Open Access

Partial Equalization of Non-Minimum-Phase Impulse Responses

EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing20062006:067467

https://doi.org/10.1155/ASP/2006/67467

Received: 1 March 2005

Accepted: 26 February 2006

Published: 8 May 2006

Abstract

We propose a modified version of the standard homomorphic method to design a minimum-phase inverse filter for non-minimum-phase impulse responses equalization. In the proposed approach some of the dominant poles of the filter transfer function are replaced by new ones before carrying out the inverse DFT. This method is useful when partial magnitude equalization is intended. Results for an impulse response measured in the car interior show that by using the modified version we can control the sound quality more precisely than when using the standard method.

[123456789101112131415]

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Informatics, University of Laghouat
(2)
Department of Electronic Systems, University of Westminster
(3)
Department of Electronic Systems, Eastern Mediterranean University
(4)
National Center of Scientific Research "Demokritos"
(5)
Department of Electronics, Ecole Nationale Polytechnique

References

  1. Elliott SJ, Nelson PA: Multiple-point equalization in a room using adaptive digital filters. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 1989, 37(11):899-907.Google Scholar
  2. Oppenheim AV, Schafer RW: Digital Signal Processing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1975.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Mourjopoulos JN: Digital equalization of room acoustics. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 1994, 42(11):884-900.Google Scholar
  4. Radlovic BD, Kennedy RA: Nonminimum-phase equalization and its subjective importance in room acoustics. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing 2000, 8(6):728-737. 10.1109/89.876311View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Fielder LD: Analysis of traditional and reverberation-reducing methods of room equalization. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 2003, 51(1/2):3-26.Google Scholar
  6. Oppenheim AV, Schafer RW: Discrete Time Signal Processing. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA; 1989.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Neely ST, Allen JB: Invertibility of a room impulse response. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1979, 66(1):165-169. 10.1121/1.383069View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Radlovic BD, Kennedy RA: Iterative cepstrum-based approach for speech dereverberation. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Signal Processing and Its Applications (ISSPA '99), August 1999, Brisbane, Australia 1: 55-58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Preis D: Phase distortion and phase equalization in audio signal processing—a tutorial review. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 1982, 30(11):774-794.Google Scholar
  10. Mäkivirta A, Antsalo P, Karjalainen M, Välimäki V: Modal equalization of loudspeaker-room responses at low frequencies. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 2003, 51(5):324-343.Google Scholar
  11. Karjalainen M, Esquef PAA, Antsalo P, Mäkivirta A, Välimäki V: Frequency-zooming ARMA modelling of resonant and reverberant systems. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 2002, 50(12):1012-1029.Google Scholar
  12. Bellanger M: Traitement Numérique du Signal. Dunod, Paris, France; 1998.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Haneda Y, Makino S, Kaneda Y: Common acoustical pole and zero modeling of room transfer functions. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing 1994, 2(2):320-328. 10.1109/89.279281View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Kunt M: Traitement Numérique des Signaux. Dunod, Paris, France; 1981.Google Scholar
  15. Hopgood JR, Rayner PJW: Blind single channel deconvolution using nonstationary signal processing. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing 2003, 11(5):476-488. 10.1109/TSA.2003.815522View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Maamar et al. 2006