I am working on a project that requires extracting MFCC features from an audio stream. The project consists primarily of classification, although in the interest of expanding our dataset I am working on a detection algorithm to isolate the parts of the sound we are interested in classifying.
I am testing out different representations and due to the nature of the data (I wish I could give more details but the professor I am working with would prefer to keep it private I am fairly sure), I would imagine delta coefficients on top of the MFCC coefficients would be helpful.
I am extracting 40 MFCC Coefficients along with 40 Delta coefficients and using those for detection. I have a set of training data that consists of a 40 millisecond window centered around the parts of he audio stream I am interested in. I am then training a GMM on that data.
For testing (and its actual use case) I split a longer audio stream (2 seconds or so) into a sequence of MFCC frames. I extract the log likelihood for each frame and threshold the detection based on the percentiles within a log likelihood score, and I get strange results when delta coefficients are used.
You can ignore the 4 figures on the bottom, those were just for visualizing my threshold scheme.
What I want to know is why does the log likelihood behave so strangely when using delta coefficients compared to when no deltas are used?
Thank you in advance, if you need clarifications please ask.
Look at the amplitudes of your signal. The Delta Coeffs example is suspiciously low compared to the Non-delta. Maybe it's just a noise?
Try to run the system with and without delta on exactly the same recording. It'll be easier to debug.
You could also attach spectrogram-like visualization of your MFCC with delta.
Related
I have a dataset with county level data where N=3119 with 93 variables. I am trying to do a PCA, EFA and or CFA. The data has been given to me already min/max normalized, ranging from (0,1). Theory states that the data should be normally distributed for CFA/SEM, but my understanding is that min/max normalization does not change the distribution of the data, only it's scale.
It is clear to me that I do not have multivariate normality or univariate normality due to the skewness of data. I guess what's confusing me, is when people seemingly throw around the term normalization interchangeably with the meaning of normal distribution.
So can I go forward with my analysis since min/max normalization has been performed, or do I need to look more towards other log/box cox transformations to adjust the distribution prior to running my analysis? Is it okay to log transform data that has already been min/max normalized?
my understanding is that min/max normalization does not change the distribution of the data, only it's scale.
Correct. If you print a hist()ogram of original and transformed data, they should look identical. Only the x-axis scale will change.
the term normalization interchangeably with the meaning of normal distribution
Indeed, these are completely separate issues.
Is it okay to log transform data that has already been min/max normalized?
Taking the log() would affect 0--1 data differently than data further up the real-number line. But I don't see why you need to transform the data when nonnormality corrections are available for SEs (in EFA or CFA) and model-fit test statistics (relevant for CFA). Independent-components analysis might be an alternative to PCA if your data are not normal.
I would like to get suggestions about a time series problem. The data is about strain gauge on the wing of flight which is measured using different sensors. Basically, we are creating the anomalies by simulating the physics model. We have a baseline which is working fine and then created some anomalies by changing some of the factors and recorded over time. Our aim is to create a model which can find out the anomaly during the live testing(it can be a crack on the wing), basically a real time anomaly detection using statistical methods or machine learning.
A few thoughts - sorted roughly from top-to-bottom based on time investiment (assuming little/no prior ML knowledge):
start simple and validate: for what you've described this could be as simple as
create a training / validation dataset using your simulator - since you can simulate, do so for significant episodes of both "standard" and extreme forces applied to the wing
choose a real time smoother: e.g., exponential averaging or moving average, determine a proper parameter for each of your input sensor signals. smooth the input signals.
determine threshold values:
- create rough but sensible lower bound threshold values "by eye"
- use simple statistics to determine a decent threshold value (e.g., using a moving fixed length window of appropriate size, and setting the threshold at a multiple of the standard deviation in that window slid across the entire signal)
in either case, testing on further simulated (and - ideally also - real data)
If an effort like this works "good enough" - stop and move on to next (facet of) problem. If not
follow the first two steps (simulate and smooth data)
take an "autoregressive" approach create training / validation input/output pairs by running a sliding window of fixed length over the input signal(s). train a simple supervised learner on thes pairs, for each input signal or all together, to produce a (set of) time series anamoly detectors trained on your simulated data. cross-validate with the validation portion of your data.
use this model (or one like it) on your validation data to test performance - and ideall collect real data (not simulated) to validate your model even further on.
If this sort of approach produces "good enough" results - stop, and move onto the next facet of the problem.
If not - examine and try any number of anomoly detection approaches coded in a variety languages listed on an aggregator like the awesome repo for time series anomaly detection
I'm working on concept of Mobile application for children logopaedic exercises (goodness of pronunciation evaluation). In first iteration we want implement evaluation of correct pronunciation of one isolated consonant (russian equivalent of English “sh” [ʃ] sound). Result could be “correct” or “incorrect” (better points, e.g. from 1 to 5).
We have ~50 samples recorded by speech therapists and marked in 5 points quality measure. Each sample contains separate sound (0.5-2 seconds). We can get more samples in future.
In general, I split this problem in following steps:
Preprocess sound signal (reduce noise, amplify/attenuate, remove silent periods);
Extract proper signal features which are correlated with consonant pronunciation quality. Features are vector of numbers produced from sound chunk (frame). Feature candidates: frequency spectrum of a sound, MFCC coefficients, amplitude spectrum,... Another question is feature frame size (time duration).
Use some classification algorithm ("Machine learning" in general) to make classification based on features from sound training set.
The main problem I stacked with is lack of methodology how to extract features.
I have tried to use the MFCC approach, but it seems, that feature vector depends more on sound intensity variation during sample (Frankly, I did that conclusions just looking on plots of MFCC coefficients like https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzBavyZHrcMlS0xLQ2phbmxoRVk/view?usp=sharing where X values are 13 MFCC coefficients and each line represents one sound frame of 25 ms).
I am not sure in pure spectrum characteristics, because of noise nature of consonants.
A lot of papers and blog posts describes problem of speech recognition in word and utterance context. My intuition says that I need different approach for my problem.
Examples of good features for similar tasks and general methodology of features evaluation will be both usable for me. Thanks.
I'm trying to do real time pitch detection of a users singing, but I'm running into alot of problems. I've tried lots of methods, including FFT (FFT Problem (Returns random results)) and autocorrelation (Autocorrelation pitch detection returns random results with mic input), but I can't seem to get any methods to give a good result. Can anyone suggest a method for real-time pitch tracking or how to improve on a method I already have? I can't seem to find any good C / C++ methods for real time pitch detection.
Thanks,
Niall.
Edit: Just to note, i've checked that the mic input data is correct, and that when using a sine wave the results are more or less the correct pitch.
Edit: Sorry this is late, but at the moment, im visualizing the autocolleration by taking the values out of the results array, and each index, and plotting the index on the X axis and the value on the Y axis (both are divided by 100000 or something, and im using OpenGL), plugging the data into a VST host and using VST plugins isn't an option to me. At the moment, it just looks like some random dots. Am i doing it correctly, or can you please point me torwards some code for doing it or help me understand how to visualize the raw audio data and autocorrelation data.
Taking a step back... To get this working you MUST figure out a way to plot intermediate steps of this process. What you're trying to do is not particularly hard, but it is error prone and fiddly. Clipping, windowing, bad wiring, aliasing, DC offsets, reading the wrong channels, the weird FFT frequency axis, impedance mismatches, frame size errors... who knows. But if you can plot the raw data, and then plot the FFT, all will become clear.
I found several open source implementations of real-time pitch tracking
dywapitchtrack uses a wavelet-based algorithm
"Realtime C# Pitch Tracker" uses a modified autocorrelation approach now removed from Codeplex - try searching on GitHub
aubio (mentioned by piem; several algorithms are available)
There are also some pitch trackers out there which might not be designed for real-time, but may be usable that way for all I know, and could also be useful as a reference to compare your real-time tracker to:
Praat is an open source package sometimes used for pitch extraction by linguists and you can find the algorithm documented at http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/paul/praat.html
Snack and WaveSurfer also contain a pitch extractor
I know this answer isn't going to make everyone happy but here goes.
This stuff is hard, very hard. Firstly go read as many tutorials as you can find on FFT, Autocorrelation, Wavelets. Although I'm still struggling with DSP I did get some insights from the following.
https://www.coursera.org/course/audio the course isn't running at the moment but the videos are still available.
http://miracle.otago.ac.nz/tartini/papers/Philip_McLeod_PhD.pdf thesis about the development of a pitch recognition algorithm.
http://dsp.stackexchange.com a whole site dedicated to digital signal processing.
If like me you didn't do enough maths to completely follow the tutorials don't give up as some of the diagrams and examples still helped me to understand what was going on.
Next is test data and testing. Write yourself a library that generates test files to use in checking your algorithm/s.
