# AudioGuide (talk)

**URL:** https://discourse.flucoma.org/t/audioguide-talk/550
**Category:** Interesting Links
**Created:** [July 6, 2020, 2:25pm UTC](https://discourse.flucoma.org/t/audioguide-talk/550 "2020-07-06T14:25:41Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![weefuzzy](https://discourse.flucoma.org/user_avatar/discourse.flucoma.org/weefuzzy/32/362_2.png) [@weefuzzy](https://discourse.flucoma.org/u/weefuzzy)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2020, 10:02pm UTC](https://discourse.flucoma.org/t/audioguide-talk/550/12 "2020-07-08T22:02:18Z")

</div>

> [@jamesbradbury](#):
>
> I think for MFCCs it could be problematic as MFCC values are meaningless and meant to be sturdy against changes in amplitude anyway. From a purely numerical point of view I’m not sure how attenuating those values when the measurement itself is already attempting to guard against that would influence how the matching works but I’m on board for that kind of thinking elsewhere. Have you had success with this particular example?

I think the point is less to do with the invariance of (higer quefrency) MFCCs to the energy of the frame, and more to do with the contribution they make to our perceptual impression of the whole. Consider that for, say, a percussive sound, you could have a lot of very low amplitude frames in the decay that are essentially mush, and don’t figure as much in our experience of that sound. So, by weighting the means, essentially dumb matching processes are more likely to pull out things that feel similar to our ears.

@tutschku’s [Mfcc comparison](https://discourse.flucoma.org/t/mfcc-comparison/484) thread demonstrates this, insofar as he’s getting audibly more satisfying matches from Orchidea (which uses a weighted mean) than from the vanilla mean via `fluid.bufstats~`.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.flucoma.org/t/audioguide-talk/550)._