Hi. Are there any widely used measures of spectral complexity. What I mean is something that would say how spectrally complex a sound is such that a pure sine wave would be mapped to 0 and white noise would be mapped to 1. I could use a goodness of fit test comparing the distribution of amplitude among spectral bins (after an fft) to a uniform distribution, but imagine there are much better tests.

# Measure of spectral complexity

Started by ●February 1, 2006

Reply by ●February 1, 20062006-02-01

Ross Clement (Email address invalid - do not use) wrote:> Hi. Are there any widely used measures of spectral complexity. What I > mean is something that would say how spectrally complex a sound is such > that a pure sine wave would be mapped to 0 and white noise would be > mapped to 1. I could use a goodness of fit test comparing the > distribution of amplitude among spectral bins (after an fft) to a > uniform distribution, but imagine there are much better tests.I remember seeing a "spectrum flatness" parameter somewhere. I think it was based on the ratio between the geometric and arithmetic means of the magnitude spectrum. Rune

Reply by ●February 1, 20062006-02-01

"Ross Clement (Email address invalid - do not use)" <clemenr@wmin.ac.uk> wrote in message news:1138781594.249117.90320@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Hi. Are there any widely used measures of spectral complexity. What I > mean is something that would say how spectrally complex a sound is such > that a pure sine wave would be mapped to 0 and white noise would be > mapped to 1. I could use a goodness of fit test comparing the > distribution of amplitude among spectral bins (after an fft) to a > uniform distribution, but imagine there are much better tests. >That sounds like a reasonable starting place. What does "complexity" mean to you? That's another good starting place. Fred

Reply by ●February 1, 20062006-02-01

Ross Clement (Email address invalid - do not use) wrote:> Hi. Are there any widely used measures of spectral complexity. What I > mean is something that would say how spectrally complex a sound is such > that a pure sine wave would be mapped to 0 and white noise would be > mapped to 1. I could use a goodness of fit test comparing the > distribution of amplitude among spectral bins (after an fft) to a > uniform distribution, but imagine there are much better tests.In DTMF decoding, Parseval's theorem is often used to calculate the ratio of energy in the expected bins versus the total energy of the signal for evaluating signal validity. Is this something like what you were looking for? IMHO. YMMV. -- rhn A.T nicholson d.0.t C-o-M

Reply by ●February 3, 20062006-02-03

After reading these answers and thinking carefully, I've decided to redesign my experiments so that "spectral complexity" becomes "difference from a known spectrum". That makes things much more objective. Cheers, Ross-c

Reply by ●February 3, 20062006-02-03

Ross Clement (Email address invalid - do not use) wrote:> After reading these answers and thinking carefully, I've decided to > redesign my experiments so that "spectral complexity" becomes > "difference from a known spectrum". That makes things much more > objective.Seems to be the definition of "coherence"? See chapter 11 of Bendat & Piersol: Random Data, 4th edition, Wiley 2000. Rune

Reply by ●February 3, 20062006-02-03

It will take me some time to get my mitts on this book. Would his older books "Engineering applications of correlation and spectral analysis" or "Measurement and analysis of random data" be relevant? Cheers, Ross-c

Reply by ●February 3, 20062006-02-03

Ross Clement (Email address invalid - do not use) wrote:> It will take me some time to get my mitts on this book. Would his older > books "Engineering applications of correlation and spectral analysis"Probably. I don't have my copy of this one easily available, but I remember noticing there was a lot of common material in this one and "Random Data". The difference would be that "Random Data" is heavier on the theory, while "Engineering applications..." is more hands-on.> or "Measurement and analysis of random data" be relevant?Maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the first couple of editions of "Random Data". Rune

Reply by ●February 10, 20062006-02-10

Ross Clement (Email address invalid - do not use) wrote:> It will take me some time to get my mitts on this book. Would his older > books "Engineering applications of correlation and spectral analysis" > or "Measurement and analysis of random data" be relevant?I have just had a look at the book "Engineering applications of correlation and spectral analysis". It seems to go deeper into the workings of coherence than "Random Data" does. It even mentions the tautology cxy(f) == 1 I have had problems with. I haven't had the time to look into the details, but it seems that the clue is what estimator one uses for the various spectra that go into the coherence estimator. Rune

Reply by ●February 10, 20062006-02-10