Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:42:31.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis/synthesis comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2001

MATTHEW WRIGHT ,
JAMES BEAUCHAMP ,
KELLY FITZ ,
XAVIER RODET ,
AXEL RÖBEL ,
XAVIER SERRA  and
GREGORY WAKEFIELD
MATTHEW WRIGHT
Affiliation:
CNMAT: University of California at Berkeley, 1750 Arch Street, Berkeley, CA 94709, [email protected]
JAMES BEAUCHAMP
Affiliation:
UIUC: School of Music and Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, [email protected]
KELLY FITZ
Affiliation:
CERL Sound Group: c/o Prof. Lippold Haken, UIUC [email protected]
XAVIER RODET
Affiliation:
IRCAM: 1 Place Igor Stravinsky, 75004 Paris, [email protected]
AXEL RÖBEL
Affiliation:
CCRMA: Department of Music, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-8180, [email protected] IRCAM: 1 Place Igor Stravinsky, 75004 Paris, [email protected]
XAVIER SERRA
Affiliation:
IUA/UPF: Audiovisual Institute, Pompeu Fabra University, Rambla 31, 08002 Barcelona, [email protected]
GREGORY WAKEFIELD
Affiliation:
UM: University of Michigan EECS Dept,1101 Beal Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compared six sound analysis/synthesis systems used for computer music. Each system analysed the same collection of twenty-seven varied input sounds, and output the results in Sound Description Interchange Format (SDIF). We describe each system individually then compare the systems in terms of availability, the sound model(s) they use, interpolation models, noise modelling, the mutability of various sound models, the parameters that must be set to perform analysis, and characteristic artefacts. Although we have not directly compared the analysis results among the different systems, our work has made such a comparison possible.

Type
Research Article
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , December 2000 , pp. 173 - 189
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)