Some comparisons among several pitch detection algorithms

A comparative performance study of seven pitch detection algorithms was conducted, A speech data base, ccnsisting of eight utterances spoken by 3 males, 3 females, and 1 child was constructed. Telephone, close talking microphone, and widetand recordings ware made of each of the utterances. For each of the utterances in the data base a "standard" pitch contour was serniautonatically neasured using a highly sophisticated interactive pitch detection program. The "standard" pitch contour was then compared with the pitch contour that was obtained from each of the seven progranned pitch detectors. The algorithns used in this study were (1) a center clipping, infinite—peak clipping, modified autooorrelation method, (2) the oepstral method, (3) the SIFT nethod, (t) the parallel processing tine domain method, (5) the data reduction method, (6) a spectral flattening LPC nethod, and (7) the AMOF method. A set of measurements was made on the pitch contours to quantify the various types of errors which occur in each of the above methods. Included among the error measurements were the average and standard deviation of the error in pitch period during voiced regions, the number of gross errors in the pitch period, and the nunber of voiced—unvoiced classification errors. For each of the error measurements, the individual pitch detectors could be rank ordered as a measure of their relative performance as a function of recording condition, and pitch range of the various speakers. Results are presented on rankings based on one category of errors.