online ML Comm

22 2 2011

,1 2
1,21,222

= Abstract =

Understanding of the Western Classical Singing in Medical Point of View

Hong-Shik Choi, MD1,2, Hyun Jun Hong, MD1,2, Yong Hyuk Yum, BA2 and Do Hyun Nam, BA2
1
Institute of Logopedics & Phoniatrics, 2Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Gangnam Severance Hospital,
Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Western classical singing voices are different from those of pop song singers singing voices as well as traditional Korean sing-
ing such as Pansori. We anlalysed the singing voices from three different categories with using free application programs avail-
able at the usual smart phones : sound level meter and Spectral View Analyzer and fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopic evaluation.
The intensity of voice produced by a classical western singer was 11 dB louder than that produced by a pop song singer. Source
sound, glottic sound, as well as harmonic sound and singing resonant sound (Singers formant) are much more prominent. When
evaluated under video-rhinolaryngoscopy during singing, the resonance cavity especially oropharyngeal cavity and hypopharyn-
geal cavity are widely opened during singing of the western classical singer than those of the traditional Korean singers singing.
Difference of singing methods including producing the glottal sound, respiration and resonance are discussed. Possible explana-
tion of development of Singers Formant is discussed.
KEY WORDSSinging voiceWestern classical singingSingers formantResonance.

( meter) , Spectral View Ana-

, : , ) lyzer (harmonics)
(Singers formant) .
. , ,
. , ()

. ( 20 cm) (Fig. 1, 2).
? ,
,
, ,
. ,
,
. (sound level 77 dB ,
88 dB 11 dB . ,
2011 12 1
, 135-720 146-92
, (Spectral View Analyzer) ,

(02) 2019-3461 (02) 3463-4750

E-mailhschoi@yuhs.ac , 2.8 KHz

- 106 -


, (Fig. 3, 4).
(Singers formant) . ,
, 23
, 23 (Table 1).

Fig. 1. (sound level me-

ter) . A :

. B :
.
74-85 dB( : 77 dB)
. ,
83-92 A B
dB( : 88 dB) .

Fig. 2. (Spectral View An-

alyzer)
. A :
. B :
.
(F0)

, .

, 2.8 KHz
(Sin-
gers formant) A B
.

Fig. 3. A :
. B :
.

.
A B
.

Fig. 4. (A)
()
. A B
(B) .

- 107 -


Table 1. , ,

(source) : :

(
)
( , .
) .
, (
)

Amp.
(dB)
Large OQ

A
fr. (Hz)

Small OQ
Fig. 5. EGG
B . A OQ (open quotient,
)

Open quotient (OQ) and frequency (fr) spectrum. The smaller the OQ, the less the decay in intensity of . B OQ , CQ
harmonics as a function of frequency. The glottal sound with smaller OQ is more efficient, i.e., greater in- (closed quotient, )
tensity for the same flow rate.

.

. ,
1) (harmonics) (glottic sound)
. EGG
, , EGG
OQ(open quotient, )
, EGG (peak) shift to left SQ(speed
quotient, ) .
, (harmonics)
,
(Fig. 5). (layered
A B
structure) , open phase
Fig. 6. .
(Bernoulli effect)
, 2) , ,
(subglottal pressure) (Fig. 6A),
. , (chest voice), (mid-voice), (head voice),
(expiratory mus- (falsetto) ,
cles) (abdominal muscles)
. (viscoelasticity) (Fig. 6B).
(vocal cord resonance) 3) (singers formant)
, damping ,
. , 2,500~3,000 Hz

- 108 -


(i) (e) (a) (o) (u)

Piriform sinus

3,500 False fold

3,000
Rim of epiglottis
Frequency (Hz)

2,500
2,000 Vocal fold
1,500
R1 R2
1,000
500
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.5 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6
A Time (seconds)

(i) (e) (a) (o) (u)

3,500

3,000
A1 A2
Frequency (Hz)

2,500

2,000 L/6

1,500
L
1,000

500
Fig. 8. .
0 1(R1)
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.5 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 (R2) . R2 (L)
B Time (seconds) 17-17.5 cm
, 1(R1) L 1/6 , R1 , A1 R2
(i) (e) (a) (o) (u) (i) (e) (a) (o) (u) (i) (e) (o) (o) (u) , A2 1/3
.
3,500

3,000 .
2,500
Frequency (Hz)

2,000

1,500

1,000 .
500 1(R1)
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.5 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.8 7.2 (2.5-)3.0 cm , F1
C Time (seconds)
(2.5-)3.0 cm 4 (10-)12 cm
Fig. 7. (Singers formant). , ,
2,500-3,300 Hz
34,000 cm/12 cm=2,800 Hz
. .
, 2,500~3,500 Hz
(formant) (Fig. 7). F3 F4
(singers formant) ,
. (Fig. 8, 9, 10).
1(R1) 4)
(R2) , ,
2,500~3,000 Hz ,
(Fig. 8), . (Elastic recoil
. force) .
,
: .
R1 ,

2011 .
R2

- 109 -


Spectrum '' Spectroaram

L-

A F1 : 645 (59) F2 : 893 (68) F3 : 2432 (60) F4 : 2650 (57) F5 : 3454 (51)

Spectrum '' Spectroaram

H-
Fig. 9.
(A)
(B). A 3 (formant)
(R1 )
F3 F4

.
B F1 : 731 (61) F2 : 1227 (63) F3 : 2852 (45) F4 : 3498 (42) (
) .

, , .
2006;17:115-26.
3) .
Speech
Singers Formant .
Mouth
2004;15:98-111.
Singing
4) . Vocal Register Tran-
sition (Passaggio) EGG .
2004;15:21-6.
5) .
, ,
. 2002;13:117-23.
6) .
end of epiglottal tube . 2001;12:
121-5.
glottis
7) Leino T, Laukkanen AM, Radolf V. Formation of the actors/spea-
Fig. 10. (Open throat) . (Singing, ) kers formant: a study applying spectrum analysis and computer
(Speech, ) modeling. J Voice 2011;25(2):150-58.
. 1 8) Oliveira Barrichelo VM, Heuer RJ, Dean CM, Sataloff RT. Compari-
. son of singers formant, speakers ring, and LTA spectrum among cla-
ssical singers and untrained normal speakers. J Voice 2001;15(3):
344-50.
REFERENCES
9) Sundberg J. Level and center frequency of the singers formant. J
1) . . Voice 2001;15(2):176-86.
2007;18:56-61. 10) Titze IR, Story BH. Acoustic interactions of the voice source with
2) . the lower vocal tract. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;101(4):2234-43.

- 110 -