Advertisement

The Problem of Noisy Tape Recordings

  • Harry Hollien
Part of the Applied Psycholinguistics and Communication Disorders book series (APCD)

Abstract

Without a doubt the effectiveness of most law enforcement agencies would be reduced by a magnitude if suddenly they could no longer utilize tape recordings in support of their investigations. In fact, it is quite possible that analysis of information on tape recordings constitutes one of the single most powerful tools investigators currently have at their disposal. Yet their use in the storing, processing and analysis of messages, events and information has become so common that many investigators, crime laboratory personnel and related professionals tend to overlook or underrate their potential. Sometimes they simply neglect to utilize this effective technique (even when needed), or they use it poorly. In any event, tape recording techniques could be exploited to a far greater extent than they are at present. Moreover, with somewhat improved knowledge and upgraded procedures, the amount of information captured—and ultimately utilized—could be expanded by a substantial factor. That is, present technology, if properly employed, would permit a considerably more effective use of tape recordings than currently is the case.

Keywords

Speech Signal Digital Filter Tape Recording Notch Filter Speech Enhancement 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bekesey, G. V. (1960) Experiments in Hearing, New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blain, B. J. (1980) Tape Recording Enhancement, Police Research Bulletin, London, UK Home Office, 35:22–24.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bloch, S. C., Lyons, P.W. and Ritterman, S.I. (1977) Enhancement of Speech Intelligibility by “Blind” Deconvolution, Proceed. Carnahan Conf., Crime Countermeasures, Lexington, KY, 167-174.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carhart, R. (1967) Binaural Reception of Meaningful Material, in Sensorineural Hearing Processes and Disorders (A. B. Graham, Ed.), Boston, Little, Brown, 153–168.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dean, J. D. (1980) The Work of the Home Office Tape Laboratory, Police Research Bulletin, London, UK Home Office 35:25–27.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Denes, P. B. and Pinson, E. N. (1963) The Speech Chain, Bell Telephones Laboratories, Baltimore, Waverly Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Egan, J. P. and Wake, H. W. (1950) On The Masking Pattern of a Simple Auditory Stimulus, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 22:622–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hirsh, I. J. (1952) The Measurement of Hearing, New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollien, H. and Fitzgerald, J. T. (1977) Speech Enchancement Techniques for Crime Lab Use, Proceed. Internat. Conf. Crime Countermeasures, Oxford, UK, 21-29.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hollien, P. A. (1983) Utilization of Blind Decoders in Forensic Phonetics, Abst., 10th Inter, Cong. Phonetic Sciences (A. Cohen and M. Broeche, Eds.), Dordrecht, Holland, Foris Pub. 532.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollien, P. A. (1984) An Update On Speech Decoding, Proceed. Inst. Acoustics, Part I: Police Applic. Speech and Tape Record. Analysis, London, 33-40.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim, J. S. (1978) Evaluation of a Correlation Subtraction Method for Enhancing Speech Degraded By Additive White Noise, IEEE Trans. ASSP 26:471–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lim, J. S. and Oppenheim, A. V. (1979) Enhancement and Bandwidth Compression of Noisy Speech, Proceed. of IEEE 67:1586–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lim, J. S. and Oppenheim, A. V. (1978) All-pole Modeling of Degraded Speech, IEEE Trans. ASSP 26:197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lim, J. S., Oppenheim, A. V. and Braida, L. D. (1978) Evaluation of an Adaptive Comb Filtering Method for Enhancing Speech Degraded by White Noise Addition, IEEE Trans. ASSP 26:354–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paul, J. E., Reames, J. B. and Woods, R. C. (1984) Real-time Digital Laboratory Enhancement Tape Recordings, Proceed. Inst. Acoustics, Part I: Police Applic. Speech and Tape Record. Analysis, London, 6:1–11.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rothman, H. B. (1977) Decoding Speech from Tape Recordings, Proceed. Carnahan Conf., Crime Countermeasures, Lexington, KY, 63-67.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sanders, D. A. (1977) Auditory Perception of Speech, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wegel, R. L. and Lane, C. E. (1924) The Auditory Masking of One Pure Tone by Another and Its Probable Relation to the Dynamics of the Inner Ear, Physics Rev. 23:266–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yost, W. A. and Nielsen, D. W. (1977) Fundaments of Hearing, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry Hollien
    • 1
  1. 1.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations