Solo vs. duet in different virtual rooms: On the ... · Timo Fischinger, 1 Gunter Kreutz,2 &...
1
Timo Fischinger, 1 Gunter Kreutz, 2 & Pauline Larrouy-Maestri 3 1 Music Department, Max-Planck-Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt, Germany 2 Institute for Music, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany 3 Neuroscience Department, Max-Planck-Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt, Germany 14 th International Conference for Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC), San Francisco, CA (July 5-9, 2016) Address for correspondence: timo.fi[email protected] REFERENCES 1. Larrouy-Maestri, P., Lévêque, Y., Schön, D., Giovanni, A., & Morsomme, D. (2013). The evaluation of singing voice accuracy: A comparison between subjective and objective methods. Journal of Voice, 27(2), 259e1-e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice. 2. Larrouy-Maestri, P., Magis, D., & Morsomme, D. (2014). The evaluation of vocal accuracy: The case of operatic singing voices. Music Perception, 32(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1525/MP.2014.32.1.1 3. Fischinger, T., Frieler, K. & Louhivuori, J. (2015). Influence of Virtual Room Acoustics on Choir Singing. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 25 (3), 208-218. QUESTIONS What we know so far... …about solo singing: • Occasional singers: Two main criteria of pitch accuracy 1 • Operatic singers: Many criteria in interaction 2 …about ensemble singing: • Intonation is barely affected by simulated room acoustics • Tempo and timing precision gets affected when singing in comparatively reverberant virtual rooms 3 1. Are there any differences between singing “solo” vs. “canon” vs. “unisono” with regard to pitch and timing accuracy? 2. How do different simulated room acoustical conditions influence singing performances? 3. Are there any interactions between singing condition and acoustical feedback? METHODS • Three duets with female singers (N = 6) • Three different melodies • Separate recordings using Headset microphones • All trials under three different simulated room acoustical conditions Material • Recordings at the Communication Acoustic Simulator (CAS) • Three different simulated acoustical spaces: 1. No manipulation 2. Small room (RT = 1.47 s) 3. Church (RT = 4.21 s) RESULTS SUMMARY 1. Pitch and synchronization differ between singing conditions (Solo, Unisono, Canon): è YES Pitch accuracy was better in Solo and Unisono compared to Canon (Figure 1), while tonal adjustments between singers were better in Unisono compared to Canon (Figure 3). Synchronization was more accurate when singing Unisono compared to Canon (Figure 5). 2. Acoustical feedback has an influence on pitch and timing: è NO No influence of room acoustics on pitch (Figure 1, 2, 3) and timing (Figure 4, 5). 3. There is an interaction between singing conditions and room acoustical simulations: è NO No interaction between the different singing conditions and room acoustical simulations in highly trained singers. Solo vs. duet in different virtual rooms: On the consistency of singing quality across conditions Acoustic Simulation 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Solo Unisono Canon Timing consistency within singers Timing Pitch 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Unisono Canon Synchronization accuracy between singers No manipulation Small room Church 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Solo Unisono Canon Tonal deviation No manipulation Small room Church 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Solo Unisono Canon Interval deviation 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Unisono Canon Adjustment Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 3 Figure 2 Figure 1 Mean IOI deviation (in ms) Mean IOI deviation (in ms) Mean tonal deviation (in cent) Mean interval deviation (in cent) Mean adjustments (in cent) * * * * Participants & Procedure
Transcript of Solo vs. duet in different virtual rooms: On the ... · Timo Fischinger, 1 Gunter Kreutz,2 &...
Timo Fischinger,1 Gunter Kreutz,2 & Pauline Larrouy-Maestri3 !1Music Department, Max-Planck-Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt, Germany!2Institute for Music, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany!
3Neuroscience Department, Max-Planck-Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt, Germany!!
14th International Conference for Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC), San Francisco, CA (July 5-9, 2016)!!!Address for correspondence: [email protected]!
≈
REFERENCES!1. Larrouy-Maestri, P., Lévêque, Y., Schön, D., Giovanni, A., & Morsomme, D. (2013). The evaluation of singing
voice accuracy: A comparison between subjective and objective methods. Journal of Voice, 27(2), 259e1-e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.!
2. Larrouy-Maestri, P., Magis, D., & Morsomme, D. (2014). The evaluation of vocal accuracy: The case of operatic singing voices. Music Perception, 32(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1525/MP.2014.32.1.1!
3. Fischinger, T., Frieler, K. & Louhivuori, J. (2015). Influence of Virtual Room Acoustics on Choir Singing. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 25 (3), 208-218.!
QUESTIONS!What we know so far...! …about solo singing:!• Occasional singers: Two main criteria of pitch accuracy1!• Operatic singers: Many criteria in interaction2!
…about ensemble singing:!• Intonation is barely affected by simulated room acoustics!• Tempo and timing precision gets affected when singing in
comparatively reverberant virtual rooms3
1. Are there any differences between singing “solo” vs. “canon” vs. “unisono” with regard to pitch and timing accuracy?!
2. How do different simulated room acoustical conditions influence singing performances?!
3. Are there any interactions between singing condition and acoustical feedback?!
METHODS!
• Three duets with female singers (N = 6)!
• Three different melodies!• Separate recordings
using Headset microphones!
• All trials under three different simulated room acoustical conditions!
Material!
• Recordings at the Communication Acoustic Simulator (CAS) !
• Three different simulated acoustical spaces:!1. No manipulation!2. Small room (RT = 1.47 s)!
3. Church (RT = 4.21 s)!
RESULTS! SUMMARY!1. !Pitch and synchronization differ between
!singing conditions (Solo, Unisono, Canon):!!è YES!
Pitch accuracy was better in Solo and Unisono compared to Canon (Figure 1), while tonal adjustments between singers were better in Unisono compared to Canon (Figure 3). Synchronization was more accurate when singing Unisono compared to Canon (Figure 5).!
2. !Acoustical feedback has an influence !on pitch and timing:!!è NO!
No influence of room acoustics on pitch (Figure 1, 2, 3) and timing (Figure 4, 5).!
3. !There is an interaction between singing conditions !and room acoustical simulations:!!è NO!
No interaction between the different singing conditions and room acoustical simulations in highly trained singers.!!
Solo vs. duet in different virtual rooms: On the consistency of singing quality across conditions!
Acoustic Simulation!
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Solo Unisono Canon
Timing consistency within singers
Timing!Pitch!
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Unisono Canon
Synchronization accuracy between singers
No manipulation
Small room
Church
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Solo Unisono Canon
Tonal deviation
No manipulation
Small room
Church
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Solo Unisono Canon
Interval deviation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Unisono Canon
Adjustment
Figure 4!
Figure 5!Figure 3!Figure 2!
Figure 1!
Mea
n IO
I dev
iatio
n (in
ms)!
Mea
n IO
I dev
iatio
n (in
ms)!
Mea
n to
nal d
evia
tion
(in c
ent)!
Mea
n in
terv
al d
evia
tion
(in c
ent)!
Mea
n ad
just
men
ts (i
n ce
nt)!
*!*!
*!*!
Participants & Procedure!