1) A super simple pure sine wave generator. So say you are looking at writing YAT(Yet Another Tuner) then use your sine generator to create a series of files around 440Hz say from 420-460Hz in varying increments and see how sensitive and accurate your code is. Can it resolve to within 5Hz, 1Hz, finer still?
2) Then upgrade your sine wave generator so that it adds a series of weaker harmonics to the signal.
3) Next are real world variations on harmonics. So whilst for most stringed instruments you'll see a series of harmonics as simple multiples of the fundamental frequency F0, for instruments like clarinets and flutes because of the way the air behaves in the chamber the even harmonics will be missing or very weak. And for some instruments F0 is missing but can be determined from the distribution of the other harmonics. F0 being what the human ear perceives as pitch.
4) Throw in some deliberate distortion by shifting the harmonic peak frequencies up and down in an irregular manner
The point being that if you are creating files with known results then its easier to verify that what you are building actually works, bugs aside of course.
There are also a number of "libraries" out there containing sound samples.
https://freesound.org from the Coursera series mentioned above.
http://theremin.music.uiowa.edu/MIS.html
Next be aware that your microphone is not perfect and unless you have spent thousands of dollars on it will have a fairly variable frequency response range. In particular if you are working with low notes then cheaper microphones, read the inbuilt ones in your PC or Phone, have significant rolloff starting at around 80-100Hz. For reasonably good external ones you might get down to 30-40Hz. Go find the data on your microphone.
You can also check what happens by playing the tone through speakers and then recording with you favourite microphone. But of course now we are talking about 2 sets of frequency response curves.
When it comes to performance there are a number of freely available libraries out there although do be aware of the various licensing models.
Above all don't give up after your first couple of tries. Best of luck.
Here's the C++ source code for an unusual two-stage algorithm that I devised which can do Realtime Pitch Detection on polyphonic MP3 files while being played on Windows. This free application (PitchScope Player, available on web) is frequently used to detect the notes of a guitar or saxophone solo upon a MP3 recording. The algorithm is designed to detect the most dominant pitch (a musical note) at any given moment in time within a MP3 music file. Note onsets are accurately inferred by a significant change in the most dominant pitch (a musical note) at any given moment during the MP3 recording.
When a single key is pressed upon a piano, what we hear is not just one frequency of sound vibration, but a composite of multiple sound vibrations occurring at different mathematically related frequencies. The elements of this composite of vibrations at differing frequencies are referred to as harmonics or partials. For instance, if we press the Middle C key on the piano, the individual frequencies of the composite's harmonics will start at 261.6 Hz as the fundamental frequency, 523 Hz would be the 2nd Harmonic, 785 Hz would be the 3rd Harmonic, 1046 Hz would be the 4th Harmonic, etc. The later harmonics are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency, 261.6 Hz ( ex: 2 x 261.6 = 523, 3 x 261.6 = 785, 4 x 261.6 = 1046 ). Linked at the bottom, is a snapshot of the actual harmonics which occur during a polyphonic MP3 recording of a guitar solo.
Instead of a FFT, I use a modified DFT transform, with logarithmic frequency spacing, to first detect these possible harmonics by looking for frequencies with peak levels (see diagram below). Because of the way that I gather data for my modified Log DFT, I do NOT have to apply a Windowing Function to the signal, nor do add and overlap. And I have created the DFT so its frequency channels are logarithmically located in order to directly align with the frequencies where harmonics are created by the notes on a guitar, saxophone, etc.
Now being retired, I have decided to release the source code for my pitch detection engine within a free demonstration app called PitchScope Player. PitchScope Player is available on the web, and you could download the executable for Windows to see my algorithm at work on a mp3 file of your choosing. The below link to GitHub.com will lead you to my full source code where you can view how I detect the harmonics with a custom Logarithmic DFT transform, and then look for partials (harmonics) whose frequencies satisfy the correct integer relationship which defines a 'pitch'.
My Pitch Detection Algorithm is actually a two-stage process: a) First the ScalePitch is detected ('ScalePitch' has 12 possible pitch values: {E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, C, C#, D, D#} ) b) and after ScalePitch is determined, then the Octave is calculated by examining all the harmonics for the 4 possible Octave-Candidate notes. The algorithm is designed to detect the most dominant pitch (a musical note) at any given moment in time within a polyphonic MP3 file. That usually corresponds to the notes of an instrumental solo. Those interested in the C++ source code for my Two-Stage Pitch Detection algorithm might want to start at the Estimate_ScalePitch() function within the SPitchCalc.cpp file at GitHub.com.
https://github.com/CreativeDetectors/PitchScope_Player
Below is the image of a Logarithmic DFT (created by my C++ software) for 3 seconds of a guitar solo on a polyphonic mp3 recording. It shows how the harmonics appear for individual notes on a guitar, while playing a solo. For each note on this Logarithmic DFT we can see its multiple harmonics extending vertically, because each harmonic will have the same time-width. After the Octave of the note is determined, then we know the frequency of the Fundamental.
