Paper year
2017
Paper dossier
Perceptual Evaluation of Source Separation for RemixingMusic
Detail viewSimilarity handoff
Review source metadata, abstract, authors, topics, and local similarity context before moving into explanation and ranking views.
Citations
10
Authors
6
Topic labels
3
Source readout
Source and corpus status
Venue
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society
Source slug
jaes
Corpus placement
Core corpus
Similarity rows
6
Ranking readout
Where this paper lands in the current run
Run shadow-generalization-product-candidate-ranking-v1Top 50 surfaced
This block uses the same resolved ranking run as Recommended. Ranks here are materialized paper_scores ranks; live Emerging may be reordered by the bounded ML scorer. Family rank is global within each family, but rank is only shown when this paper lands inside the surfaced top 50.
Families present
0
Top 50
0
Run label
shadow-generalization-product-candidate-ranking-v1
Snapshot
source-snapshot-shadow-generalization-v1-20260521
Scope: family global | run rank-83787b91ef
Emerging
No materialized row for this family in the resolved run
This paper did not surface into the current materialized family row set.
Bridge
No materialized row for this family in the resolved run
This paper did not surface into the current materialized family row set.
Under-cited
No materialized row for this family in the resolved run
This paper did not surface into the current materialized family row set.
Abstract
Music remixing is difficult when the original multitrack recording is not available. One solution is to estimate the elements of a mixture using source separation. However, existing techniques suffer from imperfect separation and perceptible artifacts on single separated sources. To investigate their influence on a remix, five state-of-the-art source separation algorithms were used to remix six songs by increasing the level of the vocals. A listening test was conducted to assess the remixes in terms of loudness balance and sound quality. The results show that some source separation algorithms are able to increase the level of the vocals by up to 6 dB at the cost of introducing a small but perceptible degradation in sound quality.
Authors
Neighborhood labels
Topics
3 labels
Topic labels are imported metadata and can be noisy; use them as coarse navigation hints, not authoritative classifications.
Speech and Audio ProcessingMusic and Audio ProcessingBlind Source Separation Techniques
Neighbor surface
Similar papers
6 total neighborsEmbedding v1-title-abstract-1536-cleantext-r3
Similar papers use a separately configured neighbor embedding; it may differ from the embedding version used by the current ranked run.
- Music and Audio ProcessingSpeech and Audio ProcessingMusic Technology and Sound Studies
- Music and Audio ProcessingMusic Technology and Sound StudiesDiverse Musicological Studies
- Speech and Audio ProcessingAdvanced Data Compression TechniquesAdvanced Adaptive Filtering Techniques
- Music and Audio ProcessingMusic Technology and Sound StudiesAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Investigating the Perceptual Validity of Evaluation Metrics for Automatic Piano Music Transcription
0.559Music and Audio ProcessingMusic Technology and Sound StudiesSpeech and Audio Processing- Music and Audio ProcessingNeuroscience and Music PerceptionSpeech and Audio Processing
Next handoff
Best next moves from here
01
Check recommendation families
Use Recommended to see whether this paper behaves like an emerging or undercited signal in the current ranked feed, or how it appears on the bridge preview / diagnostics view.
02
Inspect nearby topics
Use Trends to understand whether its attached labels are heating up or cooling down inside the curated corpus.
03
Cross-check evaluation baselines
Use Evaluation to compare the dossier readout against citation and recency baselines for the same resolved family run.