An AI-Driven Multi-Feature Approach for Synchronisation and QoE Assessment in Network Music Performance
Source abstract
Abstract
Network Music Performance (NMP) refers to remote musical collaboration over a network in applications such as music education, music production, and live performance. In NMP, synchronisation is a critical factor in musicians’ Quality of Experience (QoE). This interpersonal coordination of musical actions is highly sensitive to variable network conditions, particularly to end-to-end delay and signal degradation. Existing evaluations rely mainly on subjective questionnaires or isolated objective descriptors, creating a gap for a unified metric that quantifies synchrony directly from performance signals. To address this gap, we propose the Objective Synchrony Index (OSI), an AI-driven metric that quantifies ensemble synchrony from paired NMP recordings. We computed OSI using a two-tower multi-task convolutional recurrent neural network (CRNN) that estimates synchrony-relevant descriptors from paired Musician A and Musician B audio streams. We introduce two OSI variants: timing-OSI, which captures temporal coordination through offsets, onsets, beats, and tempo coherence; and ensemble-OSI, which extends this formulation by integrating chord agreement and signal fidelity to reflect structural and perceptual aspects of ensemble interaction. We evaluated OSI using recordings from two NMP studies in which eleven pairs of musicians performed under systematically varied delay and sampling-rate conditions. After each performance, musicians completed QoE questionnaires, allowing us to relate OSI and its components to subjective ratings using repeated-measures correlation. Results showed that, under delay, timing-OSI decreases as latency increases and demonstrates construct validity against subjective QoE measures. Higher synchrony-OSI was associated with greater perceived synchronisation and satisfaction, and with lower perceived delay, irritation, and effort to follow a partner. These relationships were most consistent for offset synchrony and most selective for onset synchrony, while beat and tempo remained relatively stable. Under audio-quality degradation, ensemble-OSI remained relatively stable across sampling rates and did not significantly track subjective QoE as a single predictor. Instead, modest component-level associations suggested that satisfaction was higher when temporal stability and fidelity were preserved, whereas irritation was more closely related to reduced chord agreement. Together, these findings support timing-OSI as a promising objective synchrony metric for delay-impaired NMP, while showing that the extended ensemble-OSI requires further perceptual calibration for audio-quality degradations.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Music Technology and Sound Studies · Neuroscience and Music Perception · Diverse Music Education Insights
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Engineering and Computing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 1JN, UK
School of Information Sciences and Technology, Athens University of Economics and Business, 10434 Athens, Greece
References (40)
Show source-provided references
1. Lazzaro, J., and Wawrzynek, J. (2001, January 28–30). A case for network musical performance. Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video, Braunschweig, Germany.10.1145/378344.378367 ↗
2. Assessing the effects of delay to NMP via audio analysis10.1007/s42979-022-01555-6 ↗
3. An overview on networked music performance technologies10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2628440 ↗
4. Carôt, A., and Werner, C. (2008, January 13–16). Distributed network music workshop with soundjack. Proceedings of the 25th Tonmeistertagung, Leipzig, Germany. Available online: http://www.carot.de/Docs/TMT08.pdf.
5. Tsioutas, K., Xylomenos, G., and Doumanis, I. (2019, January 20–23). Aretousa: A competitive audio streaming software for network music performance. Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society Convention, Dublin, Ireland.
6. Improving networked music performance systems using application-network collaboration10.1002/cpe.4730 ↗
7. Riva, C.G. (2023). Intelligent Networked Music Performance Experiences. Special Topics in Information Technology, Springer International Publishing.
8. Böck, S., Arzt, A., Krebs, F., and Schedl, M. (2012, January 17–21). Online real-time onset detection with recurrent neural networks. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFx-12), York, UK.
9. Böck, S., Krebs, F., and Widmer, G. (2016, January 7–11). Joint Beat and Downbeat Tracking with Recurrent Neural Networks. Proceedings of the ISMIR, New York, NY, USA.
10. Washburn, A., Wright, M.J., Chafe, C., and Fujioka, T. (2021). Temporal Coordination in Piano Duet Networked Music Performance (NMP): Interactions Between Acoustic Transmission Latency and Musical Role Asymmetries. Front. Psychol., 12.10.3389/fpsyg.2021.707090 ↗
11. Tsioutas, K., Xylomenos, G., and Doumanis, I. (2025). Impact of Audio Delay and Quality in Network Music Performance. Future Internet, 17.10.3390/fi17080337 ↗
12. Schuett, N. (2002). The Effects of Latency on Ensemble Performance. [Bachelor’s Thesis, CCRMA Department of Music, Stanford University].
