Intelligent Music Production book is published

9781138055193

Ryan Stables is an occasional collaborator and all around brilliant person. He started the annual Workshop on Intelligent Music Production (WIMP) in 2015. Its been going strong ever since, with the 5th WIMP co-located with DAFx, this past September. The workshop series focuses on the application of intelligent systems (including expert systems, machine learning, AI) to music recording, mixing, mastering and related aspects of audio production or sound engineering.

Ryan had the idea for a book about the subject, and myself (Josh Reiss) and Brecht De Man (another all around brilliant person) were recruited as co-authors. What resulted was a massive amount of writing, editing, refining, re-editing and so on. We all contributed big chunks of content, but Brecht pulled it all together and turned it into something really high quality giving a comprehensive overview of the field, suitable for a wide range of audiences.

And the book is finally published today, October 31st! Its part of the AES Presents series by Focal Press, a division of Routledge. You can get it from the publisher, from Amazon or any of the other usual places.

And here’s the official blurb

Intelligent Music Production presents the state of the art in approaches, methodologies and systems from the emerging field of automation in music mixing and mastering. This book collects the relevant works in the domain of innovation in music production, and orders them in a way that outlines the way forward: first, covering our knowledge of the music production processes; then by reviewing the methodologies in classification, data collection and perceptual evaluation; and finally by presenting recent advances on introducing intelligence in audio effects, sound engineering processes and music production interfaces.

Intelligent Music Production is a comprehensive guide, providing an introductory read for beginners, as well as a crucial reference point for experienced researchers, producers, engineers and developers.

 

Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society

The Audio Engineering Society’s Fellowship Award is given to ‘a member who had rendered conspicuous service or is recognized to have made a valuable contribution to the advancement in or dissemination of knowledge of audio engineering or in the promotion of its application in practice’.

Today at the 147th AES Convention, I was given the Fellowship Award for valuable contributions to, and for encouraging and guiding the next generation of researchers in, the development of audio and musical signal processing.

This is quite an honour, of which I’m very proud. And it puts me in some excellent company. A lot of greats have become Fellows of the AES (Manfred SchroederVesa Valimaki, Poppy Crum, Bob Moog, Richard Heyser, Leslie Ann Jones, Gunther Thiele and Richard Small…) which also means I have a lot to live up to.

And thanks to the AES,

Josh Reiss

Radical and rigorous research at the upcoming Audio Engineering Society Convention

aes-ny-19-logo-small

We previewed the 142nd, 143rd, 144th  and 145th Audio Engineering Society (AES) Conventions, which we also followed with wrap-up discussions. Then we took a break, but now we’re back to preview the 147th AES  convention, October 16 to 19 in New York. As before, the Audio Engineering research team here aim to be quite active at the convention.

We’ve gathered together some information about a lot of the research-oriented events that caught our eye as being unusual, exceptionally high quality, involved in, attending, or just worth mentioning. And this Convention will certainly live up to the hype.

Wednesday October 16th

When I first read the title of the paper ‘Evaluation of Multichannel Audio in Automobiles versus Mobile Phones‘, presented at 10:30, I thought it was a comparison of multichannel automotive audio versus the tinny, quiet mono or barely stereo from a phone. But its actually comparing results of a listening test for stereo vs multichannel in a car, with results of a listening test for stereo vs multichannel for the same audio, but from a phone and rendered over headphones. And the results look quite interesting.

Deep neural networks are all the rage. We’ve been using DNNs to profile a wide variety of audio effects. Scott Hawley will be presenting some impressive related work at 9:30, ‘Profiling Audio Compressors with Deep Neural Networks.’

We previously presented work on digital filters that closely match their analog equivalents. We pointed out that such filters can have cut-off frequencies beyond Nyquist, but did not explore that aspect. ‘Digital Parametric Filters Beyond Nyquist Frequency‘, at 10 am, investigates this idea in depth.

I like a bit of high quality mathematical theory, and that’s what you get in Tamara Smyth’s 11:30 paper ‘On the Similarity between Feedback/Loopback Amplitude and Frequency Modulation‘, which shows a rather surprising (at least at first glance) equivalence between two types of feedback modulation.

There’s an interesting paper at 2pm, ‘What’s Old Is New Again: Using a Physical Scale Model Echo Chamber as a Real-Time Reverberator‘, where reverb is simulated not with impulse response recordings, or classic algorithms, but using scaled models of echo chambers.

At 4 o’clock, ‘A Comparison of Test Methodologies to Personalize Headphone Sound Quality‘ promises to offer great insights not just for headphones, but into subjective evaluation of audio in general.

There’s so many deep learning papers, but the 3-4:30 poster ‘Modal Representations for Audio Deep Learning‘ stands out from the pack. Deep learning for audio most often works with raw spectrogram data. But this work proposes learning modal filterbank coefficients directly, and they find it gives strong results for classification and generative tasks. Also in that session, ‘Analysis of the Sound Emitted by Honey Bees in a Beehive‘ promises to be an interesting and unusual piece of work. We talked about their preliminary results in a previous entry, but now they’ve used some rigorous audio analysis to make deep and meaningful conclusions about bee behaviour.

Immerse yourself in the world of virtual and augmented reality audio technology today, with some amazing workshops, like Music Production in VR and AR, Interactive AR Audio Using Spark, Music Production in Immersive Formats, ISSP: Immersive Sound System Panning, and Real-time Mixing and Monitoring Best Practices for Virtual, Mixed, and Augmented Reality. See the Calendar for full details.

Thursday, October 17th

An Automated Approach to the Application of Reverberation‘, at 9:30, is the first of several papers from our team, and essentially does something to algorithmic reverb similar to what “Parameter Automation in a Dynamic Range Compressor” did for a dynamic range compressor.

Why do public address (PA) systems sound for large venues sound so terrible? They actually have regulations for speech intelligibility. But this is only measured in empty stadiums. At 11 am, ‘The Effects of Spectators on the Speech Intelligibility Performance of Sound Systems in Stadia and Other Large Venues‘ looks at the real world challenges when the venue is occupied.

Two highlights of the 9-10:30 poster session, ‘Analyzing Loudness Aspects of 4.2 Million Musical Albums in Search of an Optimal Loudness Target for Music Streaming‘ is interesting, not just for the results, applications and research questions, but also for the fact that involved 4.2 million albums. Wow! And there’s a lot more to audio engineering research than what one might think. How about using acoustic sensors to enhance autonomous driving systems, which is a core application of ‘Audio Data Augmentation for Road Objects Classification‘.

Audio forensics is a fascinating world, where audio engineering is often applied to unusually but crucially. One such situation is explored at 2:15 in ‘Forensic Comparison of Simultaneous Recordings of Gunshots at a Crime Scene‘, which involves looking at several high profile, real world examples.

Friday, October 18th

There are two papers looking at new interfaces for virtual reality and immersive audio mixing, ‘Physical Controllers vs. Hand-and-Gesture Tracking: Control Scheme Evaluation for VR Audio Mixing‘ at 10:30, and ‘Exploratory Research into the Suitability of Various 3D Input Devices for an Immersive Mixing Task‘ at 3:15.

At 9:15, J. T. Colonel from our group looks into the features that relate, or don’t relate, to preference for multitrack mixes in ‘Exploring Preference for Multitrack Mixes Using Statistical Analysis of MIR and Textual Features‘, with some interesting results that invalidate some previous research. But don’t let negative results discourage ambitious approaches to intelligent mixing systems, like Dave Moffat’s (also from here) ‘Machine Learning Multitrack Gain Mixing of Drums‘, which follows at 9:30.

Continuing this theme of mixing analysis and automation is the poster ‘A Case Study of Cultural Influences on Mixing Preference—Targeting Japanese Acoustic Major Students‘, shown from 3:30-5, which does a bit of meta-analysis by merging their data with that of other studies.

Just below, I mention the need for multitrack audio data sets. Closely related, and also much needed, is this work on ‘A Dataset of High-Quality Object-Based Productions‘, also in the 3:30-5 poster session.

Saturday, October 19th

We’re approaching a world where almost every surface can be a visual display. Imagine if every surface could be a loudspeaker too. Such is the potential of metamaterials, discussed in ‘Acoustic Metamaterial in Loudspeaker Systems Design‘ at 10:45.

Another session, 9 to 11:30 has lots of interesting presentations about music production best practices. At 9, Amandine Pras presents ‘Production Processes of Pop Music Arrangers in Bamako, Mali‘. I doubt there will be many people at the convention who’ve thought about how production is done there, but I’m sure there will be lots of fascinating insights. This is followed at 9:30 by ‘Towards a Pedagogy of Multitrack Audio Resources for Sound Recording Education‘. We’ve published a few papers on multitrack audio collections, sorely needed for researchers and educators, so its good to see more advances.

