[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: frequency to mel formula

Hi Jim,

If you search on Google Books, you'll see that Equation 4.2 (p.150) is
the one Dan cited.

Hopefully this link works for you.  If not, I searched for the text
"2595" in O'Shaughness's book:

Here's the book info that Google has on file:
Title	Speech communication: human and machine
Author	Douglas O'Shaughnessy
Edition	reprint, illustrated
Publisher	Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1987
Item notes	p. 95
Original from	the University of Michigan
Digitized	Nov 15, 2007
ISBN		0201165201, 9780201165203
Length	568 pages

- Jon

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:54 PM, James W.
Beauchamp<jwbeauch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It would be good if someone could double check the O'Shaugnessy
> reference, as given by Dan earlier today:
>>O'Shaughnessy, D. (1978) Speech communication: Human and machine.
>>Addison-Wesley, New York, page 150.
> I think the title is actually Speech Communications: Human and Machine.
> In the archived message http://www.auditory.org/mhonarc/2008/msg00189.html
> Dan gives the date of the book as 1987, so I'm not sure which is correct.
> At any rate, it is possible to buy a second edition of the book, which is
> copyrighted 2000. However, when perusing the Contents and the Index it
> looks like the page has changed. Pages for 'mel scale' in the Index are
> 128, 191, and 214. I hope the formula made it.
> Jim
> Original message:
>>From: Dan Ellis <dpwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:55:25 -0400
>>To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] frequency to mel formula
>>Comments: To: "James D. Miller" <jamdmill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>I'm not sure if this is worth discussing on the full list, but...
>>After the discussion last year I actually got a hold of the Beranek
>>1949 book from our library's cold storage, and the reference is wrong.
>> In the book, Beranek gives empirical values for the Mel scale, but no
>>equation.  Clearly, this reference got mangled somewhere along the
>>way: there may be a different early Beranek reference, but it isn't
>>this one.
>>I think Fant is the more appropriate reference (for log(1+f/1000)) and
>>O'Shaugnessy for log(1+f/700).
>>  DAn.