# Impulse response amplitude : Sine sweep method

I'm trying to implement Farina's method in python to measure impulse response with an exponential sine sweep.

I convolved the output of the system with the inverse filter of the exponential sweep.

Here is my code for the generation of the exponential sweep and the inverse filter:

def logsweep(fmin,fmax,duration,phi0=0):

global fs

time = np.arange(0,duration,1/fs)
omegaMin = fmin * 2 * np.pi
omegaMax = fmax * 2 * np.pi

phi = (omegaMin*duration)/np.log(omegaMax/omegaMin) * (np.exp(time/duration * np.log(omegaMax/omegaMin)) - 1) + phi0 # Phase instantanée

return np.sin(phi)

def inverseFilter(fmin,fmax,duration,phi0=0):

global fs
sweep = logsweep(fmin,fmax,duration,phi0)
time = np.arange(0,duration,1/fs)

L = 1/fmin*(duration*fmin/(np.log(fmax/fmin)))
normalisation = (np.exp(-time/L))/L*fmax*duration**2
sweep_reverse = sweep[::-1] * normalisation

return sweep_reverse


When I convolved the output of my system with the inverse fitler, the resulting IR has a good shape but is wrong in amplitude.

Here is my code :

    print("Génération du filtre inverse...")
invFilter = inverseFilter(fmin,fmax,duration)

print("Calcul de la IR...")
farinaTempIR = np.convolve(measure,invFilter,mode="full") / fs
farinaTempIR = farinaTempIR[sweep.size-1:]
timeFarinaTempIR = np.arange(0,farinaTempIR.size,1) / fs
plt.figure("IR")
plt.plot(timeFarinaTempIR,farinaTempIR,'--',label = "Farina Temp")
plt.legend()

print("Calcul de la TF...")
farinaTempTF = np.fft.rfft(farinaTempIR)
freqFarinaTempTF = np.fft.rfftfreq(farinaTempIR.size,1/fs)
plt.figure("Fonction de transfert")
plt.semilogx(freqFarinaTempTF,20*np.log10(np.abs(farinaTempTF)),'--',label = "Farina Temp")
plt.legend()


I suppose my inverse filter is correct because, when I did the same operation in frequency domain I got the expected result.

Here is my code in frequency domain:

    print("Génération du filtre inverse...")
invFilter = inverseFilter(fmin,fmax,duration)

print("Calcul de la FFT du signal de sortie...")
measureFFT = np.fft.rfft(measure) / measure.size * 2
freqMeasure= np.fft.rfftfreq(measure.size,1/fs)

print("Calcul de la FFT du filtre inverse...")
invFFT = np.fft.rfft(invFilter) / invFilter.size * 2
freqInv = np.fft.rfftfreq(invFilter.size,1/fs)

print("Calcul de la TF...")
farinaFreqTF = measureFFT * invFFT
plt.figure("Fonction de transfert")
plt.semilogx(freqInv,20*np.log10(np.abs(farinaFreqTF)),'--',label = "Farina Freq")
plt.legend()

print("Calcul de la IR...")
farinaFreqIR = np.fft.irfft(farinaFreqTF)
timeFarinaFreqIR = np.arange(0,farinaFreqIR.size,1) / fs
plt.figure("IR")
plt.plot(timeFarinaFreqIR,farinaFreqIR,'--',label = "Farina Freq")
plt.legend()


Here is the plots of my code:

I suppose that I'm missing something about the discrete convolution operator. Should I divide by the sampling frequency? By the sum of the inverse filter? I'm not really confortable with this operator.

• Did you do circular or linear convolution? I suggest just convolving your sweep with the alleged inverse. That should give a a unit impulse. If not, either your convolution or the calculation of the inverse are wrong. Nov 22, 2022 at 12:36
• @Hilmar I edited my post to answer your question. I did linear convolution. I think the inverse is correct and convolution is wrong. Let me know what you think. Nov 23, 2022 at 9:31
• I can't tell with out looking at what you are doing. Did you try to convolve the sweep with the inverse ? Nov 23, 2022 at 23:51
• @Hilmar I updated my post, i hope this is clearer with the code. Indeed my inverse filter was a bit wrong so i changed it. Now I'm almost sure it is correct because I got the good IR if i do the operation in frequency domain. Nov 24, 2022 at 10:47

All that you have missed is scaling of the sweep and inverse sweep prior to convolution because you have scaled their responses in the frequency domain.

