LPC-Spectral convolutional variational autoencoder for violin sound mechanism analysis


Abstract

As one of the most expressive string instruments, the violin's complex sound-production mechanism and rich timbre variations have posed research challenges in the field of musical instrument acoustic modeling. Existing physical modeling methods struggle to capture the nonlinear characteristics of bow-string interactions. To this end, a digital modeling method for violin sound mechanisms was proposed based on LPC-Spectral Convolution-VAE. First, a multidimensional acoustic feature extraction method was designed that fuses LPC and spectral convolution, capturing formant structure and vocal tract characteristics via LPC analysis, combined with multi-scale spectral convolutional networks to learn harmonic distributions and spectral textures. Second, a VAE network-based bow-string interaction dynamic modeling mechanism was proposed to establish probabilistic mapping from performance control to acoustic features through variational inference, achieving natural and diverse timbre generation. Finally, an LPC-Spectral Convolution-VAE modeling framework was constructed to implement a complete process from feature extraction and interaction modeling to audio reconstruction. Experiments on the URMP and ViolinSet datasets show that our method outperforms existing methods in spectral distortion, timbre similarity, and performance expressiveness metrics, reducing spectral distortion by 13.6% compared to the best baseline method to 4.78±0.54 dB and improving timbre similarity to 0.921±0.026, thereby generating realistic violin timbres.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].