Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: "Ron N." <rhnlogic@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:55:43 -0800
On Nov 5, 2:08 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ron N. wrote:
1. Defining the adequate parametric model of the audio signal.
2. Defining the cost function to evaluate the parameters of the model.
You seem to be assuming the existence of closed form
parametric model for whatever it is that the OP wants
to measure.
A measurement is worseless if you don't have any idea of what is the
meaning of this measurement :-) The model should be always.
The troubles with the dumb pitch detectors are because the pitch +
envelope model is oversimplified.
Agreed.
Hence it doesn't matter of how exactly
do they look for the periodicities: AMDF, autocorrelation, or Mr.
Teres's black magic. Start with definition of the better model.
Without (1) and (2), the notion of "pitch" does not make any sense.
'course it does. I've seen little kids can transcribe
simple melodies, and complain when some nearby players
are sufficiently sharp or flat. Are you defining "pitch"
differently?
I was taught that the engineers never use the words like "sharp",
"flat", "good", "bad" and such. The adjectives are bull***, the
engineers use the numbers.
As for the kids, they detect the pitch by observing the segments of the
several seconds long, and not in the real time.
The OP did not mention the need for "pitch" measurement
in real time, and in fact seems to be correlating several
adjacent frames (the order of frames wasn't even specified).
Engineers must often design products which get tested by
a random potential customer base, and whether those customers
deem it "good" or "bad" in their opinions, compared to
competitive alternatives available in the same time/cost
frame, may lead to how they vote with their pocketbooks.
There are the good models for the hearing perception, even standartized
by ISO. I am pretty sure there are the models for the pitch perception, too.
There do appear to be some research papers. Are there any
you consider to present a "correct" model for South Indian
music?
Research that I'm interested in finding is whether and
how much human pitch perception might be influenced by the
preceding transient or transitions from previous notes.
The model may have to take into account some time domain
history.
IMHO. YMMV.
--
rhn A.T nicholson d.0.t C-o-M
.
- References:
- funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: cyberaishu
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: Vladimir Vassilevsky
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: robert bristow-johnson
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: Vladimir Vassilevsky
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: robert bristow-johnson
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: Vladimir Vassilevsky
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: robert bristow-johnson
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: Ron N.
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: robert bristow-johnson
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: Vladimir Malakhov
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: Vladimir Vassilevsky
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: Vladimir Malakhov
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: Vladimir Vassilevsky
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: Ron N.
- Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- From: Vladimir Vassilevsky
- funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- Prev by Date: Ways and caches
- Next by Date: Re: Why window in time domain before FFT?
- Previous by thread: Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- Next by thread: Re: funding fundamental frequency(pitch)
- Index(es):
Loading