Digital Signal Processing with Computer Music

Assessment Overview

Assessment for this unit is based on three submitted pieces of work: a critical review (10%); a research essay (20%); and a performance with documentation (70%). For each of these, a preparation exercise can be submitted in advance. Feedback will be provided on the submitted preparation exercises, but they will not count toward the final grade.

Submission Deadlines

The public performance session will take place after the final lecture on Tuesday 30 November.

• 12 noon on Wednesday 13 October (Preparation): Review proposal
• 12 noon on Wednesday 20 October (Preparation): Essay proposal
• 12 noon on Wednesday 27 October: Critical review
• 12 noon on Wednesday 03 November (Preparation): Performance proposal
• 12 noon on Wednesday 17 November: Research essay
• 12 noon on Wednesday 01 December: Performance documentation

Critical Review

A critical review of a self-selected piece of research in Computer Music or Audio Interaction. (Contributes 10% to total grade)

The review should be presented in the style of a computer music research conference such as NIME, using the layout template for papers submitted to that conference. Academic conventions, including title, authors, abstract, citations and bibliography should be followed. The assignment must be no more than two pages in an ACM or IEEE template (including figures, but not including bibliography)

Preparation exercise

Provide full citation details, including abstract, of the target paper you propose. Summarise the objective of your review, as a contribution to the research literature that will complement, extend or correct the target paper.

Research Essay

A research essay, offering either a research proposal, synthesis of reseach material, or original argument. (Contributes 20% to total grade)

The essay should be presented in the style of a computer music research conference such as NIME, using the layout template for papers submitted to that conference. Academic conventions, including title, authors, abstract, citations and bibliography should be followed. The assignment must be no more than four pages in an ACM or IEEE template (including figures, but not including bibliography)

Preparation exercise

Provide a (draft) title and (draft) abstract summarising the argument that you expect to make in your research essay.

Performance

A public performance / demonstration of original work, accompanied by a programme note. Grading will be carried out by jury assessment. (Contributes 70% to total grade).

The performance itself will be judged in relation to the standard assessment criteria for the MPhil ACS, where originality, creativity and insight are considered by comparison to typical student performances at computer music research venues. The programme note should be presented in a format suitable for distribution to an audience, and can include any combination of image and typographic material. The programme note must provide sufficient detail to serve as archival documentation of the performance, including date(s) and venue(s), description of the piece, biographies of performers and other key contributors, and any necessary production credits or acknowledgements. In addition to the above text, the programme note should include a critical or reflective essay, of no more than 500 words, discussing either a theoretical question raised by the work, or plans to build on the technical achievements in future work.

Preparation exercise

Give a provisional title for your performance, explain what it will involve, and estimate the duration of the piece. Specify any equipment, materials, amplification, video, and other technical requirements for the prodution and staging of the performance. Describe the format, and any printing requirements, for the programme note. Summarise your plan for preparation of the performance and programme note, giving key dates by which each stage of work will be completed.

Assessment criteria

The assessment criteria for both the reflective diary and the final report will be the standard criteria applied across the MPhil ACS:

• 90-100% - Original interpretation extending beyond taught material.
• 80-89% - Demonstrates significant insight or creativity.
• 75-79% - Demonstrates critical thought and insight.
• 70-74% - Clearly presented. Evidence of understanding, but may contain some faults. Execution basically good
• 60-69% - Adequate presentation, lacking clarity or detail in places, or containing irrelevant material. Mostly demonstrates understanding, but with occasional mistakes.
• 50-59% - Somewhat incoherent, with important omissions, or irrelevant material. Some serious flaws in understanding.
• 40-49% - Work is poor and unstructured, with some parts missing. Little evidence of understanding, many inconsistencies and flaws.
• 30-39% - All aspects have been handled badly. Assigned work is substantially absent, incomprehensible or wrong. Little evidence of understanding, but at least mentions most of the relevant ideas.
• 20-29% - Almost total failure to engage with task. Assigned work is substantially absent, incomprehensible or wrong. Some reference to relevant ideas, but many are entirely missing.
• 0-19% - No evidence of any understanding. Marks may be given for presentation.