3 ms·

Probably not (yet). Music has the added complexity of being smeared across time, which I think will be a lot harder to crack. It would be fun though, to pass

by s_kilk 10y ago

Probably not (yet). Music has the added complexity of being smeared across time, which I think will be a lot harder to crack. It would be fun though, to pass a Garth Brookes track through a Deathspell Omega filter.

amelius 10y ago
> Music has the added complexity of being smeared across time But images are smeared across space in two dimensions. That's one dimension more than music.
- hrnnnnnn 10y ago
  Sound has at least two dimensions: time and amplitude.
  - pygy_ 10y ago
    Amplitude as a function of time. Images have (r,g,b) as a function of (x,y). Edit: or (h,s,v), or however you slice the color 3d space.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Music has different amplitude and frequency at every sample, which is also two dimensions, no?
  - cbr 10y ago
    Sound just has an amplitude at every sample, but this is too low level to be very useful. Instead you would probably make a net process the same kind of features a human has, which is a list of frequencies at each sample, each with an amplitude. (In humans we have oscillating hairs that perform an analog frequency extraction, while with computers you'd use a fourier transform to do it mathematically.)
- pierrec 10y ago
  Yes, and I'll try to make it more explicit for people saying that sound is also two-dimensional. Before any analysis, sound is one-dimensional, that is unless you count stereo channels to represent an additional dimension, but then it equally makes sense to represent colors as an additional dimension in images. Frequencies appear when you do a Fourier transform - but this transform is equally applicable to images as it is to sound, so again images stay at least one dimension ahead of sound. So it appears that dimensionality is just not a good way of explaining the difficulty here. I'd say the neural style technique was developed specifically for images, and it's becoming apparent that we can't simply apply it to sound and get good results. Maybe by working something similar from the ground up.

by s_kilk 10y ago

amelius 10y ago

> Music has the added complexity of being smeared across time But images are smeared across space in two dimensions. That's one dimension more than music.

hrnnnnnn 10y ago
Sound has at least two dimensions: time and amplitude.
- pygy_ 10y ago
  Amplitude as a function of time. Images have (r,g,b) as a function of (x,y). Edit: or (h,s,v), or however you slice the color 3d space.
coldtea 10y ago
Music has different amplitude and frequency at every sample, which is also two dimensions, no?
- cbr 10y ago
  Sound just has an amplitude at every sample, but this is too low level to be very useful. Instead you would probably make a net process the same kind of features a human has, which is a list of frequencies at each sample, each with an amplitude. (In humans we have oscillating hairs that perform an analog frequency extraction, while with computers you'd use a fourier transform to do it mathematically.)
pierrec 10y ago
Yes, and I'll try to make it more explicit for people saying that sound is also two-dimensional. Before any analysis, sound is one-dimensional, that is unless you count stereo channels to represent an additional dimension, but then it equally makes sense to represent colors as an additional dimension in images. Frequencies appear when you do a Fourier transform - but this transform is equally applicable to images as it is to sound, so again images stay at least one dimension ahead of sound. So it appears that dimensionality is just not a good way of explaining the difficulty here. I'd say the neural style technique was developed specifically for images, and it's becoming apparent that we can't simply apply it to sound and get good results. Maybe by working something similar from the ground up.