Modern audio systems universally employ mel-scale representations derived from 1940s Western psychoacoustic studies, potentially encoding cultural biases that create systematic performance disparities. We present a comprehensive evaluation of cross-cultural bias in audio front-ends, comparing mel-scale features with learnable alternatives (LEAF, SincNet) and psychoacoustic variants (ERB, Bark, CQT) across speech recognition (11 languages), music analysis (6 collections), and European acoustic scene classification (10 European cities). Our controlled experiments isolate front-end contributions while holding architecture and training protocols minimal and constant. Results demonstrate that mel-scale features yield 31.2% WER for tonal languages compared to 18.7% for non-tonal languages (12.5% gap), and show 15.7% F1 degradation between Western and non-Western music. Alternative representations significantly reduce these disparities: LEAF reduces the speech gap by 34% through adaptive frequency allocation, CQT achieves 52% reduction in music performance gaps, and ERB-scale filtering cuts disparities by 31% with only 1% computational overhead. We also release FairAudioBench, enabling cross-cultural evaluation, and demonstrate that adaptive frequency decomposition offers practical paths toward equitable audio processing. These findings reveal how foundational signal processing choices propagate bias, providing crucial guidance for developing inclusive audio systems.
Figures & tables
Frequency
Mel Value
Bandwidth
Required JND
Deficit
(Hz)
(Hz)
(Hz)
Ratio
80
122.0
51.6
0.8
65×
100
150.5
51.6
1.0
52×
200
283.2
58.6
2.0
29×
250
344.2
62.4
2.5
25×
300
402.0
66.4
3.0
22×
Table 1: Mel-scale resolution deficit across the 80–500 Hz range critical for tonal distinctions, based on a standard 40-filter filterbank (0–8000 Hz). Bandwidth is the center spacing in Hz; JND is approximately 1% of frequency.
Figure 1: Performance gaps across domains. Mel baseline shows 12.5% speech gap and 15.7% music gap. Percentage improvements are shown above bars.
Speech (WER/CER %)
Music (F1 %)
Scenes (Acc %)
Comp.
Front-end
Tonal
Non-tonal
Non-West
West
Europe-1
Europe-2
Cost (Overhead)
mel
31.2 ± 1.2
18.7 ± 0.8
56.7 ± 2.1
72.4 ± 1.5
71.2 ± 1.4
76.8 ± 1.2
1.00 × (0%)
ERB
26.4 ± 1.0
17.8 ± 0.7
62.8 ± 2.0
73.1 ± 1.4
72.6 ± 1.3
77.2 ± 1.1
1.01 × (1%)
Bark
27.2 ± 1.0
18.1 ± 0.8
61.9 ± 2.1
72.8 ± 1.5
72.2 ± 1.3
76.9 ± 1.2
1.01 × (1%)
CQT
28.8 ± 1.1
19.2 ± 0.9
65.3 ± 1.9
72.9 ± 1.4
–
–
1.15 × (15%)
LEAF
25.8 ± 0.9
17.5 ± 0.7
62.4 ± 2.0
73.5 ± 1.4
72.5 ± 1.3
77.5 ± 1.1
1.08 × (8%)
Table 2: Comprehensive performance metrics across domains. Bottom rows show fairness metrics (WGS, Δ , ρ ) with baseline → best achieved values.
Figure 2: LEAF’s learned frequency allocation. Tonal languages allocate 42% of filters to the critical 80-500 Hz range (vs 23% for mel).
Independent Researcher · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China