The convolution theorem states that the convolution of two signals in the time domain is equivalent to the inverse Fourier transform of the product of the Fourier transforms of the two signals:

$$r(s) = \{g*h\}(s) = \mathcal{F}^{-1}\{G \cdot H\}$$

We can check that this is correct (without any scaling at this stage):

sweep = logsweep(fmin,fmax,duration)

inv_sweep = inverseFilter(fmin,fmax,duration)

irTimeDomain = np.convolve(sweep,inv_sweep)

N = sweep.size + inv_sweep.size - 1

sweepFFT = np.fft.fft(sweep, N)
invFFT = np.fft.fft(inv_sweep, N)

irFreqDomain = np.real(np.fft.ifft(sweepFFT*invFFT))

fig, ax = plt.subplots(3,1)
fig.set_tight_layout(True)
ax[0].plot(irTimeDomain)
ax[0].grid(True)
ax[1].plot(irFreqDomain)
ax[1].grid(True)
ax[2].plot(irTimeDomain-irFreqDomain)
ax[2].grid(True)


We have to make the FFT of each signal N samples long because the convolution in the time domain results in a signal that is sweep.size + inv_sweep.size - 1 long. This gives the following (top time domain, middle frequency domain, bottom difference):

As you can see, the difference between the two is basically precision.

Now, returning to your question, to get equivalence between your time and frequency domain implementations, you simply need to scale the time domain sweep and inverse by (2 / their length) prior to convolution:

irTimeDomain = np.convolve(sweep * 2 / sweep.size, inv_sweep * 2 /
inv_sweep.size)

sweepFFT = np.fft.fft(sweep, N) * 2 / sweep.size
invFFT = np.fft.fft(inv_sweep, N) * 2 / inv_sweep.size

irFreqDomain = np.real(np.fft.ifft(sweepFFT*invFFT))

fig, ax = plt.subplots(3,1)
fig.set_tight_layout(True)
ax[0].plot(irTimeDomain)
ax[0].grid(True)
ax[1].plot(irFreqDomain)
ax[1].grid(True)
ax[2].plot(irTimeDomain-irFreqDomain)
ax[2].grid(True)


Which, we can again confirm, results in the same thing:

And if we take the Fourier transform of the resulting impulse responses, we get a 0 dB response across the frequency range of interest:

H = np.fft.fft(irFreqDomain)
H = H[0:int(H.size/2 + 1)]
f = np.linspace(0,fs/2,H.size)

fig, ax = plt.subplots()
fig.set_tight_layout(True)
ax.semilogx(f,20*np.log10(np.abs(H)))
ax.grid(True)


Now, may ask you a question? Where did you get the scaling equation for your inverse sweep? I haven't seen it anywhere in the literature and none of the other scaling equations result in a 0 dB frequency response. See my own question here exponential-logarithmic-sine-sweep-inverse-filter-amplitude-correction.

• Laurence, would you care to shed some light as to where this $2$ comes from at the scaling of the frequency domain representation of the sweep and its inverse? As far as I am aware, the scaling for the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) is $\frac{1}{N}$ where $N$ is the length of the transformed vector. Where does this $2$ come from though? Jan 10 at 11:20
• The $2$ is just because we are only interested in looking at the single sided Fourier transform, rather than the full symmetrical response. By way of example, if you generate a 0 dBFS sine wave and take the FFT, scaled just by $\frac{1}{N}$, and discard the second half of the response, the peak at the sine wave's frequency will be at -6 dB. Jan 29 at 10:35
• Aaahhh, I see… It wasn’t clear in the first parts of your code that you discard the other half of the spectrum and didn’t notice that in the spectrum plot. Thanks for the clarification. Jan 29 at 18:19