This is my "weekend" hobby problem.
I have some well-loved single-cycle waveforms from the ROMs of a classic synthesizer.
These are 8-bit samples (256 possible values).
Because they are only 8 bits, the noise floor is pretty high. This is due to quantization error. Quantization error is pretty weird. It messes up all frequencies a bit.
I'd like to take these cycles and make "clean" 16-bit versions of them. (Yes, I know people love the dirty versions, so I'll let the user interpolate between dirty and clean to whatever degree they like.)
It sounds impossible, right, because I've lost the low 8 bits forever, right? But this has been in the back of my head for a while, and I'm pretty sure I can do it.
Remember that these are single-cycle waveforms that just get repeated over and over for playback, so this is a special case. (Of course, the synth does all kinds of things to make the sound interesting, including envelopes, modulations, filters cross-fading, etc.)
For each individual byte sample, what I really know is that it's one of 256 values in the 16-bit version. (Imagine the reverse process, where the 16-bit value is truncated or rounded to 8 bits.)
My evaluation function is trying to get the minimum noise floor. I should be able to judge that with one or more FFTs.
Exhaustive testing would probably take forever, so I could take a lower-resolution first pass. Or do I just randomly push randomly chosen values around (within the known values that would keep the same 8-bit version) and do the evaluation and keep the cleaner version? Or is there something faster I can do? Am I in danger of falling into local minimums when there might be some better minimums elsewhere in the search space? I've had that happen in other similar situations.
Are there any initial guesses I can make, maybe by looking at neighboring values?
Edit: Several people have pointed out that the problem is easier if I remove the requirement that the new waveform would sample to the original. That's true. In fact, if I'm just looking for cleaner sounds, the solution is trivial.
You could put your existing 8-bit sample into the high-order byte of your new 16-bit sample, and then use the low order byte to linear interpolate some new 16 bit datapoints between each original 8-bit sample.
This would essentially connect a 16 bit straight line between each of your original 8-bit samples, using several new samples. It would sound much quieter than what you have now, which is a sudden, 8-bit jump between the two original samples.
You could also try apply some low-pass filtering.
Going with the approach in your question, I would suggest looking into hill-climbing algorithms and the like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_climbing
has more information on it and the sidebox has links to other algorithms which may be more suitable.
AI is like alchemy - we never reached the final goal, but lots of good stuff came out along the way.
Well, I would expect some FIR filtering (IIR if you really need processing cycles, but FIR can give better results without instability) to clean up the noise. You would have to play with it to get the effect you want but the basic problem is smoothing out the sharp edges in the audio created by sampling it at 8 bit resolutions. I would give a wide birth to the center frequency of the audio and do a low pass filter, and then listen to make sure I didn't make it sound "flat" with the filter I picked.
It's tough though, there is only so much you can do, the lower 8 bits is lost, the best you can do is approximate it.
It's almost impossible to get rid of noise that looks like your signal. If you start tweeking stuff in your frequency band it will take out the signal of interest.
For upsampling, since you're already using an FFT, you can add zeros to the end of the frequency domain signal and do an inverse FFT. This completely preserves the frequecy and phase information of the original signal, although it spreads the same energy over more samples. If you shift it 8bits to be a 16bit samples first, this won't be a too much of a problem. But I usually kick it up by an integer gain factor before doing the transform.
Pete
Edit:
The comments are getting a little long so I'll move some to the answer.
The peaks in the FFT output are harmonic spikes caused by the quantitization. I tend to think of them differently than the noise floor. You can dither as someone mentioned and eliminate the amplitude of the harmonic spikes and flatten out the noise floor, but you loose over all signal to noise on the flat part of your noise floor. As far as the FFT is concerned. When you interpolate using that method, it retains the same energy and spreads over more samples, this reduces the amplitude. So before doing the inverse, give your signal more energy by multipling by a gain factor.
Are the signals simple/complex sinusoids, or do they have hard edges? i.e. Triangle, square waves, etc. I'm assuming they have continuity from cycle to cycle, is that valid? If so you can also increase your FFT resolution to more precisely pinpoint frequencies by increasing the number of waveform cycles fed to your FFT. If you can precisely identify the frequencies use, assuming they are somewhat discrete, you may be able to completely recreate the intended signal.
The 16-bit to 8-bit via truncation requirement will produce results that do not match the original source. (Thus making finding an optimal answer more difficult.) Typically you would produce a fixed point waveform by attempting to "get the closest match" that means rounding to the nearest number (trunking is a floor operation). That is most likely how they were originally generated. Adding 0.5 (in this case 0.5 is 128) and then trunking the output would allow you to generate more accurate results. If that's not a worry then ok, but it definitely will have a negative effect on accuracy.
