Any way to force a minimum # peaks/second? about audfprint HOT 1 OPEN

First, is there any way to force a higher sensitivity without requiring an
overall higher density? In other words, in the areas with lots of peaks (at
a density of 10 hashes/sec), I don't need any more in the dense areas, but I
would appreciate more peak detection in the lulls. Can I ask for a minimum
hashes/sec?

The way peak-picking works is to have a decaying threshold; only when
peaks poke through the threshold are they considered as landmarks (at
which point, the local threshold is raised to the level of this new
peak). "Density" simply modulates how quickly this threshold decays,
and hence how soon before another peak pokes through.

However, quiet stretches following loud stretches will, in general,
receive few landmarks. Turning up density will shorten this "dead
time". 10 hashes/sec is a low density, so you can't expect to have
anything like a comprehensive collection of peaks at that level.

Note also --pks-per-frame; at each time step, only the first few new
landmarks are recorded. The default value for this (5) typically
discards lots of landmarks. If you're trying to find something closer
to all the candidate landmarks, you'll want to increase this.

Finally, this is not the Shazam algorithm. It's my own
implementation that is informed by Avery Wang's paper describing the
Shazam technology, but in particular details such as exactly how peaks
are formed from the spectrogram, and how peak density is controlled
with --density and --pks-per-frame etc., will only resemble what
Shazam does by pure coincidence.

DAn.

Second, does Shazam et al ever left that long of a stretch go w/o recorded
peaks? My intuition playing with it is no, but I was surprised to encounter
such low peak detection.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

from audfprint.