Análise acústica da voz: comparação entre dois tipos de microfones

Abstract

RESUMO Objetivo Comparar os valores das medidas acústicas da voz, extraídas de gravações vocais realizadas com dois tipos de microfones. Métodos Participaram da pesquisa 103 pessoas do sexo feminino, com idades entre 18 e 54 anos. Foram coletadas amostras da vogal sustentada /e/, captadas por dois microfones, simultaneamente: Shure SM58 e Karsect HT-9. Foi realizada a análise acústica das vozes, com a extração de valores de frequência fundamental (F0), variação da frequência (Jitter) e variação de amplitude dos segmentos fundamentais da voz (Shimmer) e proporção Glottal to Noise Excitation (GNE). Resultados Houve diferenças entre os microfones apenas na medida de Shimmer, com predomínio de valores mais altos captados pelo Karsect HT-9. Porém, os resultados de ambos os microfones estiveram dentro dos padrões de normalidade do software utilizado. Conclusão Os resultados da análise acústica extraídos a partir da gravação de voz realizada com os microfones Shure SM58 e Karsect HT-9 foram semelhantes, concluindo-se que ambos os microfones podem ser utilizados para gravação do sinal sonoro na análise acústica.

Mobile microphone robust acoustic feature identification using coefficient of variance

“…However, they were cautious about generalizing the results due to the limited number of microphones tested. Similar to the previous studies, Krik et al (2019) performed analysis on recordings from two different microphones using f 0 , jitter, shimmer and Glottal Noise Excitation ratio on sustained vowel. They extracted the descriptive statistics and compared them between the two microphones.…”

“…We decided to gather additional acoustic measurements related to sustained vowel considering that the previous literature (Kisenwether & Sataloff, 2015;Krik et al, 2019;Parsa et al, 2001), studied these features in their experiments. In another session, approximately six seconds of sustained vowel /a/ were recorded following the previous methods on five mobile phone devices (device ID B1-B5) listed in Table 1 from five participants.…”

Voice analytics in the wild: Validity and predictive accuracy of common audio-recording devices

“…In the case of reliably capturing audio data, various factors can influence the captured vocal signal, its analysis, and the inferred conclusions. Such factors include environmental conditions (e.g., background noise) (Lefever et al, 2007), placement of the audio-recording device relative to the source (Mubeen et al, 2012), and even the audio-recording device itself (Krik et al, 2019;Parsa & Jamieson, 2001). Prior work on the role of different commercial devices in capturing reliable audio data has focused to a large extent on voice recordings via smartphone devices for clinical purposes and with limited voice samples (see Table 1).…”

“…To capture accurate and consistent audio signals, the recording conditions play a pivotal role (Krik et al, 2019). Factors such as the environment (e.g., background noise) (Parsa & Jamieson, 2001) and placement (e.g., distance) of the audio-recording device (Titze & Winholtz, 1993) directly affect the captured audio signal.…”

“…Prior research has attempted to evaluate the recording performance of different microphones and recommends the usage of a high-quality microphone with high impedance, a flat frequency response, and a broad frequency range (20-20,000 Hz) (Krik et al, 2019). Nevertheless, participants in crowdsourced online experiments do not have the luxury of owning a piece of high-end recording equipment, and thus the majority of study participants use consumer-grade audio-recording devices during experiments.…”