entropy model augmented by a hyperprior path and latent residual prediction, and that uses multi-scale CNN-RWKV mixture (CRM) blocks in the encoder, decoder, and entropy model. The method is trained end-to-end with a rate-distortion loss. On LibriTTS, the authors report state-of-the-art results with an average 53.51% BD-Rate saving, a 0.26 BD-ViSQOL gain, and a 0.44 BD-PESQ gain relative to OPUS, EVS, Lyra-v2, EnCodec, and FunCodec over 1–16 kbps. An ablation indicates that replacing RVQ with the entropy model improves ViSQOL over a FunCodec-based baseline.

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible and the comparison protocol is fair, the paper would make a useful contribution by demonstrating that replacing RVQ with a learned entropy model—an idea proven in image compression—can also benefit neural speech codecs, and that mixing convolutional and RWKV-based attention blocks improves rate-distortion performance. The paper's strengths include using established components (hyperprior, channel-wise autoregressive modeling, residual prediction) and providing an ablation that isolates the entropy-model contribution. However, the central state-of-the-art claim is currently supported only by two RD figures with no numerical tables, no error bars, no bitrate-matching details, and no code, so the significance cannot be fully assessed from the manuscript as written.

major comments (4)

[§III.A.3 / §III.B / Fig. 1 / Fig. 4a] The comparison protocol is not specified, which makes the headline BD-Rate numbers impossible to audit. The paper does not state which exact codec configurations were used at each operating point (mono/stereo, internal sample rate, frame size, packet-loss settings), how the nominal bitrate of each point was obtained and matched across codecs (e.g., bit-exact compressed size divided by duration, including all side information, versus a format-level bitrate setting), or whether all codecs were evaluated on the identical set of utterances. A systematic offset on the bitrate axis of one baseline can change BD-Rate by more than the claimed margin, so the reported -56.94% and -50.05% BD-Rate values in Figs. 1 and 4a cannot be verified without a detailed protocol and a per-point numerical table.
[§III.A.4 / §III.A.1 / Fig. 1 / Fig. 4a] The handling of sample rate and metric bandwidth is unspecified. LibriTTS audio is widely distributed at 24 kHz, while PESQ is defined only for 8/16 kHz speech and ViSQOL also has fixed operating conditions; the paper does not state how signals were resampled or bandlimited before computing these metrics, nor whether the proposed codec's output bandwidth matched that of the baselines. If bandwidths differ, the reported BD-ViSQOL and BD-PESQ gains may reflect bandwidth differences rather than coding efficiency, so this omission is load-bearing for the SOTA claim.
[§III.B / §III.C / Fig. 4b] The experimental evidence consists of two RD curves per metric with no error bars, no per-bitrate tables, and no statistical significance tests. Given that the claimed gains (e.g., 0.26 BD-ViSQOL) are modest, the absence of variability measures across test-clean and test-other is a serious gap. Additionally, the ablation in Fig. 4b is shown only against a FunCodec-based RVQ baseline on test-clean, so it does not establish that the full method outperforms all baselines; that claim rests entirely on the unaudited curves of Figs. 1 and 4a.
[§II.A / §II.C / §III.A.2] Several implementation details needed for reproducibility are missing: the STFT frame length, hop size, window type, and time-frequency dimension; the number of slices s in Eq. (2); the channel dimensions and number of CRM blocks at each scale; the RWKV configuration and LSTM size; the model parameter count; and the actual entropy coding scheme used to turn the predicted distributions into a bitstream. Without these, the rate term in Eq. (3) cannot be connected to the reported bitrate axis, and the claimed BD-Rate values cannot be independently reproduced.

minor comments (5)

[§III.A.3 / References] Reference [3] is cited as the basis for Lyra-v2, but [3] is the SoundStream paper; Lyra-v2 is a different codec and should have its own citation.
[Fig. 4a caption] The caption states that the subplot shows "evaluation metrics ViSQOL," but the vertical axis and the text in §III.B indicate that this is a PESQ curve; the caption should be corrected.
[Abstract / §I] The term "BD-VisQol" is a misspelling of ViSQOL; use the standard capitalization throughout.
[§III.C] The sentence "we proposes two major improvements" contains a subject-verb agreement error.
[Eq. (1) / §II.A] Eq. (1) defines ¯y = ˆy, but the text immediately afterward says that a residual r is added to ˆy to obtain the refined ¯y that is fed to the decoder; this is an internal inconsistency that should be clarified in the equation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SOTA claim is an empirical comparison against external codecs and external perceptual metrics, and no equation reduces the reported gains to a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical rate-distortion comparison. The proposed system replaces RVQ with a channel-wise entropy model and a CNN-RWKV mixture backbone; its derivation chain is Eqs. (1)-(4), where the rate terms are the negative log-likelihoods of the model's own latent distributions and the distortion is L1 plus multi-scale Mel-spectrogram loss. None of these equations defines the evaluation metrics ViSQOL or PESQ, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: BD-Rate, BD-ViSQOL, and BD-PESQ are computed from RD curves of the proposed system against external codecs (OPUS, EVS, Lyra-v2, EnCodec, FunCodec). The ablation in Fig. 4b compares model variants directly rather than deriving one variant's gain from another variant's fitted values. The only co-authored citation is Ref. [14] (learned image compression with Gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules), which contributes a general architectural idea but is not invoked to prove the speech codec's performance; the same design choices are also supported by external works [15] and [16]. The audit concerns about unspecified bitrate-matching, resampling, and PESQ operating conditions are correctness or reproducibility risks, not circularity, because they do not make a claimed output equal to an input by construction. The empirical claim is therefore self-contained relative to the paper's own derivation, and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on training choices, undisclosed hyperparameters, and external objective metrics. No new physical entities or outside-model constructs are introduced; the CRM block is an architectural component rather than a postulated entity.

free parameters (3)

lambda (rate-distortion weight) = [0.25, 0.8, 2, 5.5, 9, 18]
Section III.A.2 trains six models, one per lambda, to span bitrates; the central RD curve depends on these hand-chosen values.
alpha (multi-scale window size range) = [5, 6, ..., 11]
Section III.A.2, Eq. 4 sums the Mel-spectrogram loss over window sizes 2^5 to 2^11; this choice is not derived from data.
Architecture hyperparameters (number of CRM blocks, channel widths, RWKV dimensions, LSTM size) = not reported
Encoder and decoder capacity is central to the RD gain, but these values are omitted from the paper, which makes re-implementation impossible.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption STFT is an adequate domain transformation for neural speech compression.
Section II.A, Eq. 1 assumes the time-frequency representation xf preserves enough information for the encoder and decoder.
domain assumption Channel-wise entropy models from learned image compression transfer to speech latent distributions.
Section II.C applies the slice-wise autoregressive model of Minnen and Singh and ELIC to speech without validating the density assumptions on speech latents.
domain assumption The quantization operation Q(y - mu) + mu is trainable end to end; the paper does not specify the gradient approximation.
Section II.A Eq. 1 uses a nondifferentiable rounding operation; training success relies on an unstated straight-through or noise-based gradient.
domain assumption ViSQOL and PESQ are valid proxies for perceived speech quality.
Section III.A.4 uses only these objective metrics; no subjective listening test is reported.
domain assumption LibriTTS test-clean and test-other are representative and were not used for training.
Section III.A.1 states the corpus is used to train and evaluate, but does not explicitly state the train/test split or confirm no leakage.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rate-Aware Learned Speech Compression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NVTRUI24

@misc{pith2026250111999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rate-Aware Learned Speech Compression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NVTRUI24}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11999}
}

read the original abstract

The rapid rise of real-time communication and large language models has significantly increased the importance of speech compression. Deep learning-based neural speech codecs have outperformed traditional signal-level speech codecs in terms of rate-distortion (RD) performance. Typically, these neural codecs employ an encoder-quantizer-decoder architecture, where audio is first converted into latent code feature representations and then into discrete tokens. However, this architecture exhibits insufficient RD performance due to two main drawbacks: (1) the inadequate performance of the quantizer, challenging training processes, and issues such as codebook collapse; (2) the limited representational capacity of the encoder and decoder, making it difficult to meet feature representation requirements across various bitrates. In this paper, we propose a rate-aware learned speech compression scheme that replaces the quantizer with an advanced channel-wise entropy model to improve RD performance, simplify training, and avoid codebook collapse. We employ multi-scale convolution and linear attention mixture blocks to enhance the representational capacity and flexibility of the encoder and decoder. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method achieves state-of-the-art RD performance, obtaining 53.51% BD-Rate bitrate saving in average, and achieves 0.26 BD-VisQol and 0.44 BD-PESQ gains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11999 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Architecture of the proposed Rate-Aware Learned Speech Compression, including the encoder, entropy model, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Architecture/steps of the entropy model. The first step is obtaining latent parameters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Subplots (a) shows the comparison between the proposed scheme and the baseline schemes in terms of the evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Definition of the opus audio codec,

