Slashdot Log In
Google Researchers Create TV Audio Analysis System
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Jun 10, 2006 09:33 AM
from the tuning-in dept.
from the tuning-in dept.
segphault writes "Ars Technica reports on a paper (PDF) about ambient audio analysis authored by Google researchers. The system described in the paper can effectively determine what television show a user is watching just by capturing a short audio clip. The paper explains how a regular computer microphone can be used to record an audio clip that is then converted into a statistical data summary and transmitted to a remote server which matches the clip against archived data in order to ascertain which TV show it is associated with. Apparently, the system is fully viable, and other kinds of ambient noise don't negatively impact its accuracy. The paper also describes how web services can provide contextually relevant information based on a consumer's television viewing activities."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google Researchers Create TV Audio Analysis System
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 108 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I have just this to say... (Score:2, Funny)
This already exists? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This already exists? (Score:4, Informative)
It's been done. Here's a system where you can hum a tune and it tells you the song: http://www.musipedia.org/ [musipedia.org]
Current systems are mostly based on pitch changes, so they aren't perfect (especially with the recycled slush turned out by low-grade high-visibility pop acts), and largely useless for rap, but they mostly work. There are numerous variations on the system, this is just one of the more significant ones that is publically availabel on the web.
I would think by making a hash based on values relative to sound signatures within the clip this might be possible, but I don't really know how this stuff works
What google is doing may or may not be related. They might instead be using a form of speech recognition technology, or a combination of both, or something else entirely.
I thought something like this was up! (Score:3, Funny)
Uses & Motives? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~eldavojohn/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @03:26PM)
Since Google has more storage than you can imagine, they can most likely apply this fingerprinting technique to every episodes of every major show. Then they host the fingerprints in Google style and use their patented "Google Technology" to search it much the same way web content is searched.
Why would you want this? Well, there's the obvious marketing ploys. You know that people who watch Darma & Greg like to shop at Trader Joe's and like Odwalla brand food so you offer free episodes of Darma & Greg with only Trader Joe's & Odwalla episodes. You let the sponsors (Trader Joe's and Odwalla) foot the bill for the bandwidth/royalties or whatever.
The second useful implication would be cross suggesting shows to a user based on random sampling of the shows. You could allow users to watch old TV shows on the internet and then build a profile of them and their shows. Much how Amazon works, you could then suggest other shows, other DVDs of shows or perhaps build a site that randomly shows the user episodes that they might like based on prior viewings and statistics of other users.
The take away from this article for me was the fact that Google has vested interest in archiving and now television will be archived Google style.
I can't think of many other uses for this as the system isn't really "inferring" or "thinking" about data samples but is more so matching extracted features against a database. You know, voice recognition software allows for decent voice fingerprinting. You could most likely easily identify characters based on voices (but not actors due to stars like Hank Azaria who do multiple voices). Then you wouldn't need a database of all shows but more so just a database of character voice fingerprints. I would find this sort of approach more interesting but less specific and useful.
Aside from showing this off to your friends, it's not very useful. What I personally would like to see this new Google strategy applied to is all the tapes recorded of famous people like the United States Presidents. If you divided those up into sessions and I was listening to a particular tape of the Nixon set where he talked about the "new right", perhaps a database with references would then point me to some tapes or materials on Joe McCarthey's staunch views on the right.
Subpoena (Score:3, Insightful)
Designed to maximize user privacy while minimizing dependency on unique hardware, the system described in the paper seems interesting and feasible. In order to protect user privacy, the software uses "summary statistics" automatically generated from ambient audio rather than transmitting an actual recording. The actual audio cannot be extrapolated from the summary statistic data, so the system doesn't "overhear" or transmit user conversations.
Still, if the data reveals what show the person is watching, your President or anyone else who gets to see the data might start treating you differently depending on what you are watching latley.
TVDB (Score:2)
(http://www.soisanook.com/)
Google seem to go out of their way to freak us out (Score:1, Redundant)
(http://kestas.kuliukas.com/)
This seems to be just asking for privacy concerns.
