1

While analysing pitches with Praat, I'm often faced with the problem, which is, I must modify the F0 data manually since there are always some octave up points or other points which is impossible to be there, as well as some impossible silence.

However this kind of modification seems to be casual, therefore I wonder if there are any operation standards for me to guide the modification so as to make this kind of operation more rigorous and scientific.

UPDATE: I'm sorry for my poor description, and there are some pictures: Condition A & B Condition C & D There are four common conditions which I always met:

  • Condition A & D are the impossibly high or low F0 points.
  • Condition C is a short series of F0 points which should be there but are treated as silence by the Praat algorithm.
  • Condition B is more complicate, which is, there isn't a falling part at the end of the syllable in terms of transcription and my own perception, but there is according to Praat (therefore I don't know if I should delete this part or leave it there). I know the falling part at the end of a syllable as well as the rising part at the start may be account of the physiological reason and always can't be noticed by the hearers, but I don't know if I should hold these kind of features in the picture of my report.

    I don't know how to treat these kind of conditions. Maybe I should ignore the bad-condition syllables but these conditions are common. To modify them manually is just, however, not of science, I think.

  • Are you asking about parameters that affect the analysis, or about resynthesis given F0 values? – user6726 Oct 6 at 14:21
  • @user6726 I'm sorry for my poor description and I've updated my description with pictures and details (I should have done this earlier). – C.K. Oct 6 at 15:48
  • You can manipulate the settings in order to het a better result. Here is the parameters that you can change: sail.usc.edu/~lgoldste/General_Phonetics/Tone/Measurement/… – amegnunsen Oct 6 at 17:03
  • @amegnunsen Very much thanks. Changing these parameters makes things better. But it's still not perfect especially in terms of the occurances of Condition B & C. On the one hand, the Condition B remains, that is, the voiceless gap in the middle of one syllable still there no matter what kind of params I use; on the other hand, I still have no idea how to deal with Condition B. – C.K. Oct 7 at 14:51
  • 1
    @amegnunsen Perfect! Very much thanks to you! Use a more narrow band meanwhile increase the Voiced / unvoiced cost parameter, and all those annoying gaps disappear. As for condition B, I'm agree with you and just leave it there! BTW, why don't you put your comments in an answer therefore I can accept it. – C.K. Oct 8 at 2:10
1

You can manipulate the settings in order to get a better result. Here is the parameters that you can change: https://sail.usc.edu/~lgoldste/General_Phonetics/Tone/Measurement/Pitch_parameters.html

Furthermore, for condition C, maybe, by using a narrow band (window length: ~30 ms), you can get rid of the gap.

Concerning condition B, if the signal processing says that there is a falling part, therefore it is so.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.