[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: frequency to mel formula
Following Jim's tips, I found the mel formula appears on p. 128 in the
2nd edition of O'Shaughnessy. It's dubbed formula 4.2, and reads m =
2595log(1+f/700). The full reference for the book is
O'Shaughnessy, D. (2000). Speech communications: Human and machine (2nd
ed.). New York: IEEE Press.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Sarah Hargus Ferguson, Ph.D., CCC-A
Department of Speech-Language-Hearing: Sciences and Disorders
University of Kansas
1000 Sunnyside Ave., Room 3001
Lawrence, KS 66045
Speech Acoustics and Perception Lab: (785)864-0610
From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception
[mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James W. Beauchamp
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: frequency to mel formula
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
Dan gives the date of the book as 1987, so I'm not sure which is
At any rate, it is possible to buy a second edition of the book, which
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.
>From: Dan Ellis <dpwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:55:25 -0400
>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
>I think Fant is the more appropriate reference (for log(1+f/1000)) and
>O'Shaugnessy for log(1+f/700).