Re: [Sursound] distance perception in virtual environments
On 17/04/2011 02:28, Junfeng Li wrote: Dear list, I am now wondering how to subjectively evaluate distance perception in virtual environments which might be synthesized using WFS or HOA (high-order ambisonics). In my experiments, the sounds were synthesized at different distances and presented to listeners for distance discrimination. However, the listener cannot easily perceive the difference in distance between these sounds. Anyone can share some ideas or experiences in distance perception experiments? or share some references on this issue? Thank you so much. Best regards, Junfeng -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110417/64a7d936/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound Hi List, Just popped in.. It's been a while! IMO it is a combination of time-of-flight and the inverse square law, where t=0 is a virtual point in time determined by the brain as an intercept by plotting a function of the intensity of (primarily) transverse reflections against time. Fortunately it is not necessary to work out how the brain might do this. One needs to concentrate maximising the availability, and accuracy of the information that would be needed to make such a calculation possible, without making too much muddy reverb. in the process. Mono reverb does not seem to play much, or possibly any, part in this. It seems to be extracted in some way from larger ITDs and ILDs ie. transverse discrete reflections. It took me several years to work all this out, and nobody seems to have independently come to the same conclusion in the last decade or so.. so it must be wrong. At least it is free and in the public domain now! My Heli.wav on Audio and Three Dimensional Sound Links* (long gone) was a product of precisely this method of distance synthesis. Regards, David Wareing. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] New filter
On 30/05/2011 16:18, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 07:49:19AM -0700, Ralph Glasgal wrote: RACE operates over the full bandwidth although it does nothing useful XTC-wise in the very low bass or the very high treble. David's operates only between 200 and 1000 Hz. I wonder what makes you write the latter. Simple measurement shows quite a different picture. Ciao, I think Ralph may have misunderstood my terse emails. There are indeed crossovers at 200Hz and 1kHz. The details I will keep to myself, but you can get the general picture from: http://www.wareing77.plus.com/Filters/Frequency_response_DW3.png ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] New filter
On 30/05/2011 17:45, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 05:08:41PM +0100, dw wrote: On 30/05/2011 16:18, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 07:49:19AM -0700, Ralph Glasgal wrote: RACE operates over the full bandwidth although it does nothing useful XTC-wise in the very low bass or the very high treble. David's operates only between 200 and 1000 Hz. I wonder what makes you write the latter. Simple measurement shows quite a different picture. Ciao, I think Ralph may have misunderstood my terse emails. There are indeed crossovers at 200Hz and 1kHz. The details I will keep to myself, but you can get the general picture from: http://www.wareing77.plus.com/Filters/Frequency_response_DW3.png Thanks for the confirmation. Two questions: 1. What is the purpose (if any) of the rather sharp dip at 130 Hz in the cross-channel response ? It is the point at which it goes through zero as the phase goes through 180 degrees. 2. Would you give me permission to add your filter (and a 48 kHz version) to the set supplied with jconvolver, with proper attribution in the config file of course ? http://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/index.html Certainly. John Pavel has already done so for his convolver. http://convolver.sourceforge.net/configegs.html I will add a link and config file for your convolver to /Filters. Ciao, ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] New filter
On 30/05/2011 15:49, Ralph Glasgal wrote: David's new crosstalk cancelling impulse response filter is a valuable addition to the large library of crosstalk cancelling gizmos now available. I just used it with Waves IR-L (under AudioMulch) for the front speakers and RACE (via TacT) for the rears, playing just ordinary stereo CDs, and I think this is the best four speaker wide stage and presence effect I have heard yet. That's the bad news. The good news is that it seems to get better the more you listen, as if the brain is learning a new head. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] New filter
On 30/05/2011 22:28, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 07:32:52PM +0100, dw wrote: At low frequencies this corresponds to the signals being (nearly) 180 out of phase at the speakers until I give up on flogging the speakers to death and swap to driving them in phase. I understand. As frequency goes down more and more energy is wasted driving the two speakers out of phase to deliver the right signals at the ears. There has to be a limit to this. But it's the 'swap to driving them in phase' that puzzels me. Why no just keep the difference gain at some maximum value, or even let it drop off as frequency goes down, instead of cross- fading to driving the speakers in phase ? Ciao, There is a useful 6dB gain to be had over driving just one speaker, let alone driving two in antiphase. Quite useful to have even if you don't have 1 woofers like me! I've already had Ralph complaining that Choueiri filters play louder! ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation
On 01/06/2011 17:42, Ralph Glasgal wrote: In most of the papers on crosstalk cancellation the point is made that at lower freauencies the power required to cancel the bass becomes prohibitive. I will make a feeble attempt to explain why this is a fallacy that derives from a common propensity to rely soly on mathematics when using the HRTF functions available. Yes, if you assume that one needs to cancel crosstalk at 20Hz then the usual HRTFs say the attenuation between the ears is negligible and so a high level signal is needed to do any cancellation and then more energy is needed to cancel this cancellation signal and the thing blows up. But, the ear is not sensitive to crosstalk below say 100Hz so one needs to take this into consideration. On can simply bypass bass frequencies around the HRTF bsased canceller but it turns out this is not really necessary in HRTF-less algorithms. One basic premise of RACE is that no HRTF functions need be used. But let us just concentrate on the bass region. RACE assumes a constant attenuation for a signal reaching the wrong ear. As the frequency declines this assumption becomes more and more inaccurate. But so what? What this means is that one is not doing much cancellation as the frequency gets down to say 90Hz which is okay since one does not localize well or at all at low bass frequencies anyway. In other words the amount of cancellation automatically declines with frequency so the overhead or power requirement does not change with frequency either. The head room needed is the same at all the normal real localization frequencies. (Very high frequencies are a different problem) You can see this in a brief note by Angelo Farina comparing RACE with other XTC methods. www.ambiophonics.org/papers/CrosstalkFilters.html Ralph Glasgal In fact I learned this from RACE. Instead of assuming cancellation at low frequencies, and then re-introducing large ITDs, either in the filter or counting on them from binaural recordings, I abandoned cancellation from 1kHz down and went for ITD directly. However there are only so many ways to squeeze a balloon without it bulging elsewhere.. BTW RACE has significant ITD, although smaller than mine :-) at lower frequencies. Perhaps this might explain why it works better than one might expect. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation
On 01/06/2011 20:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:42:42AM -0700, Ralph Glasgal wrote: But, the ear is not sensitive to crosstalk below say 100Hz so Where do you get this from ? Are you seriously saying that a low frequency signal delivered to one ear sounds natural ? Just try it. What this means is that one is not doing much cancellation as the frequency gets down to say 90Hz which is okay since one does not localize well or at all at low bass frequencies anyway. Now *that* is a fallacy if there ever was one. Agreed, if you play a 40 Hz sine in a small room without any acoustic treatment you won't be able to tell where it comes from. And if you put a piece of sandblasted glass on your computer screen then you won't be able to read this text. Things change if you allow them to. Apparently you have never heard a surround system that does reproduce low frequencies as they should be. Just plain intensity (panned) stereo gets close if the room doesn't destroy it. Ambisonic reproduction - even first order - gets this exactly right (under the same conditions). Ambiophonics makes a mess of it. Unless you use separate widely spaced speakers for LF (driven by intensity-based stereo), as some researchers have already recommended. To be clear: I don't want to denigrate Ambiophonics - it has is merits. But it would be better advocated using less pseudo science and by acknowledging its limits rather than by presenting it as something perfect invented by the gods and blessed by Alan Blumlein. In fact it's probably the most 'unnatural' way to reproduce sound - it's ill-conditioned by definition - even if sometimes it does work. Ciao, Computer say i can give you itd=450us @ 20Hz off the shelf. That is very near field, so should be unaffected by the room. I don't know whether it is true.. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation
On 03/06/2011 01:04, Marc Lavallée wrote: Le Thu, 2 Jun 2011 14:27:24 -0700 (PDT), Ralph Glasgalrglas...@yahoo.com a écrit : Obviously there is no reason not to use subwoofers with RACE, Wareing, or Choueiri. But those filters were designed to work with full range speakers, so unless the mains are on top of the subs I suppose it is better not to use the filters with subs that are apart from the mains. I think we are splitting hairs here. On the contrary, it's very interesting! It is incontroverible that the human ability to localize declines with frequency. Based on the Bose experiments and other AES papers written too long ago to remember, 90 Hz is where localization begins to become difficult. This is very hard to verify because all subwoofers have harmonic distortion and one localizes to that. Also in the early days, and even now apparently, the crossovers were not steep enough to prevent some energy over 90 Hz from reaching the subwoofers. I am sure somebody did it before Bose, but as far as I know he was the first to make a completly passive crossover network steep enough to allow the subwoofers to remain unlocalizable to anybody except Fons. I did a basic experiment with twos subs and a sound generation software (PureData with the equal_power_pan extension). I panned a bass sine tone from left to right and back, changing the frequency between 40Hz and 160Hz. I was able to localize the sine tone at certain frequencies, depending on my position in the room; at 70Hz the tone was very easy to localize. So it's definitely possible to create a sound field with directional bass, intentionally or not. I suspect you are just modulating the standing wave pattern.. Here is the 'uncut' version, if you would like to compare. I think it is less suitable for general use, so don't want it to be the offical distributed version. You seem to be the only one interested. The file will be removed in a day. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20268768/DW3_no_Xover_L.wav ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Fwd: Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation
On 10/06/2011 13:33, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:43:55AM +0100, Paul Hodges wrote: --On 10 June 2011 10:26 +0200 Bo-Erik Sandholm bo-erik.sandh...@ericsson.com wrote: Case B : Use a steady state 50 Hz signal and slowly pan it to new locations. Of course, as this involves the level from each speaker changing, the speaker feeds will still have the higher frequency components. Indeed, I presume they would appear even if you physically moved the speaker. Panning an LF signal around at F revolutions per second in a 3rd order AMB system would mean that the speaker signals have sidebands at +/-1F, +/-2F, and +/-3F Hz. But no more. Almost all of that would cancel at the listening position, where you'd have a constant amplitude pressure and gradient. Ciao, The idea of listening for pleasure to bass sounds without overtones or transients conjures up an image of a twitcher tracking down a rare, three legged sparrow. The public just don't understand.. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Fwd: Bass Problem in crosstalk cancellation
On 13/06/2011 03:44, Marc Lavallée wrote: I made an A/B/C switch to listen between direct stereo, BACCH and the new DW filters; both filters are cancelling well, but BACCH is less coloured. Not EYCv2L-44.wav, I assume. It must be a high $,$$$ version you have! I am curious how you manage to switch layouts. Also, there's plenty of bass coming out of the BACCH filter, more than with normal stereo. That can happen.. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20268768/EYCv2L-44.png Ignore ear traces which depend on the model used. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats andtheir viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 09/07/2011 10:03, ch...@chriswoolf.co.uk wrote: 60 degrees seems excessive head movement for someone seated listening to speakers.. Why ? It's a natural thing to do if there is any significant sound from that direction. Why should being listening to speakers make any difference ? I like to forget I'm listening to speakers. And *if* I turn my head, for whatever reason, and the illusion collapses, I'm not impressed... [Fons] I'd take that a stage further - the ideal arrangement would allow you to move around within the sound field with complete freedom. You should indeed be unaware of where any speakers are - and sweet spots, and need to face rigidly in one direction, are anathema to the anyone but a dedicated (and perhaps blinkered?) enthusiast. Listen you! I am at home not Glastonbury. I know when a play a recording, or watch TV, that there is nothing actually there! If I hear a sound behind am I supposed to get up and walk around, or use a mirror, just to look at the bloody walls. And don't confuse me with an audiophool. I've only ever had the chance to observe two demos (one Ambisonic, one WFS) which have been sufficiently impressive (with the programme material available) that the NON-cognoscenti recognised that they were in a space that wasn't the same as the physical room. Chris Woolf ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 09/07/2011 21:38, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:19:07PM +0100, Stefan Schreiber wrote: Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:04:21PM -0400, Marc Lavallée wrote: The perceived directional bandwidth of stereo recordings is better than what conventional stereo (with cross-talk) can reproduce. This is again a game of words. Most stereo recordings are made to be reproduced by two speakers, seen by the listener at an angle of 60 to 90 degrees, and such that the signals from either speaker reach both ears. That is the way it is supposed to work. There is a solid theory behind this. Calling this 'crosstalk (a term which has a negative connotation as a defect of audio equipment), and the cure 'crosstalk cancellation' amounts to gross intellectual dishonesty. The signals you find on the vast majority of stereo records are _not_ meant to be delivered one-to-one to the ears. And people listen to the same stuff via headphones? The fact that many recordings intended for speaker reproduction (in particular those using panned mono sources) work also on headphones is remarkable, and an illustration of how adaptive our hearing can be. But almost always you can improve the results on headphones by introducing the sort of 'crosstalk' that a speaker system would produce. Either using HRTF, or in the simplest case a highpass filter on the difference signal (which is a crude approximation). The exceptions are binaural recordings of course, which should be left as they are. The simple fact is that there is *fundamental* difference between signals supposed to be correct when delivered 1-to-1 to the ears, and those intended to be reproduced using two speakers. The vast majority of available records are of the second kind. Ciao, Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo recording for me to play with. ps. You misunderstand the nature of my A-HYBRID filter, I think. I certainly hope so. pps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has theoretical sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people, His fans are still as self-righteous as ever. ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an omni? ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 09/07/2011 22:28, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: On 07/09/2011 11:13 PM, dw wrote: Care to send a clip of an impossible-to-sound-as-good-as-with-stereo recording for me to play with. well, this kind of stand-off isn't likely to lead anywhere. sounds good is very hard to define or even test. i'm not terribly interested in applying xtc to standard stereo, because i know that perfect xtc is achived with headphones, and i don't like the imaging of stereo over headphones. and before you ask: i don't like the imaging of headphones bent outwards so as to benefit from my pinna filters, either. speaker xtc can only be worse than headphones. ps. You misunderstand the nature of my A-HYBRID filter, I think. I certainly hope so. i've browsed the readme on your site - is there some more in-depth information about this filter somewhere? I certainly hope not, apart from what I explained to Fons here, about the one I gave away , which was 'HYBRID'. I think I may 'disappear from the face of the earth' again, shortly. I've had enough already. ps. I am sure M Gerzon knew that ambisonics (low order) has theoretical sweet spot the size of a pea, but it still sounds good to some people, His fans are still as self-righteous as ever. i could imagine way worse things than being called a MAG fanboy. there has been very constructive discussion in the past about why first-order works way better than it obviously should, and what its limits are. this exchange however doesn't quite cut it in the constructive department. So how does this 'human energy-vector-detector work then? It is not the being a fan that I object to. I am a bit of a fan myself. You never objected to the non-constructive and rude comments of others.. ppps How are higher-order microphones coming aloing these days, or are we still happy truncating the infinite series at one order above an omni? higher order microphones work in principle, but are nowhere near as pleasant as simpler stereo microphones. in addition to coloration problems, they suffer from noise problems due to the high gains required. What you need is a 'virtual' high-order microphone. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 10/07/2011 09:00, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: On 07/10/2011 12:32 AM, dw wrote: I was thinking more of recording in mono, computing the vectors in various bands from the output of some large microphone array and then encoding (the mono sound) into the required number of spherical harmonics. i don't think that's possible. imagine two similar instruments, one at 0° and the other at 180°. once recorded in mono, they will be fused together irrevocably. you won't be able to separate them with the help of any vector metadata. Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for telescopes) The soundfield microphone cannot separate two or more sound sources at _any_ frequency for this reason. This does not seem to worry the 'fanboys'. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 10/07/2011 11:02, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:10:49AM +0100, dw wrote: Any microphone capable of separating two sound sources MUST be large in terms of wavelengths (similar to the diffraction limit for telescopes) The soundfield microphone cannot separate two or more sound sources at _any_ frequency for this reason. First this is not true, second it is irrelevant. You don't need to 'separate' sources (i.e. procude signals that each contain one source) in order to reproduce them. You snipped the context. i don't think that's possible. imagine two similar instruments, one at 0° and the other at 180°. once recorded in mono, they will be fused together irrevocably. you won't be able to separate them with the help of any vector metadata. What is not true? I thought the whole point of higher orders was higher resolution so that you could make less efficient use of your speakers.. This does not seem to worry the 'fanboys'. Indeed it does not. The problem with higher order mics at LF is of a different nature: they require very high gains on difference signals if the mic is small compared to wavelength. OTOH, high order at low F is not essential for reproduction. You can produce 3rd order AMB with the Eigenmike. But the problem is that the frequency range gets limited at both ends as order goes up. A normal AMB decoder expects full range signals at all orders, so it will produce a poor result. It is possible to create a decoder adapted to the available frequency ranges, i.e. one that changes order in function of frequency and would be full high order only for medium frequencies. Problem with this is that there is no standard way - the decoder depends on the mic. Ciao, ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
On 10/07/2011 19:36, Marc Lavallée wrote: dwsurso...@dwareing.plus.com a écrit : On 10/07/2011 18:10, Stefan Schreiber wrote: If you can't reproduce full horizontal 360º surround via two front speakers, then the binaural via two loudspeakers approach doesn't work, and there is no solution to reproduce 3D sound in this way. (Your colleague Choueiri claims this on the cited web page, and with every respect, no way...) It can work but is not robust. Get a Jambox and don't move your head in this case. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20268768/auberge-clip.wav - He walks in front and returns behind for most people. What so special with the Jambox? It is one thing that E Choueiri uses for demos, I know it works. It must be used very near-field. I don't have an anechoic chamber and that is the next best thing. I tried with small speakers. The stage is no larger than 120 degrees. When the walker comes back; he was probably walking behind, but to me the sound is just louder and there's less echo, as if we was nearer, not really behind. But it's a nice clip! -- Marc ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] the recent 2-channel 3D sound formats and their viability for actual 360 degree sound
This one is vaguely in-head rather than down, and also well-out-of head. I am doing these with the my public domain 'stereo' filter, which is not ideal for this. I have deleted my stuff as I am turning my back on audio for another decade after I tidy up some loose ends. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20268768/sg.wav ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Binaural
