Open Access

Automatic Music Boundary Detection Using Short Segmental Acoustic Similarity in a Music Piece

  • Yoshiaki Itoh1Email author,
  • Akira Iwabuchi1,
  • Kazunori Kojima1,
  • Masaaki Ishigame1,
  • Kazuyo Tanaka2 and
  • Shi-Wook Lee3
EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing20082008:480786

DOI: 10.1155/2008/480786

Received: 2 November 2007

Accepted: 27 May 2008

Published: 11 June 2008

Abstract

The present paper proposes a new approach for detecting music boundaries, such as the boundary between music pieces or the boundary between a music piece and a speech section for automatic segmentation of musical video data and retrieval of a designated music piece. The proposed approach is able to capture each music piece using acoustic similarity defined for short-term segments in the music piece. The short segmental acoustic similarity is obtained by means of a new algorithm called segmental continuous dynamic programming, or segmental CDP. The location of each music piece and its music boundaries are then identified by referring to multiple similar segments and their location information, avoiding oversegmentation within a music piece. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated for music boundary detection using actual music datasets. The present paper demonstrates that the proposed method enables accurate detection of music boundaries for both the evaluation data and a real broadcasted music program.

1. Introduction

Hard discs have recently come into widespread use, and the medium of the home video recorder is changing from sequential videotape to media such as random accessible hard discs or DVDs. Such media can store recording video data of great length (long-play video data) and play stored data at any location in the media immediately. In conjunction with the increasingly common use of such long-play video data, the demand for retrieval and summarization of data has been growing. In addition, detailed descriptions of the content associated with correct time information are not usually attached to the data, although topic titles can be obtained from electronic TV programs and attached to the data. Automatic extraction of each music piece is meaningful for the following reasons. Some users who enjoy watching music programs want to listen to the start of each music piece, omitting the conversations between music pieces, and other users want to view the speech conversational sections. Therefore, automatic detection of music boundaries between music pieces, or between a music piece and a speech section, is necessary for indexing or summarizing video data. In the present paper, a music piece refers to a song or a musical performance by an artist or a group, such as "Thriller" by Michael Jackson.

The present paper proposes a new method for identifying the location of each music piece and detecting the boundaries between music pieces avoiding oversegmentations within a music piece for automatic segmentation of video data. The proposed method employs an acoustic similarity of short-term segments in a music and speech stream. The similarity is obtained by means of segmental continuous dynamic programming, called segmental CDP. In segmental CDP, a set of video acoustic streaming data is divided into segments of fixed length, for example, 2 seconds. Continuous DP is performed on the subsequent acoustic data, and similar segments are obtained for each segment [1]. When segment A matches a subsequent segment, namely, segment B, segments A and B are similar and are considered to fall within the same music piece. However, different music pieces are expected to have few similar segments. Therefore, the location and the boundaries of a music piece is identified using the location and the frequency information between similar segments of fixed length. This approach is an extension of topic identification, as described in [2].

Some studies reported music retrieval applications in which the target music is identified by a query music section [3, 4]. A number of studies [49] have proposed methods for acoustic segmentation that is primarily based upon the similarity and dissimilarity of local feature vectors. The performance in these studies was evaluated based on the correct discrimination ratio of frames [79] and not on the correct discrimination ratio of music boundaries. Using these methods, music boundaries are difficult to detect when music pieces are played continuously as they are in usual music programs. Our preliminary experiments showed that the GMM, which is a typical method of discrimination between music and voice, could not detect music boundaries in continuous music pieces. Dynamic programming has already been used to follow the sequence of similar feature vectors and to detect boundaries between music and speech and between music pieces [10]. This type of methods is likely to detect unnecessary boundaries such as points of modulation and changes in musical instruments as described [10]. Vocal sections without instruments were also determined as boundaries in our preliminary experiments, and related studies have not been able to avoid oversegmentation within a music piece. The proposed method can capture the location of a music piece using acoustic similarity within the piece and avoid oversegmentation.

First, the present paper describes an approach for detecting music boundaries, with the goal of automatic segmentation of video data such as musical programs. The concept and the segmental CDP algorithm are then explained, along with the methodologies for identifying the music boundaries using similar segments that are extracted by segmental CDP. The feasibility of the proposed method is verified by experiments on music boundary detection using open music datasets supplied by the RWC project [11], and by applying the method to an actual broadcasted music program.