I always appreciate filling the gaps in my knowledge. And though I know a lot about sound enhancement, I’ve never dived into how its done and how effective it is in soundbars, now widely used in home entertainment. So I’m looking forward to the poster ‘A Qualitative Investigation of Soundbar Theory‘, shown 10:30-12. From the title and abstract though, this feels like it might work better as an oral presentation. Also in that session, the poster ‘Sound Design and Reproduction Techniques for Co-Located Narrative VR Experiences‘ deserves special mention, since it won the Convention’s Best Peer-Reviewed Paper Award, and promises to be an important contribution to the growing field of immersive audio.

Its wonderful to see research make it into ‘product’, and ‘Casualty Accessible and Enhanced (A&E) Audio: Trialling Object-Based Accessible TV Audio‘, presented at 3:45, is a great example. Here, new technology to enhance broadcast audio for those with hearing loss iwas trialed for a popular BBC drama, Casualty. This is of extra interest to me since one of the researchers here, Angeliki Mourgela, does related research, also in collaboration with BBC. And one of my neighbours is an actress who appears on that TV show.

I encourage the project students working with me to aim for publishable research. Jorge Zuniga’s ‘Realistic Procedural Sound Synthesis of Bird Song Using Particle Swarm Optimization‘, presented at 2:30, is a stellar example. He created a machine learning system that uses bird sound recordings to find settings for a procedural audio model. Its a great improvement over other methods, and opens up a whole field of machine learning applied to sound synthesis.

At 3 o’clock in the same session is another paper from our team, Angeliki Mourgela presenting ‘Perceptually Motivated Hearing Loss Simulation for Audio Mixing Reference‘. Roughly 1 in 6 people suffer from some form of hearing loss, yet amazingly, sound engineers don’t know what the content will sound like to them. Wouldn’t it be great if the engineer could quickly audition any content as it would sound to hearing impaired listeners? That’s the aim of this research.

About three years ago, I published a meta-analysis on perception of high resolution audio, which received considerable attention. But almost all prior studies dealt with music content, and there are good reasons to consider more controlled stimuli too (noise, tones, etc). The poster ‘Discrimination of High-Resolution Audio without Music‘ does just that. Similarly, perceptual aspects of dynamic range compression is an oft debated topic, for which we have performed listening tests, and this is rigorously investigated in ‘Just Noticeable Difference for Dynamic Range Compression via “Limiting” of a Stereophonic Mix‘. Both posters are in the 3-4:30 session.

The full program can be explored on the Convention Calendar or the Convention website. Come say hi to us if you’re there! Josh Reiss (author of this blog entry), J. T. Colonel, Angeliki Mourgela and Dave Moffat from the Audio Engineering research team within the Centre for Digital Music, will all be there.

Sneak preview of the research to be unveiled at the 145th Audio Engineering Society

max-audio-logo2[1]

We’ve made it a tradition on this blog to preview the technical program at the Audio Engineering Society Conventions, as we did with the 142nd, 143rd, and 144th AES Conventions. The 145th AES  convention is just around the corner, October 17 to 20 in New York. As before, the Audio Engineering research team behind this blog will be quite active at the convention.

These conventions have thousands of attendees, but aren’t so large that you get lost or overwhelmed. Away from the main exhibition hall is the Technical Program, which includes plenty of tutorials and presentations on cutting edge research.

So we’ve gathered together some information about a lot of the events that caught our eye as being unusual, exceptionally high quality involved in, attending, or just worth mentioning. And this Convention will certainly live up to the hype. Plus, its a special one, the 70th anniversary of the founding of the AES.

By the way, I don’t think I mention a single loudspeaker paper below, but the Technical Program is full of them this time. You could have a full conference just on loudspeakers from them. If you want to become an expert on loudspeaker research, this is the place to be.

Anyway, lets dive right in.

Wednesday, October 17th

We know different cultures listen to music differently, but do they listen to audio coding artifacts differently? Find out at 9:30 when Sascha Disch and co-authors present On the Influence of Cultural Differences on the Perception of Audio Coding Artifacts in Music.

