## The approximate Difference between a DFT and an FFT

Both the Discreet Fourier Transform and the Fast Fourier Transform produce complex-numbered coefficients, the non-zero amplitudes of which will represent frequency components in the signal. They both produce a more accurate measure of this property of the signal, than the Discreet Cosine Transforms do.

Without getting into rigorous Math,

If we have a 1024-sample interval in the time-domain, then the DFT of that simply computes the coefficients from 0 through to 1023, half-cycles. A frequency component present at one coefficient, let us say an even-numbered coefficient, will also have a non-zero effect on the adjacent, odd-numbered coefficients, which can therefore not be separated fully, by a Fourier Transform that defines both sets. A DFT will generally compute them all.

An FFT has as a premise, a specific number of coefficients per octave. That number could be (1), but seldom actually is. In general, an FFT will at first compute (2 * n) coefficients over the full sampling interval, will then fold the interval, and will then compute another (n) coefficients, and will fold the interval again, until the highest-frequency coefficient approaches 1/2 the number of time-domain samples in the last computed interval.

This will cause the higher-octave coefficients to be more spread out and less numerous, but because they are also being computed for successively shorter sampling intervals, they also become less selective, so that all the signal energy is eventually accounted for.

Also, with an FFT, it is usually the coefficients which correspond to the even-numbered ones in the DFT which are computed, again because one frequency component from the signal does not need to be accounted for twice. Thus, whole-numbers of cycles per sampling interval are usually computed.

For example, if we start with a 1024-sample interval in the time-domain, we may decide that we want to achieve (n = 4) coefficients per octave. We therefore compute 8 over the full interval, including (F = 0) but excluding (F = 8). Then we fold the interval down to 512 samples, and compute the coefficients from (F = 4) through (F = 7).

A frequency component that completes the 1024-sample interval 8 times, will complete the 512-sample interval 4 times, so that the second set of coefficients continues where the first left off. And then again, for a twice-folded interval of 256 samples, we compute from (F = 4) through (F = 7)…

After we have folded our original sampling interval 6 times, we are left with a 16-sample interval, which forms the end of our series, because (F = 8) would fit in exactly, into 16 samples. And, true to form, we omit the last coefficient, as we did with the DFT.

210  =  1024

10 – 6 = 4

24  =  16

So we would end up with

(1 * 8) + (6 * 4) =  32  Coefficients .

And this type of symmetry seemed relevant in this earlier posting.

Dirk

## Emphasizing a Presumed Difference between OGG and MP3 Sound Compression

In this posting from some time ago, I wrote down certain details I had learned about MP3 sound compression. I suppose that while I did write, that the Discreet Cosine Transform coefficients get scaled, I may have missed to mention in that same posting, that they also get quantized. But I did imply it, and I also made up for the omission in this posting.

But one subject which I did mention over several postings, was my own disagreement with the practice, of culling frequency-coefficients which are deemed inaudible, thus setting those to zero, just to reduce the bit-rate in one step, hoping to get better results, ‘because a lower initial bit-rate also means that the user can select a higher final bit-rate…’

In fact, I think that some technical observers have confused two separate processes that take place in MP3:

1. An audibility threshold is determined, so that coefficients which are lower than that are set to zero.
2. The non-zero coefficients are quantized, in such a way that the highest of them fits inside a fixed maximum, quantized value. Since a scale-factor is computed for one frequency sub-band, this also implies that close to strong frequency coefficients, weaker ones are just quantized more.

In principle, concept (1) above disagrees with me, while concept (2) seems perfectly fine.

And so based on that I also need to emphasize, that with MP3, first a Fast-Fourier Transform is computed, the exact implementation of which is not critical for the correct playback of the stream, but the only purpose of which is to determine audibility thresholds for the DCT transform coefficients, the frequency-sub-bands of which must fit the standard exactly, since the DCT is actually used to compress the sound, and then to play it back.

