Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2Speech and Audio ProcessingMusic and Audio ProcessingImage and Video Quality Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

An objective measure of quality for time-scale modification of audio

Open access
Roberts, Timothy, Paliwal, Kuldip K.·2021·The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Abstract

Objective evaluation of audio processed with time-scale modification (TSM) remains an open problem. Recently, a dataset of time-scaled audio with subjective quality labels was published and used to create an initial objective measure of quality (OMOQ). In this paper, an improved OMOQ for time-scaled audio is proposed. The measure uses handcrafted features and a fully connected network to predict subjective mean opinion scores (SMOS). Basic and advanced perceptual evaluation of audio quality features are used in addition to nine features specific to TSM artefacts. Six methods of alignment are explored with interpolation of the reference magnitude spectrum to the length of the test magnitude spectrum giving the best performance. The proposed measure achieves a mean root mean square error of 0.490 and a mean Pearson correlation of 0.864 to SMOS, equivalent to the 97th and 82nd percentiles of the subjective sessions, respectively. The proposed measure is used to evaluate TSM algorithms, finding that Elastique gives the highest objective quality for solo instrument and voice signals, whereas the identity phase-locking phase vocoder gives the highest objective quality for music signals and the best overall quality. The objective measure is available online at https://www.github.com/zygurt/TSM.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

The paper proposes an objective quality measure for time-scale modified audio using hand-crafted PEAQ and TSM-specific features with a fully connected neural network trained on a subjective dataset. It reports mean RMSE 0.487 and mean Pearson correlation 0.865, and uses the measure to rank TSM algorithms.

Key findings

  • The proposed measure achieved a mean RMSE of 0.487 and a mean Pearson correlation of 0.865, equivalent to the 98th and 82nd percentiles of subjective sessions respectively (abstract; Results states PCC 82nd and RMSE 98th).
  • Among six alignment methods, interpolation of the reference magnitude spectrum to the length of the test magnitude spectrum gave the best performance; including reference files improved results.
  • For TSM algorithm evaluation, the paper reports Elastique gives the highest objective quality for Solo instrument and voice signals, while the Identity Phase-Locking Phase Vocoder (IPL) gives the highest objective quality for music signals and the best overall quality.
  • Table II overall mean OMOS: IPL 3.717, Driedger’s IPL 3.710, Elastique 3.694; for music IPL 3.810 and Elastique 3.691; for voice Elastique 3.617 and IPL 3.568; for solo Driedger’s IPL 3.833 and Elastique 3.773, which differs from the abstract/conclusion statement that Elastique is highest for solo.

Methods

  • Dataset: training subset of 5,280 processed files from 88 reference files at 10 ratios using six TSM methods; testing subset of 240 files from 20 reference files using three additional methods; evaluation subset of 5,200 files (400 per method) at 20 ratios in 0.22 < β < 2.2. Subjective labels came from 42,529 ratings by 263 participants in 633 sessions, with a minimum of 7 ratings per file.
  • Features: PEAQ Basic and Advanced MOVs plus nine TSM-specific features (phasiness, spectral similarity, transient, etc.); features were pruned if Pearson correlation between same-type features exceeded approximately 0.95, normalized to [0,1], and trained to normalized SMOS.
  • Network: fully connected network with three hidden layers of 128 nodes, layer normalization, ReLU activation, residual connections around the second and third layers, and sigmoid output; trained for 800 epochs (extended if still improving), single batch, RMSE loss, AdamW, learning rate 1e-4, 10% validation, seeds 0–99; final alignment used interpolation to test including reference files.

Limitations

  • Stated: future research includes evaluating a wider range of commercial and lesser-known TSM methods, comparing different implementations of the same method, and exploring alternative/deeper neural networks; initial testing gave ρte of 0.71 for a random forest and 0.65 for a CNN with blind data-driven features.
  • Evident from text: the method assumes a constant time-scale ratio and single-channel audio; PEAQ assumes 48 kHz while the dataset uses 44.1 kHz; evaluation averages exclude β = 1 and β < 0.25; some TSM method results are noisy and were smoothed; the solo-signal ranking in the abstract/conclusion conflicts with the Results text and Table II.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1121/10.0003753

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

FIG. 1 [Color Online] Phasiness features as functions of SMOS and TSM Ratio. Mean/Standard Deviation Phasiness No/Magnitude Weighting ([M/S]Ph[N/M]W).
FIG. 1 [Color Online] Phasiness features as functions of SMOS and TSM Ratio. Mean/Standard Deviation Phasiness No/Magnitude Weighting ([M/S]Ph[N/M]W).CC-BY · From the PDF
FIG. 2 [Color Online] Spectral similarity features as functions of SMOS and TSM Ratio.
FIG. 2 [Color Online] Spectral similarity features as functions of SMOS and TSM Ratio.CC-BY · From the PDF
FIG. 3 [Color Online] Transient features as functions of SMOS and TSM Ratio.
FIG. 3 [Color Online] Transient features as functions of SMOS and TSM Ratio.CC-BY · From the PDF
FIG. 4 Neural network of proposed measure. Numbers denote layer nodes, FC is a Fully Connected layer, LN is Layer Normalization, ReLU activation function and σ denotes a sigmoid activation layer.
FIG. 4 Neural network of proposed measure. Numbers denote layer nodes, FC is a Fully Connected layer, LN is Layer Normalization, ReLU activation function and σ denotes a sigmoid activation layer.CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 5
CC-BY · From the PDF
FIG. 6 Box plot of best distance measure for each seed and training configuration ordered by median D . PEAQB NN uses original PEAQ network, all others use the network described in section II D. Lower is better, less spread means less reliance on initial seed.
FIG. 6 Box plot of best distance measure for each seed and training configuration ordered by median D . PEAQB NN uses original PEAQ network, all others use the network described in section II D. Lower is better, less spread means less reliance on initial seed.CC-BY · From the PDF
FIG. 7 [Color Online] Mean OMOS for each TSM method as a function of β for: (a) Musical signals, (b) Solo signals, (c) Voice signals and (d) All signals combined.
FIG. 7 [Color Online] Mean OMOS for each TSM method as a function of β for: (a) Musical signals, (b) Solo signals, (c) Voice signals and (d) All signals combined.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 1 Not valid · 16 Not checked · 49 Own results and interpretations

15 more claims

Create a free account to see all 66 claims and to verify the 11 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 33
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15

Create a free account to see these claims.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 2

Metadata

Authors
Roberts, T., & Paliwal, K. K.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Venue
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
Published
2021-03-01
Volume
149
Issue
3
Pages
1843-1854
ISSN
  • 0001-4966 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8524
OpenAlex
W3035738007
Cited by
2
References
21
Citations by year
2021: 1
FWCI
0.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Music and Audio Processing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
Keywords
time-scale modification, objective quality metrics, audio quality assessment, handcrafted features, fully connected networks, music signals
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Music

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.