Difference between revisions of "Talk:Audio Tempo Extraction"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I hope you don't mind if my questions sound naive, as I don't have much background on this topic: | I hope you don't mind if my questions sound naive, as I don't have much background on this topic: | ||
| − | 1. | + | 1. What is the audio format? (PCM, 16 bit ?) |
| − | 2. Does this task need any training data? Should the participants use their own training data? In that case, the annotation of the testing data should be of no controversy among participants. | + | 2. Could this situation get partially credit that the tempi are detected, but in a wrong order (detect secondary as primary, but primary as secondary)? |
| + | |||
| + | 3. Why does the integer multiple of the tempo matter? Why does it have to be test only if the primary or secondary tempo is correctly identified? My intuition is to identify integer multiple would be easier than to identify the exact tempo. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 4. Does this task need any training data? Should the participants use their own training data? In that case, the annotation of the testing data should be of no controversy among participants. | ||
Just my two cents, Thank you ! | Just my two cents, Thank you ! | ||
Revision as of 22:39, 20 February 2005
The proposal is very well written. Cool!
I hope you don't mind if my questions sound naive, as I don't have much background on this topic:
1. What is the audio format? (PCM, 16 bit ?)
2. Could this situation get partially credit that the tempi are detected, but in a wrong order (detect secondary as primary, but primary as secondary)?
3. Why does the integer multiple of the tempo matter? Why does it have to be test only if the primary or secondary tempo is correctly identified? My intuition is to identify integer multiple would be easier than to identify the exact tempo.
4. Does this task need any training data? Should the participants use their own training data? In that case, the annotation of the testing data should be of no controversy among participants.
Just my two cents, Thank you !
