Difference between revisions of "2005:Audio Key Finding Results"
From MIREX Wiki
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | '''Goal:''' The evaluation of key finding algorithms applied to audio sound files | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''Dataset:''' 1,252 audio files synthesized from MIDI Note: There is a close relationship (same musical datasets) between this contest and the Symbolic Key Finding contest. Here is a link to the Symbolic Key Finding results. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Two databases used: Winamp synthesized audio (w) and Timidity with Fusion soundfonts synthesized audio (t). Each database is approximately 3.1 gigabytes for a total of 6.2 gigabytes of audio files. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The composite score is calculated by averaging the Winamp and Timidity scores. | ||
+ | <br> | ||
+ | |||
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" | {| border="1" cellspacing="0" | ||
|- style="background: yellow;" | |- style="background: yellow;" |
Revision as of 17:13, 29 July 2010
Goal: The evaluation of key finding algorithms applied to audio sound files
Dataset: 1,252 audio files synthesized from MIDI Note: There is a close relationship (same musical datasets) between this contest and the Symbolic Key Finding contest. Here is a link to the Symbolic Key Finding results.
Two databases used: Winamp synthesized audio (w) and Timidity with Fusion soundfonts synthesized audio (t). Each database is approximately 3.1 gigabytes for a total of 6.2 gigabytes of audio files.
The composite score is calculated by averaging the Winamp and Timidity scores.
Rank | Participant | Composite Percentage Score | Total Score | Percentage Score | Correct Keys | Perfect 5th Errors | Relative Major/Minor Errors | Parallel Major/Minor Errors | Other Errors | Runtime (s) | Machine | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
w | t | w | t | w | t | w | t | w | t | w | t | w | t | w | t | ||||
1 | Izmirli, Ö. | 89.55% | 1188.8 | 1122.9 | 89.4% | 89.7% | 1086 | 1089 | 36 | 42 | 38 | 31 | 17 | 18 | 75 | 72 | 15284 | 16354 | Y |
2 | Purwins & Blankertz | 89.00% | 1122.4 | 1106.5 | 89.6% | 88.4% | 1090 | 1060 | 44 | 72 | 24 | 21 | 16 | 21 | 78 | 78 | 45003 | 44232 | R |
3 | Gómez, E. (start) | 86.05% | 1081.9 | 1072.9 | 86.4% | 85.7% | 1048 | 1034 | 35 | 44 | 38 | 43 | 25 | 20 | 106 | 111 | 1560 | 1531 | B 0 |
4 | Gómez, E. (global) | 85.90% | 1076.1 | 1073.8 | 86.0% | 85.8% | 1019 | 1015 | 69 | 73 | 62 | 59 | 20 | 23 | 82 | 82 | 2041 | 1971 | B 0 |
5 | Pauws, S. | 85.00% | 1055.1 | 1072.8 | 84.3% | 85.7% | 1019 | 1034 | 20 | 23 | 67 | 69 | 30 | 33 | 116 | 93 | 503 | 507 | G |
6 | Zhu, Y. | 83.25% | 1066.2 | 1017.7 | 85.2% | 81.3% | 1034 | 964 | 38 | 66 | 28 | 47 | 24 | 33 | 128 | 142 | 25233 | 24039 | Y |
7 | Chuan & Chew | 79.10% | 1002.3 | 977.3 | 80.1% | 78.1% | 937 | 905 | 83 | 95 | 66 | 68 | 20 | 22 | 146 | 162 | 3299 | 3468 | R |