Control parameters of a generalized vibrato model with modulations of harmonics and residual
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our previous research focused on vibrato modeling of the harmonics of musical sounds. We demonstrated the need to account for fundamental frequency modulation, global amplitude modulation, but also spectral envelope modulation linked to brightness modulations. This may result from nonlinearities between the excitation signal and the resonating body, and/or from variable spectral sampling of the impedance function as F0 varies. For instance on flute, vibrato results from air pressure modulations. We also observed in sounds with vibrato of wind instruments that the residual also exhibits amplitude modulation, somehow due to air pressure modulations that are responsible vibrato. In a pilot listening test on shakuhashi sounds (for which the residual is obviously modulated), we asked participants to discriminate between the original modulated harmonics plus the amplitude modulated residual, and the original modulated harmonics plus a non-modulated residual, in a AB comparison task (same/different test). Preliminary results show that participants can hear the difference, suggesting that the amplitude modulation on the residual is audible. Subsequently, we developed a generalized vibrato model incorporating modulations on harmonics and residual. This model is presented here with an emphasis on its control parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".