Hi all, Just popped in to do some spamming.. I hope there are still some here with a passing interest in binaural. I have made a new type of dummy head, and am looking for some feedback on whether it works for anyone other than myself. The samples are here: http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/ All files are 'public domain' CC0 David. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] The commercial future of Ambisonics
On 18/05/2013 02:17, Stefan Schreiber wrote: On current headphones, neither stereo nor 5.1 sound really convincing. Therefore, the headphone companies and - some day - maybe even Apple etc. should look for ways to defeat the in-head and listening-fatigue effects on current devices. It is actually stunning that so few companies have tried to improve the listening experience on headphones. (Smyth Research, Beyer, some VR equipment, and who else?) Stereo works just fine for me via my dummy head and £30 hd219 phones. Better than listening direct with my own ears (reduced crosstalk). Ambisoncs looks very promising too, although the setup is very critical. There is limited source material, and none that I have found without 'precious' copyright restrictions, so it cannot be demonstrated.. A Raspberry Pi does (stereo) 2X2 convolution from file to soundcard in realtime. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] The commercial future of Ambisonics
O If we find some convincing ways to reproduce surround via headphones, a market could easily be developped. Other people might want to listen to (future) surround recordings via 6, many or zillions (WFS) loudspeakers at home. This never will be a mass market, but if (configuration independent) surround recordings can be done and distributed via defined formats, people could chose how they would listen to these recordings. On current headphones, neither stereo nor 5.1 sound really convincing. Therefore, the headphone companies and - some day - maybe even Apple etc. should look for ways to defeat the in-head and listening-fatigue effects on current devices. It is actually stunning that so few companies have tried to improve the listening experience on headphones. (Smyth Research, Beyer, some VR equipment, and who else?) Head-tracking is currently getting really cheap, and could easily be included into such products. (This is not what I or somebody else believe , it is a fact.) One reason for binaural in-head localization can be 'faking it' with multi-miking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh4u4IKiXHU I knew the Tardis was not real, but still... ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Making a standalone 8ch PLayer
On 23/05/2013 17:17, Simon Edmonds wrote: Ooops - I'll try that again Raspberry Pi has HDMI HDMI supports 8 channels of HD digital audio I wasted a lot of time trying. I think the RPi only supports two channels on HDMI, or did six months ago. Jackd also seemed to be broken, although some sort of fix emerged. BruteFIR worked though :-) then a breakout box to take the 8 channels of audio to analogue? Simon Edmonds Logic Workshop Limited | Strategic, Technical Creative Marketing Services Ty Llwyd House | Nantyderry | Abergavenny | Monmouthshire | NP7 9DG | UK M: +44 (0)7740 194680 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Ambisonic-binaural
There does not seem to be much of this around on Ambisonia/Soundofspace, so I thought I would do one, for a handy demo on mobiles etc. http://soundofspace.com/ambisonic_files/63 (JHROY), converted with wvunpack.exe, convolved using ConvolverVST in Audiomulch, with IRs made using WigWare, Virtual Cable, HolmImpulse, Quad Capture, diy dummy head (6 mics version), Kef KHT3005SE, living room. No EQ anywhere. Sennheiser HD 219 headphones recommended, for those with less money than sense. MP3 80Mb. (quite long..) https://www.dropbox.com/s/b2blnf0mt4vf2dg/jhroy_fun-fair-ambisonic-binaural.mp3 -DW http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/189818/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] ambi playback configution and calibration
On 19/09/2013 20:50, David Worrall wrote: (*) Is there a way of searching across https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/? You don't even need to subscribe to the list to search it.. http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.audio.sursound http://www.mail-archive.com/sursound@music.vt.edu/maillist.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Stereo - binaural
Oh well, forget me trying Ambisionics-binaural periphony then.. Not worth the effort. I'll leave you with some stereo I inadvertently recorded from the telly, before I delete it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/o07pwtokung2h8i/Stones%20at%20Glastonbury%20tv%20stereo%20to%20binaral%20%20.mp3 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Storm!
http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/204958/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Re Storm - dropbox
This is in my dropbox for a short time, for those without a freesound account. The built-in player there is low bitrate. https://www.dropbox.com/s/gs67gis7br3f5fm/blustery%20showers.mp3 Really good with the right cans! ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] B-Format test signals 5.1
On 11/11/2013 12:48, Eero Aro wrote: Dave Malham: Oh - I see, the naming of the files implies LF and simultaneously that it is 330 degrees...which is it, Eero? The Harpex display shows it (LF 330) at RF 30 deg.. Can't any of you guys actually play it! There of plenty of reasons why Ambisonics and binaural should not work well, but it can sound ok to me on My £11 cans.. https://www.dropbox.com/s/4elj3wj9wzd9rr2/Untitled.mp3 Funnily though, Dave. I made it with your B-Pan plugin. The Azimuth control of the plugin at 330 degrees points to Left Front. Eero ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Fwd: Re: B-Format test signals 5.1
Original Message From: - Mon Nov 11 18:55:53 2013 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 0080 X-Mozilla-Keys: Message-ID: 52812836.1070...@dwareing.plus.com Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:55:50 + From: dw d...@dwareing.plus.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Furniss adf.li...@gmail.com Subject:Re: [Sursound] B-Format test signals 5.1 References: 5278d54a.8090...@brideswell.com 8d0a84df4f291e0-a10-5...@webmail-vfrr22.sis.aol.com caghwssbhhf8f8df-loji8w_epaa9f1udedkffhi2d2jr9c1...@mail.gmail.com 527fba2f.3090...@dlc.fi 527ff3f2.9080...@gmail.com 527ff837.9090...@dlc.fi 528013ab.3060...@gmail.com capw+1zslxkonb66ljgqmltdh9sddfn28lmpck9sftocm0rc...@mail.gmail.com capw+1zscdu4h2ol3mvumf-v_r8xc_ua6o4yywq7a31bpqxf...@mail.gmail.com 5280d223.2050...@dlc.fi 5280d562.6070...@dwareing.plus.com 5280fa21.3070...@gmail.com In-Reply-To:5280fa21.3070...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 11/11/2013 15:39, Andy Furniss wrote: dw wrote: There of plenty of reasons why Ambisonics and binaural should not work well, but it can sound ok to me on My £11 cans.. Interesting can you expand a bit? Perhaps later... As far as I know it only works well for me, and these: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koss-Clip-On-Stereo-Headphones-Smartphone/dp/B0006B486K https://www.dropbox.com/s/4elj3wj9wzd9rr2/Untitled.mp3 May I ask how you made that and which hrtf? I made it like this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ta5s993akghhtjq/Ambisonic-AudioMulch.png Where the impulse responses are binaural room IRs of my DIY dummy head, in my living room, with W, X, and Y as inputs to to a square of speakers using WigWare(sp?) as the decoder. http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2013/294bfc4d/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] B-Format test signals 5.1
On 11/11/2013 15:39, Andy Furniss wrote: dw wrote: There of plenty of reasons why Ambisonics and binaural should not work well, but it can sound ok to me on My £11 cans.. Interesting can you expand a bit? Here are some links: http://www.gbcasa.org/cms/audio/Griesinger-Binaural-Hearing-EarCanals-Headphones.ppt http://www.stereophile.com/content/spacethe-final-frontier-letters-2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2013/03/listen-up-binaural-sound.shtml http://tinyurl.com/ojbtxgy http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acoustics_Today/Pitch,%20Timbre,%20Source%20Separation_talk_web_sound_3.pptx http://homepages.nyu.edu/%7Ear137/Publications/AES131_HRTFformat_final.pdf Now combine these with the fact that each ear gets the superposition of the HRIRs from each speaker position, convolved with the headphone response. The result is not going be the HRIR of a real sound at the source position, except for in the low frequency region. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Hector bird recording - SoundCloud
Perhaps witchcraft needs some strange settings. For headhones - https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3 On 22/11/2013 14:21, dw wrote: On 21/11/2013 19:08, Aaron Heller wrote: I took the liberty of merging them into 4-channel files and putting them on my server, which might be easier to access than the skydive (the UI was in Japanese for me, fortunately I recognized the character for 'down') http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/01-Birds_WXYZ-110425_0119.wav http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/05-Music_WXYZ-110425_0127.wav They sound quite nice. In Harpex, you can clearly see the locations of the singers, percussion, and birds. Impressive! Thanks... Aaron (hel...@ai.sri.com) Menlo Park, CA US Is the W level correct? I am finding myself turning up my W knob 3-6dB relative to other recordings before it sounds good.. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Hector bird recording - SoundCloud
That seems to have fixed it. Nobody expects the strange knob position! Not as big and wet as John's, but very clean and in front,.. she said. https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3 https://www.dropbox.com/s/4elj3wj9wzd9rr2/Untitled.mp3 On 24/11/2013 00:08, Hector Centeno wrote: Hello! Yes, I gave those recordings to Umashankar before I got the microphone calibrated. I just uploaded a B-format version converted using Tetraproc and the preset file that Fons made for me after I gave him my IR measurements. It's not exactly the same fragment but comes from the same group of recordings. Those birds make indeed very strange sounds, they are called Urracas in Mexico, were the recording was done. This is obviously not a pure nature recording since it was done in the backyard of a house in the city. I placed the mic right under the tree where the birds were perching. http://www.hcenteno.net/extras/Urracas_WXYZ.wav.zip I'll try to get the music recording processed too by tomorrow. Cheers! Hector On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Eric Benjamin eb...@pacbell.net wrote: Is the W level correct? I am finding myself turning up my W knob 3-6dB I'm tempted to agree. Of course it's difficult to be certain. From: dw d...@dwareing.plus.com To: sursound@music.vt.edu Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 6:21 AM Subject: Re: [Sursound] Hector bird recording - SoundCloud On 21/11/2013 19:08, Aaron Heller wrote: I took the liberty of merging them into 4-channel files and putting them on my server, which might be easier to access than the skydive (the UI was in Japanese for me, fortunately I recognized the character for 'down') http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/01-Birds_WXYZ-110425_0119.wav http://ambisonics.dreamhosters.com/05-Music_WXYZ-110425_0127.wav They sound quite nice. In Harpex, you can clearly see the locations of the singers, percussion, and birds. Impressive! Thanks... Aaron (hel...@ai.sri.com) Menlo Park, CA US Is the W level correct? I am finding myself turning up my W knob 3-6dB relative to other recordings before it sounds good.. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20131122/fb208b96/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] VR and cheap headtracking in 2013...
