Are low-pass filters and high-pass filters essentially the same when referring to accelerometer algorithms as when referring to sound engineering (audio processing)?
In sound engineering, a high pass filter cuts out the low frequencies associated with the bass sound, whereas low pass filters cut out high frequencies associated with treble sounds.
I want to understand what these filters are when applied to accelerometer data and how they are used, and am wondering if there's a parallel with the physics of sound. It's all physics, right?
If they are linked in some way that might allow me to understand how to measure accelerometer movements quicker than learning it from scratch.
Thanks
Yes, the concepts are exactly the same. If you think of frequency as how rapidly something changes, you will immediately see the parallels between filtering audio, images, sensor input - anything.
A low-pass filter will only allow relatively slow changes from its output. So any "jerkiness" in the accelerometer signal would be removed, and only the more gradual change (think overall trend) would pass.
Related
I need to be able to analyze (search thru) hundreds of WAV files and detect but not remove static noise. As done currently now, I must listen to each conversation and find the characteristic noise/static manually, which takes too much time. Ideally, I would need a program that can read each new WAV file and be able to detect characteristic signatures of the static noise such as periods of bursts of white noise or full audio band, high amplitude noise (like AM radio noise over phone conversation such as a wall of white noise) or bursts of peek high frequency high amplitude (as in crackling on the phone line) in a background of normal voice. I do not need to remove the noise but simply detect it and flag the recording for further troubleshooting. Ideas?
I can listen to the recordings and find the static or crackling but this takes time. I need an automated or batch process that can run on its own and flag the troubled call recordings (WAV files for a phone PBX). These are SIP and analog conversations depending on the leg of the conversation so RTSP/SIP packet analysis might be an option, but the raw WAV file is the simplest. I can use Audacity, but this still requires opening each file and looking at the visual representation of the audio spectrometry and is only a little faster than listening to each call but still cumbersome.
I currently have no code or methods for this task. I simply listen to each call wav file to find the noise.
I need a batch Wav file search that can render wav file recordings that contain the characteristic noise or static or crackling over the recording phone conversation.
Unless you can tell the program how the noise looks like, it's going to be challenging to run any sort of batch processing. I was facing a similar challenge and that prompted me to develop (free and open source) software to help user in audio exploration, analysis and signal separation:
App: https://audioexplorer.online/
Docs: https://tracek.github.io/audio-explorer/
Source code: https://github.com/tracek/audio-explorer
Essentially, it visualises audio as a 2d scatter plot rather than only "linear", as in waveform or spectrogram. When you upload audio the following happens:
Onsets are detected (based on high-frequency content algorithm from aubio) according to the threshold you set. Set it to None if you want all.
Per each audio fragment, calculate audio features based on your selection. There's no universal best set of features, all depends on the application. You might try for starter with e.g. Pitch statistics. Consider setting proper values for bandpass filter and sample length (that's the length of audio fragment we're going to use). Sample length could be in future established dynamically. Check docs for more info.
The result is that for each fragment you have many features, e.g. 6 or 60. That means we have then k-dimensional (where k is number of features) structure, which we then project to 2d space with dimensionality reduction algorithm of your selection. Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection is a sound choice.
In theory, the resulting embedding should be such that similar sounds (according to features we have selected) are closely together, while different further apart. Your noise should be now separated from your "not noise" and form cluster.
When you hover over the graph, in right-upper corner a set of icons appears. One is lasso selection. Use it to mark points, inspect spectrogram and e.g. download table with features that describe that signal. At that moment you can also reduce the noise (extra button appears) in a similar way to Audacity - it analyses the spectrum and reduces these frequencies with some smoothing.
It does not completely solve your problem right now, but could severely cut the effort. Going through hundreds of wavs could take better part of the day, but you will be done. Want it automated? There's CLI (command-line interface) that I am developing at the same time. In not-too-distant future it should take what you have labelled as noise and signal and then use supervised machine learning to go through everything in batch mode.
Suggestions / feedback? Drop an issue on GitHub.
If I know the SoundFont that a MIDI to audio track has used, can I theoretically reverse the audio back into it's (most likely) MIDI components? If so, what would be one of the best approach to doing this?
The end goal is to try encoding audio (even voice samples) into MIDI such that I can reproduce the original audio in MIDI format better than, say, BearFileConverter. Hopefully with better results than just bandpass filters or FFT.
And no, this is not for any lossy audio compression or sheet transcription, this is mostly for my curiosity.
For monophonic music only, with no background sound, and if your SoundFont synthesis engine and your record sample rates are exactly matched (synchronized to 1ppm or better, have no additional effects, also both using a known A440 reference frequency, known intonation, etc.), then you can try using a set of cross correlations of your recorded audio against a set of synthesized waveform samples at each MIDI pitch from your a-priori known font to create a time line of statistical likelihoods for each MIDI note. Find the local maxima across your pitch range, threshold, and peak pick to find the most likely MIDI note onset times.
Another possibility is sliding sound fingerprinting, but at an even higher computational cost.
This fails in real life due to imperfectly matched sample rates plus added noise, speaker and room acoustic effects, multi-path reverb, and etc. You might also get false positives for note waveforms that are very similar to their own overtones. Voice samples vary even more from any template.
Forget bandpass filters or looking for FFT magnitude peaks, as this works reliably only for close to pure sinewaves, which very few musical instruments or interesting fonts sound like (or are as boring as).
I've been hunting all over the web for material about vocoder or autotune, but haven't got any satisfactory answers. Could someone in a simple way please explain how do you autotune a given sound file using a carrier sound file?
(I'm familiar with ffts, windowing, overlap etc., I just don't get the what do we do when we have the ffts of the carrier and the original sound file which has to be modulated)
EDIT: After looking around a bit more, I finally got to know exactly what I was looking for -- a channel vocoder. The way it works is, it takes two inputs, one a voice signal and the other a musical signal rich in frequency. The musical signal is modulated by the envelope of the voice signal, and the output signal sounds like the voice singing in the musical tone.
Thanks for your help!
Using a phase vocoder to adjust pitch is basically pitch estimation plus interpolation in the frequency domain.
A phase vocoder reconstruction method might resample the frequency spectrum at, potentially, a new FFT bin spacing to shift all the frequencies up or down by some ratio. The phase vocoder algorithm additionally uses information shared between adjacent FFT frames to make sure this interpolation result can create continuous waveforms across frame boundaries. e.g. it adjusts the phases of the interpolation results to make sure that successive sinewave reconstructions are continuous rather than having breaks or discontinuities or phase cancellations between frames.
How much to shift the spectrum up or down is determined by pitch estimation, and calculating the ratio between the estimated pitch of the source and that of the target pitch. Again, phase vocoders use information about any phase differences between FFT frames to help better estimate pitch. This is possible by using more a bit more global information than is available from a single local FFT frame.
Of course, this frequency and phase changing can smear out transient detail and cause various other distortions, so actual phase vocoder products may additionally do all kinds of custom (often proprietary) special case tricks to try and fix some of these problems.
The first step is pitch detection. There are a number of pitch detection algorithms, introduced briefly in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_detection_algorithm
Pitch detection can be implemented in either frequency domain or time domain. Various techniques in both domains exist with various properties (latency, quality, etc.) In the F domain, it is important to realize that a naive approach is very limiting because of the time/frequency trade-off. You can get around this limitation, but it takes work.
Once you've identified the pitch, you compare it with a desired pitch and determine how much you need to actually pitch shift.
Last step is pitch shifting, which, like pitch detection, can be done in the T or F domain. The "phase vocoder" method other folks mentioned is the F domain method. T domain methods include (in increasing order of quality) OLA, SOLA and PSOLA, some of which you can read about here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/67053489/60/Synchronous-Overlap-and-Add-SOLA
Basically you do an FFT, then in the frequency domain you move the signals to the nearest perfect semitone pitch.
I'd like to extract the pitch from a singing voice. The track in question contains only a single voice and no other sounds.
I want to know the loudness and perceived pitch frequency at a given point in time. So something like the following:
0.0sec 400Hz -20dB
0.1sec 401Hz -9dB
0.2sec 403Hz -10dB
0.3sec 403Hz -10dB
0.4sec 404Hz -11dB
0.5sec 406Hz -13dB
0.6sec 410Hz -15dB
0.7sec 411Hz -16dB
0.8sec 409Hz -20dB
0.9sec 407Hz -24dB
1.0sec 402Hz -34dB
How might I achieve such an output? I'm interested in slight changes in frequency as apposed to a specific note value. I have some DSP knowledge and I can program in C++ and python but I'd like to avoid reinventing the wheel if possible.
Note that slight changes in frequency in Hz and perceived pitch may not be the same thing. Perceived pitch resolution seems to vary with absolute frequency, duration, and loudness. If you want more accuracy than this, there might be some research papers on estimating the time between each glottal closure (probably using a deconvolution or pattern matching technique), which would give you some sort of pitch period. The simplest pitch estimate might be some form of weighted autocorrelation, for which lots of canned algorithms and code is available.
Since dB is log scale, this measure might be somewhat closer to perceived loudness, but has to be spectrally weighted with some perceptual frequency response curve over some duration of measurement.
There seem to be research papers on both of these topics, as well as many textbooks on human audio perception as well as on common audio DSP techniques.
I suggest you read this article
http://audition.ens.fr/adc/pdf/2002_JASA_YIN.pdf
. This is one of the simplest methods of pitch detection, and it works very well.
Also, for measuring the instantaneous power of the signal, you can just take the absolute value of the signal and divide by 1/√2 (Gives the RMS value) and then smooth it (usually a first order low pass filter). I hope this helps. Good luck!
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.