2. Proposed Approach

2.1. Outline of the Proposed System

Generally speaking, in music, especially in popular music, the same melody tends to be repeated, such that the first and second verses have the same melody but different words and the main melody is repeated several times. Each music piece is assumed to have acoustically similar sections within the music piece. The algorithm proposed in [1] can extract similar sections between two time-sequence datasets, or in a single time-sequence dataset. The method identifies similar sections of any length at any location strictly in a time-sequence dataset. Since such strict similar sections are not necessary to identify music boundaries, the approach described herein uses only similar segments of fixed length (e.g., 2 seconds) in a music piece. The proposed approach does not require prior knowledge or acoustical patterns for music pieces, which are usually stored in retrieval systems. The algorithm is improved to extract similar segments of fixed length. The improvement simplifies the algorithm and reduces the complexity of computation required to deal with large datasets such as long video data. There are few simple algorithms for extracting similar segment pairs between two time sequence datasets. Although the algorithms can deal with any type of time-sequence dataset, the following explanation involves a single acoustic dataset for ease of understanding.

Figure 1 shows the flowchart for music boundary detection. First, acoustic wave data is transformed into a time-sequence dataset of feature vectors. The time sequence of feature vector data is then divided into segments of fixed length, such as 2 seconds. In the present paper, the term "segment" stands for this segment of fixed length in the algorithm called segmental CDP because for each segment, continuous DP (CDP) is performed. The optimal path of each segment is searched on the subsequent acoustic data in order to obtain candidates of similar segment pairs. The details of the algorithm are described in Section 2.1. According to the results of segmental CDP, candidates for similar segment pairs are selected according to the matching score of segmental CDP. The similar segment pairs are used to determine music boundaries. Any segment between a pair of similar segments can be conside red to fall within the same music piece. This information is transformed into a histogram of the occurrence of similar segment pairs. Peaks in the histogram represent the location and the block of each music piece. The music boundaries are then determined by extracting both edges of the peaks. The details of determining music boundaries are described in Section 2.2.
Figure 1

Flowchart for music boundary detection.

2.2. Segmental CDP for Extracting Similar Segment Pairs

This section describes the algorithm of segmental CDP for extracting similar segment pairs from a time-sequence dataset. Segmental CDP was developed by improving the conventional CDP algorithm that efficiently searches for reference data of a fixed length in long input time-sequence data. CDP is a type of edge-free dynamic programming that was originally developed for keyword spotting in speech recognition. The reference data are composed of feature vector time-sequence data that are obtained from spoken keywords. CDP efficiently searches for the reference keyword in long-speech datasets.

The process of Segmental CDP is explained along with Figure 2. The horizontal axis represents an input of a feature vector time-sequence dataset. Segments that are composed from the same data are plotted on the vertical axis with the progress of input.
Figure 2

Segmental CDP and DP local restrictions.

First, segments are composed of the feature vector time-sequence data. Each segment has a fixed length ( frames). The first segment is composed of the first frames with the progress of input data, as shown by (I) in Figure 2. With the progress of frames, a new segment is composed of the newest input frames. As soon as the new segment is constructed, CDP is performed for the segment and all other previously constructed segments toward the subsequent data, as shown by (II) and (III) in Figure 2.

The optimal path is obtained for each segment at each time. When a segment matches an input segment , the segments are considered to be similar, as depicted by the black line in Figure 2. Section and segment constitute a similar segment pair.

Initially, corresponds to the current frame on the vertical axis in segment ; and corresponds to the current time on the horizontal axis. , and represent the frame number of a segment, the total number of segments, and the total number of input frames, respectively. The core algorithm of Segmental CDP is shown in Algorithm 1.

Algorithm 1: Core algorithm of segmental CDP.

LOOP : for each current time ,

LOOP : for each segments

LOOP : for each frame of segment

(a)  

(b)  

(c)  

(d)  

(e)  

End LOOP

at the last frame of segment

(f)  

(g)  

Segment and the th Segment are considered to be

candidates for a similar section pair.

End LOOP

End LOOP

After frames are input from the beginning, the first segment is generated and starts computing (a). After all frames are input, a new segment is generated and starts computation. Therefore, segments are generated in input time , discarding the remainder.

Equation (a) computes the local distance between the feature vectors of the frame of segment and the current input time . The cepstral distance or Euclidean distance, for example, can be used as the local distance.

The three terms of in (b) represent the cumulative distances from the three start points, as shown on the right side of Figure 2. An optimal path is determined according to (c). Here, unsymmetrical local restriction is used because the computation of (c) is simplified. When the symmetrical local restriction is used, as described in Figure 3, the number of additions for local distances is not the same for all three paths. As shown in Figure 3, the number of additions for local distances becomes eight when the upper path is always selected and four when the lower path is always selected. The number of additions for local distances must be counted and saved at all DP points, and the cumulative distance must be normalized by the number of additions when comparing three cumulative distances in (c). The unsymmetric al local restriction avoids these computations because the numbers of additions for local distances become the same for all three paths, as shown in Figure 3 by the number in parent heses, and it is sufficient to compare the three cumulative distances in (c). It is confirmed that the unsymmetrical local restriction has a performance comparable to that of the symmetrical local restriction.
Figure 3

Number of addition for local distances between the symmetrical and unsymmetric allocal restrictions.

The cumulative distance and the starting point are updated by (d) and (e), where denotes the start time of segment up to the th frame. Starting point information must be stored and must proceed along the optimal path in the same way as the cumulative distance.

Since is an important system parameter that affects the performance, the optimal number for is investigated experimentally.

The conditions of (f) indicate that the segment and the th segment are candidates for a similar section pair, because the total distance falls below the threshold value and the local minimum at the last frame of segment . Each segment saves the positions and the total distance of the candidates in accordance with the rank of the distance . Let the number of candidates that each segment saves be . As shown, the algorithm can be processed synchronously with input data.

Since a music piece does not usually continue for an hour, similar parts of a segment need not be searched in data occurring an hour after the segment. Therefore, the current part around time is not similar to segment , where is large. At LOOP of the algorithm of segmental CDP, the starting segment for CDP can be modified from 1 to . This modification leads to decreased searching space and computation time, as well as spurious similar segments.

2.3. Music Boundary Detection

2.3.1. Music Boundary Detection from Similar Segment Pairs

A section appearing between a similar segment pair likely falls within the same music. This section describes a method for detecting a music boundary from similar segment pairs extracted by segmental CDP. The proposed method uses a histogram that shows the same music probability and is composed of the four steps listed below. Here, denotes the number of total segments, as mentioned above.

  1. (i)

    Extract candidates of similar segment pairs by Segmental CDP.

     
  2. (ii)

    Among the candidates in (a), determine similar segment pairs by extracting pairs that are of higher rank in terms of total distance.

     
  3. (iii)

    Draw a line between the members of each similar segment pair determined in (b).

     
  4. (iv)

    Count the number (frequency) of passing lines on each segment and compose a histogram, as shown in Figure 3.

     

First, a sufficient number of candidates of similar segment pairs are extracted, as explained in the previous section. Second, similar segment pairs are selected until the number of candidates becomes according to the rank corresponding to the total distance of Segmental CDP. Third, after extracting similar segment pairs in (b) and plotting them on a time axis, a line is drawn between the members of each similar segment pair, as shown in Figure 3. Lines are drawn for all similar segment pairs. Finally, the number (frequency) of passing lines on each segment is counted, and a histogram is composed based on these numbers, as shown in Figure 3.

A peak is formed within the same music piece, because specific melodies are repeated in music and many parts within the music generate similar segments, as shown in Figure 3. The dips in the graph are taken as candidates for music boundaries when music pieces continue, and the flat low parts in the histogram are regarded as a voice section.

An overlap might occur between two similar segment pairs when their segments become longer from DP matching. When composing a histogram, the number of lines for an overlap segment becomes two, which does not significantly affect the histogram.

The time difference of a similar segment pair should be less than one hour, because music pieces usually do not exceed one hour. The search area can be restricted to a fixed length, such as 5 minutes. Such a restriction can reduce the number of incorrect similar segment pairs as well as the computation complexity of segment CDP. For example, the computation perplexity becomes less than 1/10 when restricted to 5 minutes for a 90-minute program.

Here, is a parameter that affects the performance, and the optimal number for is investigated in the following experiments.

2.3.2. Introduction of Dissimilarity Measure for Finding Feature Vector Changing Points

In this section, we introduce a dissimilarity measurement to demonstrate that the proposed method can extract the location of each music piece.

The starting and ending parts in a music piece are often unique and are not repeated within the music piece. As a result, the histogram depicted in Figure 3 is not generated around the starting and ending parts. The boundaries detected using similarity in a music piece tend to become the approximate location. Acoustic feature vectors are thought to be different at accurate music boundaries. Accurate music boundaries can be detected by a detailed analysis of the area around the points that are regarded as the music boundaries by the music boundary detection using similarity in a music piece. In order to find acoustically changing points of the feature vectors, we introduce a simple dissimilarity measurement expressing the discontinuity of the feature vectors, as follows:
(1)
(2)

where in (1) indicates the dissimilarity between the current frame vector at and the preceding vectors for frames. From the boundary at time that is obtained by the music boundary detection using similarity in a music piece, an acoustic changing point of the feature vectors is searched toward the outside of a music piece according to (2). The point of maximum dissimilarity of at is regarded as a new music boundary. Here, a cosine window is used to give a larger weight to the points that are nearer the first detected boundary at . In the following experiments, a cepstral distance is used for the distance between the frame vectors and the frame vectors. The parameters and were determined experimentally to be 10 seconds and 20 seconds, respectively.

3. Evaluation Experiments

3.1. Evaluation Data and Experimental Conditions

Experiments were performed to evaluate the performance of the proposed method for detecting music boundaries. The object data in these experiments are popular music data taken from the open RWC music database [11]. The database includes 100 popular music pieces. The total length of the music sets is 6 hours and 38 minutes. The average time is 3 minutes 58 seconds, and the longest and shortest times are 6' 32" and 2' 12," respectively.

First, silent parts, which are added before and after each music piece, are deleted because real-world video data usually have no boundary information for music. Two types of datasets were prepared. For the first dataset, a continuous music dataset was obtained by concatenating 100 music datasets. Silent parts between music pieces were not included in the dataset. This condition is considered to be strict for methods that consider the acoustic difference [46]. There were 99 boundaries for the continuous music dataset. For the second dataset, a music-voice mixed dataset, in which a one-minute speech was inserted between music pieces, was used as the continuous music dataset. Therefore, we inserted 99 speech sections that were taken from an open speech corpus of Japanese newspaper article sentences. There were 198 boundaries between voice sections and music sections.

The music data were sampled at 44.1 kHz in stereo and were quantized at 16 bits. A 20D mel-frequency cepstral coefficient [12] was used as a feature vector. Cepstral distance was used as the local distance in (a). The window size for analysis and the frame shift were both 46 milliseconds (2,048 samples).

This method employs two main parameters. The first is the segment length in segment CDP, and the second is the number of similar segment pairs in (b) of Section 2.3. We performed an experiment while varying the parameters and , as shown below:

(i)segment length: frames (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 seconds),

(ii)number of similar segment pairs: .

In the experiment, the search area for similar segment pairs was restricted to 5 minutes.

For evaluation measurement, we used precision rate, recall rate, and -measure, which are general measurements for retrieval tasks, as shown in the following equations:
(3)
(4)
(5)

3.2. Results and Discussion

3.2.1. Evaluation of System Parameters

Under the conditions mentioned above, experiments are conducted for the purpose of detecting music boundaries among 100 music pieces.

Figure 4 shows the representative results for the continuous music dataset, where the segment length is frames (1.0 s) and the number of similar segment pairs is . Figure 4 shows the frequency contour of similar segment pairs along a time axis, according to Section 2.3. Each vertical line in the figure represents the actual boundaries. We confirmed that dips in the graph appear near the music boundaries.
Figure 4

Composing a histogram expressing music piece locations.

  1. (1)

    Evaluation for Segment Length

     

Figure 5 shows the overall performance obtained by varying the segment length , where the precision rate and recall rate are used for measurement. The detected boundary is conside red to be correct if the boundary falls within 5 seconds of the actual boundary. The best performance is obtained under the condition shown in Figure 4 [ frames (1.0 s), ]. The point X on the line indicates that 80% of boundaries are correct (recall rate) when 112 boundary candidates are extracted (70% precision rate) by this method. The best -measure, defined as a harmonic average of the precision and recall rate, becomes 0.74.

The performance decreases when exceeds 2 seconds, as shown in Figure 5. The reason for this is assumed to be that correct similar segment pairs decrease and the peak shown in Figure 4 cannot be formed. Meanwhile, short segments cause performance deterioration, because of an increase in false matching between other music pieces. The best performance was obtained at a segment length of 1 second for the datasets.
Figure 5

Frequency contour of similar segment pairs along a time axis. Each vertical line in the figure represents actual boundaries.

  1. (2)

    Evaluation of The Number of Candidates

     
Figure 6 shows the overall performance for various numbers of candidates . The performance deteriorates when the number of candidates is small. The reason for this is assumed to be that the number of similar segment pairs is insufficient to form the correct peaks. Meanwhile, incorrect similar segment pairs are generated when the number is large. The best performance is obtained at the same number of segments, for the datasets.
Figure 6

Music boundary detection performance according to segment length ( in the figure).

