I am trying to detect peaks in the accelerometer data so I can find the number of steps. The speed I have it polling on it is game. I think that should be a good speed to give me data but not to give me too many data points. Are there any algorithms you recommend to figure out the peak? I currently have the data in and excel and I tried graphing it out but there are way too many little jumps up and down.
I once used peak detection algorithm for some computer vision application. There are many sophisticated techniques, but I wrote very raw approach myself:
I used windowed averaging filter which smoothed all the local ups and downs (if your peak is narrow used smaller window size).
Then I took discrete derivative and find all points where derivative sign-ess changed from +ve to -ve. Then finally I took average of values around all those points and applied threshold around 1/3 of average.
It's not best approach but worked out for me well. You can play around with different discrete filters either in matlab or python. There is a very good plugin in python called scipy it can make ur life easy.
Related
I've been playing a bit with some image processing techniques to do HDR pictures and similar. I find it very hard to align pictures taken in bursts... I tried some naïve motion search algorithms, simply based on comparing small samples of pixels (like 16x16) between different pictures that pretty much work like:
- select one 16x6 block in the first picture, one with high contrast, then blur it, to reduce noise
- compare in a neighbouring radius (also blurred for noise)... (usually using averaged squared difference)
- select the most similar one.
I tried a few things to improve this, for example using these search alghorithms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block-matching_algorithm) to speed it up. The results however are not good and when they are they are not robust. Also they keep being computationally very intensive (which precludes usage on a mobile device for example).
I looked into popular research based algorithms like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas%E2%80%93Kanade_method, but it does not seem very suitable to big movements. If we see burst images taken with todays phones, that have sensors > 12Mpix, it's easy that small movements result in a difference of 50-100 pixels. The Lucas Kanade method seems more suitable for small amounts of motion...
It's a bit frustrating as there seem to be hundreds of apps that do HDR, and they seems to be able to match pictures so easily and reliably in a snap... I've tried to look into OpenCV, but all it offers seems to be the above Lucas Kanade method. Also I've seen projects like https://github.com/almalence/OpenCamera, which do this in pure java easily. Although the code is not easy (one class has 5k lines doing it all). Does anyone have any pointers to reliable resources.
Take a look at HDR+ paper by google. It uses a hierarchical algorithm for alignment that is very fast but not robust enough. Afterward it uses a merging algorithm that is robust to alignment failures.
But it may be a little tricky to use it for normal HDR, since it says:
We capture frames of constant exposure, which makes alignment more robust.
Here is another work that needs sub-pixel accurate alignment. It uses a refined version of the alignment introduced in the HDR+ paper.
HDR+ code
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
How can the tempo/BPM of a song be determined programmatically? What algorithms are commonly used, and what considerations must be made?
This is challenging to explain in a single StackOverflow post. In general, the simplest beat-detection algorithms work by locating peaks in sound energy, which is easy to detect. More sophisticated methods use comb filters and other statistical/waveform methods. For a detailed explication including code samples, check this GameDev article out.
The keywords to search for are "Beat Detection", "Beat Tracking" and "Music Information Retrieval". There is lots of information here: http://www.music-ir.org/
There is a (maybe) annual contest called MIREX where different algorithms are tested on their beat detection performance.
http://nema.lis.illinois.edu/nema_out/mirex2010/results/abt/mck/
That should give you a list of algorithms to test.
A classic algorithm is Beatroot (google it), which is nice and easy to understand. It works like this:
Short-time FFT the music to get a sonogram.
Sum the increases in magnitude over all frequencies for each time step (ignore the decreases). This gives you a 1D time-varying function called the "spectral flux".
Find the peaks using any old peak detection algorithm. These are called "onsets" and correspond to the start of sounds in the music (starts of notes, drum hits, etc).
Construct a histogram of inter-onset-intervals (IOIs). This can be used to find likely tempos.