I had a similar problem with microphone input on a project I did a few years back - turned out to be due to a DC offset.
Make sure you remove any bias before attempting FFT or whatever other method you are using.
It is also possible that you are running into headroom or clipping problems.
Graphs are the best way to diagnose most problems with audio.
Take a look at this sample application:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/audio-video/SoundCatcher.aspx
I realize the app is in C# and you need C++, and I realize this is .Net/Windows and you're on a mac... But I figured his FFT implementation might be a starting reference point. Try to compare your FFT implementation to his. (His is the iterative, breadth-first version of Cooley-Tukey's FFT). Are they similar?
Also, the "random" behavior you're describing might be because you're grabbing data returned by your sound card directly without assembling the values from the byte-array properly. Did you ask your sound card to sample 16 bit values, and then gave it a byte-array to store the values in? If so, remember that two consecutive bytes in the returned array make up one 16-bit audio sample.
Java code for a real-time real detector is available at http://code.google.com/p/freqazoid/.
It works fairly well on any computer running post-2008 real-time Java. The project has been dropped and could be picked up by any interested party. Contact me if you want further details.
Check out aubio, and open source library which includes several state-of-the-art methods for pitch tracking.
I have asked a similar question here:
C/C++/Obj-C Real-time algorithm to ascertain Note (not Pitch) from Vocal Input
EDIT:
Performous contains a C++ module for realtime pitch detection
Also Yin Pitch-Tracking algorithm
You could do real time pitch detection, be it of a singer's voice, with TarsosDSP
https://github.com/JorenSix/TarsosDSP
just in case anyone hasn't heard of it yet :-)
Can you adapt anything from instrument tuners? My delightfully compact guitar tuner is able to detect the pitch of the strings pretty well. I see this reference to a piano tuner which explains an algorithm to some extent.
Here are some open source libraries that implement pitch detection:
WORLD : speech analysis/synthesis toolkit. This is especially suitable if your source signal is voice.
aubio : audio feature extraction library. Implements many pitch detection algorithms.
Pitch detection : a collection of pitch detection algorithms implemented in C++.
dywapitchtrack : a high quality pitch detection algorithm.
YIN : another implementation of the YIN algorithm in a single C++ source file.
With limited resources such as slower CPUs, code size and RAM, how best to detect the pitch of a musical note, similar to what an electronic or software tuner would do?
Should I use:
Kiss FFT
FFTW
Discrete Wavelet Transform
autocorrelation
zero crossing analysis
octave-spaced filters
other?
In a nutshell, what I am trying to do is to recognize a single musical note, two octaves below middle-C to two octaves above, played on any (reasonable) instrument. I'd like to be within 20% of the semitone - in other words, if the user plays too flat or too sharp, I need to distinguish that. However, I will not need the accuracy required for tuning.
If you don't need that much accuracy, an FFT could be sufficient. Window the chunk of audio first so that you get well-defined peaks, then find the first significant peak.
Bin width = sampling rate / FFT size:
Fundamentals range from 20 Hz to 7 kHz, so a sampling rate of 14 kHz would be enough. The next "standard" sampling rate is 22050 Hz.
The FFT size is then determined by the precision you want. FFT output is linear in frequency, while musical tones are logarithmic in frequency, so the worst case precision will be at low frequencies. For 20% of a semitone at 20 Hz, you need a width of 1.2 Hz, which means an FFT length of 18545. The next power of two is 215 = 32768. This is 1.5 seconds of data, and takes my laptop's processor 3 ms to calculate.
This won't work with signals that have a "missing fundamental", and finding the "first significant" peak is somewhat difficult (since harmonics are often higher than the fundamental), but you can figure out a way that suits your situation.
Autocorrelation and harmonic product spectrum are better at finding the true fundamental for a wave instead of one of the harmonics, but I don't think they deal as well with inharmonicity, and most instruments like piano or guitar are inharmonic (harmonics are slightly sharp from what they should be). It really depends on your circumstances, though.
