Samples for comparison with Concatinative methods

Introduction

We compare our results with two published result sets in the field of Concatenative Synthesis. [1] and [2] are a work comparing several flavors of musical mosaicing algorithms:

These methods take two inputs. In addition to the audio being converted, it also takes audio to use as source material to reconstruct the target audio from.


Converted Sample No. 1 [1]

Input

Concatenative Method Results

A1 (dp) A2 (mix) A3 (mp) A4 (near) A5 (tracks)

Autoencoder based Music Translation

For comparison, we converted the target audio to three domains using the network described in the paper. The following table shows our result.

Ours - String Quartet Ours - Solo Cello Ours - Wind Quintet

Converted Sample No. 2 [2]

Input

Concatenative Method Results

G1 (dp) G2 (mix) G3 (mp) G4 (near) G5 (tracks)

Autoencoder based Music Translation

For comparison, we converted the target audio to three domains using the network described in the paper. The following table shows our result as well as a sample from the target domain

Ours - Piano Ours - Solo Cello Ours - Wind Quintet

Converted Sample No. 3 [3]

For method [3], the source audio from which the target is reconstructed is a collection of 4 String Quartets by Schoenberg.

Input - Mahler, Ritenuto

Concatenative Method Results

Result

Autoencoder based Music Translation

For comparison, we converted the target audio using our String Quartets decoder, trained on String Quartets by Beethoven. We also provide the result of conversion to a Wind Quintet. The following table shows our result as well as a sample from the target domain

Ours - String Quartet Ours - Wind Quintet



[1] Samples taken from http://www.dtic.upf.edu/~gcoleman/dsounds/, sample A.

[2] Samples taken from http://www.dtic.upf.edu/~gcoleman/dsounds/, sample G.

[3] Samples taken from http://spectrum.mat.ucsb.edu/~b.sturm/CMJ2006/MATConcat.html, Mahler's crescendi.