Spectrogram features for audio and speech analysis
Organizations: Singapore Institute of Technology · Austrian Institute of Technology · The University of Science and Technology of China · Meta Inc., Reality Labs
Abstract
Spectrogram-based representations have grown to dominate the feature space for deep learning audio analysis systems, and are often adopted for speech analysis also. Initially, the primary motivator for spectrogram-based representations was their ability to present sound as a two dimensional signal in the time-frequency plane, which not only provides an interpretable physical basis for analysing sound, but also unlocks the use of a wide range of machine learning techniques such as convolutional neural networks, that had been developed for image processing. A spectrogram is a matrix characterised by the resolution and span of its two dimensions, as well as by the representation and scaling of each element. Many possibilities for these three characteristics have been explored by researchers across numerous application areas, with different settings showing affinity for various tasks. This paper reviews the use of spectrogram-based representations and surveys the state-of-the-art to question how front-end feature representation choice allies with back-end classifier architecture for different tasks.
Figures & tables
| Description | Dimensions | Element scale | Frequency span |
| Linear spectrogram (LS) | time, frequency (T, F) | scalar | Nyquist |
| Log-scaled spectrogram (LSS) | T, F | log dB | Nyquist |
| A/ -law scaling | T, F | log | Nyquist |
| Mel-spectrogram (MS) | T, Mel-F | linear | Mel(Nyquist) |
| Log-Mel-spectrogram (LMS) | T, Mel-F | log dB | Mel(Nyquist) |
| Gammatonegram (GTG) | trapeziodal/squared-T, F | log | ERB(0), ERB(Nyquist) |
| Task | Details | Fixed pooling | VNFs |
| SED | 50 class RWCP, 20dB SNR | 94.8% accuracy | 96.3% accuracy |
| SED | 50 class RWCP, 0dB SNR | 75.1% accuracy | 84.0% accuracy |
| LID | NIST LRE07 DNN x-vector 3s | 10.17 | 8.80 |
| LID | NIST LRE07 CLSTM 3s | 7.15 | 6.70 |
| DID | Arabic dialect challenge | 3.20 | 2.62 |
| Input | Feature extraction | Stack & Classify | Output | |
| continuous, | raw waveform/spectrum, | one-hot class per instance, | ||
| full recording, | named features, | posterior probabilities, | ||
| utterance, | trained feature extractor or | vote over multiple instances, | ||
| segment or | pre-trained feature extractor | average/threshold over time or | ||
| frame | localisation in time |
| Year | Ref. | Task | Spectrogram type | Resolution & settings | Pooling |
| 2014 | ( McLoughlin et al., 2015 ) | 50 class RWCP | LS | , 16kHz | vote |
| 2017 | ( Adavanne and Virtanen, 2017 ) | 6 class TUT events Heittola and Mesaros (2017) 1 | LMS+LS | , 44.1kHz | max |
| 2019 | ( Lin and Wang, 2019 ) | 10 class from Gemmeke et al. (2017) + Fonseca et al. (2017) | LMS | , 16kHz | median |
| 2020 | ( McLoughlin et al., 2020 ) | 50 class RWCP | LS,GTG,CQT | , 16kHz | mean |
| 2022 | ( Ebbers and Haeb-Umbach, 2022 ) | 10 class DESED Turpault et al. (2019) 2 | LMS | , 16kHz | mean |
| 2023 | ( Kim et al., 2023 ) | 10 class DESED Turpault et al. (2019) 2 | MS | , 16kHz | mean |
| Method | Spectrogram | Pixels | Sample Rate | Scale |
| Chakrabarty et al. Chakrabarty and Elhilali (2016) | LMS | 128 T | 8kHz | log |
| Zeng et al. Zeng et al. (2023) | LMS | 128 T | 16kHz | inverted log |
| Li et al. Li et al. (2024) | LNS | 128 T | 16kHz | log |
| Liu et al. Liu et al. (2022) | LMS+Tgram | 128 T | 16kHz | log |
| Yin et al. Yin et al. (2025) | LMS | 128 T | 16kHz | normalised |
| Technique | Input Type | Task(s) | Taxa |
| SincNet Ravanelli and Bengio (2018) | Raw waveform | Species classification | Birds |
| SampleCNN Lee et al. (2017) | Raw waveform | Music auto-tagging | Music |
| RawNet Jung et al. (2019) | Raw waveform | Speaker verification | Humans |
| CNN/ResNet Stowell (2022) ; Bravo Sánchez et al. (2021) | LMS | Species classification, SED | Birds, Frogs, Whales |
| PCEN-enhanced CNN Wang et al. (2017) ; Zeghidour et al. (2021) ; Allen et al. (2021) | PCEN-Mel | Low-SNR event detection | Birds, Whales |
| CNN on STFT Hexeberg et al. (2023) | LS | Call segmentation | Bats |
| Method | Spectrogram | Resolution | Task |
| Ma et al. Jin et al. (2018) | PLP + bottleneck | 48 21 | 23 languages, EER 4.38% 1 |
| Kaiyr et al. Kaiyr et al. (2021) | LS, CNN-RNN | 116 200 5-10s segments | 7 languages, acc. 94.3% 2 |
| Liu et al. Liu et al. (2022) | MFCC+delta+delta-delta | 39+39+39, 25ms window, 10ms hop | 14 languages, EER 3.82% 3 |
| Miao et al. Miao et al. (2021) | MFCC+D-MONA | 23 5 frames | 14 languages, EER 1.15% 3 |
| Tjanda et al. Tjandra et al. (2022) | LMS | 80 4, 25ms window, 10ms hop | 26 languages, acc. 90.3% 4 |
| 1 Evaluated on 10s utterances using NIST LRE2009. | |||
| Method | Spectrogram | Resolution |
| Reynolds et al. Reynolds et al. (2000) | MFCC+context | 13 T |
| Dehak et al. Dehak et al. (2011) | i-vector from 60d MFCC | 200 WCCN |
| Variani et al. Variani et al. (2014) | trained from 40d FB+context | 256 d-vector |
| Snyder et al. Snyder et al. (2018) | 60d MFCC+delta+delta-delta | 150 x-vector |
| Desplanques et al. Desplanques et al. (2020) | LMS | 80 80 |
| Liu et al. Liu et al. (2024) | LMS | 128 304 |
| Method | Feature Type | Representation |
| Schuller et al. Schuller et al. (2011) | MFCC + prosody + energy | 1582-d openSMILE |
| Satt et al. Satt et al. (2017) | LMS | 40–64 Mel bands, 25ms window, 10ms hop |
| Mirsamadi et al. Mirsamadi et al. (2017) | FB with frame attention | 40dim FB, 25ms window, 10ms hop |
| Trigeorgis et al. Trigeorgis et al. (2016) | LMS + channel attention | 40dim FB with 40ms frame, 5ms hop |
| Pepino et al. Pepino et al. (2021) | wav2vec 2.0 SSL embedding | 768dim contextual frames |
| Chen et al. Chen et al. (2022) | WavLM SSL embedding | 1024dim contextual frames |
Audio Representation Learning
Audio representation learning builds reusable features that capture speech, music, and sound for recognition, retrieval, generation, and analysis.
See all 211 papers