Increasingly, phonetic research utilizes data collected from participants who record themselves on readily available devices. Though such recordings are convenient, their suitability for acoustic analysis remains an open question, especially regarding how the individual methods affect acoustic measures over time. We used Quantile Generalized Additive Mixed Models (QGAMMs) to analyze measures of F0, intensity, and the first and second formants, comparing files recorded using a laboratory-standard recording method (Zoom H6 Recorder with an external microphone), to three remote recording methods, (1) the Awesome Voice Recorder application on a smartphone (AVR), (2) the Zoom meeting application with default settings (Zoom-default), and (3) the Zoom meeting application with the "Turn on Original Sound" setting (Zoom-raw). A linear temporal alignment issue was observed for the Zoom methods over the course of the long, recording session files. However, the difference was not significant for utterance-length files. F0 was reliably measured using all methods. Intensity and formants presented non-linear differences across methods that could not be corrected for simply. Overall, the AVR files were most similar to the H6's, and so AVR is deemed to be a more reliable recording method than either Zoom-default or Zoom-raw.

翻译：越来越多语音学研究使用参与者通过常用设备自行录制收集的数据。尽管此类录音便利，但其对声学分析的适用性仍是未解问题，尤其涉及不同方法随时间推移对声学测量的影响。我们采用分位数广义加性混合模型（QGAMMs）分析基频、强度及第一、第二共振峰等参数，比较实验室标准录音方法（搭载外接麦克风的Zoom H6录音机）与三种远程录音方法：（1）智能手机版“极佳语音录音器”应用（AVR）、（2）默认设置下的Zoom会议应用（Zoom-default）、（3）开启“原始声音”设置的Zoom会议应用（Zoom-raw）。对于长时段录音文件，Zoom方法存在线性时间对齐偏差；然而，在语段长度的文件中，该差异不显著。所有方法均能可靠测量基频。强度与共振峰在不同方法间呈现无法简单校正的非线性差异。总体而言，AVR录音文件与H6文件最为接近，因此AVR被视为比Zoom-default或Zoom-raw更可靠的录音方法。