Subject: Re: frequency to mel formula From: "Ferguson, Sarah Hargus" <safergus@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:27:51 -0500 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>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 Assistant Professor Department of Speech-Language-Hearing: Sciences and Disorders University of Kansas Dole Center 1000 Sunnyside Ave., Room 3001 Lawrence, KS 66045 office: (785)864-1116 Speech Acoustics and Perception Lab: (785)864-0610 http://www.ku.edu/~splh/Faculty/FergusonBio.html -----Original Message----- From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of James W. Beauchamp Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:55 PM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx 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 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@xxxxxxxx> >Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:55:25 -0400 >To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] frequency to mel formula >Comments: To: "James D. Miller" <jamdmill@xxxxxxxx> > >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.