I am working on Decoding English alphabets letter using EEG signal information. I wanted to remove the baseline drift from EEG signal and now I am not sure about what my breakpoints-input should be.
I am using scipy.signal.detrend()
This is the part where I am having a problem with. DetrendData = detrend(rawData,axis=1,type="linear",bp=[i for i in range(0,250,4)])
which rawData.shape = (8,250)
Related
I'm learning SDR by trying to decode different 433Mhz keyfob signals.
My initial flow for capture and pre-processing looks like this:
What I get on the sink is:
I guess the bits are visible fine and I could proceed to decode it somehow. But I am worried about the big difference in the amplitude: the very beginning of the burst has much higher amplitude in comparison to the rest of the packet. This picture is very consistent (I was not able to get bursts with more balanced amplitudes). If I was speaking about music recording I would look for a compression method. But I don't know what the equivalent in the SDR world is.
I'm not sure if this will be a problem when I'll try to quadrature demod, binary slice and/or clock recover.
Is this a known problem and what is the approach to eliminate it within GNU Radio Companion?
I'm doing some data augmentation on a speech dataset, and I want to stretch/squeeze each audio file in the time domain.
I found the following three ways to do that, but I'm not sure which one is the best or more optimized way:
dimension = int(len(signal) * speed)
res = librosa.effects.time_stretch(signal, speed)
res = cv2.resize(signal, (1, dimension)).squeeze()
res = skimage.transform.resize(signal, (dimension, 1)).squeeze()
However, I found that librosa.effects.time_stretch adds unwanted echo (or something like that) to the signal.
So, my question is: What are the main differences between these three ways? And is there any better way to do that?
librosa.effects.time_stretch(signal, speed) (docs)
In essence, this approach transforms the signal using stft (short time Fourier transform), stretches it using a phase vocoder and uses the inverse stft to reconstruct the time domain signal. Typically, when doing it this way, one introduces a little bit of "phasiness", i.e. a metallic clang, because the phase cannot be reconstructed 100%. That's probably what you've identified as "echo."
Note that while this approach effectively stretches audio in the time domain (i.e., the input is in the time domain as well as the output), the work is actually being done in the frequency domain.
cv2.resize(signal, (1, dimension)).squeeze() (docs)
All this approach does is interpolating the given signal using bilinear interpolation. This approach is suitable for images, but strikes me as unsuitable for audio signals. Have you listened to the result? Does it sound at all like the original signal only faster/slower? I would assume not only the tempo changes, but also the frequency and perhaps other effects.
skimage.transform.resize(signal, (dimension, 1)).squeeze() (docs)
Again, this is meant for images, not sound. Additionally to the interpolation (spline interpolation with the order 1 by default), this function also does anti-aliasing for images. Note that this has nothing to do with avoiding audio aliasing effects (Nyqist/Aliasing), therefore you should probably turn that off by passing anti_aliasing=False. Again, I would assume that the results may not be exactly what you want (changing frequencies, other artifacts).
What to do?
IMO, you have several options.
If what you feed into your ML algorithms ends up being something like a Mel spectrogram, you could simply treat it as image and stretch it using the skimage or opencv approach. Frequency ranges would be preserved. I have successfully used this kind of approach in this music tempo estimation paper.
Use a better time_stretch library, e.g. rubberband. librosa is great, but its current time scale modification (TSM) algorithm is not state of the art. For a review of TSM algorithms, see for example this article.
Ignore the fact that the frequency changes and simply add 0 samples on a regular basis to the signal or drop samples on a regular basis from the signal (much like your image interpolation does). If you don't stretch too far it may still work for data augmentation purposes. After all the word content is not changed, if the audio content has higher or lower frequencies.
Resample the signal to another sampling frequency, e.g. 44100 Hz -> 43000 Hz or 44100 Hz -> 46000 Hz using a library like resampy and then pretend that it's still 44100 Hz. This still change the frequencies, but at least you get the benefit that resampy does proper filtering of the result so that you avoid the aforementioned aliasing, which otherwise occurs.
First time posting, thanks for the great community!
I am using AudioKit and trying to add frequency weighting filters to the microphone input and so I am trying to understand the values that are coming out of the AudioKit AKFFTTap.
Currently I am trying to just print the FFT buffer converted into dB values
for i in 0..<self.bufferSize {
let db = 20 * log10((self.fft?.fftData[Int(i)])!)
print(db)
}
I was expecting values ranging in the range of about -128 to 0, but I am getting strange values of nearly -200dB and when I blow on the microphone to peg out the readings it only reaches about -60. Am I not approaching this correctly? I was assuming that the values being output from the EZAudioFFT engine would be plain amplitude values and that the normal dB conversion math would work. Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks in advance for any discussion about this issue!
You need to add all of the values from self.fft?.fftData (consider changing negative values to positive before adding) and then change that to decibels
The values in the array correspond to the values of the bins in the FFT. Having a single bin contain a magnitude value close to 1 would mean that a great amount of energy is in that narrow frequency band e.g. a very loud sinusoid (a signal with a single frequency).
Normal sounds, such as the one caused by you blowing on the mic, spread their energy across the entire spectrum, that is, in many bins instead of just one. For this reason, usually the magnitudes get lower as the FFT size increases.
Magnitude of -40dB on a single bin is quite loud. If you try to play a tone, you should see a clear peak in one of the bins.
