Re: computational complexity of psychoacoustic models

[alexander lerch <lerch@xxxxxxxxx>]

The choice is, at least for all MPEG codecs, completely up to the
developer. You can decide not to use a psychoacoustic model at all, or
you can decide to use a complex model to gain as much quality as possible.

Oftenly used steps are:

FFT
Critical Band grouping
Conversion to dB
(Analysis of tonality of possible maskers)
calculation of masking threshold via masking model

Have a look at the psychoacoustic model 2 in the informative part of the
MPEG-1 standard.

Kind regards,
Alexander

#ARIJIT BISWAS# wrote:
> Hi List:
> 
>  
> 
> I’m interested to know the computational complexity (number of additions
> and multiplications) of psychoacoustic models used in audio coding.
> 
> Well, to be more specific, let’s say if I’m targeting to build a “fast”
> psychoacoustic model, which existing model and/or what kind of
> computational complexity should I try to beat?
> 
>  
> 
> Any help/suggestions/references in this direction will be highly
> appreciated.
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> ~Arijit
>  

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5