3 ms·
I tried writing an program to do this ~10 years ago (I called it "Tweeter") using a system like Shazam. The problem is, Shazam can detect specific songs based o
by SavantIdiot 5y ago
I tried writing an program to do this ~10 years ago (I called it "Tweeter") using a system like Shazam. The problem is, Shazam can detect specific songs based on about a dozen different analysis points (found another use for poles and zeroes). But if the song is sped up or muffled, it differs too much from the source recording. Birdsongs are far more variable, even within the same species.
Ironically, at the time I discovered Cornell was doing this same thing, but it looks like they finally got to a product by throwing an ML classifier at it. Very cool, ML is perfectly suited for this.
The interesting thing I learned during my study was that there is an entire system of describing bird sounds with nonsense words ("skee-dlees chis chis chis") that goes back over a 100 years.
- hasmanean 5y agoIn the Anglo-Saxon world there’s always another system of describing things. The official system used Latin and Romantic language words (frequency modulation, intercourse, feces). It’s the jargon found in textbooks and research papers and taught in universities. The underground system uses Anglo Saxon words and is used by lab techs and people in the field (figuratively). Examples would be (tune, warbling, fuck, shit). One of these languages is considered respectable. The other is vulgar and suppressed to the point of cultural genocide. This is the way. It has been this way since feudal times.