This FFT can serve a second purpose in Stereo. Since this transform is assumed to produce complex numbers – unlike the DCT – it is possible to determine whether the Left-Minus-Right channel correlates positively or negatively with the Left-Plus-Right channel, regarding their phase. The way to do this effectively, is to compute the dot-product between two complex numbers, and to see whether this dot-product is positive or negative. The imaginary component of one of the sources needs to be inverted for that to work.

But then negative or positive correlation can be recorded once for each sub-band of the DCT as one bit. This will tell, whether a positive difference-signal, is positive when the left channel is more so, or positive if the right channel is more so.

You see, in addition to the need to store this information, potentially with each coefficient, there is the need to measure this information somehow first.

But an alternative approach is possible, in which no initial FFT is computed, but in which only the DCT is computed, once for each Stereo channel. This might even have been done, to reduce the required coding effort. And in that case, the DCT would need to be computed for each channel separately, before a later encoding stage decides to store the sum and the difference for each coefficient. In that case, it is not possible first to determine, whether the time-domain streams correlate positively or negatively.

This would also imply, that close to strong frequency-components, the weaker ones are only quantized more, not culled.

So, partially because of what I read, and partially because of my own idea of how I might do things, I am hoping that OGG sound compression takes this latter approach.

Dirk

## The Advantage of Linear Filters – ie Convolutions

A question might come to mind to readers who are not familiar with this subject, as to why the subset of ‘Morphologies’ that is known as ‘Convolutions’ – i.e. ‘Linear Filters’ – is advantageous in filtering signals.

This is because even though such a static system of coefficients, applied constantly to input samples, will often produce spectral changes in the signal, they will not produce frequency components that were not present before. If new frequency components are produced, this is referred to as ‘distortion’, while otherwise all we get is spectral errors – i.e. ‘coloration of the sound’. The latter type of error is gentler on the ear.

For this reason, the mere realization that certain polynomial approximations can be converted into systems, that entirely produce linear products of the input samples, makes those more interesting.

OTOH, If each sampling of a continuous polynomial curve was at a random, irregular point in time – thus truly revealing it to be a polynomial – then additional errors get introduced, which might resemble ‘noise’, because those may not have deterministic frequencies with respect to the input.

And, the fact that the output samples are being generated at a frequency which is a multiple of the original sample-rate, also means that new frequency components will be generated, that go up to the same multiple.

In the case of digital signal processing, the most common type of distortion is ‘Aliasing’, while with analog methods it used to be ‘Total Harmonic Distortion’, followed by ‘Intermodulation Distortion’.

If we up-sample a digital stream and apply a filter, which consistently underestimates the sub-sampled, then the resulting distortion will consist of unwanted modulations of the higher Nyquist Frequency.

## I now have LG Tone Pro HBS-750 Bluetooth Headphones.

And unlike how it went with the previous set, I paid the full price for these, and know that they are genuine.

I can now comment accurately for the first time, about the “aptX” sound compression they use.

I understand that most of the music that I will be playing, has already been MP3 or OGG compressed. But with my simple headphones, that were wired to the stereo mini-jack on my phone, there was a loss in quality, just in getting the sound to my ears, after MP3 or OGG decoding. With aptX, it could be argued that there is also some small loss of quality in getting the sound to my ears.

aptX, and the HBS-750 headphones, are able to get the sound to my ears, after lossy decompression, better than the wired headphones could. So the only sound artifacts that I will ever hear with these, will be those due to MP3 or OGG, and the OGG files will play better again than the MP3 files did, as the OGG files are supposed to do.

The sound of these headphones is truly superb.

Further, the reason for which the suggested app ‘Tone And Talk’ was not recognizing the supposed HBS-730 headphones, was the mere fact that this app was able to read the meta-data of those, and was able to determine, that those were just not on the list of supported headphones, even though I was fooled into believing that they were.

Tone And Talk works properly, with the HBS-750 headphones, that are genuine LG headphones. That is, unless I am to do a detailed test of this app, which may come later. But the app does not just sit there and stay lame, as it did with the counterfeit headphones.

Dirk