Searching and Classifying Affinities in a Web Music Collection

  • Nicola OrioEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 701)


Online music libraries available on the Web contain a large amount of audio content that is usually the result of digitization of analogue recordings or the direct acquisition of digital sources. The acquisition process is carried out by several persons and may last a number of years, thus it is likely that the same or similar audio content is present in different versions. This paper describes a number of possible similarities, which are called affinities, and presents a methodology to detect the kind of affinity from the automatic analysis and matching of the audio content.


Lossy Compression Locality Sensitive Hashing Pure Listening Audio Track Audio Content 
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.



The author wishfully thanks the company LaCosa s.r.l. for granting access to a large digital audio collection, which has been the basis for the tests, and for providing useful insights on how interpreting the results.


  1. 1.
    Casey, M., Slaney, M.: Fast recognition of remixed music audio. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. IV:1425–IV:1428 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Datta, R., Joshi, D., Li, J., Wang, J.: Image retrieval: Ideas, influences, and trends of the new age. ACM Comput. Surv. 40(2), 5:1–5:60 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fetterly, D., Manasse, M., Najork, M.: On the evolution of clusters of near-duplicate web pages. J. Web Eng. 2(4), 228–246 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gracenote music solutions (2015). Accessed 31 Jan 2016
  5. 5.
    Haitsma, J., Kalker, T.: A highly robust audio fingerprinting system with an efficient search strategy. J. New Music Res. 32(2), 211–221 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Imran, N.: Electronic media, creativity and plagiarism. ACM SIGCAS Comput. Soc. 40(4), 25–44 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ke, Y., Hoiem, D., Sukthankar, R.: Computer vision for music identification. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 597–604 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lalinský, L.: How does Chromaprint work? (2011). Accessed 31 Jan 2016
  9. 9.
    Liu, J., Huang, Z., Cai, H., Shen, H., Ngo, C., Wang, W.: Near-duplicate video retrieval: Current research and future trends. ACM Comput. Surv. 45(4), 44:1–44:23 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, J., Huang, Z., Shen, H., Cui, B.: Correlation-based retrieval for heavily changed near-duplicate videos. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 29(4), 21:1–21:25 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montecchio, N., Di Buccio, E., Orio, N.: An efficient identification methodology for improved access to music heritage collections. J. Multimedia 7(2), 145–158 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nucci, M., Tagliasacchi, M., Tubaro, S.: A phylogenetic analysis of near-duplicate audio tracks. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, pp. 99–104 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Slaney, M., Casey, M.: Locality-sensitive hashing for finding nearest neighbors. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 25(2), 128–131 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, A.: The Shazam music recognition service. Commun. ACM 49(8), 44–48 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cultural HeritageUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations