Effect of microphone type and placement on voice perturbation measurements.

This study was conducted to explore the effects of microphone type (dynamic vs. condenser) and pattern (omnidirectional vs. cardioid) on the extraction of voice perturbation measures for sustained phonation. Also of interest were the effects of distance and angle between the source and the microphone. Four professional-grade and two consumer-grade microphones were selected for analysis. Synthesized phonation with different amplitude and frequency modulations at fundamental frequencies of 100 Hz and 300 Hz were presented over a loudspeaker. Human phonation was also included to test the validity of loudspeaker presentations. Three microphone distances (4 cm, 30 cm, 1 m) and three angles (0 degree, 45 degrees, 90 degrees) were used for microphone placement. Among the professional grade microphones, the cardioid condenser type had the smallest effect on perturbation measures. In general, condenser types gave better results than dynamic types. Microphones with an unbalanced output did not perform as well as those with balanced outputs. Microphone sensitivity and distance had the largest effect on perturbation measures, making it difficult to resolve normal vocal jitter at anything but a few centimeters from the mouth. Angle had little effect for short distances, but a greater effect for longer distances. These conclusions are preliminary because the sampling of microphones, distances, and signal types was very coarse. The study serves only to chart the course for future work.

[1]  A. House,et al.  A note on optimal vocal frequency. , 1959, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[2]  W Seidner,et al.  Recommendation by the Union of European Phoniatricians (UEP): standardizing voice area measurement/phonetography. , 1983, Folia phoniatrica.

[3]  P. Milenkovic,et al.  Least mean square measures of voice perturbation. , 1987, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  J Hillenbrand,et al.  A methodological study of perturbation and additive noise in synthetically generated voice signals. , 1987, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[5]  Y. Horii,et al.  A note on phase relationships between frequency and amplitude modulations in vocal vibrato. , 1988, Folia phoniatrica.

[6]  Ingo R. Titze,et al.  Preliminary evaluation of selected acoustic and glottographic measures for clinical phonatory function analysis , 1988 .

[7]  E T Doherty,et al.  Tape recorder effects on jitter and shimmer extraction. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  I R Titze,et al.  Unification of perturbation measures in speech signals. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  M P Karnell,et al.  Laryngeal perturbation analysis: minimum length of analysis window. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  M P Karnell,et al.  Comparison of acoustic voice perturbation measures among three independent voice laboratories. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  W S Winholtz,et al.  Vocal tremor analysis with the Vocal Demodulator. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[12]  I. Titze,et al.  Comparison of Fo extraction methods for high-precision voice perturbation measurements. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.