You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am trying to use pyacoustid to identify songs out of short chunks of music (typically 5 to 30 sec, kind of a Shazam use case).
I didn't succeed in identifying Daft Punk's Get Lucky by providing pyacoustid only a fragment of the song (10 sec or even 120 sec from the beggining didn't work), whereas it worked if I provide the whole song.
That's expected behaviour - as the AcoustID FAQ states:
Can the service identify short audio snippets?
No, it can't. The service has been designed for identifying full audio files. We would like to eventually support also this use case, but it's not a priority at the moment. Note that even when this will be implemented, it will be still intended for matching the original audio (e.g. for the purpose of tracklisting a long audio stream), not audio with background noise recorded on a phone.
Hi everyone,
I am trying to use pyacoustid to identify songs out of short chunks of music (typically 5 to 30 sec, kind of a Shazam use case).
I didn't succeed in identifying Daft Punk's Get Lucky by providing pyacoustid only a fragment of the song (10 sec or even 120 sec from the beggining didn't work), whereas it worked if I provide the whole song.
Here is a snippet of my code:
Providing the result of fpcalc and asking for the query through the web API gives the same result.
For instance if I call fpcalc with the first 30 seconds of the song, I get the following fingerprint result:
Trying a lookup through the web api with the following request gives an empty result:
https://api.acoustid.org/v2/lookup?client=m_ngzjtGqA4&meta=recordings+releasegroups+compress&duration=30&fingerprint=AQAA3UmSTFKaKEkSPFuM6ULZwz9-uDpK8tBiI78k-Ec94SJCeoboFzl6dmgiHmW4cHjxo7kQnjGSXD8eMgdz9Fl-HA9G5MwsQ__wo1aCdJ0tVBuPvKGO_iGa0FlxPoHyJh-aNGgXsBZerD-eB48ELTzKJSVqSYdH5kh_GWGz4WlxSZqg_SKmkBfO_LiyBvrR12gsIj_Oo_8I_3CHU8OUHBdNFLaU48fVGvnxHOLRH_-Ms-h-yD_OXfglVFSGftBfXMejH9aHSxmmqIeeG82YC5Uf0Dy-o18STYbj5DDjo2uW49C046GDd8SzIUueI190jD904kqOB2Hko99x486LHo2T5Yj4Clq0RemR5Rua_Hhk-EekT8JZaRD74FOLPAu2H48RXnA8g10P-iF-sN3h5_BzlMdvaHERHr0O_8JMIh9Eb8iL73CUoeyOFxeaSgoR6fuh58jDcmDeo9d-4MFvzMyRc8rwHKUWNBlv_HjoFM5lPMoenEafY6OEqj9YC_j6BDN16FGOZriQalSOPtHR7Ai1bMbnQt_R7MdzEZP2dLiyB8_hh9CDH-9V9Jdw5IZTHf3xB421HPh4PBvCE78hxoV-rE0bXOjz4SW-hSJ6ToBmHWOMEk4w6AhyCBgiBVJEICAE4AIAxQQyigFgBDCEGAQEI4ILIYhChCgGAEIISIEAAgAJLIEByGgmgCIAQCOIMgAgggAjDAhAlGHEQOcAUoABZhkCBhLGDBGFCAqMAopQIB1AzDCggBIYAAQBMgJABJlxwkCQCBFgCIAIEAIIwIBBSikiCEMGMGaMEcAIoYAgkhAjICMAAWWAEQABQZxRgjDkjPDCIWSgEgIIBg
Response:
{"results": [], "status": "ok"}
Is this behavior expected or do I need to use the library differently?
Thanks for your feedback
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: