## 4 Experimental Results
### Assessing the Corruption Impact of QIV in a Wireless Communication Environment
#### 4.2.2 Experimental Results of Air Channel Model
This was attributed to the limited data representation range of the 10-bit quantization, making the reconstruction performance more susceptible to bit errors. However, under SNR conditions of \(-4\) dB or higher (with BER approximately below 0.05%), the proposed method outperformed the existing method in reconstruction performance metrics, including Spectrogram MSE, LSD, and SNR. Conversely, under extremely low SNR conditions below \(-5\) dB, the proposed method did not show a clear advantage over the existing method. Particularly in the \(-5\) dB environment, LSD increased significantly, and the existing method outperformed the proposed method in some cases. However, such conditions represent exceptionally high BER scenarios that are rarely encountered in practical data communication environments and can be considered as extreme cases. Moreover, the experimental results derived from the air channel modeling indicated that, under BER conditions of approximately 0.05% or lower, the proposed method demonstrated superior reconstruction performance compared to the existing method. This finding is suitable for the general requirement of BER below 0.001% for data communication environments [30], signifying that the proposed compression method maintains stable reconstruction performance even in challenging environments. In conclusion, the wireless communication experiments verified the practical applicability of the proposed method as an autoencoder-based acoustic data compression and transmission technique. By overcoming the limitations of existing compression methods in wireless communication environments, the proposed approach enables high-quality data reconstruction, even in scenarios demanding restricted bandwidth and resources, highlighting its significant potential for real-world applications. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Method**} & **Signal** & **AWGN** & **BER** & **Spectrogram** & ** LSD** & **SNR** \\  & **Type** & **SNR** & **(\%)** & **MSE** & **(dB)** & **(dB)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Conventional} & CW & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-4\) dB} & 0.05318 & 0.20282 & 1.20 & 19.54 \\  & LFM & & 0.05510 & 0.23350 & 1.24 & 12.70 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Proposed–Pruned} & CW & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-4\) dB} & 0.05709 & 0.04873 & 1.17 & 20.36 \\  & LFM & & 0.05831 & 0.05007 & 1.15 & 15.53 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Proposed–Pruned} & CW & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-5\) dB} & 0.05279 & 0.05013 & 1.18 & 19.82 \\  & LFM & & 0.05862 & 0.06266 & 1.17 & 14.66 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Conventional} & CW & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-5\) dB} & 0.19361 & 0.81985 & 1.24 & 7.01 \\  & LFM & & 0.19355 & 0.82393 & 1.24 & 3.76 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Proposed–Pruned} & CW & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-5\) dB} & 0.19480 & 0.17122 & 1.26 & 11.75 \\  & LFM & & 0.20289 & 0.17099 & 1.27 & 9.94 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Proposed–Pruned} & CW & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-5\) dB} & 0.19061 & 0.16431 & 1.26 & 11.39 \\  & LFM & & 0.20401 & 0.16794 & 1.27 & 9.49 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Cont._