Last month, a user called @jojek told me in a comment the following advice:
I can bet that given enough data, CNN on Mel energies will outperform MFCCs. You should try it. It makes more sense to do convolution on Mel spectrogram rather than on decorrelated coefficients.
Yes, I tried CNN on Mel-filterbank energies, and it outperformed MFCCs, but I still don't know the reason!
Although many tutorials, like this one by Tensorflow, encourage the use of MFCCs for such applications:
Because the human ear is more sensitive to some frequencies than others, it's been traditional in speech recognition to do further processing to this representation to turn it into a set of Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients, or MFCCs for short.
Also, I want to know if Mel-Filterbank energies outperform MFCCs only with CNN, or this is also true with LSTM, DNN, ... etc. and I would appreciate it if you add a reference.
Update 1:
While my comment on @Nikolay's answer contains relevant details, I will add it here:
Correct me if I’m wrong, since applying DCT on the Mel-filterbank energies, in this case, is equivalent to IDFT, it seems to me that when we keep the 2-13 (inclusive) cepstral coefficients and discard the rest, is equivalent to a low-time liftering to isolate the vocal tract components, and drop the source components (which have e.g. the F0 spike).
So, why should I use all the 40 MFCCs since all I care about for the speech command recognition model is the vocal tract components?
Update 2
Another point of view (link) is:
Notice that only 12 of the 26 DCT coefficients are kept. This is because the higher DCT coefficients represent fast changes in the filterbank energies and it turns out that these fast changes actually degrade ASR performance, so we get a small improvement by dropping them.
References:
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/44123/1/Mohamed_Abdel-rahman_201406_PhD_thesis.pdf