Commit 0754abe0 authored by Candre Nathan's avatar Candre Nathan
Browse files

suppression git frequency estimator, récupération de ses .py importants

parent f92492b2
frequency_estimator @ f94aa1d3
Subproject commit f94aa1d3d63a8ec3c0e80f30c6f9f4e375ceea0f
from __future__ import division
from numpy.fft import rfft
from numpy import argmax, mean, diff, log, nonzero
from scipy.signal import blackmanharris, correlate
from time import time
import sys
import soundfile as sf
except ImportError:
from scikits.audiolab import flacread
from frequency_estimator.parabolic import parabolic
def freq_from_crossings(sig, fs):
Estimate frequency by counting zero crossings
# Find all indices right before a rising-edge zero crossing
indices = nonzero((sig[1:] >= 0) & (sig[:-1] < 0))[0]
# Naive (Measures 1000.185 Hz for 1000 Hz, for instance)
# crossings = indices
# More accurate, using linear interpolation to find intersample
# zero-crossings (Measures 1000.000129 Hz for 1000 Hz, for instance)
crossings = [i - sig[i] / (sig[i+1] - sig[i]) for i in indices]
# Some other interpolation based on neighboring points might be better.
# Spline, cubic, whatever
return fs / mean(diff(crossings))
def freq_from_fft(sig, fs):
Estimate frequency from peak of FFT
# Compute Fourier transform of windowed signal
windowed = sig * blackmanharris(len(sig))
f = rfft(windowed)
# Find the peak and interpolate to get a more accurate peak
i = argmax(abs(f)) # Just use this for less-accurate, naive version
true_i = parabolic(log(abs(f)), i)[0]
# Convert to equivalent frequency
return fs * true_i / len(windowed)
def freq_from_autocorr(sig, fs):
Estimate frequency using autocorrelation
# Calculate autocorrelation and throw away the negative lags
corr = correlate(sig, sig, mode='full')
corr = corr[len(corr)//2:]
# Find the first low point
d = diff(corr)
start = nonzero(d > 0)[0][0]
# Find the next peak after the low point (other than 0 lag). This bit is
# not reliable for long signals, due to the desired peak occurring between
# samples, and other peaks appearing higher.
# Should use a weighting function to de-emphasize the peaks at longer lags.
peak = argmax(corr[start:]) + start
px, py = parabolic(corr, peak)
return fs / px
def freq_from_HPS(sig, fs):
Estimate frequency using harmonic product spectrum (HPS)
windowed = sig * blackmanharris(len(sig))
from pylab import subplot, plot, log, copy, show
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# harmonic product spectrum:
c = abs(rfft(windowed))
maxharms = 8
resarray = []
for x in range(2, 6):
a = copy(c[::x]) # Should average or maximum instead of decimating
# max(c[::x],c[1::x],c[2::x],...)
c = c[:len(a)]
i = argmax(abs(c))
true_i = parabolic(abs(c), i)[0]
res = fs * true_i / len(windowed)
#print('Pass %d: %f Hz' % (x, res))
c *= a
#plt.subplot(maxharms, 1, x)
return mean(resarray[1:3])
def hello(signal, fs):
print('Calculating frequency from FFT:', end=' ')
start_time = time()
print('%f Hz' % freq_from_fft(signal, fs))
print('Time elapsed: %.3f s\n' % (time() - start_time))
print('Calculating frequency from zero crossings:', end=' ')
start_time = time()
print('%f Hz' % freq_from_crossings(signal, fs))
print('Time elapsed: %.3f s\n' % (time() - start_time))
print('Calculating frequency from autocorrelation:', end=' ')
start_time = time()
print('%f Hz' % freq_from_autocorr(signal, fs))
print('Time elapsed: %.3f s\n' % (time() - start_time))
# print('Calculating frequency from harmonic product spectrum:')
# start_time = time()
# freq_from_HPS(signal, fs)
# print('Time elapsed: %.3f s\n' % (time() - start_time))
from __future__ import division
from numpy import polyfit, arange
def parabolic(f, x):
"""Quadratic interpolation for estimating the true position of an
inter-sample maximum when nearby samples are known.
f is a vector and x is an index for that vector.
Returns (vx, vy), the coordinates of the vertex of a parabola that goes
through point x and its two neighbors.
Defining a vector f with a local maximum at index 3 (= 6), find local
maximum if points 2, 3, and 4 actually defined a parabola.
In [3]: f = [2, 3, 1, 6, 4, 2, 3, 1]
In [4]: parabolic(f, argmax(f))
Out[4]: (3.2142857142857144, 6.1607142857142856)
xv = 1/2. * (f[x-1] - f[x+1]) / (f[x-1] - 2 * f[x] + f[x+1]) + x
yv = f[x] - 1/4. * (f[x-1] - f[x+1]) * (xv - x)
return (xv, yv)
def parabolic_polyfit(f, x, n):
"""Use the built-in polyfit() function to find the peak of a parabola
f is a vector and x is an index for that vector.
n is the number of samples of the curve used to fit the parabola.
a, b, c = polyfit(arange(x-n//2, x+n//2+1), f[x-n//2:x+n//2+1], 2)
xv = -0.5 * b/a
yv = a * xv**2 + b * xv + c
return (xv, yv)
if __name__ == "__main__":
from numpy import argmax
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
y = [2, 1, 4, 8, 11, 10, 7, 3, 1, 1]
xm, ym = argmax(y), y[argmax(y)]
xp, yp = parabolic(y, argmax(y))
plot = plt.plot(y)
plt.plot(xm, ym, 'o', color='silver')
plt.plot(xp, yp, 'o', color='blue')
plt.title('silver = max, blue = estimated max')
A few simple frequency estimation methods in Python
**See also**, which is mostly the same thing, maybe more up-to-date. I need to keep them both in sync with each other or delete one.
These are the methods that everyone recommends when someone asks about
frequency estimation or pitch detection. Such as here:
- [Music - How do you analyse the fundamental frequency of a PCM or WAV sample](
- [CCRMA Pitch detection methods review](
- [Pitch Detection Algorithms (Middleton)](
So these are my attempts at implementation. Initially I was trying to measure the frequency of long sine waves with high accuracy (to indirectly measure clock frequency), then added methods for other types of signals later.
None of them work well in all situations, these are "offline", not real-time, and I am sure there are much better methods "in the literature", but here is some sample code for the simple methods at least.
### Count zero-crossings, divide average period by time to get frequency
* Works well for long low-noise sines, square, triangle, etc.
* Supposedly this is how cheap guitar tuners work
* Using interpolation to find a "truer" zero-crossing gives better accuracy
* Pro: Fast
* Pro: Accurate (increasing with signal length)
* Con: Doesn't work if there are multiple zero crossings per cycle, low-frequency baseline shift, noise, etc.
### Do FFT and find the peak
* Using parabolic interpolation to find a truer peak gives better accuracy
* Accuracy also increases with signal/FFT length
* Con: Doesn't find the right value if harmonics are stronger than fundamental, which is common. Better method would try to be smarter about identifying the fundamental, like template matching using the ["two-way mismatch" (TWM) algorithm](
* Pro: Accurate, usually even more so than zero crossing counter (1000.000004 Hz for 1000 Hz, for instance). Due to [parabolic interpolation being a very good fit]( for windowed log FFT peaks?
### Do autocorrelation and find the peak
* Pro: Best method for finding the true fundamental of any repetitive wave, even with weak or missing fundamental (finds GCD of all harmonics present)
* Con: Inaccurate result if waveform isn't perfectly repeating, like inharmonic musical instruments (piano, guitar, ...), however:
* Pro: This inaccurate result more closely matches the pitch that humans perceive :)
* Con: Not as accurate as other methods for precise measurement of sine waves
* Con: This implementation has trouble with finding the true peak
### Calculate harmonic product spectrum and find the peak
* Pro: Good at finding the true fundamental even if weak or missing
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment