2006
DOI: 10.1007/11679363_17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sparse Coding for Convolutive Blind Audio Source Separation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In an earlier preliminary investigation [33], we found that the objective SDR measures did not always correspond to our perceived quality of the separation. This difference may be due to the calculation of the objective criteria requires a reconstruction filter to be estimated, which is non-trivial for convolutive mixing or to distortions which are perceptually minor but which are not allowed for by the (linear, time-invariant) filter [34].…”
Section: Objective Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 53%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In an earlier preliminary investigation [33], we found that the objective SDR measures did not always correspond to our perceived quality of the separation. This difference may be due to the calculation of the objective criteria requires a reconstruction filter to be estimated, which is non-trivial for convolutive mixing or to distortions which are perceptually minor but which are not allowed for by the (linear, time-invariant) filter [34].…”
Section: Objective Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…For the DUET algorithm we used an STFT frame size of 1024 samples, which was found by Yilmaz and Rickard [11] to give the best separation performance at 16 kHz. For the proposed adaptive stereo basis algorithm, we used an adaptive basis frame size of 512 samples, to be consistent with preliminary experiments which indicated that this would be sufficient for separation at a 16 kHz sampling rate with reasonable room reverberation times [33]. Excerpts of the original mixture and source signals and of the estimated source signals are available for listening on our demo web page 2 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The key differences between different SCA techniques boil down to the method of clustering the components for mixing matrix estimation as well as mask construction or sparse recovery to achieve source separation (Jafari et al, 2006;Mourad and Reilly, 2010). Generalized to CASA, in many SCA approaches, a soft mask is applied thus the assumption that each spectro-temporal coefficient belongs to the same source is relaxed and the recovered speech does not suffer from the musical noise and missing components in their spectrographic representation (Araki et al, 2005;Kearns et al, 1997).…”
Section: Prior Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is often difficult to determine a relationship between a class of signals and a particular dictionary, especially for natural signals [6]. This has led researchers to look for learned, rather than fixed dictionaries, using techniques such as independent component analysis (ICA), as the underlying learning algorithm [2], [7], [8]. These methods, however, are computationally very expensive, and often require fairly large datasets in order to learn the dictionary bases.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%