On 02/12/2013 20:33, Julian Rabius wrote: Of course, personal HRIRs are to be prefered, but up to now I use these: https://dev.qu.tu-berlin.de/projects/measurements/wiki/Impulse_Response_Measurements I came across these KU100 data: http://www.audiogroup.web.fh-koeln.de/ku100hrir.html although I have not used them, and there are none I fancy.. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] VR and cheap headtracking in 2013...
On 02/12/2013 21:08, Andy Furniss wrote: Interesting and cheap - not so sure about the magnetometer near speakers. Less of a problem than eating the baked beans that were stowed next to the fluxgate compass sensor, coming down the North Channel one night, one would think. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related
On 12/12/2013 12:40, Marc Lavallée wrote: Hi Étienne. etienne deleflie edelef...@gmail.com a écrit : ... and then ambisonics is suddenly available to masses of people, for very cheap, and with a consistent and quality spatial experience (assuming the HRTF decoding can be done right). Etienne HRTF decoding is the problem here. Finding a proper HRTF profile by trying many (over of hundred) is not a solution; realistic binaural reproduction works only when I listen to my own binaural recordings. So, to enjoy mass produced ambisonics, I'd need personalized HRTF measurements, a service that is not cheap and non-existent for a majority of HRTF challenged people; for us, decoding ambisonics over 4 speakers is a better option, It is undeniable that listening to FOA over a bunch of speakers will mess up your 'personallised (actual) HRTFs' considerably.. It is debatable whether putting mics in your own ears yields anything very useful. Arguing that HRTFs are like fingerprints misses the fact that the detailed individual patterns of fingerprints have no known function (apart from forensics) You just have to have 'some', for antislip or touch reasons. The analogy might turn out well, after all. and streaming ambisonics from a phone with blutooth to a classic decoder would work. With ambisonics, there's many solutions. -- Marc ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related
On 12/12/2013 12:44, umashankar manthravadi wrote: two years ago, I acquired a motor cycle helmet with the intention of mounting eight headphones to listen to ambisonics without hrtf. i was going to use it with a 20 dollar dolby 7.1 usb device. It was not one of your better plans.. :-) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related
On 12/12/2013 23:10, Peter Lennox wrote: beg to differ... (paper to follow...) Dr Peter Lennox I was wondering where my taxes went.. School of Technology, Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology University of Derby, UK e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk t: 01332 593155 From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of dw [d...@dwareing.plus.com] Sent: 12 December 2013 23:02 To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related On 12/12/2013 12:44, umashankar manthravadi wrote: two years ago, I acquired a motor cycle helmet with the intention of mounting eight headphones to listen to ambisonics without hrtf. i was going to use it with a 20 dollar dolby 7.1 usb device. It was not one of your better plans.. :-) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was sent to you in error, please select unsubscribe. Unsubscribe and Security information contact: info...@derby.ac.uk For all FOI requests please contact: f...@derby.ac.uk All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related
On 21/12/2013 03:40, David Worrall wrote: I remember reading that, with exposure, human's audio-processing hardware can adapt to/learn how to use a non-optimal HRTF, given a bit of time. Does anyone have a reference for this? http://128.102.119.100/publications/wenzel_1993_Localization_Head_Related.pdf David On 15/12/2013, at 5:57 PM, Marc Lavallée wrote: Hi Dave. I never tried head tracking while listening to stereo or Ambisonics (I'm not that much of an insider). I'm optimistic about it, even with virtual microphones; but I suspect that the contribution of head tracking would then be limited to the interpretation of level differences and transitions between the left and right. What I miss is a realistic HRTF rendering experience (without head tracking). For every HRTF I tried (from the KEMAR and LISTEN sets), as with stereo, front sources were always in the head, not at the front; the front test tone was just louder then the rear one. I don't know what are the right conditions to experience good HRTF based localization (in a acousmatic context, without visual cues). I don't know if using a personal (measured) HRTF would be better; I just assume that it would be better because my own binaural recordings sound quite right, but probably just for me (to be verified) because I experienced the real sound scenes while recording them. -- Marc Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:50:09 +, Dave Malham dave.mal...@york.ac.uk a écrit : Hi Marc, I think it is, perhaps, a little pessimistic to talk of needing to assess dozens of hrtf's to find the one that's right for for you, if you have head tracking in use. My experience with this dates back 20 years to the days of the Lake DSP Huron systems when I first heard this - even without specific hrtfs switching the the head tracking on was enough to change the system from not working (for me) to working. The head tracking (done with a Polyhemus sensor controlling the processing of FOA B format signals prior to decoding) was enough with no need to select hrtf's. I would suspect that having just a few to select from would be enough. Dave ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound __ Prof. Dr. David Worrall Emerging Audio Research (EAR) Audio Department International Audio Laboratories Erlangen Fraunhofer-Institut für Integrierte Schaltungen IIS Am Wolfsmantel 33 91058 Erlangen Telefon +49 (0) 91 31 / 7 76-62 77 Fax +49 (0) 91 31 / 7 76-20 99 E-Mail: david.worr...@iis.fraunhofer.de Internet: www.iis.fraunhofer.de Senior Adjunct Research Fellow, Australian National University. david.worr...@anu.edu.au -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20131221/90a012e3/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related
On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote: dw wrote: On 12/12/2013 12:40, Marc Lavallée wrote: Hi Étienne. etienne deleflie edelef...@gmail.com a écrit : ... and then ambisonics is suddenly available to masses of people, for very cheap, and with a consistent and quality spatial experience (assuming the HRTF decoding can be done right). Etienne HRTF decoding is the problem here. Finding a proper HRTF profile by trying many (over of hundred) is not a solution; realistic binaural reproduction works only when I listen to my own binaural recordings. So, to enjoy mass produced ambisonics, I'd need personalized HRTF measurements, a service that is not cheap and non-existent for a majority of HRTF challenged people; for us, decoding ambisonics over 4 speakers is a better option, It is undeniable that listening to FOA over a bunch of speakers will mess up your 'personallised (actual) HRTFs' considerably.. ??? Frankly, this is a messed up statement. You need HRTFs if listening via headphones. When listening over speakers decoding ambisonics over 4 speakers is a better option, , you are listening via the the superposition of several of your natural HRTFs with varying amplitudes and delays. In the time domain this is not equivalent your HRIR for any real source. Interpolation between these several speaker-head IRs will occur at the sweet spot to give more or less correct ILD and ITD values, but outside of the sweet spot, and at high frequencies, the resulting IR is alien. Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.) The undeniable tag doesn't help a lot, BTW. Superposition of IRs is a fact of life. Best, Stefan Schreiber ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related
On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote: Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.) The Ambisonic scientologists don't want to play? In 1901, Allen Upward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Upward coined /Scientology/ as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind, unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology The undeniable tag doesn't help a lot, BTW. Thanks for that. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20131221/c641a3d0/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related
On 21/12/2013 13:28, Stefan Schreiber wrote: dw wrote: On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote: dw wrote: On 12/12/2013 12:40, Marc Lavallée wrote: Hi Étienne. etienne deleflie edelef...@gmail.com a écrit : ... and then ambisonics is suddenly available to masses of people, for very cheap, and with a consistent and quality spatial experience (assuming the HRTF decoding can be done right). Etienne HRTF decoding is the problem here. Finding a proper HRTF profile by trying many (over of hundred) is not a solution; realistic binaural reproduction works only when I listen to my own binaural recordings. So, to enjoy mass produced ambisonics, I'd need personalized HRTF measurements, a service that is not cheap and non-existent for a majority of HRTF challenged people; for us, decoding ambisonics over 4 speakers is a better option, It is undeniable that listening to FOA over a bunch of speakers will mess up your 'personallised (actual) HRTFs' considerably.. ??? Frankly, this is a messed up statement. You need HRTFs if listening via headphones. When listening over speakers decoding ambisonics over 4 speakers is a better option, , you are listening via the the superposition of several of your natural HRTFs with varying amplitudes and delays. In the time domain this is not equivalent your HRIR for any real source. Interpolation between these several speaker-head IRs will occur at the sweet spot to give more or less correct ILD and ITD values, but outside of the sweet spot, and at high frequencies, the resulting IR is alien. Or you are just listening to the model of a (natural, complete, ideal) soundfield, even if this soundfield is reduced? , despite There is NO RECONSRUCTION of the original soundfield, despite the microphone by that name, and hype, if you understand 'field' to mean a volume or plane. At best it reconstructs the sound at a point, (in terms of dimensions in terms of wavelength) and CREATES a new soundfield, which may be plausable. you are listening via the the superpositioBun of several of your natural HRTFs with varying amplitudes and delays. Does this also happen if you/I attend a concert? I had to ask this one, for further clarification. Not normally, but I suppose it could if you were surounded by singers who were in-phase and in tune. (see Griesinger) http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acous...b_sound_3.pptx http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acoustics_Today/Pitch,%20Timbre,%20Source%20Separation_talk_web_sound_3.pptx Note that I did not say that it 'mattered' if you listen via an 'alien' HRTF, but it might. You just don't get your 'own' whether by listening to a real speaker, or through DSP convolution. At least you can stay in the sweet spot using