Subject: Re: frequency to mel formula From: Jon Boley <jdb@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:05:36 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>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@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx> >>Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:55:25 -0400 >>To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx >>Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] frequency to mel formula >>Comments: To: "James D. Miller" <jamdmill@xxxxxxxx> >> >>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. >