Improving Tonality Measures for Audio Watermarking

  • Michael Arnold
  • Xiao-Ming Chen
  • Peter G. Baum
  • Gwenaël Doërr
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6958)


Psychoacoustic models are routinely used in audio watermarking algorithms to adjust the changes induced by the watermarking process to the sensitivity of the ear. The performances of such models in audio watermarking applications are tightly related to the determination of tonal and noise-like components. In this paper, we present an improved tonality estimation and its integration into a psychoacoustic model. Instead of conventional binary classification, we exploit bi-modal prediction for more precise tonality estimation. Experimental results show improved robustness of the considered audio watermarking algorithm integrating the new tonality estimation, while preserving the high quality of the audio track.


Audio Signal Critical Band Tonal Component Embed Watermark Audio Watermark 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Allen, J.B.: Short Term Spectral Analysis, Synthesis, and Modification by Discrete Fourier Transform. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing ASSP-25, 235–238 (1977)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 Subcommittee 29 Working Group 11: Information Technology - Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio for Digital Storage Media at up to About 1.5Mbit/s Part 3: Audio. ISO/IEC 11172-3 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnston, J.D.: Transform Coding of Audio Signals Using Perceptual Noise Criteria. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 6(2), 314–323 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gray, A.H.J., Markel, J.D.: A Spectral-Flatness Measure for Studying the Autocorrelation Method of Linear Prediction of Speech Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing 22(3), 207–217 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zwicker, E., Fastl, H.: Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kirovski, D., Malvar, H.S.: Spread-spectrum Watermarking of Audio Signals. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 51(4), 1020–1033 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mansour, M., Tewfik, A.: Audio Watermarking by Time-Scale Modification. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 1353–1356 (May 2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arnold, M., Baum, P.G., Voeßing, W.: A phase modulation audio watermarking technique. In: Katzenbeisser, S., Sadeghi, A.-R. (eds.) IH 2009. LNCS, vol. 5806, pp. 102–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, X.M., Doërr, G., Arnold, M., Baum, P.G.: Efficient Coherent Phase Quantization for Audio Watermarking. In: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (May 2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arnold, M., Chen, X.M., Baum, P.G.: Robust Detection of Audio Watermarks after Acoustic Path Transmission. In: Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Multimedia and Security, pp. 117–126 (September 2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Painter, T., Spanias, A.: Perceptual Coding of Digital Audio. Proceedings of the IEEE 88(4), 451–515 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arnold, M., Schmucker, M., Wolthusen, S.: Techniques and Applications of Digital Watermarking and Content Protection. Artech House, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arnold, M., Baum, P.G., Voeßing, W.: Subjective and Objective Quality Evaluation of Watermarked Audio. In: Cvejic, N., Seppänen, T. (eds.) Digital Audio Watermarking Techniques and Technologies, pp. 260–277. IGI Global, Hershey (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ITU-R: Recommendation BS.1116-1, Methods for Subjective Assessement of Small Impairments in Audio Systems including Multichannel Sound Systems (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ITU-R: Recommendation BS.1284-1, General Methods for the Subjective Assessement of Audio Quality (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    EBU: Sound Quality Assessment Material Recordings for Subjective Tests (April 1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Arnold
    • 1
  • Xiao-Ming Chen
    • 1
  • Peter G. Baum
    • 1
  • Gwenaël Doërr
    • 1
  1. 1.Technicolor – Security & Content Protection LabsGermany

Personalised recommendations