J.-M. Valin, K. V os, and T. Terriberry, “Definition of the opus audio codec,” Tech. Rep., 2012

2012
[2]

Overview of the evs codec architecture,

M. Dietz, M. Multrus, V . Eksler, V . Malenovsky, E. Norvell, H. Pobloth, L. Miao, Z. Wang, L. Laaksonen, A. Vasilache et al. , “Overview of the evs codec architecture,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 5698–5702

work page 2015
[3]

Soundstream: An end-to-end neural audio codec,

N. Zeghidour, A. Luebs, A. Omran, J. Skoglund, and M. Tagliasacchi, “Soundstream: An end-to-end neural audio codec,” IEEE/ACM Transac- tions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 30, pp. 495–507, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

High fidelity neural audio compression,

A. D ´efossez, J. Copet, G. Synnaeve, and Y . Adi, “High fidelity neural audio compression,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13438 , 2022

arXiv 2022
[5]

Funcodec: A fundamental, reproducible and integrable open-source toolkit for neural speech codec,

Z. Du, S. Zhang, K. Hu, and S. Zheng, “Funcodec: A fundamental, reproducible and integrable open-source toolkit for neural speech codec,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 591–595

work page 2024
[6]

High- fidelity audio compression with improved rvqgan,

R. Kumar, P. Seetharaman, A. Luebs, I. Kumar, and K. Kumar, “High- fidelity audio compression with improved rvqgan,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023, pp. 27 980–27 993

work page 2023
[7]

Seanet: A multi- modal speech enhancement network,

M. Tagliasacchi, Y . Li, K. Misiunas, and D. Roblek, “Seanet: A multi- modal speech enhancement network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.02095 , 2020

arXiv 2009
[8]

Real-time speech frequency bandwidth extension,

Y . Li, M. Tagliasacchi, O. Rybakov, V . Ungureanu, and D. Roblek, “Real-time speech frequency bandwidth extension,” in ICASSP 2021- 2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2021, pp. 691–695

work page 2021

Show all 22 references

[9]

Long short-term memory,

A. Graves and A. Graves, “Long short-term memory,” Supervised sequence labelling with recurrent neural networks , pp. 37–45, 2012

2012
[10]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswani, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

2017
[11]

Melgan: Generative adversarial networks for conditional waveform synthesis,

K. Kumar, R. Kumar, T. De Boissiere, L. Gestin, W. Z. Teoh, J. Sotelo, A. De Brebisson, Y . Bengio, and A. C. Courville, “Melgan: Generative adversarial networks for conditional waveform synthesis,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 32, 2019

2019
[12]

Language-codec: Reducing the gaps between discrete codec represen- tation and speech language models,

S. Ji, M. Fang, Z. Jiang, R. Huang, J. Zuo, S. Wang, and Z. Zhao, “Language-codec: Reducing the gaps between discrete codec represen- tation and speech language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12208 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

Vari- ational image compression with a scale hyperprior,

J. Ball ´e, D. Minnen, S. Singh, S. J. Hwang, and N. Johnston, “Vari- ational image compression with a scale hyperprior,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01436, 2018

2018 arXiv
[14]

Learned image com- pression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules,

Z. Cheng, H. Sun, M. Takeuchi, and J. Katto, “Learned image com- pression with discretized gaussian mixture likelihoods and attention modules,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 7939–7948

2020
[15]

Channel-wise autoregressive entropy models for learned image compression,

D. Minnen and S. Singh, “Channel-wise autoregressive entropy models for learned image compression,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 3339–3343