headphones, and you get a chance to 'learn' it before it all changes again! On 21/12/2013 10:58, Stefan Schreiber wrote: Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.) The Ambisonic scientologists don't want to play? In 1901, Allen Upward http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Upward coined /Scientology/ as a disparaging term, to indicate a blind, unthinking acceptance of scientific doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology Naaah. I am just a musician, and I always like to question theories, including your's - because you have presented a technical/scientific theory, or at least some interpretation of what happens if FOA is decoded via 4 loudspeakers! The latter ain't be perfect, but this is certainly not related to binaural representation. (But I am aware that we are listening with two ears, at least in the normal case! ) I would never accuse _you_ of not wanting to play, or having a strange religion, or having undue respect for The Science.. And: I don't adhere to any Scientologist community or network...;-) The undeniable tag doesn't help a lot, BTW. Thanks for that. De nada! (I just wanted to express my belief that most to all theories are not undeniable. Further reading: Wittgenstein, Über Gewissheit. And Karl Popper basically says that theories can be easily falsified, whereas the verification is a more complex issue. Of course, scientologist philosophers won't prove my argument...O:-) ) It is pretty undeniable that each driven (working..) speaker in an Ambisonic array will make a sound which will arrive at each ear... and is simply summed in the time domain, or must be summed as vectors/phasors (taking into account phase/delay, as well as amplitude) in the frequency domain. I would not call this 'theories' and certainly not mine..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle Best, Stefan Just for clarification. (Nobody corrected this.) The undeniable tag doesn't help a lot, BTW. Superposition of IRs is a fact of life. Best, Stefan Schreiber ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman
Re: [Sursound] Upcoming Android apps ambisonic related
On 21/12/2013 16:24, Marc Lavallée wrote: My comprehension of Ambisonics is that the listener's head (in the sweetest spot) is exposed to one coherent approximation of a reproduced (or synthesized) sound field, not to a set of directional waves coming from the speakers (one directional wave per speaker). Understanding Ambisonics is already difficult, and I'm less comfortable with this concept based on the superposition of natural HRTFs. -- Marc ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound If you LP filter HRIRs sufficiently low, then small delays represent small phase changes and you no longer get lumps and bumps in the frequency response when you sum the IRs. 'Interpolation' between the HRTFs which vary in amplitude (and polarity), with source position, can result in the desired ITD, for example. I think BLaH went through this exercise. It does not mean you don't get some 'lumps and bumps' in the direct arrival higher up in frequency. With sufficient listening room refections adding incoherently the overall frequency response may be ok, although I am quite keen myself on the relative response between the two (direct/reflected) ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Motion-Tracked Binaural
On 22/12/2013 22:24, Marc Lavallée wrote: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:17:27 -0500, Len Moskowitz lenmoskow...@optonline.net a écrit : The capture array of microphones pictured in their Rondo video seems rudimentary. They're soliciting developers. More links: http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/binaural/motion_tracked_binaural_sound.html http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=7886 http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100070 Interesting, but why 16 channels from 8 binaural pairs placed horizontally on a sphere or cylinder (without pinnas), instead of a 4 channels B-format stream from a FOA microphone? Don't know, but the geometry is about right to place any artifacts due to two adjacent microphones that are tangential to the sound direction in an interesting place ( not unlike a a pinna response). Same plan I had for my original XTC filter... Dick is capable of such deviousness IMO! -- Marc ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Motion-Tracked Binaural
http://www.google.com/patents/US20040076301 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Motion-Tracked Binaural
On 28/12/2013 23:25, Aaron Heller wrote: Dick Duda and Ralph Algazi gave a talk and demo at a San Francisco AES meeting at Dolby Labs a few years ago. At that time, they were recording with a head-sized sphere with either 8 or 16 microphones around the equator. They imagined that 8 would be used for teleconferencing and 16 for music recording. The headphones used a Polhemus tracker to determine orientation. At low frequencies, multiple mics were processed to produce the ear signals and at high-frequencies (where spatial aliasing on the sphere becomes a consideration) they simply selected the closest microphone to the each ear location. Then generic pinna filtering was applied to improve front-back discrimination. The immediate impression is the externalization and solidity of the image. There is some more recent material here: http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/binaural/ Despite the pedigree, it is not the sexiest ewe in the flock, although it will turn a few heads.. The _binaural_ demos there don't work at all well for my ears, so I can see why they might want to try MTB. Dick was very helpful to me, more than a decade ago. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Binaural Experiment
I had a look, but I have a few problems.. I don't seem able to play 1a. The test is not blind as the curious, like me, can see the file names in the source. The Longcat eg.1b is the clear winner. I cannot force myself to listen to that much filtered noise - it seems pointless and unpleasant! I have converted one of your files from Soundcloud to binaural (2x2 convolution with my Dummy head IRs): https://www.dropbox.com/s/k1iyum6zosl6o70/Paul%20Dirks%20-%20Johnny%27s%20Sky%20binaural.mp3 Regards, David. On 07/01/2014 14:08, Paul Dirks wrote: Dear All I see the most interesting things passing by in this mailing list. This made me decided to do my thesis about binaural localization. I have made two experiments to test three different binaural panners and the accuracy of the localization. 1. New Audio Technology, Spatial Audio Designer 2. Longcat, H3D Binauralizer 3. Encoder: Daniel Courville, Solo2b2 Decoder: Harpex Ltd, Harpex-b It would really help me if some of you would have 15min for this experiment for the links below. In the first one i ask the rate in the localization is good/bad in the second one i aks the fill in were the sound is percieved. http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1489998/Binaural-Localization-Experiment-1 (10 min) http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1488686/Binaural-Localization-Experiment-2 (15 min) All thanks for your time and you will see hear more from me in the mailing list Because we all same a nice and interesting subject. With Kind Regards, Paul Dirks ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Binaural Experiment
I had a similar problem with the BBC's efforts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio3/2011/12/the-festival-of-nine-lessons-and-carols-in-surround-sound.shtml In that case I could not dowload them and switch quickly between versions. All that I could usefully say is that they all sounded bad, and I could not determine which was worst! A bit like voting in an election.. I have a problem with band-filtered noise. I don't think it tell you anything very useful, as the results are only applicable to band-filtered noise, and often anechoic HRTFS are used too, this means it has zero relevance in everyday situations. Science! What can you do with it! I liked your voice, music and recording, although I am not a great Cash fan! On 08/01/2014 16:45, Paul Dirks wrote: Hey David Thanks for your time. The survey loads some files very slow this is why the were not present. Not sure if Longcat is going to win, Harpex seems to do is the best When i listend i thought New Audio was the best. It's idd unpleasant next time i will take some other samples. and thanks for the file. gr Paul ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Binaural Experiment
On 08/01/2014 17:29, Fons Adriaensen wrote: On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:19:53PM +, dw wrote: I have a problem with band-filtered noise. I don't think it tell you anything very useful, as the results are only applicable to band-filtered noise, and often anechoic HRTFS are used too, this means it has zero relevance in everyday situations. Science! What can you do with it! Band-filtered noise can reveal how performance depends on requency range. In this test there is a serious problem: all the filtered noise examples have wideband transients at the start and end. This could completely invalidate the results. For example it could very well be that the transients can be located well but the noise itself not. To avoid that they'd need a short fade-in/out instead of being switched on and off. Agreed. I was not sure whether the glitches were my end, due streaming or something. Apart from that, I found all three systems sounded rather horrible. Agreed. There was a lot of colouration, and audible reverb without much distance, on some, Also you can't really determine direction when sounds are close to the head. Ciao, ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Beyond MP3: New push for high-resolution music so clear you can hear a pin drop
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html On 09/01/2014 17:57, Andrew Castiglione wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/09/beyond-mp3-new-push-for-high-resoluti on-music/?intcmp=features A 3.5 minute song can be 120MB or more, rather than 3 to 4 in a typical MP3. 24/48 and beyond. ;^) To spread the word, the Consumer Electronics Association has jumped headfirst into high-def; on Tuesday it launched the website http://www.hiresaudiocentral.com/ And like a longtime McDonald's eater who finally tastes foie gras, ears may be permanently changed. Cheers!!! Andrew Castiglione Think awesome, build awesome and be awesome. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140109/0fc772d2/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural
Thanks for listening! Yes, it is good recording, and uses Q-sound. I tried not to spoil it.. The soundfile link is after it has been convolved with binaural IRs from my dummy head and room. The IRs have gone through my speakers, room, dummy head, inverse filtering and final eq. Frequencies 100Hz to DC are crossed over to a synthetic IR, to replace the mono and room modes from the sub. Hopefully there will be very little colouration as it has been finally equalised to be flat for independent white noise. I hear the vocals outside the head and to the front (unlike the original stereo) regardless of any normal head movement, and even when lying down the image remains horizontal. The side images are quite good on the original. After 100s of hours listening to similar dummy heads it will sound better to me than anyone listening for the first time. However they are not personalised HRIRs (except by tweaking). unless my near-ear IRs are close to**a dirac delta function, for a speaker at 45 degrees. The head itself has more than two microphones (and ears). Some more info: http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2013/03/listen-up-binaural-sound.shtml On 10/01/2014 21:13, Eero Aro wrote: Isn't Roger Waters' Amused to Death Q-Sound? Q-Sound was designed to work with both speakers and headphones. It is not binaural as such. With speakers the stereo stage is very wide. However, the album has some very effecive spatial moments. Eero ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural
On 10/01/2014 20:48, Eric Benjamin wrote: David, Intriguing, but I don't know exactly what it is that I'm supposed to be hearing! A little descriptive text would be helpful. Eric Benjamin Many thanks for listening, Eric. Please see my reply to Eero. I can't really say the AES has been barking up the wrong tree, for years, unless I get some indication that my recordings sound the same to some others as the do to me. However this dummy-head should not work at all, for anybody! All that I have learnt so far is that there is a steady demand for woodpecker sounds.. regards, David. From: dw d...@dwareing.plus.com To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 6:23 AM Subject: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140110/bd7125aa/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural
If anyone is interested in trying this, it would be useful to know the effect of altering the playback speed on frontal localization. This would have the effect of shifting the position of any front/back directional bands, Better or worse for +/- 10% speed change would be good to know. I could then scale the IRs by resampling. This would have the effect of a smaller or larger head/ears, which I could then alter on the dummy head. Audacity for example has a speed change facility (top left, green arrow, and slider) Many thanks to anyone playing! On 10/01/2014 14:23, dw wrote: https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural
On 10/01/2014 20:48, Eric Benjamin wrote: David, Intriguing, but I don't know exactly what it is that I'm supposed to be hearing! A little descriptive text would be helpful. Apart from being crypic by nature, I did not want to bias expectations. Too late now.. I am using the monitor output of a Roland Quad Capture, which sounds significantly better than a laptop output. I am using Koss KSC75 Clip-on stereo Headphones http://www.amazon.co.uk/Koss-Clip-On-Stereo-Headphones-Smartphone/dp/B0006B486K/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8qid=1389441599sr=8-2keywords=koss They are modified with the intent of absorbing reflections between the pinna and phones, and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in the ear canal Cochlear Mechanics http://147.162.36.50/cochlea/cochleapages/theory/extmid/extmid.htmby inserting a full diameter pad of 16 sheets of horticultural fleece underneath the foam pad. This also has the unintended benefit of damping the bass resonance. There are probably, ahem, better cans, but at least one can replicate part of my listening method, if not my ears. Eric Benjamin From: dw d...@dwareing.plus.com To: Surround Sound discussion group sursound@music.vt.edu Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 6:23 AM Subject: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural https://www.dropbox.com/s/iga71wluxfcb4i6/Untitled2.mp3 ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140110/bd7125aa/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] 'Quasi-flat' binaural
On 10/01/2014 20:48, Eric Benjamin wrote: David, Intriguing, but I don't know exactly what it is that I'm supposed to be hearing! A little descriptive text would be helpful. Eric Benjamin I will add another cryptic clue, for the curious.:-) ITU-T Recommendation P-58 - HATS simulator for telephononometry (1. Scope) Specifically excludes (the effect of) vibration conduction paths such as bone conduction My device does not comply, in this regard, but uses addition microphones, and direction dependent filtering to simulate specific aspects of said (non) effect. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
[Sursound] Quasi-flat-binaural-IRs.zip
https://www.dropbox.com/s/valq6l3hhcsj1kq/Quasi-flat-binaural-IRs.zip ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Listening to FOA B-Format with head tracking
On 20/01/2014 02:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote: For a real-world application (next stage?), you might have to think how to connect a headtracker or headtracker-module to your mobile phone and other devices. (Interface question) http://www.instructables.com/id/Use-your-android-phone-sensors-on-the-arduino-/?ALLSTEPS I'll see if I can get it to talk to a PC instead, and get a hat.. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Listening to FOA B-Format with head tracking
It worked BTW. If someone can come up with a suitable ascii knob or midi interface. On 20/01/2014 17:04, dw wrote: On 20/01/2014 02:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote: For a real-world application (next stage?), you might have to think how to connect a headtracker or headtracker-module to your mobile phone and other devices. (Interface question) http://www.instructables.com/id/Use-your-android-phone-sensors-on-the-arduino-/?ALLSTEPS I'll see if I can get it to talk to a PC instead, and get a hat.. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Help: Anyone know how to record elevation information when doing binaural recording?
At the risk of upsetting just about everyone:-) here is my personal opinion: The science of binaural is a wonderful example of bending observations to fit the theory. I'm not entirely convinced there are any significant _head-related_ elevation cues. There are front/back cues IMO, but they are largely absent with most dummy-heads. You would be hard pressed to find any direction dependent spectral cues at all in my latest dummy-head recordings (that aren't there by accident). Koss KCS75 probably the cheapest and best for binaural that I have tried so far with my recordings, Sennheiser hd25 I II better for bass, or if you need isolation, 10x price.. http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/ On 04/09/2014 12:57, 霖の wrote: Hi there, As we understand, binaural recording can capture both vertical and horizontal information for it using the head to encode the soundscape. And someone also says that he listened an very interesting binaural recording that you even can recognise the object is fallen from his head to feet. However, when i'm using CS-10EM Binaural microphone for recording, there are elevation information contains in the sound file. And I've checked the sound file which someone recorded by using 'dummy head', no elevation information as well. Anyone know what is the problem ? And anyone have recorded the elevation information before and how did you made it? Thank you very much, Yilin -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20140904/d66134fb/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] AmbiExplorer version 2 video
Is it possible to run this on a PC via an Android emulator. If so, how does one go about doing so? On 11/10/2014 00:29, Hector Centeno wrote: Hello all, After some delay, version 2 of AmbiExplorer is finally out and available at the Google Play store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.hcenteno.ambiexplorer As always, please contact me if you find any problems. Best, Hector Centeno On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Hector Centeno hcen...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I just would like to share here with the community the new features COMING SOON in version 2.0 of AmbiExplorer. A walkthrough video is available here: http://youtu.be/gOsfo8or_0E Please, feel free to make any comments, suggestions or requests in the list or to my personal email. I'm planning on making the update available within the next two weeks but I'm willing to delay it if there are any requests that I think could be implemented easily. My interest as a sound artist has been very influenced by the practices of field recording, soundscape based sound art and acoustic ecology. This is the reason why part of the new features are library management and library import/export (online/offline) and geotagging that would allow others to share location based ambisonic sound art work or field recordings (the exported .ambxp file is a simple CSV file with a structure described in the help section of the app). The other major features are Bluetooth head-tracking, HRTF selection from the LISTEN database and improved UHJ to binaural decoding. More details below: NEW FEATURES - First run user interface tutorial - New library system for importing 4 channel, dual stereo or UHJ files - Select an HRTF for binaural decoding from the full IRCAM LISTEN database - Connection to an external Bluetooth head-tracker with communication protocol based on the Razor AHRS project: https://github.com/ptrbrtz/razor-9dof-ahrs/wiki/Tutorial - Library item geolocation and Map view - Library item description/title editable - Create location placeholders using GPS (good for tracking locations during field recordings) or by long-pressing on the Map View. The placeholders can later be assigned to ambisonic files - Playback using automatic location based triggering that also works while the app is running in the background (with status bar notification) - Import and Export libraries as CSV files with extension .ambxp. The exported libraries include the geolocation and title data. - Import libraries from internet sources - Greatly iImproved UHJ to binaural decoding - Decode B-Format to stereo UHJ - Improved internal sensors stability - Several bug fixes and interface improvements Version 1 demo video: http://youtu.be/EJc85yACwjk http://hcenteno.net/software.html Best, Hector Centeno -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20141010/be08f085/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] More web surround and binaural from the BBC
Great effort, with much potential! The streaming part worked for me, except that my computer is too slow to do the room response convolution 'Binaural 2', The combination of anechoic IRs, and an incongruous collection of reverberant sound effects and dry, mono speech did not appeal to me.. Pity they did not provide an option for user IRs, and it proved too difficult for me to hack.. Here is a short excerpt I recorded with a dummy head from the playback of 'surround pass-through' in my living room: https://www.dropbox.com/s/4hdkqmp70pwx7m6/BBC%20S%20S%20trial%20dummy%20head%20recording%20sample.wav?dl=0 On 20/10/2014 15:48, David Pickett wrote: The BBC is recasting Under Milk Wood in 5.1 and binaural -- available for 30 days from 25 October. Technical and other details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014/10/under-milk-wood-in-headphone-surround-sound David ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Tommies 21st October 1914: A 3D immersive listening experience, designed for headphone listening.
