Frequency Content Of Breath Pressure And Implications For Use In Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The breath pressure signal applied to wind music instruments is generally considered to be a slowly varying function of time. In a context of music control, this assumptionimplies that a relatively low digital sample rate (100-200Hz) is sufficient to capture and/or reproduce this signal.We tested this assumption by evaluating the frequency content in breath pressure, particularly during the use of extended performance techniques such as growling, humming,and flutter tonguing. Our results indicate frequency contentin a breath pressure signal up to about 10 kHz, with especially significant energy within the first 1000 Hz. We furtherinvestigated the frequency response of several commerciallyavailable pressure sensors to assess their responsiveness tohigher frequency breath signals. Though results were mixed,some devices were found capable of sensing frequencies upto at least 1.5 kHz. Finally, similar measurements were conducted with Yamaha WX11 and WX5 wind controllers andresults suggest that their breath pressure outputs are sampled at about 320 Hz and 280 Hz, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".