MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134213242 · doi:10.1121/1.4812254

Wave separation in the trumpet under playing conditions and comparison with time domain finite difference simulation

2013· article· en· W2134213242 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jonathan Kemp, Stefan Bilbao, James H. McMaster, R. A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of St AndrewsMcMaster University
KeywordsAcousticsMicrophoneTime domainDomain (mathematical analysis)Frequency domainSeparation (statistics)Range (aeronautics)Quality (philosophy)Computer scienceFinite-difference time-domain methodTransfer functionSound pressureMechanicsPhysicsMaterials scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wave separation within a trumpet is presented using three high pressure microphones to measure pressure waves within the curved, constant cross-section tuning slide of the instrument while the instrument was being played by a virtuoso trumpet player. A closer inter-microphone spacing was possible in comparison to previous work through the use of time domain windowing on non-causal transfer functions and performing wave separation in the frequency domain. Time domain plots of the experimental wave separation were then compared to simulations using a physical model based on a time domain finite difference simulation of the trumpet bore coupled to a one mass, two degree of freedom lip model. The time domain and frequency spectra of the measured and synthesized sounds showed a similar profile, with the sound produced by the player showing broader spectral peaks in experimental data. Using a quality factor of 5 for the lip model was found to give greater agreement between the simulated and experimental starting transients in comparison to the values in the range 1-3 often assumed. Deviations in the spectral content and wave shape provide insights into the areas where future research may be directed in improving the accuracy of physical modeling synthesis.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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