I guess the trade descriptions act does not apply to Auntie! The 'binaural' Lucy Rose vocals sounded like they were recorded with the big mic seen in front of her mouth.. On 27/10/2014 22:17, Steven Dive wrote: Likewise. I get some vague sense of spaciousness but nothing 3D. On 27 Oct 2014, at 11:28, dw d...@dwareing.plus.com wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p028snwx Almost all in/near-head, to my ears. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] binaural theatre excerpts
On 11/11/2014 21:39, Bearcat M. Şándor wrote: I'm impressed. You put these together very well. Only the first one loaded completely but i was able to hear samples of all 4 streams. I haven't had much experience with binaural recordings. To me it sounded everything was in a band that was tight around my forehead but extended to my shoulders. The far left effect was on my left shoulder and the far right effect was on my right shoulder. When something moved across the stage in front of me, it sounded like it slid along my forehead but was never out in front. Is this what most people should experience? /I didn't mention binaural sound. Because it has one serious flaw that I feel is fatal: It doesn't do frontal imaging. Yes, it reproduces space magnificently and gives marvelous imaging of sounds to the sides and all the way around the rear quadrant; but most listeners hear front-located sources as being inside their heads, not in frontal space. Binaural can sound impressively realistic...until you compare it with discrete surround. - http://www.stereophile.com/content/spacethe-final-frontier-letters-2 It is missing the 'key' , with it, it does not behave as expected. https://www.dropbox.com/s/nbar9xpgq84vmh4/dog%20bone%20fairport.mp3?dl=0 / ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
On 13/11/2014 03:52, Adam Somers wrote: Still, I've yet to find a solution for b-to-binaural which is as convincing as some of the BRIR-based object-sound spatialization packages (e.g. DTS HeadphoneX and Visisonics Realspace). I think what's primarily lacking is externalization, which perhaps can be 'faked' with BRIRs. I'm thinking of a 'virtual listening room' where the b-format recording is played through BRIRs instead of anechoic HRTFs. Anyone have experience with that? I can work fine, it did for me. I did it this way: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ta5s993akghhtjq/Ambisonic-AudioMulch.png?dl=0 It worked better for natural B-format recordings than anechoic or rendered source. The IRs were made by feeding the HOLMimpulse sweeps into an Ambisonic decoder and HT receiver as W,X and Y, and recording wth a dummy head. They were in a square about 1 metre from speaker to ear. The speakers needed to be placed to better than 1cm. or the image suffered. I am afraid all the files have been deleted when there was no interest. I only have a direct recording of ambisonic playback of mainly John Leonard's http://www.ambisonia.com/ aircraft recordings, from a direct recording (not convolved) including extraneous noises, like the HT relays clicking, and people moving about.. https://www.dropbox.com/s/feum9ks7pay5ohq/Ambisonic%20binauiral%20aircraft.flac?dl=0 The Z input was not used, left unwired, or dummy IRs used in these cases. I later found an improvement from using Z, even without an appropriate playback system. KCS75 recommended for playback, particularly if you want to compare with speakers without removing the earpieces. http://www.amazon.com/Koss-KSC75-Portable-Stereophone-Headphones/dp/B0006B486K ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote: The VRSFX system can do 2-dimensional head-tracking. At best! I have a feeling head-tracked nodding is not going to help the combination of Ambisonics and binaural. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
On 19/11/2014 22:01, Stefan Schreiber wrote: dw wrote: On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote: The VRSFX system can do 2-dimensional head-tracking. At best! I have a feeling head-tracked nodding is not going to help the combination of Ambisonics and binaural. Completely wrong perspective, in this context. VR requires head-tracked (3D) video and audio. Because you are simulating a real-world experience. That would depend on the frame of reference for localisation - head or ground. Secondly can anyone actually render a sound object around the median plane using a combination of Ambisonics and binaural, or even Ambisonics using speakers? I don't know. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
I am thinking of FOA above. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
There are numerous examples where the predictions of HRTF localisation are falsified by observations. What is one to think of the science? On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote: dw wrote: On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote: Binaural recordings have weaknesses: - They are definitively coloured by the chosen pinnae forms, head-shape (and maybe torso-shape). The kunstkopf approach means that you will have to chose some general HRTFs filters during recording... That is just what the Herd Science says.. You can do binaural recordings. I doubt binaural recording techniques fit well to VR applications, mainly because of the HT/motion-tracking issues. The citing above was written within this context, showing an existing further problems. Herd Science There is either science or gossip. Please enlighten me and others about the true situation and science. (If - and this is a big if - you can do this.) Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW. Stefan Schreiber ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
On 19/11/2014 22:49, Paul Doornbusch wrote: Can you give us some links to this please? Thanks, Paul I'll give you a couple. If you record a sound in front of a dummy head, you would expect to hear it in front on replay through headphones. If you tilt your head backwards while listening, you would expect the auditory image to rotate with the head/ears/torso. Neither happens in all cases.. And then there is the 'externalization' problem. On 20 Nov 2014, at 9:46 AM, dw d...@dwareing.plus.com wrote: There are numerous examples where the predictions of HRTF localisation are falsified by observations. What is one to think of the science? On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote: dw wrote: On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote: Binaural recordings have weaknesses: - They are definitively coloured by the chosen pinnae forms, head-shape (and maybe torso-shape). The kunstkopf approach means that you will have to chose some general HRTFs filters during recording... That is just what the Herd Science says.. You can do binaural recordings. I doubt binaural recording techniques fit well to VR applications, mainly because of the HT/motion-tracking issues. The citing above was written within this context, showing an existing further problems. Herd Science There is either science or gossip. Please enlighten me and others about the true situation and science. (If - and this is a big if - you can do this.) Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW. Stefan Schreiber ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20141120/69ec9a54/attachment.asc ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
On 19/11/2014 23:08, Paul Doornbusch wrote: On 20 Nov 2014, at 10:01 AM, dw d...@dwareing.plus.com wrote: On 19/11/2014 22:49, Paul Doornbusch wrote: Can you give us some links to this please? Thanks, Paul I'll give you a couple. If you record a sound in front of a dummy head, you would expect to hear it in front on replay through headphones. If you tilt your head backwards while listening, you would expect the auditory image to rotate with the head/ears/torso. Neither happens in all cases.. And then there is the 'externalization' problem. Can you point me to a paper please? I read plenty of papers 20yrs. ago where front/back dIscrimination was little better than chance. I can't afford to pay for AES papers, for what one would get out of them.. On 20 Nov 2014, at 9:46 AM, dw d...@dwareing.plus.com wrote: There are numerous examples where the predictions of HRTF localisation are falsified by observations. What is one to think of the science? On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote: dw wrote: On 19/11/2014 20:42, Stefan Schreiber wrote: Binaural recordings have weaknesses: - They are definitively coloured by the chosen pinnae forms, head-shape (and maybe torso-shape). The kunstkopf approach means that you will have to chose some general HRTFs filters during recording... That is just what the Herd Science says.. You can do binaural recordings. I doubt binaural recording techniques fit well to VR applications, mainly because of the HT/motion-tracking issues. The citing above was written within this context, showing an existing further problems. Herd Science There is either science or gossip. Please enlighten me and others about the true situation and science. (If - and this is a big if - you can do this.) Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW. Stefan Schreiber ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20141120/69ec9a54/attachment.asc ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20141120/cb248fdb/attachment.asc ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
On 20/11/2014 17:59, Adam Somers wrote: We just released our first piece of VR content with ambisonic audio to the public. It's a live recording on stage at a recent Paul McCartney concert. The audio was captured from the sound board and mixed in b-format. Available for Google Cardboard now, Oculus Rift Mac/PC coming soon. http://www.jauntvr.com/content/ Adam Somers Jaunt, Inc. http://jauntvr.com If only I had a big telephone.. Wow, Cardboard, Paul McCartney and Ambisonics! LIke it! ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote: Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW. Let me put it in a more positive way then.. Your thinking is representative of the state of the art in binaural science.:-) Previous work http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper250 has shown that even with the state-of-the-art virtual surround systems we don't currently get a big improvement in quality over a conventional stereo down-mix. The perceived quality was found to vary significantly according to the source material used. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014/10/tommies-in-3d ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
The state-of-the-art finds it very difficult to render sounds below the listener. To do it with a 'flat' frequency response, and referenced to ground/gravity ie.. unaffected by normal, small head movements is a bonus. It is just a pity it might take a while to get used to.. I can't tell after being spoilt by 100s of hours of listening to various binaural recordings, and not hearing above 12kHz. http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/255159/ ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
