Advertisement

Sensitivity Analysis

  • Elaine ChewEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 204)

Abstract

The goal of this chapter is to present a systematic analysis of audio key-finding to determine the factors important to system design, and the selecting and evaluating of solutions. First, we present a basic audio key-finding system consisting of a Fuzzy Analysis technique and the Spiral Array Center of Effect Generator algorithm, with three key determination policies: the nearest-neighbor, the relative distance, and the average distance policy. An evaluation on 15-second excerpts of 410 classical pieces from a variety of stylistic periods shows that the average-distance key determination policy achieves a 79 % correct key identification rate, at least 8 % higher than the systems employing other key determination policies. Two examples are given to illustrate why audio key-finding could outperform symbolic key-finding, where precise pitch information is known. An analysis of the results by period shows that pieces from the romantic period may be the most challenging for key-finding. We next propose three extensions to the basic key-finding system—the modified Spiral Array approach, fundamental frequency identification, and post-weight balancing—to improve the performance at different stages of the system. The three extensions are evaluated using 15-second excerpts of recordings of Chopin’s Preludes for piano. Quantitative analyses of the results show that fundamental frequency identification provides the greatest system improvement in the first 8s, while modifying the representation model using audio frequency features leads to the best performance after 8s. Two case studies show detailed analyses of an example where all extended systems give the correct answer, and another where all systems were incorrect.

Keywords

Fast Fourier Transform Audio Signal Lower Pitch Audio Sample Frequency Magnitude 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Chew, E.: Towards a mathematical model of tonality. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chew, E.: Modeling tonality: applications to music cognition. In: Moore, J.D., Stenning, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Mtg of the Cognitive Science Society, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Edinburgh, pp. 206–211 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chew, E., Chen, Y.-C.: Mapping MIDI to the Spiral Array: disambiguating pitch spellings. In: Computational Modeling and Problem Solving in the Networked World—Proceedings of the 8th INFORMS Computer Society Conference, Kluwer, pp. 259–275 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chew, E., Chen, Y.-C.: Real-time pitch spelling using the Spiral Array. Comput. Music J. 29(2), 61–76 (2005). doi: 10.1162/0148926054094378
  5. 5.
    Chew, E., François, A.R.J.: Interactive multi-scale visualization of tonal evaluation in MuSA.RT Opus 2. ACM Comput. Entertain. 3(4), 1–16 (2005). doi:  10.1145/1095534.1095539
  6. 6.
    Chuan, C.-H., Chew, E.: Fuzzy analysis in pitch class determination for polyphonic audio key finding. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, UK, London, pp. 296–303 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chuan, C.-H., Chew, E.: Polyphonic audio key finding using the Spiral Array CEG algorithm. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, The Netherlands, Amsterdam, pp. 21–24 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gómez, E., Herrera, P.: Estimating the tonality of polyphonic audio files: cognitive versus machine learning modeling strategies. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, Barcelona, Spain (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    İzmirli, Ö.: Template based key finding from audio. In: Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, Barcelona, Spain (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klapuri, A.: Multiple fundamental frequency estimation by harmonicity and spectral smoothness. IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process. 11(6), pp. 804–816 (2003). doi:  10.1109/TSA.2003.815516 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klapuri, A.: A perceptually motivated multiple-F0 estimation method. In: Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, New Paltz, New York, pp. 291–294 (2005). doi:  10.1109/ASPAA.2005.1540227
  12. 12.
    Krumhansl, C.L.: Cognitive Foundations of Musical Pitch. Chapter 2, pp. 16–49. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Longuet-Higgins, H.C., Steedman, M.J.: On interpreting Bach. Mach. Intell. 6, 221–241 (1971)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    First Annual Music Information Retrieval Evaluation eXchange, MIREX (2005). http://www.music-ir.org/mirex/wiki/2005. Cited 5 July 2013
  15. 15.
    Contest Results—Audio Key Finding, MIREX (2005). http://www.music-ir.org/evaluation/mirex-results/audio-key. Cited 5 July 2013
  16. 16.
    Pauws, S.: Musical key extraction from audio. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, Barcelona, Spain (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Temperley, D.: What’s key for key? The Krumhansl-Schmuckler key-finding algorithm reconsidered. Music Percept. 17(1), 65–100 (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Electronic Music Studios in the University of Iowa http://theremin.music.uiowa.edu/MIS.html. Cited 8 July 2013

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Digital MusicQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations