Re: frequency to mel formula

[Jon Boley <jdb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jim,

If you search on Google Books, you'll see that Equation 4.2 (p.150) is
the one Dan cited.

Hopefully this link works for you.  If not, I searched for the text
"2595" in O'Shaughness's book:
http://books.google.com/books?ei=rhFfSpa-BJOCNsTT4IUG&id=mHFQAAAAMAAJ&dq=Speech+Communications:+Human+and+Machine&q=2595#search_anchor

Here's the book info that Google has on file:
Title	Speech communication: human and machine
Author	Douglas O'Shaughnessy
Edition	reprint, illustrated
Publisher	Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1987
Item notes	p. 95
Original from	the University of Michigan
Digitized	Nov 15, 2007
ISBN		0201165201, 9780201165203
Length	568 pages

- Jon



On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:54 PM, James W.
Beauchamp<jwbeauch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It would be good if someone could double check the O'Shaugnessy
> reference, as given by Dan earlier today:
>
>>O'Shaughnessy, D. (1978) Speech communication: Human and machine.
>>Addison-Wesley, New York, page 150.
>
> I think the title is actually Speech Communications: Human and Machine.
> In the archived message http://www.auditory.org/mhonarc/2008/msg00189.html
> Dan gives the date of the book as 1987, so I'm not sure which is correct.
> At any rate, it is possible to buy a second edition of the book, which is
> copyrighted 2000. However, when perusing the Contents and the Index it
> looks like the page has changed. Pages for 'mel scale' in the Index are
> 128, 191, and 214. I hope the formula made it.
>
> Jim
>
> Original message:
>>From: Dan Ellis <dpwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:55:25 -0400
>>To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] frequency to mel formula
>>Comments: To: "James D. Miller" <jamdmill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>I'm not sure if this is worth discussing on the full list, but...
>>
>>After the discussion last year I actually got a hold of the Beranek
>>1949 book from our library's cold storage, and the reference is wrong.
>> In the book, Beranek gives empirical values for the Mel scale, but no
>>equation.  Clearly, this reference got mangled somewhere along the
>>way: there may be a different early Beranek reference, but it isn't
>>this one.
>>
>>I think Fant is the more appropriate reference (for log(1+f/1000)) and
>>O'Shaugnessy for log(1+f/700).
>>
>>  DAn.
>