Possibilities for Plugin Parameters » History » Version 6

Chris Cannam, 2014-05-07 03:08 PM

1 1 Chris Cannam
h1. Possibilities for Plugin Parameters
2 1 Chris Cannam
3 1 Chris Cannam
Two directions we could take:
4 1 Chris Cannam
5 1 Chris Cannam
 # No parameters
6 1 Chris Cannam
 # Enough parameters to be interesting
7 2 Chris Cannam
8 5 Chris Cannam
h3. Fast and Slow modes
9 4 Chris Cannam
10 2 Chris Cannam
A problem with "no parameters" is that there is such a big difference in [[Speed|processing speed]] between different configurations. There's a strong case to be made for offering at least a choice between fast/draft mode and slow/thorough mode.
11 4 Chris Cannam
12 4 Chris Cannam
 * The most obvious difference would be that "fast mode" should suppress the 5-step shift factor. 
13 4 Chris Cannam
 * We might also consider using a finer-grained time step in "slow mode". I think the current 40ms step results in audible jitter, though I may be wrong (possibly any timing imprecision results mostly from some other aspect of the method).
14 1 Chris Cannam
15 5 Chris Cannam
h3. Instrument restrictions
16 5 Chris Cannam
17 5 Chris Cannam
Presumably the method can run much faster if we are able to tell it that a piece has only one instrument in it. We might offer a dropdown of "all known instruments", "piano", "trombone" etc.
18 5 Chris Cannam
19 3 Chris Cannam
h2. Possibilities for Plugin Outputs
20 3 Chris Cannam
21 6 Chris Cannam
Currently we have one main output
22 3 Chris Cannam
23 1 Chris Cannam
 * Note transcription
24 6 Chris Cannam
25 6 Chris Cannam
and three "intermediate data" outputs
26 6 Chris Cannam
27 1 Chris Cannam
 * Raw constant-Q
28 3 Chris Cannam
 * Filtered constant-Q
29 6 Chris Cannam
 * Pitch activation matrix
30 5 Chris Cannam
31 5 Chris Cannam
What else does the plugin know, that might be interesting?
32 5 Chris Cannam
33 5 Chris Cannam
 * Identity of predominant instrument, or of the estimated instrument for each note (not currently returned through the note transcription)