In [#!SmithAndAbel99!#], optimal allpass coefficients were computed for sampling rates of twice the Bark band-edge frequencies by means of four different optimization methods:

- Minimize the peak arc-length error at each sampling rate to obtain the optimal Chebyshev allpass parameter .
- Minimize the sum of squared arc-length errors to obtain the optimal least-squares allpass parameter .
- Use the closed-form weighted equation-error solution (E.3.1) computed twice, first with , and second with set from (E.3.1) to obtain the optimal ``weighted equation error'' solution .
- Fit the function to the optimal Chebyshev allpass parameter via Chebyshev optimization with respect to . We will refer to the resulting function as the ``arctangent approximation'' (or, less formally, the ``Barktan formula''), and note that it is easily computed directly from the sampling rate.

The peak and rms frequency-mapping errors are plotted versus sampling rate
in Fig.E.4. Peak and rms errors in Barks^{E.1} are plotted for all four cases (Chebyshev, least
squares, weighted equation-error, and arctangent approximation). The
conformal-map fit to the Bark scale is generally excellent in all cases.
We see that the rms error is essentially identical in the first three
cases, although the Chebyshev rms error is visibly larger below 10 kHz.
Similarly, the peak error is essentially the same for least squares and
weighted equation error, with the Chebyshev case being able to shave almost
0.1 Bark from the maximum error at high sampling rates. The arctangent
formula shows up to a tenth of a Bark larger peak error at sampling rates
15-30 and 54 kHz, but otherwise it performs very well; at 41 kHz and
below 12 kHz the arctangent approximation is essentially optimal in all
senses considered.

At sampling rates up to the maximum non-extrapolated sampling rate of kHz, the peak mapping errors are all much less than one Bark (0.64 Barks for the Chebyshev case and 0.67 Barks for the two least squares cases). The mapping errors in Barks can be seen to increase almost linearly with sampling rate. However, the irregular nature of the Bark-scale data results in a nonmonotonic relationship at lower sampling rates.

The specific frequency mapping errors versus frequency at the kHz sampling rate (the same case shown in Fig.E.1) are plotted in Fig.E.5. Again, all four cases are overlaid, and again the least squares and weighted equation-error cases are essentially identical. By forcing equal and opposite peak errors, the Chebyshev case is able to lower the peak error from 0.67 to 0.64 Barks. A difference of 0.03 Barks is probably insignificant for most applications. The peak errors occur at 1.3 kHz and 8.8 kHz where the error is approximately 2/3 Bark. The arctangent formula peak error is 0.73 Barks at 8.8 kHz, but in return, its secondary error peak at 1.3 kHz is only 0.55 Barks. In some applications, such as when working with oversampled signals, higher accuracy at low frequencies at the expense of higher error at very high frequencies may be considered a desirable tradeoff.

We see that the mapping falls ``behind'' a bit as frequency increases from zero to 1.3 kHz, mapping linear frequencies slightly below the desired corresponding Bark values; then, the mapping ``catches up,'' reaching an error of 0 Barks near 3 kHz. Above 3 kHz, it gets ``ahead'' slightly, with frequencies in Hz being mapped a little too high, reaching the positive error peak at 8.8 kHz, after which it falls back down to zero error at . (Recall that dc and half the sampling-rate are always points of zero error by construction.)

[How to cite this work] [Order a printed hardcopy] [Comment on this page via email]

Copyright ©

Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA), Stanford University