MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1964895242 · doi:10.1121/1.2932920

Effects of Low-frequency Absorption on Perceived Tightness of Bass Imagery in Music Reproduction

2008· article· en· W1964895242 on OpenAlexaffabout
William L. Martens

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBass (fish)LoudspeakerHeadphonesBinaural recordingAcousticsPerceptionPsychoacousticsComputer sciencePsychologyPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to enable unbiased observation of the effects of low-frequency absorption on auditory imagery associated with multichannel loudspeaker reproduction, binaural recordings were made of surround sound program material that was reproduced over full-range loudspeakers located in a room that was specially constructed to allow for variation in low-frequency acoustical treatment. These recordings were then presented via headphones to allow for double-blind comparison of the variation in auditory imagery associated with selected changes in room acoustics while holding listener and loudspeaker locations constant. Several perceptual attributes were examined, but the listeners were able to make the most clear distinctions between auditory spatial images in terms of the attribute identified as the "perceived tightness of bass imagery." Analysis of the signals presented to the listeners' ears in these binaurally-reproduced multichannel music samples showed that the tightest bass imagery was associated with high values of interaural coherence, with lower values producing more "muddy" bass imagery. [Work supported by Canada Foundation for Innovation.]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→