IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, ACCEPTED NOVEMBER 2016

1

Deep Convolutional Neural Networks and Data
Augmentation for Environmental Sound
Classification

arXiv:1608.04363v2 [cs.SD] 28 Nov 2016

Justin Salamon and Juan Pablo Bello

Abstract—The ability of deep convolutional neural networks
(CNN) to learn discriminative spectro-temporal patterns makes
them well suited to environmental sound classification. However,
the relative scarcity of labeled data has impeded the exploitation
of this family of high-capacity models. This study has two
primary contributions: first, we propose a deep convolutional
neural network architecture for environmental sound classification. Second, we propose the use of audio data augmentation for
overcoming the problem of data scarcity and explore the influence
of different augmentations on the performance of the proposed
CNN architecture. Combined with data augmentation, the proposed model produces state-of-the-art results for environmental
sound classification. We show that the improved performance
stems from the combination of a deep, high-capacity model and
an augmented training set: this combination outperforms both
the proposed CNN without augmentation and a “shallow” dictionary learning model with augmentation. Finally, we examine
the influence of each augmentation on the model’s classification
accuracy for each class, and observe that the accuracy for each
class is influenced differently by each augmentation, suggesting
that the performance of the model could be improved further by
applying class-conditional data augmentation.
Index Terms—Environmental sound classification, deep convolutional neural networks, deep learning, urban sound dataset.

I. I NTRODUCTION

T

HE problem of automatic environmental sound classification has received increasing attention from the research
community in recent years. Its applications range from context
aware computing [1] and surveillance [2] to noise mitigation
enabled by smart acoustic sensor networks [3].
To date, a variety of signal processing and machine learning
techniques have been applied to the problem, including matrix
factorization [4]–[6], dictionary learning [7], [8], wavelet filterbanks [8], [9] and most recently deep neural networks [10],
[11]. See [12]–[14] for further reviews of existing approaches.
In particular, deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) [15]
are, in principle, very well suited to the problem of environmental sound classification: first, they are capable of capturing
energy modulation patterns across time and frequency when
applied to spectrogram-like inputs, which has been shown
to be an important trait for distinguishing between different,
often noise-like, sounds such as engines and jackhammers [8].
Second, by using convolutional kernels (filters) with a small
J. Salamon (justin.salamon@nyu.edu) is with the Music and Audio Research Laboratory (MARL) and the Center for Urban Science and Progress
(CUSP) at New York University, USA. J. P. Bello (jpbello@nyu.edu) is with
the Music and Audio Research Laboratory at New York University, USA.

receptive field, the network should, in principle, be able to
successfully learn and later identify spectro-temporal patterns
that are representative of different sound classes even if part
of the sound is masked (in time/frequency) by other sources
(noise), which is where traditional audio features such as MelFrequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC) fail [16]. Yet the
application of CNNs to environmental sound classification has
been limited to date. For instance, the CNN proposed in [11]
obtained comparable results to those yielded by a dictionary
learning approach [7] (which can be considered an instance of
“shallow” feature learning), but did not improve upon it.
Deep neural networks, which have a high model capacity,
are particularly dependent on the availability of large quantities of training data in order to learn a non-linear function
from input to output that generalizes well and yields high
classification accuracy on unseen data. A possible explanation
for the limited exploration of CNNs and the difficulty to
improve on simpler models is the relative scarcity of labeled
data for environmental sound classification. While several new
datasets have been released in recent years (e.g., [17]–[19]),
they are still considerably smaller than the datasets available
for research on, for example, image classification [20].
An elegant solution to this problem is data augmentation,
that is, the application of one or more deformations to a
collection of annotated training samples which result in new,
additional training data [20]–[22]. A key concept of data augmentation is that the deformations applied to the labeled data
do not change the semantic meaning of the labels. Taking an
example from computer vision, a rotated, translated, mirrored
or scaled image of a car would still be a coherent image of a
car, and thus it is possible to apply these deformations to produce additional training data while maintaining the semantic
validity of the label. By training the network on the additional
deformed data, the hope is that the network becomes invariant
to these deformations and generalizes better to unseen data.
Semantics-preserving deformations have also been proposed
for the audio domain, and have been shown to increase model
accuracy for music classification tasks [22]. However, in the
case of environmental sound classification the application of
data augmentation has been relatively limited (e.g., [11], [23]),
with the author of [11] (which used random combinations of
time shifting, pitch shifting and time stretching for data
augmentation) reporting that “simple augmentation techniques
proved to be unsatisfactory for the UrbanSound8K dataset
given the considerable increase in training time they generated
and negligible impact on model accuracy”.

IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, ACCEPTED NOVEMBER 2016

2

In this paper we present a deep convolutional neural network
architecture with localized (small) kernels for environmental
sound classification. Furthermore, we propose the use of data
augmentation to overcome the problem of data scarcity and explore different types of audio deformations and their influence
on the model’s performance. We show that the proposed CNN
architecture, in combination with audio data augmentation,
yields state-of-the-art performance for environmental sound
classification.
II. M ETHOD
A. Deep Convolutional Neural Network
The deep convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture
proposed in this study is comprised of 3 convolutional layers
interleaved with 2 pooling operations, followed by 2 fully connected (dense) layers. Similar to previously proposed feature
learning approaches applied to environmental sound classification (e.g., [7]), the input to the network consists of timefrequency patches (TF-patches) taken from the log-scaled melspectrogram representation of the audio signal. Specifically,
we use Essentia [24] to extract log-scaled mel-spectrograms
with 128 components (bands) covering the audible frequency
range (0-22050 Hz), using a window size of 23 ms (1024
samples at 44.1 kHz) and a hop size of the same duration.
Since the excerpts in our evaluation dataset (described below)
are of varying duration (up to 4 s), we fix the size of the input
TF-patch X to 3 seconds (128 frames), i.e. X ∈ R128×128 . TFpatches are extracted randomly (in time) from the full log-melspectrogram of each audio excerpt during training as described
further down.
Given our input X, the network is trained to learn the
parameters Θ of a composite nonlinear function F(·|Θ) which
maps X to the output (prediction) Z:
Z = F(X|Θ) = fL (· · · f2 (f1 (X|θ1 )|θ2 )|θL ),

(1)

where each operation f` (·|θ` ) is referred to as a layer of the
network, with L = 5 layers in our proposed architecture. The
first three layers, ` ∈ {1, 2, 3}, are convolutional, expressed
as:
Z` = f` (X` |θ` ) = h(W ∗ X` + b),

θl = [W, b]

(2)

where X` is a 3-dimensional input tensor consisting of N
feature maps, W is a collection of M 3-dimensional kernels
(also referred to as filters), ∗ represents a valid convolution,
b is a vector bias term, and h(·) is a point-wise activation
function. Thus, the shapes of X` , W , and Z` are (N, d0 , d1 ),
(M, N, m0 , m1 ) and (M, d0 −m0 +1, d1 −m1 +1) respectively.
Note that for the first layer of our network d0 = d1 = 128,
i.e., the dimensions of the input TF-patch. We apply strided
max-pooling after the first two convolutional layers ` ∈ {1, 2}
using a stride size equal to the pooling dimensions (provided
below), which reduces the dimensions of the output feature
maps and consequently speeds up training and builds some
scale invariance into the network. The final two layers, ` ∈
{4, 5}, are fully-connected (dense) and consist of a matrix
product rather than a convolution:
Z` = f` (X` |θ` ) = h(W X` + b),

θ` = [W, b]

(3)

where X` is flattened to a column vector of length N , W
has shape (M, N ), b is a vector of length M and h(·) is a
point-wise activation function.
The proposed CNN architecture is parameterized as follows:
• `1 : 24 filters with a receptive field of (5,5), i.e., W has the
shape (24,1,5,5). This is followed by (4,2) strided maxpooling over the last two dimensions (time and frequency
respectively) and a rectified linear unit (ReLU) activation
function h(x) = max(x, 0).
• `2 : 48 filters with a receptive field of (5,5), i.e., W has
the shape (48, 24, 5, 5). Like `1 , this is followed by (4,2)
strided max-pooling and a ReLU activation function.
• `3 : 48 filters with a receptive field of (5,5), i.e., W has
the shape (48, 48, 5, 5). This is followed by a ReLU
activation function (no pooling).
• `4 : 64 hidden units, i.e., W has the shape (2400, 64),
followed by a ReLU activation function.
• `5 : 10 output units, i.e., W has the shape (64,10),
followed by a softmax activation function.
Note that our use of a small receptive field (5, 5) in `1
compared to the input dimensions (128, 128) is designed to
allow the network to learn small, localized patterns that can
be fused at subsequent layers to gather evidence in support
of larger “time-frequency signatures” that are indicative of the
presence/absence of different sound classes, even when there
is spectro-temporal masking by interfering sources.
For training, the model optimizes cross-entropy loss via
mini-batch stochastic gradient descent [25]. Each batch consists of 100 TF-patches randomly selected from the training
data (without repetition). Each 3 s TF-patch is taken from a
random position in time from the full log-mel-spectrogram
representation of each training sample. We use a constant
learning rate of 0.01. Dropout [26] is applied to the input
of the last two layers, ` ∈ {4, 5}, with probability 0.5. L2regularization is applied to the weights of the last two layers
with a penalty factor of 0.001. The model is trained for 50
epochs and is checkpointed after each epoch, during which
it is trained on random minibatches until 1/8 of all training
data is exhausted (where by training data we mean all the
TF-patches extracted from every training sample starting at all
possible frame indices). A validation set is used to identify the
parameter setting (epoch) achieving the highest classification
accuracy, where prediction is performed by slicing the test
sample into overlapping TF-patches (1-frame hop), making a
prediction for each TF-patch and finally choosing the samplelevel prediction as the class with the highest mean ouptut
activation over all frames. The CNN is implemented in Python
with Lasagne [27], and we used Pescador [28] to manage and
multiplex data streams during training.
B. Data Augmentation
We experiment with 4 different audio data augmentations
(deformations), resulting in 5 augmentation sets, as detailed
below. Each deformation is applied directly to the audio signal
prior to converting it into the input representation used to
train the network (log-mel-spectrogram). Note that for each
augmentation it is important that we choose the deformation

IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, ACCEPTED NOVEMBER 2016

C. Evaluation
To evaluate the proposed CNN architecture and the influence of the different augmentation sets we use the UrbanSound8K dataset [17]. The dataset is comprised of 8732 sound
clips of up to 4 s in duration taken from field recordings. The
clips span 10 environmental sound classes: air conditioner,
car horn, children playing, dog bark, drilling, engine idling,
gun shot, jackhammer, siren and street music. By using this
dataset we can compare the results of this study to previously
published approaches that were evaluated on the same data,
including the dictionary learning approach proposed in [7]
(spherical k-means, henceforth SKM) and the CNN proposed
in [11] (PiczakCNN) which has a different architecture to ours
and did not employ augmentation during training. PiczakCNN
1 We

ensured these scenes did not contain any of the target sound classes.

2 https://github.com/justinsalamon/UrbanSound8K-JAMS

Classification Accuracy

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60

SKM

PiczakCNN

SB-CNN

SKM (aug) SB-CNN (aug)

Fig. 1. Left of the dashed line: classification accuracy without augmentation
– dictionary learning (SKM [7]), Piczak’s CNN (PiczakCNN [11]) and the
proposed model (SB-CNN). Right of the dashed line: classification accuracy
for SKM and SB-CNN with augmentation.
(a)
AI 489 10 35 52 85 262 2

