Piano Evaluation for Level Normalisation » History » Version 39
Chris Cannam, 2014-07-23 02:24 PM
1 | 1 | Chris Cannam | h1. Piano Evaluation for Level Normalisation |
---|---|---|---|
2 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
3 | 1 | Chris Cannam | Lack of normalisation for Vamp plugin inputs is a problem when analysing quiet recordings (see #1028). |
4 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
5 | 1 | Chris Cannam | Testing using a small set of piano recordings, quickly evaluating performance across the first 30 seconds under a number of different normalisation / level management regimes. |
6 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
7 | 3 | Chris Cannam | h3. Input files |
8 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
9 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |Filename|Signal max approx| |
10 | 4 | Chris Cannam | |@31.wav@|0.57| |
11 | 4 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-bach_846_AkPnBcht.wav@|0.12| |
12 | 4 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-chpn_op7_1_ENSTDkAm.wav@|0.33| |
13 | 4 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-scn15_7_SptkBGAm.wav@|0.13| |
14 | 4 | Chris Cannam | |@mz_333_1MINp_align.wav@|0.10| |
15 | 2 | Chris Cannam | |
16 | 2 | Chris Cannam | The plugin has one internal threshold parameter, which can be lowered to find quieter notes (at the expense of course of more false positives). We don't really want to expose this (or any continuous controls) as a parameter. But we need to have approximately predictable input levels, for this threshold to be meaningful. |
17 | 2 | Chris Cannam | |
18 | 3 | Chris Cannam | h3. Methods |
19 | 2 | Chris Cannam | |
20 | 2 | Chris Cannam | |Name|Hg revision|Description| |
21 | 25 | Chris Cannam | |@norm@|commit:d721a17f3e14|Normalise to 0.50 max before running plugin (can't do this in plugin: it's here as the reference case)| |
22 | 4 | Chris Cannam | |@as-is@|commit:d721a17f3e14|No normalisation| |
23 | 4 | Chris Cannam | |@to-date@|commit:d9b688700819|Track max signal level _so far_, adjust each sample so that max is at 0.50| |
24 | 28 | Chris Cannam | |@r2@,@r3@,@r4@,@r5@,@r6@|commit:b5a8836dd2a4|Preprocess with "Flatten Dynamics":/projects/flattendynamics at 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06 target RMS levels respectively| |
25 | 29 | Chris Cannam | |@s8@|commit:4ac067799e0b|With "Flatten Dynamics second attempt":/projects/flattendynamics/wiki/Wiki with max RMS targeted to 0.08| |
26 | 32 | Chris Cannam | |@t4@|commit:d67fae2bb29e|With Flatten Dynamics attempt 2a with max RMS targeted to 0.04| |
27 | 37 | Chris Cannam | |@u4@|commit:70773820e719|With Flatten Dynamics attempt 2b with max RMS targeted to 0.04| |
28 | 32 | Chris Cannam | |
29 | 3 | Chris Cannam | h3. Results |
30 | 3 | Chris Cannam | |
31 | 3 | Chris Cannam | Reporting only the note onset F-measure for the first 30 seconds of each piece. |
32 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |
33 | 34 | Chris Cannam | |Filename|@norm@|@as-is@|@to-date@|@r2@|@r3@|@r4@|@r5@|@r6@|@s8@|@t4@|@u4@| |
34 | 34 | Chris Cannam | |@31.wav@|50|33|40|45|47|48|45|43|42|49|45| |
35 | 34 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-bach_846_AkPnBcht.wav@|87|15|62|64|85|87|87|86|81|86|87| |
36 | 34 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-chpn_op7_1_ENSTDkAm.wav@|33|31|31|11|25|31|32|31|32|34|35| |
37 | 34 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-scn15_7_SptkBGAm.wav@|73|16|61|50|57|67|74|75|70|69|68| |
38 | 34 | Chris Cannam | |@mz_333_1MINp_align.wav@|66|3|58|42|60|64|66|63|66|63|65| |
39 | 7 | Chris Cannam | |
40 | 10 | Chris Cannam | The precision (_proportion of correct onsets among detected onsets, or 1 minus the false-positive rate_) and recall (_proportion of correctly-detected onsets among all ground-truth onsets, or true-positive rate_) vary as you would hope: |
41 | 10 | Chris Cannam | |
42 | 10 | Chris Cannam | * when the resulting audio level is quieter than the @norm@ case, precision is high and recall is low but the F-measure is worse than the @norm@ case |
43 | 10 | Chris Cannam | * when the resulting audio level is louder than the @norm@ case, precision is low and recall is high and the F-measure is still worse than the @norm@ case |
44 | 10 | Chris Cannam | |
45 | 12 | Chris Cannam | This suggests that our threshold (which happens to be 6) is moderately well-suited to the @norm@ case, at least to optimise F-measure (this might not be the most perceptually useful measure though). |
46 | 13 | Chris Cannam | |
47 | 38 | Chris Cannam | The best results (apart from @norm@) above seem to be @r5@ and @u4@. Let's try to refine the parameters for each of those and see if any patterns emerge. |
48 | 38 | Chris Cannam | |
49 | 38 | Chris Cannam | h4. Flatten Dynamics fine-tuning |
50 | 38 | Chris Cannam | |
51 | 39 | Chris Cannam | The adjustable parameters within @r5@, with their defaults, are |
52 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |
53 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |Parameter|Description|Default| |
54 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |@historySeconds@|Length of RMS window|4.0 sec| |
55 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |@catchUpSeconds@|Length of gain slide window|0.5 sec| |
56 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |@targetRMS@|Target RMS value|0.05| |
