## 3 Experiments
### Experiments Performed and the Results Obtained
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Synthesis Type (\({}^{\text{A}}\)) (Database)** & [\(C_{\text{PO}}\), \(C_{\text{AO}}\)] & [\(M_{\text{FV}}\), \(\phi_{\text{FV}}\)] & _EQ_ & _SDP_ & _Dso\({}_{\text{1-2}}\)_ & _FEO (\({}^{\text{B}}\))_ (TTS\({}_{\text{1}}\),TTS\({}_{\text{2}}\))** \\ \hline TTS\({}_{1}\) (DB\({}_{1}\)) & [3.79, 2.71] & [0.29, 36\({}^{\circ}\)] & 1 & 0.271 & 155\% & **1, 2** \\ TTS\({}_{2}\) (DB\({}_{1}\)) & & [0.01, 107\({}^{\circ}\)] & 2 & \(-\)0.075 & & \\ TTS\({}_{1}\) (DB\({}_{2}\)) & [3.84, 2.48] & [0.16, 30\({}^{\circ}\)] & 1 & 0.145 & 193\% & **1, 2** \\ TTS\({}_{2}\) (DB\({}_{2}\)) & & [0.19, 189\({}^{\circ}\)] & 3 & \(-\)0.136 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\text{(A)}}\) Used \(N_{\text{MIX}}\)=128 and the feature set P4 in all cases. \({}^{\text{(B)}}\) FEO decisions: “1” = better, “1/2” = similar, “3” = worse.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison of partial results and FO decisions for M1 voice using different databases in GMM creation/training phases. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Synthesis Type (\({}^{\text{A}}\)) (Database)** & [\(C_{\text{PO}}\), \(C_{\text{AO}}\)] & [\(M_{\text{FV}}\), \(\phi_{\text{FV}}\)] & _EQ_ & _SDP_ & _Dso\({}_{\text{1-2}}\)_ & _FEO (\({}^{\text{B}}\))_ (TTS\({}_{\text{1}}\),TTS\({}_{\text{2}}\))** \\ \hline TTS\({}_{1}\) (DB\({}_{1}\)) & [3.88, 2.97] & [0.22, 355\({}^{\circ}\)] & 4 & 0.164 & & & \\ TTS\({}_{2}\) (DB\({}_{1}\)) & [3.88, 2.97] & [0.20, 55\({}^{\circ}\)] & 1 & 0.192 & 15\% & **1, 2** \\ TTS\({}_{1}\) (DB\({}_{2}\)) & [3.76, 3.19] & [0.36, 60\({}^{\circ}\)] & 1 & 0.329 & & \\ TTS\({}_{2}\) (DB\({}_{2}\)) & [3.76, 3.19] & [0.54, 53\({}^{\circ}\)] & 1 & 0.522 & & 37\% & **1, 2** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\text{(A)}}\) Used \(N_{\text{MIX}}\)=128 and the feature set P4 in all cases. \({}^{\text{(B)}}\) FEO decisions: “1” = better, “1/2” = similar, “3” = worse.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Comparison of partial results and FO decisions for F1 voice using DB\({}_{1}\) and DB\({}_{2}\) databases for GMM creation and training. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Synthesis Type (\({}^{\text{A}}\)) (Database)** & [\(C_{\text{PO}}\), \(C_{\text{AO}}\)] & [\(M_{\text{FV}}\), \(\phi_{\text{FV}}\)] & _EQ_ & _SDP_ & _Dso\({}_{\text{1-2}}\)_ & _FEO (\({}^{\text{B}}\))_ (TTS\({}_{\text{1}}\),TTS\({}_{\text{2}}\))** \\ \hline TTS\({}_{1}\) (DB\({}_{1}\)) & [3.88, 2.97] & [0.22, 355\({}^{\circ}\)] & 4 & 0.164 & & & \\ TTS\({}_{2}\) (DB\({}_{1}\)) & [3.88, 2.97] & [0.20, 55\({}^{\circ}\)] & 1 & 0.192 & 15\% & **1, 2** \\ TTS\({}_{1}\) (DB\({}_{2}\)) & [3.76, 3.19] & [0.36, 60\({}^{\circ}\)] & 1 & 0.329 & & \\ TTS\({}_{2}\) (DB\({}_{2}\)) & [3.76, 3.19] & [0.54, 53\({}^{\circ}\)] & 1 & 0.522 & & 37\% & **1, 2** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\text{(A)}}\) Used \(N_{\text{MIX}}\)=128 and the feature set P4 in all cases. \({}^{\text{(B)}}\) FEO decisions: “1” = better, “1/2” = similar, “3” = worse.  
\end{table} 
Table 9: Comparison of the partial and the final results in dependence on the number of tested sentences \(N_{\text{TS}}\) using the synthesis _Synt3_ group for the M1 voice. methods _Synt1_, _Synt2_, _Synt3_. This test, consisting of the same utterances for every listener, was undertaken by 18 listeners, with 8 of them having experience in speech synthesis [17]. The graphical comparison of the GMM-based evaluation results with the subjective results by the MUSHRA listening test can be found in Figure 12.  
Figure 10: Visualization of positions of the originals in the P-A space together with the centers of originals and their std values: (**a–d**) for M1, F1, M2, and F2 voices—using the DB\({}_{1}\) (upper graphs), and the DB\({}_{2}\) (lower graphs); \(N_{\text{MIX}}\) = 128, the feature set P4.