1

4

AI

CA

4 379 2

CA

-1 34 -8 -6 -4

0

3

7

1 -26

17 1 830 36 18 24 6

4 13 51

CH

5

6

5

0

2 -8

DO

12 3 34 904 5

3 15 15

DO

-8 -6 -13 37 -5

2 -2

3

1 -9

DR

38 0 16 39 802 8

DR

15 -3 -11 -8 40 -19 -2 15 -26 -1

EN

62 7

5

0

1 19 1

JA

26 1

0

1

5

3 16 1 13

(b)
78 -1 -17 -40 -79 141 1 -4 -25 -54

CH

GU

6

25 15 25

4

2 69 3 23

8 37 798 5 60 5 13
0 352 0

0

1

0 175 48 1 673 61 14

1 38 28 26 15 0

True label

True label

parameters such that the semantic validity of the label is
maintained. The deformations and resulting augmentation sets
are described below:
• Time Stretching (TS): slow down or speed up the audio
sample (while keeping the pitch unchanged). Each sample
was time stretched by 4 factors: {0.81, 0.93, 1.07, 1.23}.
• Pitch Shifting (PS1): raise or lower the pitch of the
audio sample (while keeping the duration unchanged).
Each sample was pitch shifted by 4 values (in semitones):
{−2, −1, 1, 2}.
• Pitch Shifting (PS2): since our initial experiments indicated that pitch shifting was a particularly beneficial
augmentation, we decided to create a second augmentation set. This time each sample was pitch shifted by 4
larger values (in semitones): {−3.5, −2.5, 2.5, 3.5}.
• Dynamic Range Compression (DRC): compress the
dynamic range of the sample using 4 parameterizations, 3
taken from the Dolby E standard [29] and 1 (radio) from
the icecast online radio streaming server [30]: {music
standard, film standard, speech, radio}.
• Background Noise (BG): mix the sample with another
recording containing background sounds from different
types of acoustic scenes. Each sample was mixed with
4 acoustic scenes: {street-workers, street-traffic, streetpeople, park}1 . Each mix z was generated using z =
(1−w)·x+w·y where x is the audio signal of the original
sample, y is the signal of the background scene, and w is
a weighting parameter that was chosen randomly for each
mix from a uniform distribution in the range [0.1, 0.5].
The augmentations were applied using the MUDA library
[22], to which the reader is referred for further details about
the implementation of each deformation. MUDA takes an
audio file and corresponding annotation file in JAMS format
[31], [32], and outputs the deformed audio together with an
enhanced JAMS file containing all the parameters used for the
deformation. We have ported the original annotations provided
with the dataset used for evaluation in this study (see below)
into JAMS files and made them available online along with
the post-deformation JAMS files.2

3

1 23 -31 -3

EN

3

0 -34 -29 15 132 2 -34 -45 -10

GU

-1

0

JA -37

1 -9 -3 -1 14 -1

0

0

1 -17 -2 -23 -48 0 141 0 -15

SI

6

1 797 17

SI

0

1 -1 -25 14 6

0

0 16 -11

ST

24 5 54 21 4 21 0 13 14 844

ST

7

0 -39 -3 -5 13 0

6 -6 27

AI CA CH DO DR EN GU JA

Predicted label

SI

ST

AI CA CH DO DR EN GU JA

SI

ST

Predicted label

Fig. 2. (a) Confusion matrix for the proposed SB-CNN model with augmentation. (b) Difference between the confusion matrices yielded by SB-CNN with
and without augmentation: negative values (red) off the diagonal mean the
confusion is reduced with augmentation, positive values (blue) off the diagonal
mean the confusion is increased with augmentation. The positive values (blue)
along the diagonal indicate that overall the classification accuracy is improved
for all classes with augmentation.

has 2 convolutional layers followed by 3 dense layers, the
filters of the first layer are “tall” and span almost the entire
frequency dimension of the input, and the network operates
on 2 input channels: log mel-spectra and their deltas.
The proposed approach and those used for comparison in
this study are evaluated in terms of classification accuracy. The
dataset comes sorted into 10 stratified folds, and all models
were evaluated using 10-fold cross validation, where we report
the results as a box plot generated from the accuracy scores of
the 10 folds. For training the proposed CNN architecture we
use 1 of the 9 training folds in each split as a validation set
for identifying the training epoch that yields the best model
parameters when training with the remaining 8 folds.
III. R ESULTS
The classification accuracy of the proposed CNN model
(SB-CNN) is presented in Figure 1. To the left of the dashed
line we present the performance of the proposed model on
the original datast without augmentation. For comparison, we
also provide the accuracy obtained on the same dataset by the
dictionary learning approach proposed in [7] (SKM, using the
best parameterization identified by the authors in that study)
and the CNN proposed by Piczak [11] (PiczakCNN, using the
best performing model variant (LP) proposed by the author).
To the right of the dashed line we provide the performance

IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, ACCEPTED NOVEMBER 2016

4

TS
PS1
PS2
DRC
BG
All

air_conditioner
car_horn
children_playing
dog_bark

Class

drilling
engine_idling
gun_shot
jackhammer
siren
street_music
All classes
0.10

0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

∆Classification Accuracy
Fig. 3. Difference in classification accuracy for each class as a function of the
augmentation applied: Time Shift (TS), Pitch Shift (PS1 and PS2), Dynamic
Range Compression (DRC), Background Noise (BG) and all combined (All).

of the SKM model and the proposed SB-CNN once again,
this time when using the augmented dataset (all augmentations
described in Section II-B combined) for training.
We see that the proposed SB-CNN performs comparably to
SKM and PiczakCNN when training on the original dataset
without augmentation (mean accuracy of 0.74, 0.73 and 0.73
for SKM, PiczakCNN and SB-CNN, respectively). The original dataset is not large/varied enough for the convolutional
model to outperform the “shallow” SKM approach. However,
once we increase the size/variance in the dataset by means of
the proposed augmentations, the performance of the proposed
model increases significantly, yielding a mean accuracy of
0.79. The corresponding per-class accuracies (with respect to
the list of classes provided in Section II-C) are 0.49, 0.90,
0.83, 0.90, 0.80, 0.80, 0.94, 0.68, 0.85, 0.84. Importantly, we
note that while the proposed approach performs comparably
to the “shallow” SKM learning approach on the original
dataset, it significantly outperforms it (p = 0.0003 according
to a paired two-sided t-test) using the augmented training set.
Furthermore, increasing the capacity of the SKM model (by
increasing the dictionary size from k = 2000 to k = 4000) did
not yield any further improvement in classification accuracy.
This indicates that the superior performance of the proposed
SB-CNN is not only due to the augmented training set, but
rather thanks to the combination of an augmented training set
with the increased capacity and representational power of the
deep learning model.
In Figure 2(a) we provide the confusion matrix yielded by
the proposed SB-CNN model using the augmented training

set, and in Figure 2(b) we provide the difference between
the confusion matrices yielded by the proposed model with
and without augmentation. From the latter we see that overall
the classification accuracy is improved for all classes with
augmentation. However, we observe that augmentation can
also have a detrimental effect on the confusion between
specific pairs of classes. For instance, we note that while
the confusion between the air conditioner and drilling classes
is reduced with augmentation, the confusion between the air
conditioner and the engine idling classes is increased.
To gain further insight into the influence of each augmentation set on the performance of the proposed model for each
sound class, in Figure 3 we present the difference in classification accuracy (the delta) when adding each augmentation
set compared to using only the original training set, broken
down by sound class. At the bottom of the plot we provide the
delta scores for all classes combined. We see that most classes
are affected positively by most augmentation types, but there
are some clear exceptions. In particular, the air conditioner
class is negatively affected by the DRC and BG augmentations.
Given that this sound class is characterized by a continuous
“hum” sound, often in the background, it makes sense that
the addition of background noise that can mask the presence
of this class will deteriorate the performance of the model.
In general, the pitch augmentations have the greatest positive
impact on performance, and are the only augmentation sets
that do not have a negative impact on any of the classes. Only
half of the classes benefit from applying all augmentations
combined more than they would from the application of a
subset of augmentations. This suggests that the performance
of the model could be improved further by the application
of class-conditional augmentation during training – one could
use the validation set to identify which augmentations improve
the model’s classification accuracy for each class, and then
selectively augment the training data accordingly. We intend
to explore this idea further in future work.
IV. C ONCLUSION
In this article we proposed a deep convolutional neural
network architecture which, in combination with a set of
audio data augmentations, produces state-of-the-art results
for environmental sound classification. We showed that the
improved performance stems from the combination of a deep,
high-capacity model and an augmented training set: this
combination outperformed both the proposed CNN without
augmentation and a “shallow” dictionary learning model with
augmentation. Finally, we examined the influence of each augmentation on the model’s classification accuracy. We observed
that the performance of the model for each sound class is
influenced differently by each augmentation set, suggesting
that the performance of the model could be improved further
by applying class-conditional data augmentation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Brian McFee and Eric
Humphrey for their valuable feedback, and Karol Piczak for
providing details on the results reported in [11]. This work
was partially supported by NSF award 1544753.

IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING LETTERS, ACCEPTED NOVEMBER 2016

R EFERENCES
[1] S. Chu, S. Narayanan, and C.-C. Kuo, “Environmental sound recognition
with time-frequency audio features,” IEEE Trans. on Audio, Speech, and
Language Processing, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1142–1158, Aug. 2009.
[2] R. Radhakrishnan, A. Divakaran, and P. Smaragdis, “Audio analysis
for surveillance applications,” in IEEE Worksh. on Apps. of Signal
Processing to Audio and Acoustics (WASPAA’05), New Paltz, NY, USA,
Oct. 2005, pp. 158–161.
[3] C. Mydlarz, J. Salamon, and J. P. Bello, “The implementation of lowcost urban acoustic monitoring devices,” Applied Acoustics, vol. In Press,
2016.
[4] A. Mesaros, T. Heittola, O. Dikmen, and T. Virtanen, “Sound event
detection in real life recordings using coupled matrix factorization of
spectral representations and class activity annotations,” in International
Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP),
Brisbane, Australia, Apr. 2015, pp. 151–155.
[5] E. Benetos, G. Lafay, M. Lagrange, and M. D. Plumbley, “Detection of
overlapping acoustic events using a temporally-constrained probabilistic
model,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and
Signal Processing (ICASSP), Shanghai, China, Mar. 2016, pp. 6450–
6454.
[6] V. Bisot, R. Serizel, S. Essid, and G. Richard, “Acoustic scene classification with matrix factorization for unsupervised feature learning,” in IEEE
International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing
(ICASSP), Shanghai, China, Mar. 2016, pp. 6445–6449.
[7] J. Salamon and J. P. Bello, “Unsupervised feature learning for urban
sound classification,” in IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing (ICASSP), Brisbane, Australia, Apr. 2015, pp. 171–175.
[8] ——, “Feature learning with deep scattering for urban sound analysis,”
in 2015 European Signal Processing Conference, Nice, France, Aug.
2015.
[9] J. T. Geiger and K. Helwani, “Improving event detection for audio
surveillance using gabor filterbank features,” in 23rd European Signal
Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Nice, France, Aug. 2015, pp. 714–
718.
[10] E. Cakir, T. Heittola, H. Huttunen, and T. Virtanen, “Polyphonic sound
event detection using multi label deep neural networks,” in 2015
International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), July 2015,
pp. 1–7.
[11] K. J. Piczak, “Environmental sound classification with convolutional
neural networks,” in 25th International Workshop on Machine Learning
for Signal Processing (MLSP), Boston, MA, USA, Sep. 2015, pp. 1–6.
[12] D. Giannoulis, E. Benetos, D. Stowell, M. Rossignol, M. Lagrange, and
M. D. Plumbley, “Detection and classification of acoustic scenes and
events: An IEEE AASP challenge,” in IEEE Workshop on Applications
of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics (WASPAA), New Paltz, NY,
USA, Oct. 2013, pp. 1–4.
[13] D. Stowell, D. Giannoulis, E. Benetos, M. Lagrange, and M. D.
Plumbley, “Detection and classification of acoustic scenes and events,”
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1733–1746, Oct.
2015.
[14] S. Sigtia, A. Stark, S. Krstulovic, and M. Plumbley, “Automatic environmental sound recognition: Performance versus computational cost,”
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing,
vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2016.
[15] Y. Lecun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner, “Gradient-based learning
applied to document recognition,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 86,
no. 11, pp. 2278–2324, Nov. 1998.
[16] C. V. Cotton and D. P. W. Ellis, “Spectral vs. spectro-temporal features
for acoustic event detection,” in IEEE Worksh. on Apps. of Signal
Processing to Audio and Acoustics (WASPAA), New Paltz, NY, USA,
Oct. 2011, pp. 69–72.
[17] J. Salamon, C. Jacoby, and J. P. Bello, “A dataset and taxonomy for urban
sound research,” in 22nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia
(ACM-MM’14), Orlando, FL, USA, Nov. 2014, pp. 1041–1044.
[18] K. J. Piczak, “ESC: Dataset for environmental sound classification,” in
23rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Brisbane, Australia,
Oct. 2015, pp. 1015–1018.
[19] A. Mesaros, E. Fagerlund, A. Hiltunen, T. Heittola, and T. Virtanen,
“TUT sound events 2016, development dataset,” Available online:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.45759 (accessed 10 August 2016),
2016. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.45759
[20] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. Hinton, “ImageNet classification
with deep convolutional neural networks,” in Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS), 2012, pp. 1097–1105.

5

[21] P. Y. Simard, D. Steinkraus, and J. C. Platt, “Best practices for
convolutional neural networks applied to visual document analysis.” in
International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, vol. 3,
Edinburgh, Scottland, UK, Aug. 2003, pp. 958–962.
[22] B. McFee, E. Humphrey, and J. Bello, “A software framework for
musical data augmentation,” in 16th Int. Soc. for Music Info. Retrieval
Conf., Malaga, Spain, Oct. 2015, pp. 248–254.
[23] G. Parascandolo, H. Huttunen, and T. Virtanen, “Recurrent neural
networks for polyphonic sound event detection in real life recordings,”
in International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing
(ICASSP), Shanghai, China, Mar. 2016, pp. 6440–6444.
[24] D. Bogdanov, N. Wack, E. Gómez, S. Gulati, P. Herrera, O. Mayor,
G. Roma, J. Salamon, J. Zapata, and X. Serra, “ESSENTIA: an audio
analysis library for music information retrieval,” in 14th Int. Soc. for
Music Info. Retrieval Conf., Curitiba, Brazil, Nov. 2013, pp. 493–498.
[25] L. Bottou, “Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient
descent,” in 19th International Conference on Computational Statistics
(COMPSTAT), Paris, France, Aug. 2010, pp. 177–186. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2604-3 16
[26] N. Srivastava, G. E. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and
R. Salakhutdinov, “Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks
from overfitting,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 1929–1958, 2014.
[27] S. Dieleman, J. Schlüter, C. Raffel, E. Olson, S. Sønderby, D. Nouri,
D. Maturana, M. Thoma, E. Battenberg, and J. Kelly, “Lasagne: First
release,” https://github.com/Lasagne/Lasagne, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.27878
[28] B. McFee and E. J. Humphrey, “pescador: 0.1.0,” https://github.com/
bmcfee/pescador, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.32468
[29] Dolby Labortories, Inc., “Standards and practices for authoring Dolby
Digital and Dolby E bitstreams,” 2002.
[30] “Icecast streaming media server forum,” (accessed 12 August 2016).
[Online]. Available: http://icecast.imux.net/viewtopic.php?t=3462
[31] E. J. Humphrey, J. Salamon, O. Nieto, J. Forsyth, R. Bittner, and J. P.
Bello, “JAMS: A JSON annotated music specification for reproducible
MIR research,” in 15th Int. Soc. for Music Info. Retrieval Conf., Taipei,
Taiwan, Oct. 2014, pp. 591–596.
[32] B. McFee, E. J. Humphrey, O. Nieto, J. Salamon, R. Bittner, J. Forsyth,
and J. P. Bello, “Pump up the JAMS: V0.2 and beyond,” Music and
Audio Research Laboratory, New York University, Tech. Rep., Oct.
2015.