ABX, AB, MUSHRA… so many choices for subjective evaluation and listening tests, so little time. Which one to use, which one gives the strongest results? Lets put them all to the test while looking at the same question. This is what was done in Investigation into the Effects of Subjective Test Interface Choice on the Validity of Results, presented at 11:30. The results are strong, and surprising. Authors include former members of the team behind this blog, Nick Jillings and Brecht de Man, myself and frequent collaborator Ryan Stables.

From 10-11:30, Steve Fenton will be presenting the poster Automatic Mixing of Multitrack Material Using Modified Loudness Models. Automatic mixing is a really hot research area, one where we’ve made quite a few contributions. And a lot of it has involved loudness models for level balancing or fader settings. Someone really should do a review of all the papers focused on that, or better yet, a meta-analysis. Dr. Fenton and co-authors also have another poster in the same session, about a Real-Time System for the Measurement of Perceived Punch. Fenton’s PhD was about perception and modelling of punchiness in audio, and I suggested to him that the thesis should have just been titled ‘Punch!’

The researchers from Harman continue their analysis of headphone preference and quality with A Survey and Analysis of Consumer and Professional Headphones Based on Their Objective and Subjective Performances at 3:30. Harman obviously have a strong interest in this, but its rigorous, high quality research, not promotion.

In the 3:00 to 4:30 poster session, Daniel Johnston presents a wonderful spatial audio application, SoundFields: A Mixed Reality Spatial Audio Game for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. I’m pretty sure this isn’t the quirky lo-fi singer/songwriter Daniel Johnston.

Thursday, October 18th

There’s something bizarre about the EBU R128 / ITU-R BS.1770 specification for loudness measurements. It doesn’t give the filter coefficients as a function of sample rate. So, for this and other reasons, even though the actual specification is just a few lines of code, you have to reverse engineer it if you’re doing it yourself, as was done here. At 10 am, Brecht de Man presents Evaluation of Implementations of the EBU R128 Loudness Measurement, which looks carefully at different implementations and provides full implementations in several programming languages.

Roughly one in six people in developed countries suffer some hearing impairment. If you think that seems too high, think how many wear glasses or contact lenses or had eye surgery. And given the sound exposure, I’d expect the average to be higher with music producers. But we need good data on this. Thus, Laura Sinnott’s 3 pm presentation on Risk of Sound-Induced Hearing Disorders for Audio Post Production Engineers: A Preliminary Study is particularly relevant.

Some interesting posters in the 2:45 to 4:15 session. Maree Sheehan’s Audio Portraiture –The Sound of Identity, an Indigenous Artistic Enquiry uses 3D immersive and binaural sound to create audio portraits of Maori women. Its a wonderful use of state of the art audio technologies for cultural and artistic study. Researchers from the University of Alcala in Madrid present an improved method to detect anger in speech in Precision Maximization in Anger Detection in Interactive Voice Response Systems.

Friday, October 19th

There’s plenty of interesting papers this day, but only one I’m highlighting. By coincidence, its my own presentation of work with He Peng, on Why Can You Hear a Difference between Pouring Hot and Cold Water? An Investigation of Temperature Dependence in Psychoacoustics. This was inspired by the curious phenomenon and initial investigations described in a previous blog entry.

Saturday, October 20th

Get there early on Saturday to find out about audio branding from a designer’s perspective in the 9 am Creative Approach to Audio in Corporate Brand Experiences.

Object-based audio allows broadcasters to deliver separate channels for sound effects, music and dialog, which can then be remixed on the client-side. This has high potential for delivering better sound for the hearing-impaired, as described in Lauren Ward’s Accessible Object-Based Audio Using Hierarchical Narrative Importance Metadata at 9:45. I’ve heard this demonstrated by the way, and it sounds amazing.

A big challenge with spatial audio systems is the rendering of sounds that are close to the listener. Descriptions of such systems almost always begin with ‘assume the sound source is in the far field.’ In the 10:30 to 12:00 poster session, researchers from the Chinese Academy of Science present a real advance in this subject with Near-Field Compensated Higher-Order Ambisonics Using a Virtual Source Panning Method.

Rob Maher is one of the world’s leading audio forensics experts. At 1:30 in Audio Forensic Gunshot Analysis and Multilateration, he looks at how to answer the question ‘Who shot first?’ from audio recordings. As is often the case in audio forensics, I suspect this paper was motivated by real court cases.