Initialise a set of "agents" or "hypotheses" for the beat-tracking result. Feed these agents the onsets one at a time in order. Each agent tracks the list of onsets that are also beats, and the current tempo estimate. The agents can either accept the onsets, if they fit closely with their last tracked beat and tempo, ignore them if they are wildly different, or spawn a new agent if they are in-between. Not every beat requires an onset - agents can interpolate.
Each agent is given a score according to how neat its hypothesis is - if all its beat onsets are loud it gets a higher score. If they are all regular it gets a higher score.
The highest scoring agent is the answer.
Downsides to this algorithm in my experience:
The peak-detection is rather ad-hoc and sensitive to threshold parameters and whatnot.
Some music doesn't have obvious onsets on the beats. Obviously it won't work with those.
Difficult to know how to resolve the 60bpm-vs-120bpm issue, especially with live tracking!
Throws away a lot of information by only using a 1D spectral flux. I reckon you can do much better by having a few band-limited spectral fluxes (and maybe one broadband one for drums).
Here is a demo of a live version of this algorithm, showing the spectral flux (black line at the bottom) and onsets (green circles). It's worth considering the fact that the beat is extracted from only the green circles. I've played back the onsets just as clicks, and to be honest I don't think I could hear the beat from them, so in some ways this algorithm is better than people at beat detection. I think the reduction to such a low-dimensional signal is its weak step though.
Annoyingly I did find a very good site with many algorithms and code for beat detection a few years ago. I've totally failed to refind it though.
Edit: Found it!
Here are some great links that should get you started:
http://marsyasweb.appspot.com/
http://www.vamp-plugins.org/download.html
Beat extraction involves the identification of cognitive metric structures in music. Very often these do not correspond to physical sound energy - for example, in most music there is a level of syncopation, which means that the "foot-tapping" beat that we perceive does not correspond to the presence of a physical sound. This means that this is a quite different field to onset detection, which is the detection of the physical sounds, and is performed in a different way.
You could try the Aubio library, which is a plain C library offering both onset and beat extraction tools.
There is also the online Echonest API, although this involves uploading an MP3 to a website and retrieving XML, so might not be so suitable..
EDIT: I came across this last night - a very promising looking C/C++ library, although I haven't used it myself. Vamp Plugins
The general area of research you are interested in is called MUSIC INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
There are many different algorithms that do this but they all are fundamentally centered around ONSET DETECTION.
Onset detection measures the start of an event, the event in this case is a note being played. You can look for changes in the weighted fourier transform (High Frequency Content) you can look for large changes in spectrial content. (Spectrial Difference). (there are a couple of papers that I recommend you look into further down) Once you apply an onset detection algorithm you pick off where the beats are via thresholding.
There are various algorithms that you can use once you've gotten that time localization of the beat. You can turn it into a pulse train (create a signal that is zero for all time and 1 only when your beat happens) then apply a FFT to that and BAM now you have a Frequency of Onsets at the largest peak.
Here are some papers to lead you in the right direction:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120310151026/http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/people/juan/Documents/Bello-TSAP-2005.pdf
https://adamhess.github.io/Onset_Detection_Nov302011.pdf
Here is an extension to what some people are discussing:
Someone mentioned looking into applying a machine learning algorithm: Basically collect a bunch of features from the onset detection functions (mentioned above) and combine them with the raw signal in a neural network/logistic regression and learn what makes a beat a beat.
look into Dr Andrew Ng, he has free machine learning lectures from Stanford University online (not the long winded video lectures, there is actually an online distance course)
If you can manage to interface with python code in your project, Echo Nest Remix API is a pretty slick API for python:
There's a method analysis.tempo which will give you the BPM. It can do a whole lot more than simple BPM, as you can see from the API docs or this tutorial
Perform a Fourier transform, and find peaks in the power spectrum. You're looking for peaks below the 20 Hz cutoff for human hearing. I'd guess typically in the 0.1-5ish Hz range to be generous.
SO question that might help: Bpm audio detection Library
Also, here is one of several "peak finding" questions on SO: Peak detection of measured signal
Edit: Not that I do audio processing. It's just a guess based on the fact that you're looking for a frequency domain property of the file...
another edit: It is worth noting that lossy compression formats like mp3, store Fourier domain data rather than time domain data in the first place. With a little cleverness, you can save yourself some heavy computation...but see the thoughtful comment by cobbal.
To repost my answer: The easy way to do it is to have the user tap a button in rhythm with the beat, and count the number of taps divided by the time.
Others have already described some beat-detection methods. I want to add that there are some libraries available that provide techniques and algorithms for this sort of task.
Aubio is one of them, it has a good reputation and it's written in C with a C++ wrapper so you can integrate it easily with a cocoa application (all the audio stuff in Apple's frameworks is also written in C/C++).
There are several methods to get the BPM but the one I find the most effective is the "beat spectrum" (described here).
This algorithm computes a similarity matrix by comparing each short sample of the music with every others. Once the similarity matrix is computed it is possible to get average similarity between every samples pairs {S(T);S(T+1)} for each time interval T: this is the beat spectrum. The first high peak in the beat spectrum is most of the time the beat duration. The best part is you can also do things like music structure or rythm analyses.
I'd imagine this will be easiest in 4-4 dance music, as there should be a single low frequency thud about twice a second.
I want to be able to detect a tone of a predetermined frequency using java. What I am doing is playing a tone (the frequency of the tone is variable by user input) and I am trying to detect if the tone is of a certain frequency. If it is, I execute a certain method. From what I have read I will need to us FFT, but I'm not sure how to implement it in java. There seems to be a lot of documentation for how to do it, but what documentation there is involves looking at an audio file rather than real time analysis. I don't need to save the audio to a file just determine if and when a tone of frequency x was recorded.
Ideally I would like to record at a sample rate of 44KHz and after determining if a tone was detected, determine when the tone was detected with an accuracy of +-3ms. However, an accuracy less than this would be acceptable as long as it isn't ridiculous (ie +100ms). I know roughly what I need to do from what I have looked up, but I need help tying it all together. Using pseudo code it would look roughly like this (I think)
Note that I know roughly within +-1s of when a tone of satisfying frequency maybe detected
for(i = 0, i < 440000 * 2, i++){//*2 because of expected appearance interval;may change
record sound sample
fft(sound sample)
if(frequencySoundSample > x){
do something
return
}
}
There will be considerable background noise while the tone is played. However the tone will have a very high frequency, like 15-22KHz, so it is my belief that by simply looking for when the recorder detects a very high frequency I can be sure it is my tone (also the tone will be played with a high amplitude for maybe .5s or 1s). I know that there will not be other high frequency sounds as background noise (I am expecting a background frequency high of maybe 5KHz).
I have two questions then. Is the pseudo code that I have provided sufficient for what I want to do? If it isn't or if there is a better way of doing this I'm all for it. Second, how would I implement this in java? I understand what I need to do, but I'm having trouble tying it all together. I'm pretty decent with java but I'm not familiar with the syntax involved with audio and I don't have any experience with fft. Please be explicit and give code with comments. I've been trying to figure this out for a while I just need to see it all tied together. Thank you.
EDIT
I understand that using a for loop like I have will not produce the frequency that I want. It was more to show roughly what I want. That is, recording, performing fft, and testing the frequency all at once as time progresses.
If you're just looking for a specific frequency then an FFT-based method is probably a bad choice for your particular application, for two reasons:
it's overkill - you're computing an entire spectrum just to detect the magnitude at one point
to get 3 ms resolution for your onset detection you'll need a large overlap between successive FFTs, which will require much more CPU bandwidth than just processing successive blocks of samples
A better choice for detecting the presence or absence of a single tone is the Goertzel algorithm (aka Goertzel filter). It's effectively a DFT evaluated at a single frequency domain bin, and is widely used for tone detection. It's much less computationally expensive than an FFT, very simple to implement, and you can test its output on every sample, so no resolution problem (other than those dictated by the laws of physics). You'll need to low pass filter the magnitude of the output and then use some kind of threshold detection to determine the onset time of your tone.