  1. (3)

    Evaluation of Dp and Linear Matching

     
Figure 7 shows the results of linear matching compared to DP matching. Linear matching can be performed with a slight modification of the segment CDP algorithm, as described in Section 2.2. The DP restriction in Figure 1 is limited to the center path only, and (f) through (4) are computed at . The performance of linear matching is slightly better than that of DP matching. Since repeated sections of music in the experiments are not lengthened or shortened and are of approximately the same length, the peaks in the music sections are correctly formed in linear matching. The method using DP matching is expected to work well for speech datasets because nonlinear matching is necessary for speech data.
Figure 7

Music boundary detection performance according to the number of candidates and comparison with linear matching.

3.2.2. Evaluation of Voice-Music Mixed Dataset

Music boundary detection performance was evaluated for a voice-music mixed data set. Figure 8 shows the obtained results, where the segment length was frames (1.0 s) and the number of similar segment pairs was . The performance deteriorates for the mixed dataset, although peaks were formed, as shown in Figure 4. The performance deterioration occurred for the following reason. Since the beginning and end of a music piece tend to be similar, peaks were not formed at the beginning or end of music pieces. Since the peaks are formed in the frequency contour and the rough location of each music piece was identified by the method, a detailed detection method is required. We, hereby, introduce a simple detection method by finding acoustically changing points of the feature vectors. In the next section, this method is described briefly, and we confirm that the proposed method works well for music boundary detection from similarity in a music piece.
Figure 8

Music boundary detection performance comparison between DP matching and linear matching.

3.2.3. Evaluation of Introducing Dissimilarity Measure

Music boundary detection performance by introducing a dissimilarity measure for finding acoustically changing points was evaluated for both a voice-music mixed dataset and a continuous music dataset. Figure 9 shows the results of using dissimilarity of feature vectors for a voice-music mixed dataset. The performance for music boundary detection was greatly improved. Figure 10 also shows the results obtained using dissimilarity of feature vectors for a continuous music dataset. Again, the performance was also improved. These results indicate that the proposed method using similarity in music piece worked well for roughly identifying where each music piece is located in the acoustical dataset, and a detailed analysis around the detected boundaries is needed to obtain accurate boundaries.
Figure 9

Music boundary detection performance for a voice-music mixed dataset.

Figure 10

Comparison of music boundary detection performance for a continuous music dataset and a voice-music mixed dataset.

3.2.4. Evaluation of Correct Range of Music Boundaries

As mentioned at (a) in Section 3.2.1, the detected boundary is considered to be correct if the boundary falls within 5 seconds of the actual boundary. Since this criterion, referred to herein as the correct range, is thought not to be severe, we performed an experiment while varying the correct range. The results are shown in Figure 11, and the performance declined significantly. When the correct range is 2 seconds from an actual music boundary, the precision and the recall rates become less than 30%, and the system does not seem to be feasible. The reason for this is thought to be the same as that described in the previous section. Although the proposed method using similarity in music piece could roughly identify the location of each music piece, it is necessary to identify the music boundaries precisely.
Figure 11

Performance improvement by introducing dissimilarity measure for a voice-music mixed dataset.

Figure 12 shows the results when varying the correct range from 1 second to 5 seconds. The performance for music boundary detection did not deteriorate compared with that shown in Figure 11 because the accurate boundaries are identified by extracting the changing points of feature vectors. Figure 13 shows the music boundary detection performance according to the correct range for a continuous music dataset. The performance was also improved.
Figure 12

Performance improvement by introducing dissimilarity measure for a continuous music dataset.

Figure 13

Music boundary detection performance according to the correct range for a voice-music mixed dataset.

We obtained an -measure of 0.84 for a continuous music dataset and an -measure of 0.74 for a voice-music mixed dataset.

3.2.5. Experiment for an Actual Music Program

We applied the proposed method to an actual broadcasted music program, which was recorded by videotape, and converted the program into digital data on a computer. The data format and experimental conditions were the same as those described in Section 3.1 ( frames = 1 second, ). Figure 14 shows the obtained results. The horizontal axis and vertical axes indicate the input time and the frequency of passing lines, respectively. The graph shows the results for 15 minutes. The program consisted of three music pieces, and three peaks are formed for each music piece. There were no oversegmentation within music pieces. The section from segment 420 to segment 740 was flat, because the conversation continued during this section. The boundaries detected by the proposed method were located within 5 seconds of the actual boundaries. Thus, the results indicate that the proposed method works well for real-world music data.
Figure 14

Music boundary detection performance according to the correct range for a continuous music dataset.

Figure 15

Frequency contour of similar segment pairs for music pieces and speech datasets using an actual music television program.

3.2.6. Future Research

The method described in Section 3.2.3 using a dissimilarity measure is thought to be a nonoptimal method for finding feature vector changing points. Therefore, we sought an optimal method using Gaussian mixture models (GMM), a support vector machine, and so on. Throughout the experiments of the present study, the optimal parameters, such as and , were obtained for the closed datasets. Therefore, the robustness of the parameters must be evaluated using various types of datasets. For example, the tempos of each music piece are different, and a suitable value of is thought to exist for each tempo. A method is needed for adapting to each music piece according to its tempo and other parameters. The proposed algorithm deals with the monotonic similarity of a constant length of segments, and does not take into account the hierarchical structure of a music piece. A more elaborate algorithm should also be a topic of future studies to discuss hierarchical similarity in a music piece.

Music is not only based on "repetition," but also on "variation," such as in modulation and different verses that might deteriorate the performance of the algorithm. The present study focused on popular music that is most frequently broadcasted in TV programs. The algorithm should also be evaluated using other music genres such as jazz and lyrics in a future study. We have already quantified the proposed method using pseudomusic datasets, and the next step will be to apply it to real-world streaming data, such as the music program described in Section 3.2.5.

4. Conclusions

The present paper proposed a new approach for detecting music boundaries in a music stream dataset. The proposed method extracts similar segment pairs in a music piece by segmental continuous dynamic programming and can identify the location of each music piece according to the information of occurrence positions of the similar segment pairs. The music boundaries are then determined. Experimental results reveal that the proposed approach is a promising method for detecting music boundaries between music pieces, while avoiding oversegmentation within music pieces. An optimal method for finding the acoustic changing points using GMM, and so on, will be studied in the future. Better parameter sets (feature vector, number of frame shift, etc.) must be investigated for this purpose. Evaluation should be performed using other music genres and real-world stream data, such as video data, because the experiments of the present study examined only the popular music genre and speech corpus data.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) no. KAKENHI 1750073 and Iwate Prefectural Foundation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Faculty of Software and Information Science, Iwate Prefectural University
(2)
Institute of Library and Information Science, University of Tsukuba
(3)
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Agency of Industrial Science and Technology

References

  1. Itoh Y, Tanaka K: A matching algorithm between arbitrary sections of two speech data sets for speech retrieval. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP '01), May 2001, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 1: 593-596.Google Scholar
  2. Kiyama J, Itoh Y, Oka R: Automatic detection of topic boundaries and keywords in arbitrary speech using incremental reference interval-free continuous DP. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP '96), October 1996, Philadelphia, Pa, USA 3: 1946-1949.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Smith G, Murase H, Kashino K: Quick audio retrieval using active search. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP '98), May 1998, Seattler, Wash, USA 6: 3777-3780.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper M, Foote J: Automatic music summarization via similarity analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR '02), October 2002, Paris, France 81-85.Google Scholar
  5. Foote J: Automatic audio segmentation using a measure of audio novelty. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME '00), July-August 2000, New York, NY, USA 1: 452-455.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Allamanche E, Herre J, Hellmuth O, Kastner T, Ertel C: A multiple feature model for musical similarity retrieval. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR '03), October 2003, Baltimore, Md, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Carey MJ, Parris ES, Lloyd-Thomas H: A comparison of features for speech, music discrimination. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP '99), March 1999, Phoenix, Ariz, USA 1: 149-152.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. El-Maleh K, Klein M, Petrucci G, Kabal P: Speech/music discrimination for multimedia applications. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP '00), June 2000, Istanbul, Turkey 4: 2445-2448.Google Scholar
  9. Saunders J: Real-time discrimination of broadcast speech/music. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP '96), May 1996, Atlanta, Ga, USA 2: 993-996.Google Scholar
  10. Goodwin MM, Laroche J: A dynamic programming approach to audio segmentation and speech/music discrimination. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP '04), May 2004, Montreal, Canada 4: 309-312.Google Scholar
  11. Goto M, Hashiguchi H, Nishimura T, Oka R: RWC music database: popular, classical, and jazz music databases. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR '02), October 2002, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  12. Rabiner L, Juang BH: Fundamentals of Speech Recognition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Yoshiaki Itoh et al. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.