Also, you can save even more processor cycles by computing only within a specific frequency band of interest, using the Chirp-Z transform.
I've written up a few different methods in Python for comparison purposes.
If you want to do pitch recognition in realtime (and accurate to within 1/100 of a semi-tone), your only real hope is the zero-crossing approach. And it's a faint hope, sorry to say. Zero-crossing can estimate pitch from just a couple of wavelengths of data, and it can be done with a smartphone's processing power, but it's not especially accurate, as tiny errors in measuring the wavelengths result in large errors in the estimated frequency. Devices like guitar synthesizers (which deduce the pitch from a guitar string with just a couple of wavelengths) work by quantizing the measurements to notes of the scale. This may work for your purposes, but be aware that zero-crossing works great with simple waveforms, but tends to work less and less well with more complex instrument sounds.
In my application (a software synthesizer that runs on smartphones) I use recordings of single instrument notes as the raw material for wavetable synthesis, and in order to produce notes at a particular pitch, I need to know the fundamental pitch of a recording, accurate to within 1/1000 of a semi-tone (I really only need 1/100 accuracy, but I'm OCD about this). The zero-crossing approach is much too inaccurate for this, and FFT-based approaches are either way too inaccurate or way too slow (or both sometimes).
The best approach that I've found in this case is to use autocorrelation. With autocorrelation you basically guess the pitch and then measure the autocorrelation of your sample at that corresponding wavelength. By scanning through the range of plausible pitches (say A = 55 Hz thru A = 880 Hz) by semi-tones, I locate the most-correlated pitch, then do a more finely-grained scan in the neighborhood of that pitch to get a more accurate value.
The approach best for you depends entirely on what you're trying to use this for.
I'm not familiar with all the methods you mention, but what you choose should depend primarily on the nature of your input data. Are you analysing pure tones, or does your input source have multiple notes? Is speech a feature of your input? Are there any limitations on the length of time you have to sample the input? Are you able to trade off some accuracy for speed?
To some extent what you choose also depends on whether you would like to perform your calculations in time or in frequency space. Converting a time series to a frequency representation takes time, but in my experience tends to give better results.
Autocorrelation compares two signals in the time domain. A naive implementation is simple but relatively expensive to compute, as it requires pair-wise differencing between all points in the original and time-shifted signals, followed by differentiation to identify turning points in the autocorrelation function, and then selection of the minimum corresponding to the fundamental frequency. There are alternative methods. For example, Average Magnitude Differencing is a very cheap form of autocorrelation, but accuracy suffers. All autocorrelation techniques run the risk of octave errors, since peaks other than the fundamental exist in the function.
Measuring zero-crossing points is simple and straightforward, but will run into problems if you have multiple waveforms present in the signal.
In frequency-space, techniques based on FFT may be efficient enough for your purposes. One example is the harmonic product spectrum technique, which compares the power spectrum of the signal with downsampled versions at each harmonic, and identifies the pitch by multiplying the spectra together to produce a clear peak.
As ever, there is no substitute for testing and profiling several techniques, to empirically determine what will work best for your problem and constraints.
An answer like this can only scratch the surface of this topic. As well as the earlier links, here are some relevant references for further reading.
Summary of pitch detection algorithms (Wikipedia)
Pros and cons of Autocorrelation vs Harmonic Product Spectrum
A high-level overview of pitch detection methods
In my project danstuner, I took code from Audacity. It essentially took an FFT, then found the peak power by putting a cubic curve on the FFT and finding the peak of that curve. Works pretty well, although I had to guard against octave-jumping.
See Spectrum.cpp.
Zero crossing won't work because a typical sound has harmonics and zero-crossings much more than the base frequency.
Something I experimented with (as a home side project) was this:
Sample the sound with ADC at whatever sample rate you need.
Detect the levels of the short-term positive and negative peaks of the waveform (sliding window or similar). I.e. an envelope detector.
Make a square wave that goes high when the waveform goes within 90% (or so) of the positive envelope, and goes low when the waveform goes within 90% of the negative envelope. I.e. a tracking square wave with hysteresis.
Measure the frequency of that square wave with straight-forward count/time calculations, using as many samples as you need to get the required accuracy.
However I found that with inputs from my electronic keyboard, for some instrument sounds it managed to pick up 2× the base frequency (next octave). This was a side project and I never got around to implementing a solution before moving on to other things. But I thought it had promise as being much less CPU load than FFT.