57 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |@maxGain@|Hard limit on gain|20.0| |
58 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |
59 | 39 | Chris Cannam | The @targetRMS@ is the one we have been varying across @r2@, @r3@ etc -- for @r5@ it is fixed at 0.05. We don't need to test @maxGain@ variation. |
60 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |
61 | 39 | Chris Cannam | Here @r5hNcM@ represents the @r5@ method with @historySeconds@ = N and @catchUpSeconds@ = M/10. So @r5@ is the same as @r5h4c05@. The @r5@ test was run again, hence variation from above results. |
62 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |
63 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |Filename|@norm@|@r5@|@r5h2c05@|@r5h6c05@|@r5h4c01@|r5h4c10@| |
64 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |@31.wav@|50|47| |
65 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-bach_846_AkPnBcht.wav@|87|87| |
66 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-chpn_op7_1_ENSTDkAm.wav@|33|32| |
67 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-scn15_7_SptkBGAm.wav@|73|73| |
68 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |@mz_333_1MINp_align.wav@|66|66| |
69 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |
70 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |
71 | 39 | Chris Cannam | |
72 | 14 | Chris Cannam | h4. For different piano template sets |
73 | 14 | Chris Cannam | |
74 | 17 | Chris Cannam | The above results are all generated using four piano templates, numbered 1-3 plus @pianorwc@. |
75 | 17 | Chris Cannam | |
76 | 17 | Chris Cannam | Here are results using the @norm@ and @as-is@ methods, but with different sets of piano templates: first with three templates (1-3) and then with each template in turn as the only one. |
77 | 17 | Chris Cannam | |
78 | 19 | Chris Cannam | The template turns out not to make an enormous difference -- perhaps because these recordings contain nothing but piano? |
79 | 13 | Chris Cannam | |
80 | 13 | Chris Cannam | |Filename|@norm@/all|@as-is@/all|@norm@/3of4|@as-is@/3of4|@norm@/1|@as-is@/1|@norm@/2|@as-is@/2|@norm@/3|@as-is@/3|@norm@/rwc|@as-is@/rwc| |
81 | 22 | Chris Cannam | |@31.wav@|50|33|51|30|50|34|44|42|50|32|56|36| |
82 | 22 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-bach_846_AkPnBcht.wav@|87|15|86|16|86|24|75|20|73|10|71|18| |
83 | 22 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-chpn_op7_1_ENSTDkAm.wav@|33|31|32|32|31|22|29|31|35|34|32|28| |
84 | 22 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-scn15_7_SptkBGAm.wav@|73|16|71|19|71|12|68|14|72|17|70|15| |
85 | 22 | Chris Cannam | |@mz_333_1MINp_align.wav@|66|3|68|1|63|4|67|2|67|1|63|3| |
86 | 20 | Chris Cannam | |
87 | 20 | Chris Cannam | h4. For "generic" template set |
88 | 20 | Chris Cannam | |
89 | 20 | Chris Cannam | The above results all use template sets with only piano templates in them. |
90 | 20 | Chris Cannam | |
91 | 20 | Chris Cannam | Here are results using the @norm@ and @as-is@ methods, but with the full set of instrument templates (four pianos plus all the rest). |
92 | 21 | Chris Cannam | |
93 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |Filename|@norm@|@as-is@| |
94 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |@31.wav@|49|37| |
95 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-bach_846_AkPnBcht.wav@|79|34| |
96 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-chpn_op7_1_ENSTDkAm.wav@|31|28| |
97 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |@MAPS_MUS-scn15_7_SptkBGAm.wav@|67|16| |
98 | 1 | Chris Cannam | |@mz_333_1MINp_align.wav@|63|5| |
99 | 34 | Chris Cannam | |
100 | 34 | Chris Cannam | h4. Cross-checking with non-piano test data |
101 | 34 | Chris Cannam | |
102 | 34 | Chris Cannam | The results need to be roughly comparable with those obtained from pre-normalised data using other datasets as well as the piano one. Here is a subset of the TRIOS dataset. The @norm@ result is that obtained from the plugin prior to doing this work, using pre-normalised data. |
103 | 34 | Chris Cannam | |
104 | 36 | Chris Cannam | The @mirex@ result is that from the MIREX 2012 submission in MATLAB, but note that this always uses all instrument templates while the plugin results are based on selecting the "right" instrument for the piece (which is assumed to be the best, though we aren't actually testing that here). |
105 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |
106 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |File|@mirex@|@norm@|@u4@| |
107 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |mozart/piano|60|64|56| |
108 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |mozart/viola|33|37|35| |
109 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |mozart/mix|51|58|55| |
110 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |mozart/clarinet|74|80|86| |
111 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |lussier/piano|45|52|63| |
112 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |lussier/mix|36|43|40| |
113 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |lussier/bassoon|43|75|80| |
114 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |lussier/trumpet|43|46|51| |
115 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |take_five/piano|61|46|69| |
116 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |take_five/mix|62|73|69| |
117 | 35 | Chris Cannam | |take_five/saxophone|78|80|84| |