Spectrograms -time-frequency representations of audio signals -have found widespread use in neural network-based spoofing detection. While deep models are trained on the fullband spectrum of the signal, we argue that not all frequency bands are useful for these tasks. In this paper, we systematically investigate the impact of different subbands and their importance on replay spoofing detection on two benchmark datasets: ASVspoof 2017 v2.0 and ASVspoof 2019 PA. We propose a joint subband modelling framework that employs n different sub-networks to learn subband specific features. These are later combined and passed to a classifier and the whole network weights are updated during training. Our findings on the ASVspoof 2017 dataset suggest that the most discriminative information appears to be in the first and the last 1 kHz frequency bands, and the joint model trained on these two subbands shows the best performance outperforming the baselines by a large margin. However, these findings do not generalise on the ASVspoof 2019 PA dataset. This suggests that the datasets available for training these models do not reflect real world replay conditions suggesting a need for careful design of datasets for training replay spoofing countermeasures.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In this paper, we aim to understand what makes replay spoofing detection difficult in the context of the ASVspoof 2017 corpus. We use FFT spectra, mel frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCC) and inverted MFCC (IMFCC) frontends and investigate different backends based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs) and Support Vector Machines (SVMs). On this database, we find that IMFCC frontend based systems show smaller equal error rate (EER) for high quality replay attacks but higher EER for low quality replay attacks in comparison to the baseline. However, we find that it is not straightforward to understand the influence of an acoustic environment (AE), a playback device (PD) and a recording device (RD) of a replay spoofing attack. One reason is the unavailability of metadata for genuine recordings. Second, it is difficult to account for the effects of the factors: AE, PD and RD, and their interactions. Finally, our frame-level analysis shows that the presence of cues (recording artefacts) in the first few frames of genuine signals (missing from replayed ones) influence class prediction.