When visual cues disagree with auditory cues, which ones do you believe? Or conversely, does low quality audio seem more realistic if strengthened by visual cues? These sorts of questions are investigated at 2 pm in the large international collaboration Influence of Visual Content on the Perceived Audio Quality in Virtual Reality. Audio Engineering Society Conventions are full of original research, but survey and review papers are certainly welcomed, especially ones like the thorough and insightful HRTF Individualization: A Survey, presented at 2:30.

Standard devices for measuring auditory brainstem response are typically designed to work only with clicks or tone bursts. A team of researchers from Gdansk developed A Device for Measuring Auditory Brainstem Responses to Audio, presented in the 2:30 to 4 pm poster session.

 

Hopefully, I can also give a wrap-up after the Convention, as we did here and here.

Aeroacoustic Sound Effects – Journal Article

I am delighted to be able to announce that my article on Creating Real-Time Aeroacoustic Sound Effects Using Physically Informed Models is in this months Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. This is an invited article following winning the best paper award at the Audio Engineering Society 141st Convention in LA. It is an open access article so free for all to download!

The article extends the original paper by examining how the Aeolian tone synthesis models can be used to create a number of sound effects. The benefits of these models are that the produce plausible sound effects which operate in real-time. Users are presented with a number of highly relevant parameters to control the effects which can be mapped directly to 3D models within game engines.

The basics of the Aeolian tone were given in a previous blog post. To summarise, a tone is generated when air passes around an object and vortices are shed behind it. Fluid dynamic equations are available which allow a prediction of the tone frequency based on the physics of the interaction between the air and object. The Aeolian tone is modelled as a compact sound source.

To model a sword or similar object a number of these compact sound sources are placed in a row. A previous blog post describes this in more detail. The majority of compact sound sources are placed at the tip as this is where the airspeed is greatest and the greatest sound is generated.

The behaviour of a sword when being swung has to be modelled which then used to control some of the parameters in the equations. This behaviour can be controlled by a game engine making fully integrated procedural audio models.

The sword model was extended to include objects like a baseball bat and golf club, as well as a broom handle. The compact sound source of a cavity tone was also added in to replicate swords which have grooved profiles. Subjective evaluation gave excellent results, especially for thicker objects which were perceived as plausible as pre-recorded samples.

The synthesis model could be extended to look at a range of sword cross sections as well as any influence of the material of the sword. It is envisaged that other sporting equipment which swing or fly through the air could be modelled using compact sound sources.

A propeller sound is one which is common in games and film and partially based on the sounds generated from the Aeolian tone and vortex shedding. As a blade passes through the air vortices are shed at a specific frequency along the length. To model individual propeller blades the profiles of a number were obtained with specific span length (centre to tip) and chord lengths (leading edge to trailing edge).

Another major sound source is the loading sounds generated by the torque and thrust. A procedure for modelling these sounds is outlined in the article. Missing from the propeller model is distortion sounds. These are more associated with rotors which turn in the horizontal plane.

An important sound when hearing a propeller powered aircraft is the engine sound. The one taken for this model was based on one of Andy Farnell’s from his book Designing Sound. Once complete a user is able to select an aircraft from a pre-programmed bank and set the flight path. If linked to a game engine the physical dimensions and flight paths can all be controlled procedurally.

Listening tests indicate that the synthesis model was as plausible as an alternative method but still not as plausible as pre-recorded samples. It is believed that results may have been more favourable if modelling electric-powered drones and aircraft which do not have the sound of a combustion engine.

The final model exploring the use of the Aeolian tone was that of an Aeolian Harp. This is a musical instrument that is activated by wind blowing around the strings. The vortices that are shed behind the string can activate a mechanical vibration if they are around the frequency of one of the strings natural harmonics. This produces a distinctive sound.

The digital model allows a user to synthesis a harp of up to 13 strings. Tension, mass density, length and diameter can all be adjusted to replicate a wide variety of string material and harp size. Users can also control a wind model modified from one presented in Andy Farnell’s book Designing Sound, with control over the amount of gusts. Listening tests indicate that the sound is not as plausible as pre-recorded ones but is as plausible as alternative synthesis methods.

The article describes the design processes in more detail as well as the fluid dynamic principles each was developed from. All models developed are open source and implemented in pure data. Links to these are in the paper as well as my previous publications. Demo videos can be found on YouTube.

Weird and wonderful research to be unveiled at the 144th Audio Engineering Society Convention

th

Last year, we previewed the142nd and 143rd AES Conventions, which we followed with a wrap-up discussions here and here. The next AES  convention is just around the corner, May 23 to 26 in Milan. As before, the Audio Engineering research team here aim to be quite active at the convention.

These conventions have thousands of attendees, but aren’t so large that you get lost or overwhelmed. Away from the main exhibition hall is the Technical Program, which includes plenty of tutorials and presentations on cutting edge research.

So we’ve gathered together some information about a lot of the events that caught our eye as being unusual, exceptionally high quality involved in, attending, or just worth mentioning. And this Convention will certainly live up to the hype.

Wednesday May 23rd

From 11:15 to 12:45 that day, there’s an interesting poster by a team of researchers from the University of Limerick titled Can Visual Priming Affect the Perceived Sound Quality of a Voice Signal in Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Applications? This builds on work we discussed in a previous blog entry, where they did a perceptual study of DFA Faders, looking at how people’s perception of mixing changes when the sound engineer only pretends to make an adjustment.

As expected given the location, there’s lots of great work being presented by Italian researchers. The first one that caught my eye is the 2:30-4 poster on Active noise control for snoring reduction. Whether you’re a loud snorer, sleep next to someone who is a loud snorer or just interested in unusual applications of audio signal processing, this one is worth checking out.

Do you get annoyed sometimes when driving and the road surface changes to something really noisy? Surely someone should do a study and find out which roads are noisiest so that then we can put a bit of effort into better road design and better in-vehicle equalisation and noise reduction? Well, now its finally happened with this paper in the same session on Deep Neural Networks for Road Surface Roughness Classification from Acoustic Signals.

Thursday, May 24

If you were to spend only one day this year immersing yourself in frontier audio engineering research, this is the day to do it.

How do people mix music differently in different countries? And do people perceive the mixes differently based on their different cultural backgrounds? These are the sorts of questions our research team here have been asking. Find out more in this 9:30 presentation by Amandine Pras. She led this Case Study of Cultural Influences on Mixing Practices, in collaboration with Brecht De Man (now with Birmingham City University) and myself.

Rod Selfridge has been blazing new trails in sound synthesis and procedural audio. He won the Best Student Paper Award at AES 141st Convention and the Best Paper Award at Sound and Music Computing. He’ll give another great presentation at noon on Physically Derived Synthesis Model of an Edge Tone which was also discussed in a recent blog entry.

I love the title of this next paper, Miniaturized Noise Generation System—A Simulation of a Simulation, which will be presented at 2:30pm by researchers from Intel Technology in Gdansk, Poland. This idea of a meta-simulation is not as uncommon as you might think; we do digital emulation of old analogue synthesizers, and I’ve seen papers on numerical models of Foley rain sound generators.

A highlight for our team here is our 2:45 pm presentation, FXive: A Web Platform for Procedural Sound Synthesis. We’ll be unveiling a disruptive innovation for sound design, FXive.com, aimed at replacing reliance on sound effect libraries. Please come check it out, and get in touch with the presenters or any members of the team to find out more.

Immediately following this is a presentation which asks Can Algorithms Replace a Sound Engineer? This is a question the research team here have also investigated a lot, you could even say it was the main focus of our research for several years. The team behind this presentation are asking it in relation to Auto-EQ. I’m sure it will be interesting, and I hope they reference a few of our papers on the subject.

From 9-10:30, I will chair a Workshop on The State of the Art in Sound Synthesis and Procedural Audio, featuring the world’s experts on the subject. Outside of speech and possibly music, sound synthesis is still in its infancy, but its destined to change the world of sound design in the near future. Find out why.

12:15 — 13:45 is a workshop related to machine learning in audio (a subject that is sometimes called Machine Listening), Deep Learning for Audio Applications. Deep learning can be quite a technical subject, and there’s a lot of hype around it. So a Workshop on the subject is a good way to get a feel for it. See below for another machine listening related workshop on Friday.

The Heyser Lecture, named after Richard Heyser (we discussed some of his work in a previous entry), is a prestigious evening talk given by one of the eminent individuals in the field. This one will be presented by Malcolm Hawksford. , a man who has had major impact on research in audio engineering for decades.

Friday

The 9:30 — 11 poster session features some unusual but very interesting research. A talented team of researchers from Ancona will present A Preliminary Study of Sounds Emitted by Honey Bees in a Beehive.