2020
[16]

Elic: Efficient learned image compression with unevenly grouped space- channel contextual adaptive coding,

D. He, Z. Yang, W. Peng, R. Ma, H. Qin, and Y . Wang, “Elic: Efficient learned image compression with unevenly grouped space- channel contextual adaptive coding,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 5718–5727

2022
[17]

Learned image compression with mixed transformer-cnn architectures,

J. Liu, H. Sun, and J. Katto, “Learned image compression with mixed transformer-cnn architectures,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2023, pp. 14 388– 14 397

2023
[18]

Rwkv: Reinventing rnns for the transformer era,

B. Peng, E. Alcaide, Q. Anthony, A. Albalak, S. Arcadinho, S. Bider- man, H. Cao, X. Cheng, M. Chung, M. Grella et al., “Rwkv: Reinventing rnns for the transformer era,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13048 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[19]

Eagle and finch: Rwkv with matrix-valued states and dynamic recurrence,

B. Peng, D. Goldstein, Q. Anthony, A. Albalak, E. Alcaide, S. Biderman, E. Cheah, T. Ferdinan, H. Hou, P. Kazienko et al. , “Eagle and finch: Rwkv with matrix-valued states and dynamic recurrence,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05892, 2024

2024 arXiv
[20]

Libritts: A corpus derived from librispeech for text-to-speech,

H. Zen, V . Dang, R. Clark, Y . Zhang, R. J. Weiss, Y . Jia, Z. Chen, and Y . Wu, “Libritts: A corpus derived from librispeech for text-to-speech,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02882 , 2019

1904 arXiv
[21]

Visqol: an objective speech quality model,

A. Hines, J. Skoglund, A. C. Kokaram, and N. Harte, “Visqol: an objective speech quality model,” EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing , vol. 2015, pp. 1–18, 2015

2015
[22]

Per- ceptual evaluation of speech quality (pesq)-a new method for speech quality assessment of telephone networks and codecs,

A. W. Rix, J. G. Beerends, M. P. Hollier, and A. P. Hekstra, “Per- ceptual evaluation of speech quality (pesq)-a new method for speech quality assessment of telephone networks and codecs,” in 2001 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing. Proce...

2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Definition of the opus audio codec,

J.-M. Valin, K. V os, and T. Terriberry, “Definition of the opus audio codec,” Tech. Rep., 2012

2012

[2] [2]

Overview of the evs codec architecture,

M. Dietz, M. Multrus, V . Eksler, V . Malenovsky, E. Norvell, H. Pobloth, L. Miao, Z. Wang, L. Laaksonen, A. Vasilache et al. , “Overview of the evs codec architecture,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 5698–5702

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Soundstream: An end-to-end neural audio codec,

N. Zeghidour, A. Luebs, A. Omran, J. Skoglund, and M. Tagliasacchi, “Soundstream: An end-to-end neural audio codec,” IEEE/ACM Transac- tions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 30, pp. 495–507, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [4]

High fidelity neural audio compression,

A. D ´efossez, J. Copet, G. Synnaeve, and Y . Adi, “High fidelity neural audio compression,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13438 , 2022

arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

Funcodec: A fundamental, reproducible and integrable open-source toolkit for neural speech codec,

Z. Du, S. Zhang, K. Hu, and S. Zheng, “Funcodec: A fundamental, reproducible and integrable open-source toolkit for neural speech codec,” in ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 591–595

work page 2024

[6] [6]

High- fidelity audio compression with improved rvqgan,

R. Kumar, P. Seetharaman, A. Luebs, I. Kumar, and K. Kumar, “High- fidelity audio compression with improved rvqgan,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023, pp. 27 980–27 993

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Seanet: A multi- modal speech enhancement network,

M. Tagliasacchi, Y . Li, K. Misiunas, and D. Roblek, “Seanet: A multi- modal speech enhancement network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.02095 , 2020

arXiv 2009

[8] [8]

Real-time speech frequency bandwidth extension,

Y . Li, M. Tagliasacchi, O. Rybakov, V . Ungureanu, and D. Roblek, “Real-time speech frequency bandwidth extension,” in ICASSP 2021- 2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2021, pp. 691–695

work page 2021