What else does it work on? (Score:1)
What... (Score:1)
(http://sheeettin.ath.cx/)
Oh... I guess that would have to be a dupe^H^H^H^Hseparate story in YRO.
What about p0rn?! (Score:1)
other possible uses? (Score:1)
been there, seen that, now it's dead (Score:1)
remember cuecat? that funky little free barcode reader from radioshack?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/06/10/0
in one incarnation i beleive they included a jack on the device and the end user was suppose to hook up an audio cable from one's tv to cuecat v.2. the computer would do all the heavy lifting, eventually finding a hidden tone that would magically pull up an advertiser's web page.
it was spam magic that never took off. gee, i wonder why.
I find it pleasingly fanciful to know... (Score:1)
Nielson (Score:2)
Actually - it appears they do the same thing Google's researchers talk about already: Reference [nielsenmedia.com]
In my house, they will be very disapointed. (Score:2)
(http://www.schoenfeldt.com/)
Privacy Maximization (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://lists.clickers.org/linuxsig/index.html | Last Journal: Friday November 09, @11:00PM)
In the mean time, I avoid non free software and even have bad thoughts about my cell phone.
Similar tech (Score:2)
(http://dexplor.com/)
Dan East
I have tested it (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.houghi.org/)
recognizing sound samples (Score:4, Insightful)
New Concept? (Score:1)
Major points to the first person who... (Score:2)
(http://wasteland.go.dyndns.org/~sshields)
Posts a screenshot with something like:
Peoplemeter? (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Can the same system be used to cut out ads? (Score:2)
Nice, but how about muting commercials? (Score:2)
I, for one, would gladly pay $10 extra per month to have a button on my remote that when pressed kills the audio feed for the currently on-screen commercial now and whenever that commercial comes up again. I wouldn't even mind if a message was sent to the advertiser saying "Hey, somebody is actually paying not to hear your crap". Negative feedback can be a good thing.
eyes wide shout (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.nhplace.com/kent/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @11:11PM)
This very statement presupposes that other noise is irrelevant, which seems bogus.
Snoring is background noise, and suggests non-watching.
Laughter is background noise, and suggests careful watching.
Of course, the laughter might not be about what's on TV...
It seems to me that watching is an activity involving the eyes and mental processing. It seems to me that audio of what is coming out of the TV is not a statement about either the eyes or about mental processing. This technology of Google's may be an advance in something, but I hope the advertisers paying for this data have their eyes open about the nature of what they are buying because (to re-mix a metaphor) to my eyes this sounds a bit suspect.
Sociologically, it sounds like a foot in the door to get harmless censors in place. Oops, Freudian slip there. That's sensors, I mean. Google would never involve itself with censorship.
Once the sensors are in place, when "we" realize that it's not getting "us" the data "we" want, we'll just do a few "harmless" downloads of "upgrades", perhaps causing a minor tweak to look at the video data rather than the audio, or perhaps doing language processing after all, and ... With user-friendly software like this, who needs spyware?
I also question the claim that because no information is transmitted back to Google that this is the definition of not invading privacy. How is this fundamentally different than the claim that if the police search your house but find nothing, they have not invaded your privacy because they've not placed any record of illegal activity on your permanent record?
It seems to me that once you place a Turing Machine into someone's environment, capable of doing arbitrary processing, and all it sends is a sanitized report, you have all the mechanism in place for abuse. What if the Turing Machine, capable of arbitrary processing, decides that it doesn't want to send a sanitized report. Who is auditing what is sanitized and what is not?
What if it turns out to later be possible to lift information from the supposedly cleansed records? Who will audit the use of that data?
There seem to me to be a lot of slippery slopes here.
Where is that 'do not listen' button (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.lofzin.nl/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 22 2002, @05:25AM)
turn your laptop into a visual aid (Score:3, Interesting)
I can envision running a speech-to-text translator on my laptop mic and then piping that text into my beagle desktop searcher, or maybe even one of those google desktop search tools on windows. I'd rather not send this data to google, for privacy reasons, though.
I could see this being useful at work, or in a conference or class, too. I could stand to have relevant pieces of notes that I took from previous classes pulled up with my professor mentions a particular topic.
Anyone know of a tool or project like this?
Big brother...... if you agree to it (Score:2)
Saying that Google will use this to spy on people is like saying that the NSA will spy on people who email them all of their personal information, daily habits, etc.
And what do we get for our involvement? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm very skeptical this wouldn't be abused - if not by Google, then by someone else. And even if this is not abused, I run the risk for what?
I don't like ads now.
Everyone who loves the idea of personalized ads, put up your hand!
----------
From the other side, what will your friends think when that "random" ad for viagra pops up?
Cool! (Score:1)
What's more, from a commercial standpoint, this doesn't have to be directly related to the program at all. Certain inaudable (to the viewer) clips could be inserted into all kinds of programming to trigger a specific function from the computer. Certainly there are privacy ramifications to this, but I think google is doing the right thing by using their creative staff to push the boundary and experiment on projects such as this. YMMV.
Nothing new here (Score:1)
Easy task (Score:2)
(http://www.geocities...atepower_gangsta.htm)
I didn't even RTFA, but from the summary I have an idea on how to implement this idea, it's fairly simple, although it's probably not as computationally efficient as what they came up with, no need to be a great engineer, if you have studied digital signal processing for a few monthes it will be enough.
So you take that audio clip, and you simply cross-correlate (reverse in the time-domain and convolve) it with your audio data base. The highest peak in your results denote a correlation between the audio clip and a show. The only problem being if the audio clip recorded some blank part in the show. However with this technique even if there's quite some noise in the audio clip or even someone talking over it it's all good.
A very similar one published in Nov/05 (Score:1)
(http://www.lobato.org/dc/blog/)
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1114223.1114238 [acm.org]
This paper describes a scalable real-time audio fingerprinting system developed by IBOPE Midia for radio and TV broadcast monitoring. A special temporal feature extraction strategy based on the Short-Time Fourier Transform has been designed. When given an input stream to analyse, the system matches it against the database and automatically recognizes instances of the previously registered samples within the input stream. The algorithm exploits the temporal evolution of the signal frequency spectrum in order to identify patterns and produce the final classification. The database is clusterized in order to provide an efficient and scalable search strategy. The system has been assessed using a database containing 393 distinct commercials. A 41-hour audio stream from three different TV channels has been analysed in less than 3 hours, attaining a 95.4% recognition rate.
Re:Great... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Saturday June 30, @01:22AM)
A PVR that doesn't need to rely on blind luck and often incorrect listings to know if it's recording the right thing.
My Tivo often mischannels to PBS. I'm pretty sure this algorithm should be able to tell Family Guy from the "Boring ass old people talking about politics hour".
Re:Great... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great... (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://rytis.blogsome.com/)
Re:Great... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Tuesday May 10 2005, @03:47PM)
if you want to check what tv show it is - it means that you like it, and want to watch later/tell your friends about it. Google can sell data about tv shows popularity to interested parties, that will know where to plant ads (or they could place ads themselves...). It also can be used to determine an ad price for a given show.
I'm not watching tv for 4 years now, it feels great. If I accidentally see some of it somewhere I'm shocked at how dumb it is.
Re:Great... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Friday November 10 2006, @06:20AM)
Popup Television (Score:3)
(http://soayacs.blogspot.com/)
Do you remember the MTV show Popup Video? They showed older music videos with popup balloons that gave extra information, like actors in the video that later became famous or mistakes made during production. If Google analyzed the sounds coming into your laptop and gave you a link to a site like the Internet Movie Database [imdb.com] then you could have Popup Television. Learn more about the specific episode you are watching, and even have the ability to edit that information yourself.
It'd make an interesting toy. I'm sure that anyone with some imagination could think of even cooler applications.
AlpineR
Re:It's Google, what do you think? (Score:2)
If Google really wants to "do no evil", then they need to use this technology to recognize that a commercial just started, and turn the darn volume down! I'm a reasonable guy - they don't need to turn the volume off or skip over the commercial (although they are welcome to do this), just turn it down to the point where the overcompressed signal is not blasting me out of my brain. It's almost impossible to quietly watch any 10PM network TV show without getting blasted by the commercials for the next horror/exploding action movie that's in theaters.