I am a student and new to signal processing just few months ago. I picked "A Novel Fuzzy Approach to Speech Recognition" for my project (you can google for the downloadable version).
I am a little stuck in converting the training data into a spectrogram which has been passed through a mel-filter.
I use this for my mel-filterbank, with a little modification of course.
Then I wrote this simple code to make the spectrogram of my training data:
p =25;
fl =0.0;
fh =0.5;
w ='hty';
[a,fs]=wavread('a.wav'); %you can simply record a sound and name it a.wav, other param will follows
n=length(a)+1;
fa=rfft(a);
xa=melbank_me(p,n,fs); %the mel-filterbank function
za=log(xa*abs(fa).^2);
ca=dct(za);
spectrogram(ca(:,1))
All I got is just like this which is not like the paper say::
Please let me know that either my code or the spectrogram I have was right. if so, what do I have to do to make my spectrogram like the paper's? and if didn't, please tell me where's the wrong
And another question, is it ok to having the lenght of FFT that much?
Because when I try to lower it, my code gives errors.
You shouldn't be doing an FFT of the entire file - that will include too much time-varing information - you should pick a window size in which the sound is relatively stationary, e.g. 10 ms # 44.1 kHz = 441 samples, so perhaps N = 512 might be a good starting point. You can then generate your spectrogram over successive windows if needed, in order to display the time-varying frequency content.
Does anyone know of anywhere I can find actual code examples of Software Phase Locked Loops (SPLLs) ?
I need an SPLL that can track a PSK modulated signal that is somewhere between 1.1 KHz and 1.3 KHz. A Google search brings up plenty of academic papers and patents but nothing usable. Even a trip to the University library that contains a shelf full of books on hardware PLL's there was only a single chapter in one book on SPLLs and that was more theoretical than practical.
Thanks for your time.
Ian
I suppose this is probably too late to help you (what did you end up doing?) but it may help the next guy.
Here's a golfed example of a software phase-locked loop I just wrote in one line of C, which will sing along with you:
main(a,b){for(;;)a+=((b+=16+a/1024)&256?1:-1)*getchar()-a/512,putchar(b);}
I present this tiny golfed version first in order to convince you that software phase-locked loops are actually fairly simple, as software goes, although they can be tricky.
If you feed it 8-bit linear samples on stdin, it will produce 8-bit samples of a sawtooth wave attempting to track one octave higher on stdout. At 8000 samples per second, it tracks frequencies in the neighborhood of 250Hz, just above B below middle C. On Linux you can do this by typing arecord | ./pll | aplay. The low 9 bits of b are the oscillator (what might be a VCO in a hardware implementation), which generates a square wave (the 1 or -1) which gets multiplied by the input waveform (getchar()) to produce the output of the phase detector. That output is then low-pass filtered into a to produce the smoothed phase error signal which is used to adjust the oscillation frequency of b to push a toward 0. The natural frequency of the square wave, when a == 0, is for b to increment by 16 every sample, which increments it by 512 (a full cycle) every 32 samples. 32 samples at 8000 samples per second are 1/250 of a second, which is why the natural frequency is 250Hz.
Then putchar() takes the low 8 bits of b, which make up a sawtooth wave at 500Hz or so, and spews them out as the output audio stream.
There are several things missing from this simple example:
It has no good way to detect lock. If you have silence, noise, or a strong pure 250Hz input tone, a will be roughly zero and b will be oscillating at its default frequency. Depending on your application, you might want to know whether you've found a signal or not! Camenzind's suggestion in chapter 12 of Designing Analog Chips is to feed a second "phase detector" 90° out of phase from the real phase detector; its smoothed output gives you the amplitude of the signal you've theoretically locked onto.
The natural frequency of the oscillator is fixed and does not sweep. The capture range of a PLL, the interval of frequencies within which it will notice an oscillation if it's not currently locked onto one, is pretty narrow; its lock range, over which it will will range in order to follow the signal once it's locked on, is much larger. Because of this, it's common to sweep the PLL's frequency all over the range where you expect to find a signal until you get a lock, and then stop sweeping.
The golfed version above is reduced from a much more readable example of a software phase-locked loop in C that I wrote today, which does do lock detection but does not sweep. It needs about 100 CPU cycles per input sample per PLL on the Atom CPU in my netbook.
I think that if I were in your situation, I would do the following (aside from obvious things like looking for someone who knows more about signal processing than I do, and generating test data). I probably wouldn't filter and downconvert the signal in a front end, since it's at such a low frequency already. Downconverting to a 200Hz-400Hz band hardly seems necessary. I suspect that PSK will bring up some new problems, since if the signal suddenly shifts phase by 90° or more, you lose the phase lock; but I suspect those problems will be easy to resolve, and it's hardly untrodden territory.
This is an interactive design package
for designing digital (i.e. software)
phase locked loops (PLLs). Fill in the
form and press the ``Submit'' button,
and a PLL will be designed for you.
Interactive Digital Phase Locked Loop Design
This will get you started, but you really need to understand the fundamentals of PLL design well enough to build it yourself in order to troubleshoot it later - This is the realm of digital signal processing, and while not black magic it will certainly give you a run for your money during debugging.
-Adam
Have Matlab with Simulink? There are PLL demo files available at Matlab Central here. Matlab's code generation capabilities might get you from there to a PLL written in C.