Note that there are a number of useful questions and answers on SO already about tone detection and using the Goertzel algorithm (e.g. Precise tone onset/duration measurement?) - I suggest reading these along with the Wikipedia entry as a good starting point.
Im actually working on a similar project with pitch detection, in Java as well. If you want to use FFT, you could do it with these steps. Java has a lot of libraries that can make this process easy for you.
First, you need to read in the sound file. This can be done using Java Sound. It's a built in library with functions that make it easy to record sound. Examples can be found here. The default sample rate is 44,100 KHz (CD quality). These examples can get you from playing the actual tone to a double array of bytes representing the tone.
Second, you should take the FFT with JTransforms. Here is an example of FFT being taken on a collection of samples.
FFT gives you an array twice the length of the array of samples you passed it. You need to go through the FFT array by two's, since each part of this array is represented as an imaginary and a real piece. Compute the magnitude of each part of this array with sqrt(im^2 + re^2). Then, find which magnitude is the largest. The index of that magnitude corresponds to the frequency you're looking for.
Keep in mind, you don't take FFT on the entire portion of sound. You break the sound up into chunks, and FFT each one. The chunks can overlap for higher accuracy, but that shouldn't be a problem, since you're just looking for a predetermined note. If you want to improve performance, you can also window each chunk before doing this.
Once you have all the FFTs, they should confirm a certain frequency, and you can check that against the note you want.
If you want to try and visualize this, I'd suggest using JFreeChart. It's another library that makes it easy to graph things.
Since SURF feature matching spend a lot of processing time. So I decided to resize the bitmap in order to shorten the processing time of SURF.But can I know if make the bitmap smaller will spend less processing time of SURF?
Sure, that's one way to speed up most image processing algorithms.
In OpenCV, you can also specify the parameters _nOctaveLayers and _nOctaves in the SURF constructor. These parameters dictate the number of different scales that the algorithm checks for feature points. If you decrease these, you will get a faster detection time, but you will also miss out on feature points at scales that aren't checked.
These speedups are based around the detection of SURF points. If you are talking strictly about matching the points, then it is the number of points in the image that is the largest dictator of the running time.
have you tried orb? you can find orb sample usage under samples/python2/plane_tracker.py. i havent tried it on phone but on pc it can match many targets simultaneously and quickly while surf is struggling with just one.
The Dell Streak has been discovered to have an FM radio which has very crude controls. 'Scanning' is unavailable by default, so my question is does anyone know how, using Java on Android, one might 'listen' to the FM radio as we iterate up through the frequency range detecting white noise (or a good signal) so as to act much like a normal radio's seek function?
I have done some practical work on this specific area, i would recommend (if you have a little time for it) to try just a little experimentation before resorting to fft'ing. The pcm stream can be interpreted very complexely and subtly (as per high quality filtering and resampling) but can also be practically treated for many purposes as the path of a wiggly line.
White noise is unpredictable shaking of the line, which is never-the-less quite continuous in intensity (rms, absolute mean..) Acoustic content is recurrent wiggling and occasional surprises (jumps, leaps) :]
Non-noise like content of a signal may be estimated by performing quick calculations on a running window of the pcm stream.
For example, noise will strongly tend to have a higher value for the absolute integral of its derivative, than non-noise. I think that is the academic way of saying this:
loop(n+1 to n.length)
{ sumd0+= abs(pcm[n]);
sumd1+= abs(pcm[n]-pcm[n-1]);
}
wNoiseRatio = ?0.8; //quite easily discovered, bit tricky to calculate.
if((sumd1/sumd0)<wNoiseRatio)
{ /*not like noise*/ }
Also, the running absolute average over ~16 to ~30 samples of white noise will tend to vary less, over white noise than acoustic signal:
loop(n+24 to n.length-16)
{ runAbsAve1 += abs(pcm[n]) - abs(pcm[n-24]); }
loop(n+24+16 to n.length)
{ runAbsAve2 += abs(pcm[n]) - abs(pcm[n-24]); }
unusualDif= 5; //a factor. tighter values for longer measures.
if(abs(runAbsAve1-runAbsAve2)>(runAbsAve1+runAbsAve2)/(2*unusualDif))
{ /*not like noise*/ }
This concerns how white noise tends to be non-sporadic over large enough span to average out its entropy. Acoustic content is sporadic (localised power) and recurrent (repetitive power).