13. A perceptual evaluation of music real-time communication applications10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3271525 ↗
14. Obhi, S.S., and Cross, E.S. (2016). Musical Ensemble Performance: Representing Self, Other and Joint Action Outcomes. Shared Representations: Sensorimotor Foundations of Social Life, Cambridge University Press.
15. Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of recent research (2006–2012)10.3758/s13423-012-0371-2 ↗
16. Timmers, R., Endo, S., Bradbury, A., and Wing, A.M. (2014). Synchronization and leadership in string quartet performance: A case study of auditory and visual cues. Front. Psychol., 5.10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00645 ↗
17. D’Amario, S., Daffern, H., and Bailes, F. (2019). Perception of synchronization in singing ensembles. PLoS ONE, 14.10.1371/journal.pone.0218162 ↗
18. Harte, C., Sandler, M., and Gasser, M. (2006). Detecting harmonic change in musical audio. Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Audio and Music Computing Multimedia, ACM.10.1145/1178723.1178727 ↗
19. Zhou, X., and Lerch, A. (2015, January 26–30). Chord detection using deep learning. Proceedings of the 16th ISMIR Conference, Málaga, Spain.
20. McAdams, S. (2019). The perceptual representation of timbre. Timbre: Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-14832-4_2 ↗
21. Siedenburg, K., Saitis, C., and McAdams, S. (2019). The present, past, and future of timbre research. TIMBRE: Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-14832-4 ↗
22. Tsioutas, K., Xylomenos, G., Doumanis, I., and Angelou, C. (2020, January 2–5). Quality of musicians’ experience in network music performance: A subjective evaluation. Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society Convention, Online.
23. The sense of ensemble: A machine learning approach to expressive performance modelling in string quartets10.1080/09298215.2014.922999 ↗
24. Zeitler, J., Maman, B., and Müller, M. (2024, January 10–14). Robust and Accurate Audio Synchronization Using Raw Features From Transcription Models. Proceedings of the ISMIR, Online.
25. Jazz trio database: Automated annotation of jazz piano trio recordings processed using audio source separation
26. Heydari, M., Cwitkowitz, F., and Duan, Z. (2026, June 08). BeatNet: CRNN and Particle Filtering for Online Joint Beat, Downbeat and Meter Tracking. Available online: https://archives.ismir.net/ismir2021/paper/000033.pdf.
27. AAM: A dataset of Artificial Audio Multitracks for diverse music information retrieval tasks10.1186/s13636-023-00278-7 ↗
28. Hilmkil, A., Thomé, C., and Arpteg, A. (2020). Perceiving music quality with GANs. arXiv.
29. Yang, Z., Li, Z., Gong, Y., Zhang, T., Lao, S., Yuan, C., and Li, Y. (2022). Rethinking knowledge distillation via cross-entropy. arXiv.
30. A comprehensive survey of loss functions and metrics in deep learning10.1007/s10462-025-11198-7 ↗
31. Loshchilov, I., and Hutter, F. (2017). Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv.
32. Fallon, M., Godsill, S., and Blake, A. (2006, January 18–20). Joint acoustic source location and orientation estimation using sequential Monte Carlo. Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFx-06), Montreal, QC, Canada.
33. Müller, M. (2021). Music Synchronization. Fundamentals of Music Processing: Using Python and Jupyter Notebooks, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-69808-9 ↗
34. Xu, H., Liu, X., Zhao, Q., Ma, Y., Yan, C., and Dai, F. (2023, January 17–24). Gaussian label distribution learning for spherical image object detection. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.00106 ↗
35. Lindborg, P., and Kwan, N.A. (2015). Audio Quality Moderates Localization Accuracy: Two Distinct Perceptual Effects?. Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society Convention 138, Audio Engineering Society.
36. Effect of temporal separation on synchronization in rhythmic performance10.1068/p6465 ↗
37. Wing, A.M., Endo, S., Yates, T., and Bradbury, A. (2014). Perception of string quartet synchronization. Front. Psychol., 5.10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01115 ↗
38. Microtiming and Mental Effort: Onset Asynchronies in Musical Rhythm Modulate Pupil Size10.1525/mp.2019.37.2.111 ↗
39. Pitch perception10.3758/APP.71.8.1701 ↗
40. Parker, A., and Fenton, S. (2021). Musical Mix Clarity Prediction Using Decomposition and Perceptual Masking Thresholds. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11209578 ↗