I've been playing around with Web Audio some. I have a simple oscillator node playing at a frequency of context.sampleRate / analyzerNode.fftSize * 5 (107.666015625 in this case). When I call analyzer.getByteFrequencyData I would expect it to have a value in the 5th bin, and no where else. What I actually see is [0,0,0,240,255,255,255,240,0,0...]
Why am I getting values in multiple bins?
The webaudio AnalyserNode applies a Blackman window before computing the FFT. This windowing function will smear the single tone.
That has to do that your sequence is finite and therefore your signal is supposed to last for a finite amount of time. Surely you are calculating the FFT with a rectangular window, i.e. your signal is consider to last for the amount of generated samples only and that "discontinuity" (i.e. the fact that the signal has a finite number of samples) creates the spectral leakage. To minimise this effect, you could try several windows functions that when applied to your data prior the FFT calculation, reduces this effect.
It looks like you might be clipping somewhere in your computation by using a test signal too large for your data or arithmetic format. Try again using a floating point format.
Related
I try to do an extrapolation with the FFT method thanks to this code: https://gist.github.com/tartakynov/83f3cd8f44208a1856ce
and i would like to knw how can i select only the highest frequencies of the data serie because this code don't give me good result.
The basis vectors of an FFT are all circularly periodic, thus poorly model any edge transients or circular discontinuities between the beginning and end of a rectangular window which is the same length as the FFT (unless the full data set is purely integer periodic in FFT length, extremely unlikely for real financial data sets).
You could try windowing your data (with a non-rectangular window, such as a Von Hann, Tukey or Planck-taper window), possibly in conjunction with using a longer zero-padded FFT.
Another possibility is to use polynomial regression (perhaps somewhat underfit) on some portion of your data to generate an estimator, extend that polynomial into the region into which you wish to extrapolate, and then take the (windowed) FFT of that polynomial range instead of your original time series.
I get how the DFT via correlation works, and use that as a basis for understanding the results of the FFT. If I have a discrete signal that was sampled at 44.1kHz, then that means if I were to take 1s of data, I would have 44,100 samples. In order to run the FFT on that, I would have to have an array of 44,100 and a DFT with N=44,100 in order to get the resolution necessary to detect a frequencies up to 22kHz, right? (Because the FFT can only correlate the input with sinusoidal components up to a frequency of N/2)
That's obviously a lot of data points and calculation time, and I have read that this is where the Short-time FT (STFT) comes in. If I then take the first 1024 samples (~23ms) and run the FFT on that, then take an overlapping 1024 samples, I can get the continuous frequency domain of the signal every 23ms. Then how do I interpret the output? If the output of the FFT on static data is N/2 data points with fs/(N/2) bandwidth, what is the bandwidth of the STFT's frequency output?
Here's an example that I ran in Mathematica:
100Hz sine wave at 44.1kHz sample rate:
Then I run the FFT on only the first 1024 points:
The frequency of interest is then at data point 3, which should somehow correspond to 100Hz. I think 44100/1024 = 43 is something like a scaling factor, which means that a signal with 1Hz in this little window will then correspond to a signal of 43Hz in the full data array. However, this would give me an output of 43Hz*3 = 129Hz. Is my logic correct but not my implementation?
As I have already stated in my earlier comments, the variable N affects the resolution achievable by the output frequency spectrum and not the range of frequencies you can detect.A larger N gives you a higher resolution at the expense of higher computation time and a lower N gives you lower computation time but can cause spectral leakage, which is the effect you have seen in your last figure.
As for your other question, well, theoretically the bandwidth of an FFT is infinite but we band-limit our result to the band of frequencies in the range [-fs/2 to fs/2] because all frequencies outside that band are susceptible to aliasing and are therefore of no use.Furthermore, if the input signal is real (which is true in most cases including ours) then the frequencies from [-fs/2 to 0] are just a reflection of the frequencies from [0 to fs/2] and so some FFT procedures just output the FFT spectrum from [0 to fs/2], which I think applies to your case.This means that the N/2 data points that you received as output represent the frequencies in the range [0 to fs/2] so that is the bandwidth you are working with in the case of the FFT and also in the case of the STFT (the STFT is just a series of FFT's, each FFT in a STFT will give you a spectrum with data points in this band).
I would also like to point out that the STFT will most likely not reduce your computation time if your input is a varying signal such as music because in that case you will need to take perform it several times over the duration of the song for it to be of any use, it will however enable you to understand the frequency characteristics of your song much better that you would do if you just performed one FFT.
To visualise the results of an FFT you use frequency (and/or phase) spectrum plots but in order to visualise the results of an STFT you will most probably need to create a spectrogram which is basically a graph can is made by just basically putting the individual FFT spectrums side by side.The process of creating a spectrogram can be seen in the figure below (Source: Dan Ellis - Introduction to Speech Processing).The spectrogram will show you how your signal's frequency characteristics change over time and how you interpret it will depend on what specific features you are looking to extract/detect from the audio.You might want to look at the spectrogram wikipedia page for more information.