UPDATED:
Why? Because the goal of sampling a signal is to be able to as close a possible reproduce the signal. If conversion threshold is set poorly on the sampling all you're error is to one side of signal and not well distributed and centered about zero. On such systems you typically try to maximize the use the availiable dynamic range, particularly if you have low resolution such as an 8-bit ADC.
Band limited versions? If they are filtered at different frequencies, I'd suspect it was to allow you to play the same sound with out distortions when you went too far out from the other variation. Kinda like mipmapping in graphics.
I suspect the two are the same signal with different aliasing filters applied, this may be useful in reproducing the original. They should be the same base signal with different convolutions applied.
There might be a simple approach taking advantange of the periodicity of the waveforms. How about if you:
Make a 16-bit waveform where the high bytes are the waveform and the low bytes are zero - call it x[n].
Calculate the discrete Fourier transform of x[n] = X[w].
Make a signal Y[w] = (dBMag(X[w]) > Threshold) ? X[w] : 0, where dBMag(k) = 10*log10(real(k)^2 + imag(k)^2), and Threshold is maybe 40 dB, based on 8 bits being roughly 48 dB dynamic range, and allowing ~1.5 bits of noise.
Inverse transform Y[w] to get y[n], your new 16 bit waveform.
If y[n] doesn't sound nice, dither it with some very low level noise.
Notes:
A. This technique only works in the original waveforms are exactly periodic!
B. Step 5 might be replaced with setting the "0" values to random noise in Y[w] in step 3, you'd have to experiment a bit to see what works better.
This seems easier (to me at least) than an optimization approach. But truncated y[n] will probably not be equal to your original waveforms. I'm not sure how important that constraint is. I feel like this approach will generate waveforms that sound good.
Related
For a project of mine I am working with sampled sound generation and I need to create various waveforms at various frequencies. When the waveform is sinusoidal, everything is fine, but when the waveform is rectangular, there is trouble: it sounds as if it came from the eighties, and as the frequency increases, the notes sound wrong. On the 8th octave, each note sounds like a random note from some lower octave.
The undesirable effect is the same regardless of whether I use either one of the following two approaches:
The purely mathematical way of generating a rectangular waveform as sample = sign( secondsPerHalfWave - (timeSeconds % secondsPerWave) ) where secondsPerWave = 1.0 / wavesPerSecond and secondsPerHalfWave = secondsPerWave / 2.0
My preferred way, which is to describe one period of the wave using line segments and to interpolate along these lines. So, a rectangular waveform is described (regardless of sampling rate and regardless of frequency) by a horizontal line from x=0 to x=0.5 at y=1.0, followed by another horizontal line from x=0.5 to x=1.0 at y=-1.0.
From what I gather, the literature considers these waveform generation approaches "naive", resulting in "aliasing", which is the cause of all the undesirable effects.
What this all practically translates to when I look at the generated waveform is that the samples-per-second value is not an exact multiple of the waves-per-second value, so each wave does not have an even number of samples, which in turn means that the number of samples at level 1.0 is often not equal to the number of samples at level -1.0.
I found a certain solution here: https://www.nayuki.io/page/band-limited-square-waves which even includes source code in Java, and it does indeed sound awesome: all undesirable effects are gone, and each note sounds pure and at the right frequency. However, this solution is entirely unsuitable for me, because it is extremely computationally expensive. (Even after I have replaced sin() and cos() with approximations that are ten times faster than Java's built-in functions.) Besides, when I look at the resulting waveforms they look awfully complex, so I wonder whether they can legitimately be called rectangular.
So, my question is:
What is the most computationally efficient method for the generation of periodic waveforms such as the rectangular waveform that does not suffer from aliasing artifacts?
Examples of what the solution could entail:
The computer audio problem of generating correct sample values at discrete time intervals to describe a sound wave seems to me somewhat related to the computer graphics problem of generating correct integer y coordinates at discrete integer x coordinates for drawing lines. The Bresenham line generation algorithm is extremely efficient, (even if we disregard for a moment the fact that it is working with integer math,) and it works by accumulating a certain error term which, at the right time, results in a bump in the Y coordinate. Could some similar mechanism perhaps be used for calculating sample values?
The way sampling works is understood to be as reading the value of the analog signal at a specific, infinitely narrow point in time. Perhaps a better approach would be to consider reading the area of the entire slice of the analog signal between the last sample and the current sample. This way, sampling a 1.0 right before the edge of the rectangular waveform would contribute a little to the sample value, while sampling a -1.0 considerable time after the edge would contribute a lot, thus naturally yielding a point which is between the two extreme values. Would this solve the problem? Does such an algorithm exist? Has anyone ever tried it?
Please note that I have posted this question here as opposed to dsp.stackexchange.com because I do not want to receive answers with preposterous jargon like band-limiting, harmonics and low-pass filters, lagrange interpolations, DC compensations, etc. and I do not want answers that come from the purely analog world or the purely theoretical outer space and have no chance of ever receiving a practical and efficient implementation using a digital computer.
I am a programmer, not a sound engineer, and in my little programmer's world, things are simple: I have an array of samples which must all be between -1.0 and 1.0, and will be played at a certain rate (44100 samples per second.) I have arithmetic operations and trigonometric functions at my disposal, I can describe lines and use simple linear interpolation, and I need to generate the samples extremely efficiently because the generation of a dozen waveforms simultaneously and also the mixing of them together may not consume more than 1% of the total CPU time.
I'm not sure but you may have a few of misconceptions about the nature of aliasing. I base this on your putting the term in quotes, and from the following quote:
What this all practically translates to when I look at the generated
waveform is that the samples-per-second value is not an exact multiple
of the waves-per-second value, so each wave does not have an even
number of samples, which in turn means that the number of samples at
level 1.0 is often not equal to the number of samples at level -1.0.
The samples/sec and waves/sec don't have to be exact multiples at all! One can play back all pitches below the Nyquist. So I'm not clear what your thinking on this is.
The characteristic sound of a square wave arises from the presence of odd harmonics, e.g., with a note of 440 (A5), the square wave sound could be generated by combining sines of 440, 1320, 2200, 3080, 3960, etc. progressing in increments of 880. This begs the question, how many odd harmonics? We could go to infinity, theoretically, for the sharpest possible corner on our square wave. If you simply "draw" this in the audio stream, the progression will continue well beyond the Nyquist number.
But there is a problem in that harmonics that are higher than the Nyquist value cannot be accurately reproduced digitally. Attempts to do so result in aliasing. So, to get as good a sounding square wave as the system is able to produce, one has to avoid the higher harmonics that are present in the theoretically perfect square wave.
I think the most common solution is to use a low-pass filtering algorithm. The computations are definitely more cpu-intensive than just calculating sine waves (or doing FM synthesis, which was my main interest). I am also weak on the math for DSP and concerned about cpu expense, and so, avoided this approach for long time. But it is quite viable and worth an additional look, imho.
Another approach is to use additive synthesis, and include as many sine harmonics as you need to get the tonal quality you want. The problem then is that the more harmonics you add, the more computation you are doing. Also, the top harmonics must be kept track of as they limit the highest note you can play. For example if using 10 harmonics, the note 500Hz would include content at 10500 Hz. That's below the Nyquist value for 44100 fps (which is 22050 Hz). But you'll only be able to go up about another octave (doubles everything) with a 10-harmonic wave and little more before your harmonic content goes over the limit and starts aliasing.
Instead of computing multiple sines on the fly, another solution you might consider is to instead create a set of lookup tables (LUTs) for your square wave. To create the values in the table, iterate through and add the values from the sine harmonics that will safely remain under the Nyquist for the range in which you use the given table. I think a table of something like 1024 values to encode a single period could be a good first guess as to what would work.
For example, I am guestimating, but the table for the octave C4-C5 might use 10 harmonics, the table for C5-C6 only 5, the table for C3-C4 might have 20. I can't recall what this strategy/technique is called, but I do recall it has a name, it is an accepted way of dealing with the situation. Depending on how the transitions sound and the amount of high-end content you want, you can use fewer or more LUTs.
There may be other methods to consider. The wikipedia entry on Aliasing describes a technique it refers to as "bandpass" that seems to be intentionally using aliasing. I don't know what that is about or how it relates to the article you cite.
The Soundpipe library has the concept of a frequency table, which is a data structure that holds a precomputed waveform such as a sine. You can initialize the frequency table with the desired waveform and play it through an oscilator. There is even a module named oscmorph which allows you to morph between two or more wavetables.
This is an example of how to generate a sine wave, taken from Soundpipe's documentation.
int main() {
UserData ud;
sp_data *sp;
sp_create(&sp);
sp_ftbl_create(sp, &ud.ft, 2048);
sp_osc_create(&ud.osc);
sp_gen_sine(sp, ud.ft);
sp_osc_init(sp, ud.osc, ud.ft);
ud.osc->freq = 500;
sp->len = 44100 * 5;
sp_process(sp, &ud, write_osc);
sp_ftbl_destroy(&ud.ft);
sp_osc_destroy(&ud.osc);
sp_destroy(&sp);
return 0;
}
I am doing filter convolution by using fft (FFTW). I experience something I can not understand.
I have an input x(n) which I want to apply a filter IR u(n). Both length N. So I zero pad both e.g. to 2n and do FFT of both to get X(n) and U(n). if I just do X(n)*U(n) and IFFT I get a signal y(t). If I listen to the signal there is no sizzling, all sounds ok. For speeding up the programm and saving memory I tried to take advantage of symmetrie of U(n) and X(n)and to use only first half of U(n) and X(n) and zero padding the second half. So I did X(n0...n/2,0,0,0,0,..,N)U(n0,..,n/2,0,0,0,..,N) and IFFT.
The resulting output sounds not different to the result when multipling full length XU but there is strange subtile sizzling noise audible laying on the output. Mostley apparent on loud/resonant input signal parts, sounds almost like clipping the stage. I did not change anything in the scaling in both methods so, I don´t understand whats going on. Could someone help me out with an idea?
Is it wrong to just use half of U and X and zero pad the rest , must I use the full length? Or does this change e.g. scaling?
You can not simply set part of your signal spectra to zero. Any real signal (with no imaginary component) has a conjugate complex spectrum. I guess this is the symmetry you are talking about. If you set part of the spectrum to zero your signal in the time domain will be complex and completely different from the original signal you started with.
If you want to speed up your computation reduce the number of your samples you are working with
Im fairly new to onset detection. I read some papers about it and know that when working only with the time-domain, it is possible that there will be a large number of false-positives/negatives, and that it is generally advisable to work with either both the time-domain and frequency-domain or the frequency domain.
Regarding this, I am a bit confused because, I am having trouble on how the spectral energy or the results from the FFT bin can be used to determine note onsets. Because, aren't note onsets represented by sharp peaks in amplitude?
Can someone enlighten me on this? Thank you!
This is the easiest way to think about note onset:
think of a music signal as a flat constant signal. When and onset occurs you look at it as a large rapid CHANGE in signal (a positive or negative peak)
What this means in the frequency domain:
the FT of a constant signal is, well, CONSTANT! and flat
When the onset event occurs there is a rapid increase in spectrial content.
While you may think "Well you're actually talking about the peak of the onset right?" not at all. We are not actually interested in the peak of the onset, but rather the rising edge of the signal. When there is a sharp increase in the signal, the high frequency content increases.
one way to do this is using the spectrial difference function:
take your time domain signal and cut it up into overlaping strips (typically 50% overlap)
apply a hamming/hann window (this is to reduce spectrial smudging) (remember cutting up the signal into windows is like multiplying it by a pulse, in the frequency domain its like convolving the signal with a sinc function)
Apply the FFT algorithm on two sucessive windows
For each DFT bin, calculate the difference between the Xn and Xn-1 bins if it is negative set it to zero
square the results and sum all th bins together
repeat till end of signal.
look for peaks in signal using median thresholding and there are your onset times!
Source:
https://adamhess.github.io/Onset_Detection_Nov302011.pdf
and
http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/people/juan/Documents/Bello-TSAP-2005.pdf
You can look at sharp differences in amplitude at a specific frequency as suspected sound onsets. For instance if a flute switches from playing a G5 to playing a C, there will be a sharp drop in amplitude of the spectrum at around 784 Hz.
If you don't know what frequency to examine, the magnitude of an FFT vector will give you the amplitude of every frequency over some window in time (with a resolution dependent on the length of the time window). Pick your frequency, or a bunch of frequencies, and diff two FFTs of two different time windows. That might give you something that can be used as part of a likelihood estimate for a sound onset or change somewhere between the two time windows. Sliding the windows or successive approximation of their location in time might help narrow down the time of a suspected note onset or other significant change in the sound.
"Because, aren't note onsets represented by sharp peaks in amplitude?"
A: Not always. On percussive instruments (including piano) this is true, but for violin, flute, etc. notes often "slide" into each other as frequency changes without sharp amplitude increases.
If you stick to a single instrument like the piano onset detection is do-able. Generalized onset detection is a much more difficult problem. There are about a dozen primitive features that have been used for onset detection. Once you code them, you still have to decide how best to use them.
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.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a sample held in a buffer from DirectX. It's a sample of a note played and captured from an instrument. How do I analyse the frequency of the sample (like a guitar tuner does)? I believe FFTs are involved, but I have no pointers to HOWTOs.
The FFT can help you figure out where the frequency is, but it can't tell you exactly what the frequency is. Each point in the FFT is a "bin" of frequencies, so if there's a peak in your FFT, all you know is that the frequency you want is somewhere within that bin, or range of frequencies.
If you want it really accurate, you need a long FFT with a high resolution and lots of bins (= lots of memory and lots of computation). You can also guess the true peak from a low-resolution FFT using quadratic interpolation on the log-scaled spectrum, which works surprisingly well.
If computational cost is most important, you can try to get the signal into a form in which you can count zero crossings, and then the more you count, the more accurate your measurement.
None of these will work if the fundamental is missing, though. :)
I've outlined a few different algorithms here, and the interpolated FFT is usually the most accurate (though this only works when the fundamental is the strongest harmonic - otherwise you need to be smarter about finding it), with zero-crossings a close second (though this only works for waveforms with one crossing per cycle). Neither of these conditions is typical.
Keep in mind that the partials above the fundamental frequency are not perfect harmonics in many instruments, like piano or guitar. Each partial is actually a little bit out of tune, or inharmonic. So the higher-frequency peaks in the FFT will not be exactly on the integer multiples of the fundamental, and the wave shape will change slightly from one cycle to the next, which throws off autocorrelation.
To get a really accurate frequency reading, I'd say to use the autocorrelation to guess the fundamental, then find the true peak using quadratic interpolation. (You can do the autocorrelation in the frequency domain to save CPU cycles.) There are a lot of gotchas, and the right method to use really depends on your application.
There are also other algorithms that are time-based, not frequency based.
Autocorrelation is a relatively simple algorithm for pitch detection.
Reference: http://cnx.org/content/m11714/latest/
I have written c# implementations of autocorrelation and other algorithms that are readable. Check out http://code.google.com/p/yaalp/.
http://code.google.com/p/yaalp/source/browse/#svn/trunk/csaudio/WaveAudio/WaveAudio
Lists the files, and PitchDetection.cs is the one you want.
(The project is GPL; so understand the terms if you use the code).
Guitar tuners don't use FFT's or DFT's. Usually they just count zero crossings. You might not get the fundamental frequency because some waveforms have more zero crossings than others but you can usually get a multiple of the fundamental frequency that way. That's enough to get the note although you might be one or more octaves off.
Low pass filtering before counting zero crossings can usually get rid of the excess zero crossings. Tuning the low pass filter requires some knowlegde of the range of frequency you want to detect though
FFTs (Fast-Fourier Transforms) would indeed be involved. FFTs allow you to approximate any analog signal with a sum of simple sine waves of fixed frequencies and varying amplitudes. What you'll essentially be doing is taking a sample and decomposing it into amplitude->frequency pairs, and then taking the frequency that corresponds to the highest amplitude.
Hopefully another SO reader can fill the gaps I'm leaving between the theory and the code!
A little more specifically:
If you start with the raw PCM in an input array, what you basically have is a graph of wave amplitude vs time.Doing a FFT will transform that to a frequency histogram for frequencies from 0 to 1/2 the input sampling rate. The value of each entry in the result array will be the 'strength' of the corresponding sub-frequency.
So to find the root frequency given an input array of size N sampled at S samples/second:
FFT(N, input, output);
max = max_i = 0;
for(i=0;i<N;i++)
if (output[i]>max) max_i = i;
root = S/2.0 * max_i/N ;
Retrieval of fundamental frequencies in a PCM audio signal is a difficult task, and there would be a lot to talk about it...
Anyway, usually time-based method are not suitable for polyphonic signals, because a complex wave given by the sum of different harmonic components due to multiple fundamental frequencies has a zero-crossing rate which depends only from the lowest frequency component...
Also in the frequency domain the FFT is not the most suitable method, since frequency spacing between notes follow an exponential scale, not linear. This means that a constant frequency resolution, used in the FFT method, may be insufficient to resolve lower frequency notes if the size of the analysis window in the time domain is not large enough.
A more suitable method would be a constant-Q transform, which is DFT applied after a process of low-pass filtering and decimation by 2 (i.e. halving each step the sampling frequency) of the signal, in order to obtain different subbands with different frequency resolution. In this way the calculation of DFT is optimized. The trouble is that also time resolution is variable, and increases for the lower subbands...
Finally, if we are trying to estimate the fundamental frequency of a single note, FFT/DFT methods are ok. Things change for a polyphonic context, in which partials of different sounds overlap and sum/cancel their amplitude depending from their phase difference, and so a single spectral peak could belong to different harmonic contents (belonging to different notes). Correlation in this case don't give good results...
Apply a DFT and then derive the fundamental frequency from the results. Googling around for DFT information will give you the information you need -- I'd link you to some, but they differ greatly in expectations of math knowledge.
Good luck.