The simple test reacts to acoustic content with lower frequencies and could be drowned out by high frequency content. There are simple to apply lowpass filters which could help (and no doubt other adaptions).
Also, the root mean square can be divided by the mean absolute sum providing another ratio which should be particular to white noise, though i cant figure what it is right now. The ratio will also differ for the signals derivatives as well.
I think of these as being simple formulaic signatures of noise. I'm sure there are more..
Sorry to not be more specific, it is fuzzy and imprecise advice, but so is performing simple tests on the output of an fft. For better explaination and more ideas perhaps check out statistical and stochastic(?) measurements of entropy and randomness on wikipedia etc.
Use a Fast Fourier Transform.
This is what you can use a Fast Fourier Transform for. It analyzes the signal and determines the strength of the signal at various frequencies. If there's a spike in the FFT curve at all, it should indicate that the signal is not simply white noise.
Here is a library which supports FFT's. Also, here is a blog with source code in case you want to learn about what the FFT does.
If you don't have FFT tools available, just a wild suggestion:
Try to compress a few milliseconds of audio.
A typical feature of noise is that it compresses much less than clear signal.
As far as I know there is no API or even drivers for the FM Radio in the Android SDK and unless Dell releases one you will have to roll your own. It's actually even worse than that. All(?) new chipsets has FM Radio but not all phones has an FM Radio application.
The old Windows Mobile had the same problem.
For white noise detection you need to do FFT and see that it has more or less continious spectrum. But recording from FM might be a problem.
Just high pass filtering it will give a good idea, and has sometimes been used for squelch on fm radios.
Note that this is comparable to what the derivative suggestion was getting at - taking the derivative is a simple form of high pass filter, and taking the absolute value of that a crude way of measuring power.
Do you have a subscription to the IEEE Xplore library? There are countless papers (one picked at random) on this very topic.
A very simplistic method would be to observe the "flatness" of the power spectral density. One could take this by using a Fast Fourier Transform of the signal in the time domain and find the standard deviation of the spectral density. If it is below some threshold, you have your white noise.
The main question here is: what type of signal do you have access to?
I bet you don't have direct access to the analog EM signal directly. So no use of FFT on this signal possible. You can't also try to build a phased-lock loop, which is the way your standard old radio tuner works ("Scanning" in your case).
Your only option is indeed to pick one frequency and listen too it (and try do detect when it's noise with FFT on sound). You might even only have access to the FFTed signal.
Problem here: If you want to detect a potential frequency using white noise you will pick up signals too easily.
Anyway, here is what I would try to do with this strategy:
Double integrate the autocorrelation of the spectral density over a fraction of a second of audio. And this for each frequency.
Then look for a FM frequency where this number is maxed.
Little explanation here:
Spectral density gives you a signal which most used frequencies are maxed.
If a bit of time later if the same frequencies are maxed then you have some supposedly clear audio. You get this by integrating the autocorrelation the spectral density for one audio frequency for a fraction of a second (using some function that grows larger than linear might also work)
You then just have to integrate this for all audio frequencies
Also be careful to normalize the integrals: a loud white noise signal should not get a higher score than a clear but low audio signal.
Several people have mentioned the FFT, which you'll want to do, but to then detect white noise you need to make sure that the magnitude is relatively constant over the range of audio frequencies. You'll want to look at magnitudes only, you can throw away the phases. You can compute an average and standard deviation for the magnitudes in O(N) time. For white noise, you should find the standard deviation to be a relatively small fraction of the average. If I remember my statistics right, it should be about (1/sqrt(N)) of the average.