MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977196825 · doi:10.1121/1.2932491

Virtual acoustic environments for music performance, rehearsal, and recording

2008· article· en· W1977196825 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wieslaw Woszczyk, Doyuen Ko, Tom Beghin, Martha de Francisco, Jeremy Tusz, Ryan Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLoudspeakerRendering (computer graphics)Performing artsAcousticsVirtual realityRoom acousticsComputer graphics (images)Human–computer interactionReverberationVisual artsArtPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comprehensive 24-channel sound field rendering system was built at McGill University's CIRMMT Centre to immerse scholar/performer Tom Beghin in virtual concert spaces where Haydn composed and performed his keyboard sonatas, or expected them to be performed. The virtual rooms were reconstructed from detailed measurements made in Haydn's historical rooms in Europe using a high-resolution 24 bit/96 kHz impulse-response measuring system. In an acoustically treated laboratory, 24 custom loudspeaker arrays were arranged on a surface of a hemisphere surrounding the performer. Multiple fast DSP engines convolved live signals with 24 impulse responses allowing the performer to rehearse and record in each room with low-latency virtual acoustics. This paper describes the details of system design, the method of measurement, and discusses various aspects of recording and performing in virtual acoustic environments. The method has also been tested in a large room during public performance by having virtual-room responses and high-definition photo images projected from the stage. Surround sound recordings of Haydn's complete solo keyboard music made in several virtual rooms and matched to specific historical instruments will be released in a collection of 13 commercial SA-CD's by the end of 2008.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicMusic Technology and Sound StudiesFrench-language works237,207