I am using the accelerate framework FFT functions to produce a spectrogram of a sound sample. This part works great. However, I want to (effectively) manipulate the spectrum directly (ie manipulate the real numbers), and then call the inverse again, how would I go about doing that? It looks like the INVERSE call expects an array of IMAGINARY numbers, but how can I produce that from my manipulated real numbers? I have tried making the realp array my reals, and the imagp part zero, but that doesn't seem to work.
The reason I ask this is because I wish to run an FFT on a voice audio sample, and then run the FFT again and then lifter the low part of the cepstrum (thus hopefully separating the vocal tract components from the pitch) and then run an inverse FFT again to produce a spectrogram showing the vocal tract (formant) information more clearly (ie, without the pitch information). However, I seem to be running into problems on the inverse FFT, into which I am passing in my real values (cepstrum) in the realp array and the imagp is zero. I think I am doing something wrong here and the results are unexpected.
You need to process the complex forward FFT results, rather than the real magnitudes, or else the shape of the IFFT result spectrum will be distorted. Don't consider them imaginary numbers, consider them to be part of a 2D vector containing the required angular phase information.
If your cepstrum lifter/filter alters only the real magnitudes, then you can try using the amount of change of the real magnitudes as scaling factors to alter your forward complex FFT result before doing a complex IFFT.
I have a series of data and need to detect peak values in the series within a certain number of readings (window size) and excluding a certain level of background "noise." I also need to capture the starting and stopping points of the appreciable curves (ie, when it starts ticking up and then when it stops ticking down).
The data are high precision floats.
Here's a quick sketch that captures the most common scenarios that I'm up against visually:
One method I attempted was to pass a window of size X along the curve going backwards to detect the peaks. It started off working well, but I missed a lot of conditions initially not anticipated. Another method I started to work out was a growing window that would discover the longer duration curves. Yet another approach used a more calculus based approach that watches for some velocity / gradient aspects. None seemed to hit the sweet spot, probably due to my lack of experience in statistical analysis.
Perhaps I need to use some kind of a statistical analysis package to cover my bases vs writing my own algorithm? Or would there be an efficient method for tackling this directly with SQL with some kind of local max techniques? I'm simply not sure how to approach this efficiently. Each method I try it seems that I keep missing various thresholds, detecting too many peak values or not capturing entire events (reporting a peak datapoint too early in the reading process).
Ultimately this is implemented in Ruby and so if you could advise as to the most efficient and correct way to approach this problem with Ruby that would be appreciated, however I'm open to a language agnostic algorithmic approach as well. Or is there a certain library that would address the various issues I'm up against in this scenario of detecting the maximum peaks?
my idea is simple, after get your windows of interest you will need find all the peaks in this window, you can just compare the last value with the next , after this you will have where the peaks occur and you can decide where are the best peak.
I wrote one simple source in matlab to show my idea!
My example are in wave from audio file :-)
waveFile='Chick_eco.wav';
[y, fs, nbits]=wavread(waveFile);
subplot(2,2,1); plot(y); legend('Original signal');
startIndex=15000;
WindowSize=100;
endIndex=startIndex+WindowSize-1;
frame = y(startIndex:endIndex);
nframe=length(frame)
%find the peaks
peaks = zeros(nframe,1);
k=3;
while(k <= nframe - 1)
y1 = frame(k - 1);
y2 = frame(k);
y3 = frame(k + 1);
if (y2 > 0)
if (y2 > y1 && y2 >= y3)
peaks(k)=frame(k);
end
end
k=k+1;
end
peaks2=peaks;
peaks2(peaks2<=0)=nan;
subplot(2,2,2); plot(frame); legend('Get Window Length = 100');
subplot(2,2,3); plot(peaks); legend('Where are the PEAKS');
subplot(2,2,4); plot(frame); legend('Peaks in the Window');
hold on; plot(peaks2, '*');
for j = 1 : nframe
if (peaks(j) > 0)
fprintf('Local=%i\n', j);
fprintf('Value=%i\n', peaks(j));
end
end
%Where the Local Maxima occur
[maxivalue, maxi]=max(peaks)
you can see all the peaks and where it occurs
Local=37
Value=3.266296e-001
Local=51
Value=4.333496e-002
Local=65
Value=5.049438e-001
Local=80
Value=4.286804e-001
Local=84
Value=3.110046e-001
I'll propose a couple of different ideas. One is to use discrete wavelets, the other is to use the geographer's concept of prominence.
Wavelets: Apply some sort of wavelet decomposition to your data. There are multiple choices, with Daubechies wavelets being the most widely used. You want the low frequency peaks. Zero out the high frequency wavelet elements, reconstruct your data, and look for local extrema.
Prominence: Those noisy peaks and valleys are of key interest to geographers. They want to know exactly which of a mountain's multiple little peaks is tallest, the exact location of the lowest point in the valley. Find the local minima and maxima in your data set. You should have a sequence of min/max/min/max/.../min. (You might want to add an arbitrary end points that are lower than your global minimum.) Consider a min/max/min sequence. Classify each of these triples per the difference between the max and the larger of the two minima. Make a reduced sequence that replaces the smallest of these triples with the smaller of the two minima. Iterate until you get down to a single min/max/min triple. In your example, you want the next layer down, the min/max/min/max/min sequence.
