You know , you 're sort of getting most of the way there , but there 's a  So I started going through and looking  One of the things that I did notice was that the um log likelihoods coming out of the log recognizer from the PLP data were much lower , much smaller , than for the mel cepstral stuff , and that the average amount of pruning that was happening was therefore a little bit higher for the PLP features.
Oh - huh !
So , since he used the same exact pruning thresholds for both , I was wondering if it could be that we 're getting more pruning.
Oh ! He  he   He used the identical pruning thresholds even though the s the range of p of the likeli