Influence of MEMS Microphone Imperfections on the Performance of First-Order Adaptive Differential Microphone Arrays

  • Andreas GaichEmail author
  • Mario Huemer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10672)


In many speech applications the desired speaker is in the far field, i.e. in teleconferencing, hearing aids, hands-free communication in cars, home voice control, just to name a few. To still capture a clean speech signal in a noisy surrounding an acoustic beamformer can be used. Differential microphone arrays (DMAs) allow for compact microphone arrangements and show a reasonable speech enhancement performance. For an optimal performance the microphones used in the array have to be perfectly matched. In this paper, we investigate the effect of the microphone mismatch on the performance of first-order adaptive DMAs, given model data from state-of-the-art micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) microphones. As an important outcome, our simulations show that the performance becomes independent of the mismatch with an increasing number of microphones used.


Beamforming Differential microphone array MEMS microphones 


  1. 1.
    Benesty, J., Chen, J.: Study and Design of Differential Microphone Arrays. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elko, G.W., Pong, A.T.N.: A simple adaptive first-order differential microphone. In: Proceedings of 1995 Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Accoustics, pp. 169–172 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elko, G.W., Meyer, J.: Second-order differential adaptive microphone array. In: 2009 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 73–76 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Messner, E.: Differential Microphone Arrays. Master’s thesis, Graz University of Technology (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Messner, E., Pessentheiner, H., Morales-Cordovilla, J.A., Hagmüller, M.: Adaptive differential microphone arrays used as a front-end for an automatic speech recognition system. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 2689–2693 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dehe, A., Wurzer, M., Füldner, M., Krumbein, U.: The infineon silicon mems microphone. In: AMA Conferences 2013 - SENSORS 2013, pp. 95–99 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zollner, M., Zwicker, E.: Elektroakustik. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooke, M., Barker, J., Cunningham, S., Shao, X.: An audio-visual corpus for speech perception and automatic speech recognition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(5), 2421–2424 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rix, A.W., Beerends, J.G., Hollier, M.P., Hekstra, A.P.: Perceptual evaluation of speech quality (PESQ) - a new method for speech quality assessment of telephone networks and codecs. In: 2001 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, vol. 2, pp. 749–752 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Varga, A., Steeneken, H.J.M., Tomlinson, M., Jones, D.: The NOISEX-92 study on the effect of additive noise on automatic speech recognition. Technical report, DRA Speech Research Unit (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Habets, E.A.P., Cohen, I., Gannot, S.: Generating nonstationary multisensor signals under a spatial coherence constraint. J Acoust. Soc. Am. 124(5), 2911–2917 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Allen, J.B., Berkley, D.A.: Image method for efficiently simulating smallroom acoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 65(4), 943–950 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Signal ProcessingJohannes Kepler University LinzLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations