Comprehensive coverage

Scientists have managed to shrink a music file to one thousandth of its MP3 size

The music file contains a clarinet solo playing for 20 seconds and is encoded in less than XNUMX kilobyte. The invention was made possible thanks to two important innovations: the creation of a simulation that simulates a real clarinet on the computer and a simulation of the clarinet player himself

German clarinet. From Wikipedia
German clarinet. From Wikipedia

Researchers at the University of Rochester have managed to create digital music in a file a thousand times smaller than a standard MP3 file. The music file contains a clarinet solo playing for 20 seconds and is encoded in less than XNUMX kilobyte. The invention was made possible thanks to two important innovations: the creation of a simulation that simulates a real clarinet on the computer and a simulation of the clarinet player himself.

The researchers announced the new achievement at the International Conference on Signal Processing and Acoustics held in Las Vegas. It is not yet a complete reconstruction of the original clarinet performance, but the researchers say that they are getting close to it.

"This is actually the way humans create music," says Mark Bocco, professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-creator of the new technology. "There should be no need to measure the music thousands of times per second, as we do with CDs. People can't manipulate their tongue, fingers and breaths that fast."

When the computer plays the music according to the new file, it practically reproduces the original performance, based on everything it knows about clarinets and playing clarinets. Two Boko doctoral students, Xiao-Xiao Dong and Mark Sterling, measured and estimated the different ways in which the sound of the clarinet changes - starting with the pressure exerted on the barrel of the instrument when playing the various notes and ending with the way the sound propagates from the instrument. They then created a computer model of the clarinet. The result is a virtual musical instrument based entirely on acoustic measurements from the real world.

After the researchers created the virtual clarinet, they went on to create the virtual player. They simulated the way the clarinet player manipulates the instrument, including the position of the fingers, the force of the blow and the pressure exerted by the lips in order to determine how the virtual clarinet would respond to all of these. Now, Bocco says, the computer simply needs to 'listen' to a real clarinet performance to decode and record the various actions needed to create a certain sound. In order to reproduce the original sound, the computer feeds the list of actions it recorded to the computerized model of the clarinet player. The result is a very close reproduction, even if not perfect yet, of the original sound.

"We are still trying to integrate the way the tongue works, to understand, for example, how the player hits his tongue on the mouth of the clarinet in order to play notes in staccato [separately from each other, R.C.]," says Bocco, "but in music with long notes More that merge into each other, the method works well and it is difficult to distinguish between the computerized sound and the original."

The current method is only able to handle one musical instrument, but other researchers at the University of Rochester's Music Research Laboratory managed to find a method capable of distinguishing between the sounds of several instruments played together. A combination of the two methods may lead to a new way in which we can record and play music, with a minimal amount of saved information.

The researchers believe that when the method is perfected it may give computer technicians more intuitive ways to create music, by including the actions of virtual musicians in computerized synthesizers. Boko claims that in principle the method can be generalized for human voices as well. The models that simulated the human vocal cords and airways are indeed extremely complicated, but if he is right, in a few years we may hear new singers on the radio, who will be completely computerized. Any computer freak will be able to be proud of Pavarotti's rich vocal cords, with the right software to download (with a full license, of course) from the net. The most complicated operatic works will be transferred into the computer and will receive new touches. And all this, of course, with a minimal amount of memory kept on the computer. As Bocco says, "I think we've found the method that requires the least amount of information possible to play a piece of music."

And we can only wonder - will the day really come when we hear Baba-Luba and Om-Kol-Tom singing the duet from 'Phantom of the Opera' to each other? And is it really worth looking forward to such a day?

The answers, as usual, will only be found in the future.

Source (with the audio samples of the original piece of music and its recording using the new method) :

12 תגובות

  1. The computerized version sounds better than the original version(!)
    (It is more "accurate").

  2. H. the first one:
    What I said is true and accurate.
    I repeat - it is not possible to compress a random collection of bits (if each combination of bits is of equal probability) at all. clear and smooth.
    This can be proved mathematically.

  3. And one more thing.. nothing to do with shrinking..
    Michael said "it is absolutely impossible to compress a completely random collection of bits even theoretically" and this is true but not exact.. It is possible to compress up to a certain limit (which can be very close to the original size) but that's where it ends. ZIP is a good example of this.

    There is no shrinking here, but saving information in a certain format about {notes, exhalation strength and exhalation time}.
    And from prior knowledge (!!!!!!!!!!) that this is a clarinet and this data, the software translates the data into sounds.

    If a guitar were also inserted, the file would already need a more "fat" format because the software cannot know, for example, if the note in the file is supposed to be a guitar note or a clarinet note. Maybe the guitar also has characteristics that the clarinet doesn't and vice versa..

    In short, they invented a reliable and stable format for a clarinet file!
    Nothing was compressed. It's sugar. to your face 😉

  4. An excellent idea and it should have been done in the 90s - it's not that complicated (given a number of music experts and a few programmers).
    It is also possible to build mathematical models that will show the "imposition" of the music into three-dimensional forms in real time (using matlab or a similar tool), which will enhance the understanding and enjoyment of music.

    And let's get to work, there is another musical instrument for sale, and when there is a "musical instrument package" for sale, musicians will finally be able to do what they really want without the need for a band and huge unnecessary financial expenses 🙂

  5. 6:
    Your disdain is misplaced.
    All compression methods are designed to compress non-random material because it is absolutely impossible to compress a completely random collection of bits even theoretically.
    That's why programs that compress an image make certain assumptions about the world and programs that compress text make other assumptions.
    It seems to me that speech and music compression tools are much more interesting to most people than swelling compression tools and it is likely that the dictionary that will be developed will contain a very limited number of interesting things and a general concept of "everything else" that will be transmitted without compression or with a more primitive compression.

  6. And of course the intestine that blows air through it
    This way it will be possible to record a 20-second puff for less than one kilobyte!

    Then there is the sound of a car engine, the wingspan of a white-breasted albatross and hundreds of millions of other sound sources. Indeed a very economical method. They just forgot to mention that the size of the "dictionary" will be approximately several tens of gigabytes

  7. The difference between this and midi is in the way of recording, the difficulty is to identify the sounds played.

  8. It's not really different from the principle of MIDI
    Instead of letting the computer play recorded music, you give it the notes so that it "plays" through the simulation of an instrument (when MIDI means organ)

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.