Optimization of a Blind Speech Watermarking Technique against Amplitude Scaling

Table 2

Comparison with the robustness of different speech watermarking techniques in terms of BER (%).

Attack	The proposed method	DWPT+ multiplication [14]	Formant tuning [21]	Analysis-by-Synthesis [22]
No attack	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.06
A	1.91–4.23	2.09–5.43	3.65–6.45	7.96–9.65
B	9.65–21.77	10.45–22.32	12.76–24.45	16.23–25.23
C	10.13–20.43	12.43–21.32	14.23–23.54	17.43–26.32
D	10.53–19.23	10.33–18.93	11.63–23.23	15.33–25.98
E	0.32–2.02	0.763–1.14	1.23–2.32	2.98–4.32
F	13.54–17.23	14.32–17.65	26.23–37.83	29.45–33.06
G	3.23	2.65	19.32	23.87
H	0.23	0.00	9.43	12.45
I	1.34–4.65	2.34–5.11	4.65–10.43	8.23–16.43
J	1.23–2.54	1.32–4.67	6.54–10.54	11.54–18.87
K	1.32–3.16	1.78–4.23	7.51–10.34	11.49–19.43
L	0.92	1.98	1.50	4.04
M	3.12	5.76	10.34	21.68
N	4.10	4.23	6.65	9.54
O	1.21–2.54	0.00–1.43	5.97–8.76	8.98–15.54
P	1.00–3.54	2.43–5.43	9.65–14.56	19.65–26.45
Q	21.43–29.43	24.54–31.43	40.54–44.43	50.09–50.32
R	4.84–9.54	5.32–10.32	16.65–29.44	20.54–36.98
S	13.32–18.54	15.00–19.43	20.43–29.23	28.54–30.76
T	1.32–2.32	2.01–3.13	7.43–10.43	9.65–15.32
U	0.15–0.23	0.18–0.43	1.45–3.21	4.32–5.43
V	6.54–9.54	11.43–14.54	1.32–4.21	2.32–4.32
W	10.43–20.34	11.43–25.34	36.32–45.65	33.43–50.32
X	23.11	24.17	48.32	50.65
Average	5.80–9.04	6.68–10.04	12.95–17.39	16.82–21.48