[mirtoolbox] Re: MFCCs and query by humming
- From: sarah lam <lamjhs31@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: mirtoolbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:34:54 +0800
oh. pardon my ignorance but how is it that i read some journals and they
only used MFCCs as their features and they were able to obtain good results
through query by humming?
And with regards to the MFCCs coefficient matrix, i'm not sure if it's
because of the transposition problem and therefore clustering is unable to
be carried out. When i used a range for Rank eg. 1:3, i'm able to cluster
it. However when i used a single coefficient i'm not able to do so.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Olivier Lartillot <olartillot@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> OK, so if you used MFCC as feature, all this means – I hope you will not be
> too much offended by that ;-) – that despite your singing capabilities, you
> were not able to reproduce correctly the *timbral* aspect of the original
> song. I guess this was not surprising, after all, because if the original
> song contained instrumental sounds, they should sound timbrally quite
> different compared to your vocal query.
>
> So, seriously speaking, if you want to compare melodies, then you will need
> to use something like mirpitch instead of MFCC. But again you will not be
> able to compare temporal trajectories of pitch with mirdist and mirquery
> because there is no suitable distance for that in MIRtoolbox (yet).
>
> Unless anyone has anything to suggest?
>
> Regards
>
> Olivier
>
>
> sarah lam kirjoitti 13.1.2010 kello 19.11:
>
> i find the distance between songs using MFCCs as the feature. Using
> mirquery, the song that i hummed didn't come out as one of the top few
> rankings. Which means that the dist between the song that i hummed and the
> song that i want to retrieve didn't have the shortest distance using MFCCs.
> So i'm not very sure what the reason could be.
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Olivier Lartillot
> <olartillot@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Hi Sarah,
>>
>> Le 12.1.2010 à 18.02, sarah lam a écrit :
>>
>> Hi Oliver and the rest of the gang
>>
>> *Question on MFCC*
>> *mirmfcc(..., 'Rank’, N) *computes the coefficients of rank(s) *N*. The
>> default value is *N *= 1:13
>> I'm very puzzled as to why N must be a range and why it can't be a
>> discrete number.
>> I'm just guessing that perhaps there might not be enough signal
>> information if only a single coefficient is being used.
>>
>>
>> N can be a single value, no problem. However, it is true that in current
>> release 1.2.3, there is a bug in the graphical representation and also in
>> mirgetdata, when computing mirmfcc with frame decomposition: the vector is
>> erroneously transposed. This will be corrected in the next release.
>>
>>
>> *Question on Query by Humming*
>> When the original wav is used as the query, mirdist() returns the queried
>> song with the shortest distance.
>>
>>
>> mirdist only returns distances. I guess you meant mirquery(), right?
>>
>> However when I recorded my humming as the query, mirdist() did not work
>> as well.
>> And i really do not think i'm singing out of tune.
>> Is it because there might be too much background music and therefore just
>> humming the melody is not good enough?
>>
>>
>> Please note that mirdist(x,Y) is nothing more than the computation of the
>> distance between x and Y where x and Y related to one given *feature*. So
>> all depends on the feature you are using. Besides, current distances used in
>> mirdist do not take into account for instance the distance between pitch
>> trajectories between songs (and query). So query by humming using MIRtoolbox
>> would require some further thoughts.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Olivier
>>
>
>
>
Other related posts: