is it possible to get exactly the same results from tensorflow mfcc and librosa mfcc?

Question

I'm trying to make tensorflow mfcc give me the same results as python lybrosa mfcc i have tried to match all the default parameters that are used by librosa in my tensorflow code and got a different result

this is the tensorflow code that i have used :

waveform = contrib_audio.decode_wav(
 audio_binary,
 desired_channels=1,
 desired_samples=sample_rate,
 name='decoded_sample_data')


sample_rate = 16000

transwav = tf.transpose(waveform[0])

stfts = tf.contrib.signal.stft(transwav,
  frame_length=2048,
  frame_step=512,
  fft_length=2048,
  window_fn=functools.partial(tf.contrib.signal.hann_window, 
  periodic=False), 
  pad_end=True)

spectrograms = tf.abs(stfts)
num_spectrogram_bins = stfts.shape[-1].value
lower_edge_hertz, upper_edge_hertz, num_mel_bins = 0.0,8000.0, 128
linear_to_mel_weight_matrix = 
tf.contrib.signal.linear_to_mel_weight_matrix(
num_mel_bins, num_spectrogram_bins, sample_rate, lower_edge_hertz,
   upper_edge_hertz)
mel_spectrograms = tf.tensordot(
 spectrograms, 
 linear_to_mel_weight_matrix, 1)
mel_spectrograms.set_shape(spectrograms.shape[:-1].concatenate(
linear_to_mel_weight_matrix.shape[-1:]))
log_mel_spectrograms = tf.log(mel_spectrograms + 1e-6)
mfccs = tf.contrib.signal.mfccs_from_log_mel_spectrograms(
    log_mel_spectrograms)[..., :20]

the equivalent in librosa: libr_mfcc = librosa.feature.mfcc(wav, 16000)

the following are the graphs of the results:

Answer 1

I'm the author of tf.signal. Sorry for not seeing this post sooner, but you can get librosa and tf.signal.stft to match if you center-pad the signal before passing it to tf.signal.stft. See this GitHub issue for more details.

Answer 2

I spent a whole 1 day trying to make them match. Even the rryan's solution didn't work for me (center=False in librosa), but I finally found out, that TF and librosa STFT's match only for the case win_length==n_fft in librosa and frame_length==fft_length in TF. That's why rryan's colab example is working, but you can try that if you set frame_length!=fft_length, the amplitudes are very different (although visually, after plotting, the patterns look similar). Typical example - if you choose some win_length/frame_length and then you want to set n_fft/fft_length to the smallest power of 2 greater than win_length/frame_length, then the results will be different. So you need to stick with the inefficient FFT given by your window size... I don't know why it is so, but that's how it is, hopefully it will be helpful for someone.