Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stephanek Predicting Violin Quality From Its Frequency Response
Stephanek Predicting Violin Quality From Its Frequency Response
Table I:
List of 43 violins in experiment set, subjective classzJication, results of SMR, FA and
combined SMR+FA prediction of sound quality of unknown violin and errors of predicted
classification
violin class SMR FA SMR+FA e(SMR) e(FA) e(SMR+FA)
F090.Strad 1 .9 1.4 1 0 0 0
F09 1.Ruggie.r 1 1.3 1.1 1 0 0 0
F095.Schonbac 4 3.7 4.0 4 0 0 0
F096.Prokop 4 4.0 2.9 4 0 1 0
F097.Eberle 2 1.6 1.7 2 0 0 0
F098.Steiner 2 2.0 2.1 2 0 0 0
F099.Kuncer 3 1.9 2.3 2 1 1 1
F100.xl1.1 3 2.5 2.6 3 0 0 0
F101.bile.28 5 5.2 5.2 5 0 0 0
F102.bile.24 5 5.2 5.0 5 0 0 0
F103.Gala.47 4 3.1 3.8 4 1 0 0
F105.xO9 4 4.0 4.3 4 0 0 0
F113.Klotz 2 1.9 1.7 2 0 0 0
F114.Salteri 2 1.8 2.6 2 0 1 0
F115.Muschl 3 3.4 2.9 3 0 0 0
F117.Dvor.st. 4 3.9 3.6 4 0 0 0
FI 19.Guar.Sn 2 2.9 3.0 3 1 1 1
F120.xl0.405 1 .9 1.5 1 0 1 0
F121.xl0.404 2 2.7 2.9 3 1 1 1
F122.xl0.398 2 3.5 2.4 3 2 0 1
F123.xl0.399 2 2.0 2.1 2 0 0 0
F125.Guannes 2 2.2 2.4 3 0 0 1
F126.bile.25 5 4.4 4.7 5 1 0 0
F127.bile.05 5 4.4 4.8 5 1 0 0
F128.bile.23 5 4.5 5.2 5 0 0 0
F129.Placht 3 3.4 2.9 3 0 0 0
F130.Cermak 3 2.5 2.2 3 0 1 0
F13 1.Heinicke 3 2.9 2.7 3 0 0 0
Fl32.Metelka 3 3.6 2.9 4 1 0 1
F133.J.Gagli 1 1.6 .7 1 1 0 0
F136.GuarPet 1 1.9 2.2 2 1 1 1
F137.F.Rugg 1 1.3 1.9 2 0 1 1
F138.Ciochi 3 2.1 2.2 2 1 1 1
F139.J.Guarn 1 1.4 1.6 2 0 1 1
F140.Bemad. 2 1.5 1.7 2 0 0 0
F141.bile.29 5 4.9 4.8 5 0 0 0
F142.chemie2 4 4.2 4.8 5 0 1 1
F143.chemie3 4 3.4 3.8 4 1 0 0
F144.chemiel 4 2.5 2.4 3 1 2 1
F146.Amadeus 2 2.4 3.0 3 0 1 1
F15O.Iva.. 2 2.2 1.9 2 0 0 0
F152.Irena 2 2.0 1.6 2 0 0 0
F154.Clara 1 .6 .7 1 0 0 0
Total number of errors 14 IS 13
resolution) and Fig. 3 (correlation of levels of
average violin response with subjective sound
quality in the same frequency bands as in Fig. 2).
To solve the equation X*A=Y describing the
relationship between acoustic data and subjective
judgements we used firstly the Stepwise Multiple
Regression method. E.g., solution using only five
representative bands give rather high coefficient
I 5 10
" Bark
28
of multiple correlation r=0.852. The predicted
values of subjective ratings are shown in Table I,
column SMR.
Similar results gave application of Factor
Analyses (FA method of Principal Components
and Varimax rotation) on the same data.
In FA model is large number of variables
I 38 1/12 octave @
described by small number of factors. Each factor
represents group of highly correlating variables
(1112 octave bands). Predicting function was then
defined as a sum of object coordinates in factor
space weighted by correlation of factors with
quality.
FA computes all intercorrelations between
.I9 .?S .5 I 2 1 4 5 6 band levels, creates the factor space and estimates
Reqwncy response Je [k*l
the factor scores. The instruments represent cases.
Figure 2: Only narrow band description The factor scores were computed as sum of factor
represents well important peaks of frequency loadings weighted with levels in frequency bands
response. of individual violin. The predicting function was
then constructed as a sum of factor scores
weighted with corresponding correlation with
subjective quality ratings. E.g., solution for 5
factors gave correlation of predicted values with
subjectivejudgements r=0.827.
To verify reliability and precision of predicted
values, we repeated the learning phase 43 times,
r 1.1 &I-
81.
8 . l
01-
I - - I I I m
I
each time excluding one subjective rating of
instrument, which.had to be predicted. Subjective
I 5 I0
rating value was then compared with the predicted
l5 Bark value. The results are in Table I, columns SMR
and FA. The mean of both values gives a bit less
errors. It is worth to say that difference between
subjective rating and predicted value may be due
to erroneous value of median used to sum
subjectivejudgements.
Conclusions
1) Frequency response of a violin measured in the
described way contents crucial part of sound
quality information, which being extracted
predicts the perceived sound quality more reliable
than subjectivejudgements.
2) Radiated sound levels of a good instrument in 8
.I9 .B .5 I Z 3 4 5 6 fixed frequency bands (Table 11) should respect
lean response I [LC1 following rules:
Figure 3: Correlation between levels in 1/12
- first cavity resonance should be lower than 280
octave bands and subjective sound quality Hz,
follows well the excursions of mean
- the valley above 300 Hz shouldn't be very deep,
frequency response of 43 measured violins.
- otherwise should be levels in bands IlEl quite
Table 11:
Frequency bands where levels correlate positively with sound quality (inside these bands
should be high level without large peaks and gaps), frequency bands where levels correlate
negatively with sound quality (inside should be levels as small as possible without large
peaks) and correspondingfrequency bands of voice formants.
References
Dilnnwald, H. (1984): "Die Qualitiitsbestimmung von
Violinen mit Hilfe eines objektiven Verfahrens",
Dissertation, TU Aachen, 14-21.