Note: I'm going to describe the algorithmic steps as if each pass were distinct. Obviously, in a specific implementation, you can combine steps where it makes sense for your application. For the purposes of my explanation, it makes the text a little more clear.
I'm going to make some assumptions about your problem:
The windows of interest (the signals that you are looking for) cover a fraction of the entire data space (i.e., it's not one long signal).
The windows have significant scope (i.e., they aren't one pixel wide on your picture).
The windows have a minimum peak of interest (i.e., even if the signal exceeds the background noise, the peak must have an additional signal excess of the background).
The windows will never overlap (i.e., each can be examined as a distinct sub-problem out of context of the rest of the signal).
Given those, you can first look through your data stream for a set of windows of interest. You can do this by making a first pass through the data: moving from left to right, look for noise threshold crossing points. If the signal was below the noise floor and exceeds it on the next sample, that's a candidate starting point for a window (vice versa for the candidate end point).
Now make a pass through your candidate windows: compare the scope and contents of each window with the values defined above. To use your picture as an example, the small peaks on the left of the image barely exceed the noise floor and do so for too short a time. However, the window in the center of the screen clearly has a wide time extent and a significant max value. Keep the windows that meet your minimum criteria, discard those that are trivial.
Now to examine your remaining windows in detail (remember, they can be treated individually). The peak is easy to find: pass through the window and keep the local max. With respect to the leading and trailing edges of the signal, you can see n the picture that you have a window that's slightly larger than the actual point at which the signal exceeds the noise floor. In this case, you can use a finite difference approximation to calculate the first derivative of the signal. You know that the leading edge will be somewhat to the left of the window on the chart: look for a point at which the first derivative exceeds a positive noise floor of its own (the slope turns upwards sharply). Do the same for the trailing edge (which will always be to the right of the window).
Result: a set of time windows, the leading and trailing edges of the signals and the peak that occured in that window.
It looks like the definition of a window is the range of x over which y is above the threshold. So use that to determine the size of the window. Within that, locate the largest value, thus finding the peak.
If that fails, then what additional criteria do you have for defining a region of interest? You may need to nail down your implicit assumptions to more than 'that looks like a peak to me'.
How should stereo (2 channel) audio data be represented for FFT? Do you
A. Take the average of the two channels and assign it to the real component of a number and leave the imaginary component 0.
B. Assign one channel to the real component and the other channel to the imag component.
Is there a reason to do one or the other? I searched the web but could not find any definite answers on this.
I'm doing some simple spectrum analysis and, not knowing any better, used option A). This gave me an unexpected result, whereas option B) went as expected. Here are some more details:
I have a WAV file of a piano "middle-C". By definition, middle-C is 260Hz, so I would expect the peak frequency to be at 260Hz and smaller peaks at harmonics. I confirmed this by viewing the spectrum via an audio editing software (Sound Forge). But when I took the FFT myself, with option A), the peak was at 520Hz. With option B), the peak was at 260Hz.
Am I missing something? The explanation that I came up with so far is that representing stereo data using a real and imag component implies that the two channels are independent, which, I suppose they're not, and hence the mess-up.
I don't think you're taking the average correctly. :-)
C. Process each channel separately, assigning the amplitude to the real component and leaving the imaginary component as 0.
Option B does not make sense. Option A, which amounts to convert the signal to mono, is OK (if you are interested in a global spectrum).
Your problem (double freq) is surely related to some misunderstanding in the use of your FFT routines.
Once you take the FFT you need to get the Magnitude of the complex frequency spectrum. To get the magnitude you take the absolute of the complex spectrum |X(w)|. If you want to look at the power spectrum you square the magnitude spectrum, |X(w)|^2.
In terms of your frequency shift I think it has to do with you setting the imaginary parts to zero.
If you imagine the complex Frequency spectrum as a series of complex vectors or position vectors in a cartesian space. If you took one discrete frequency bin X(w), there would be one real component representing its direction in the real axis (x -direction), and one imaginary component in the in the imaginary axis (y - direction). There are four important values about this discrete frequency, 1. real value, 2. imaginary value, 3. Magnitude and, 4. phase. If you just take the real value and set imaginary to 0, you are setting Magnitude = real and phase = 0deg or 90deg. You have hence forth modified the resulting spectrum, and applied a bias to every frequency bin. Take a look at the wiki on Magnitude of a vector, also called the Euclidean norm of a vector to brush up on your understanding. Leonbloy was correct, but I hope this was more informative.
Think of the FFT as a way to get information from a single signal. What you are asking is what is the best way to display data from two signals. My answer would be to treat each independently, and display an FFT for each.
If you want a really fast streaming FFT you can read about an algorithm I wrote here: www.depthcharged.us/?p=176