Intense solar activity in March 2012 caused some amazing solar storms here on Earth. Researchers in Finland recorded them, and some very unusual results will be presented in the same session with the poster titled Analysis of Reports and Crackling Sounds with Associated Magnetic Field Disturbances Recorded during a Geomagnetic Storm on March 7, 2012 in Southern Finland.

You’ve been living in a cave if you haven’t noticed the recent proliferation of smart devices, especially in the audio field. But what makes them tick, is there a common framework and how are they tested? Find out more at 10:45 when researchers from Audio Precision will present The Anatomy, Physiology, and Diagnostics of Smart Audio Devices.

From 3 to 4:30, there’s a Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in Your Audio. It follows on from a highly successful workshop we did on the subject at the last Convention.

Saturday

A couple of weeks ago, John Flynn wrote an excellent blog entry describing his paper on Improving the Frequency Response Magnitude and Phase of Analogue-Matched Digital Filters. His work is a true advance on the state of the art, providing digital filters with closer matches to their analogue counterparts than any previous approaches. The full details will be unveiled in his presentation at 10:30.

If you haven’t seen Mariana Lopez presenting research, you’re missing out. Her enthusiasm for the subject is infectious, and she has a wonderful ability to convey the technical details, their deeper meanings and their importance to any audience. See her one hour tutorial on Hearing the Past: Using Acoustic Measurement Techniques and Computer Models to Study Heritage Sites, starting at 9:15.

The full program can be explored on the Convention Calendar or the Convention website. Come say hi to us if you’re there! Josh Reiss (author of this blog entry), John Flynn, Parham Bahadoran and Adan Benito from the Audio Engineering research team within the Centre for Digital Music, along with two recent graduates Brecht De Man and Rod Selfridge, will all be there.

Analogue matched digital EQ: How far can you go linearly?

(Background post for the paper “Improving the frequency response magnitude and phase of
analogue-matched digital filters” by John Flynn & Josh Reiss for AES Milan 2018)

Professional audio mastering is a field that is still dominated by analogue hardware. Many mastering engineers still favour their go-to outboard compressors and equalisers over digital emulations. As a practising mastering engineer myself, I empathise. Quality analogue gear has a proven track record in terms of sonic quality spanning about a century. Even though digital approximations of analogue tools have gotten better, particularly over the past decade, I too have tended to reach for analogue hardware. However, through my research at Queen Mary with Professor Josh Reiss, that is changing.

When modelling an analogue EQ, a lot of focus has been in modelling distortions and other non-linearities, we chose to look at the linear component. Have we reached a ceiling in terms of modelling an analogue prototype filter in the digital domain? Can we do better? We found that yes there was room for improvement and yes we can do better.

The milestone of research in this area is Orfanidis’ 1997 paper “Digital parametric equalizer design with prescribed Nyquist-frequency gain“, the first major improvement over the bilinear transform which has a reknowned ‘cramped’ sound in the high frequencies. Basically, the bilinear transform is what all first generation digital equalisers is based on. It’s high frequencies towards 20kHz drops sharply, giving a ‘closed/cramped’ sound. Orfanidis and later improvements by Massberg [9] & Gunness/Chauhan [10] give a much better approximation of an analogue prototype.

blt

However [9],[10] improve magnitude, they don’t capture analogue phase. Bizarrely, the bilinear transform performs reasonably well on phase. So we knew it was possible.

So the problem is: how do you get a more accurate magnitude match to analogue than [9],[10]? While also getting a good match to phase? Many attempts, including complicated iterative Parks/McClellen filter design approaches, fell flat. It turned out that Occam was right, in this case a simple answer was the better answer.

By combining a matched-z transform, frequency sampling filter design and a little bit of clever coefficient manipulation, we achieved excellent results. A match to the analogue prototype to an arbitrary degree. At low filter lengths you get a filter that performs as well as [9],[10] in magnitude but also matches analogue phase. By using longer filter lengths the match to analogue is extremely precise, in both magnitude and phase (lower error is more accurate)

error-vs

 

Since submitting the post I have released the algorithm in a plugin with my mastering company and been getting informal feedback from other mastering engineers about how this sounds in use.

balance-mastering-analog-magpha-eq-plugin-small-new

Overall the word back has been overwhelmingly positive, with one engineer claiming it to be the “the best sounding plugin EQ on the market to date”. It’s nice know that those long hours staring at decibel error charts have not been in vain.

Are you heading to AES Milan next month? Come up and say hello!