The above file _does_ work for me. (only?) Unfortunately for you, if you click the third icon in the player, the spectrogram shows no obvious higher frequency pinna cues. One of Hugo Zuccarelli's demos does have good height cues for me, and many others, but that is the only one in hundreds of binaural recordings that I have heard. On 22/11/2014 02:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote: dw wrote: The state-of-the-art finds it very difficult to render sounds below the listener. To do it with a 'flat' frequency response, and referenced to ground/gravity ie.. unaffected by normal, small head movements is a bonus. It is just a pity it might take a while to get used to.. I can't tell after being spoilt by 100s of hours of listening to various binaural recordings, and not hearing above 12kHz. http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/255159/ This might be some observation worth for some serious discussion. Elevation cues depend a lot on pinnae forms, and are related (mostly?) to high(er) frequencies. The HRTF set you are using might just not do it for you? Would you notice some changes if you try to find some HRTF set which actually fits to you? (Provided that you are probably not able to measure your personal HRTF data...) Best, Stefan ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
It claimed to use state of the art applications of binaural rendering. Because I cited one white paper does not mean I have only read one in my life, or base my opinions on those of the BBC. I did not say you '_represent_ binaural science'. I do not pretend to understand it. Others do. I think they are wrong due to the lack of observational support for the implied predictions of said theories. On 22/11/2014 02:34, Stefan Schreiber wrote: dw wrote: On 19/11/2014 22:12, Stefan Schreiber wrote: Your posting seems to be meaningless if not arrogant, BTW. Let me put it in a more positive way then.. Your thinking is representative of the state of the art in binaural science.:-) Previous work http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper250 has shown that even with the state-of-the-art virtual surround systems we don't currently get a big improvement in quality over a conventional stereo down-mix. The perceived quality was found to vary significantly according to the source material used. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014/10/tommies-in-3d I actually have discussed this study with some people. (for example, Günther Theile) Experience with Realiser A8 from Smyth Research and IRT's BRS system seems to indicate that binaural systems with head-tracking and personalized HRTF filters can't be distinguished from real (5.1) speakers . (They used BRIRs of the listening room and the reference 5.1 speaker system, of course.) I don't believe that the BBC study is really flawless, BTW. (Günther Theile thought the same.) (I am too lazy to discuss this now, have some other stuff to do.) Your thinking is representative of the state of the art in binaural science.:-) Maybe you should read more than (just) one paper, before claiming that nobody beside you has some clue? :-D I also didn't claim to represent binaural science, if I remember well. Best, Stefan -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20141122/ad6a8a05/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
On 22/11/2014 02:43, Stefan Schreiber wrote: I don't believe that the BBC study is really flawless, BTW. (Günther Theile thought the same.) Günther Theile is not one of my drinking buddies, I wish he was. BTW the Stax demo is not that great.. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
Stefan. bach, You have not actually downloaded it, nobody has! Unless you are making the assumption that very low bitrate MP3 is the same as 24bit flac, there is nothing to discuss. On 22/11/2014 02:30, Stefan Schreiber wrote: http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/255159/ This might be some observation worth for some serious discussion. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
You are too kind:-) I improved my Koss KSC75 with a pad of 8 layers of horticultural fleece under the foam. It flattens the bass a little, and attenuates hf reflections. On 24/11/2014 21:16, John Leonard wrote: The MDR-7506 headphones are effectively the same as the MDR-V6, so that's probably it. Regards, John On 24 Nov 2014, at 20:25, dw d...@dwareing.plus.com wrote: I have found only two models of headphones that seem to compromise the binaural effect, and those are the Sony MDR-V6 and V7. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
I have many molds and casts of my ears and head in different materials. I can, for instance put my face ( in plaster ) on the back of my head. Once you start with something that works for you, your own natural hearing, for example, it is remarkably difficult to break, or understand. How would you know whether when you tilt your head whether the image stays in place wrt to the room because your brain has adjusted to the changed HRTF or whether it does not care. Having a working model to play with is quite useful. On 25/11/2014 00:23, Paul Hodges wrote: --On 24 November 2014 21:16 + John Leonard j...@johnleonard.co.uk wrote: The MDR-7506 headphones are effectively the same as the MDR-V6, so that's probably it. I don't find binaural demos very effective; and guess what - I use MDR-7506 headphones! Paul ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Molding ears / head - materials
You need to be a little careful. A trusted assistant is amost essential. I did it on my own as I can't get my wife to do such things.. Alginate is probably the safest material. I used a version of Nathan Galliardo's method for the ears. Alginate, plaster, silicone, whatever: https://gallardosound.wordpress.com/diyffs-binaural/binaural-dummy-head-microphone-part-1-casting-ears-with-alginate-and-plaster/ It would be easy to cast your head by sticking in in a bucket of plaster but then you would be dead. I did it is sections so I could breathe.. using Modrock, GRP, Isopon. but the resin vapours go through clingfilm and burn the skin. There are tutorials on better methods here: http://www.smooth-on.com/Life-Casting/c3/index.html On 26/11/2014 12:12, Lasse Munk wrote: Hi All, I would very much like to mold my own ears or make a dummyhead-replica-of-my-head .. i'm in a theater school with a workshop where I can do a lot of things, but I'm in doubt which materials that would be good to use for this task. Any ideas? All the best, Lasse ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Molding ears / head - materials
I found a picture of my ear molding: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mxzamir7j0plsez/ears.JPG?dl=0 The alginate stage is not shown but the container was clamped over the ear with the modded ear muffs with a CD with a hole in it behind the ear,sealed with shaving gel. I sealed the ear canal with wax earplug on the end of an earbud, and used the alginate together with the wax plug for the plaster cast. On 26/11/2014 20:56, Lasse Munk wrote: Hi all! I'm talking with one of the mask-making girls, but just wanted to help out a little bit - she was not entirely sure how to make an accurate replica of my head :) I will look more into the alginate, latex and medical sillicone.. thanks a bunch! :) Anyone made A/B testing with e.g. a neumann head and a replica of own ears.. are there a big difference? thanks! Lasse (a guy by the way ;) Michael Chapman wrote: The resulting head should probably be in Latex, how to take the original imprint ? maybe plaster of paris? No way. Unless you know exactly what you are doing you risk serious (very serious) burns. (Plaster produces heat as it sets. The hotter it is, the faster it sets. The faster it sets the more heat it produces. And so on.) Otherwise: -Plaster of Paris (POP) bandages (which may be what Bo-Erik was referring to), -Alginate are the common ones. POP bandages are relatively cheap, alginate not. Alginate is good for detail (which you probably don't want (e.g. a small ear piercing hole!)), bandages can be but requires skill. Alginate requires a supporting shell or 'boat', bandages don't. Three main hurdles: You are 'ronde-bosse', that is to say this is not a relief/imprint, so you need a multi part mould. The amount of hair (?skull cap, protect eyebrows, hope you have no beard (sorry don't know Danish forenames, so apologies if that one is a howler!)). Ears are, in my experience, impossible with bandages, and almost so with alginate. You may need _medical_ silicone (industrial silicone is not recommended for skin contact ... and I'd be very wary of most things near the auditory nerve). Those who fit hearing aids have two-part mixes for moulding canals. Maybe do the ears by themselves and 'glue' them on a more crudely done head ? Do contact me off list, if you wish. Michael (France) Or your mask making makeup department students should know :-) BR Bo-Erik -Original Message- From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Lasse Munk Sent: den 26 november 2014 13:13 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: [Sursound] Molding ears / head - materials Hi All, I would very much like to mold my own ears or make a dummyhead-replica-of-my-head .. i'm in a theater school with a workshop where I can do a lot of things, but I'm in doubt which materials that would be good to use for this task. Any ideas? All the best, Lasse -- sound designer soundjuggling.com 06 68 50 95 97 (FR) 00 45 26 84 44 41 (DK) -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20141126/5995be71/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
Re: [Sursound] Oculus Rift Visual Demo + Ambisonic Audio Available?
I will make a couple of points, rather than answering the question.. The most obvious feature (to me) of the pinna is front/back asymmetry. The biggest failure of binaural is front/back discrimination. Has anyone managed to cause the apparent source of a sound rise up in the air by changing the shape of your ear? To me it does little more than degrade the sound and reduce distance perception. I suspect that the following evolved (if true) for sound localization, and not cocktail parties: http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acous...b_sound_3.pptx http://www.davidgriesinger.com/Acoustics_Today/Pitch,%20Timbre,%20Source%20Separation_talk_web_sound_3.pptx On 26/11/2014 03:36, Sampo Syreeni wrote: On 2014-11-19, dw wrote: There are numerous examples where the predictions of HRTF localisation are falsified by observations. What is one to think of the science? So now you'd need to define what you mean by HRTF's. I at least think it means the full, static, anechoic impulse response from a certain source to your brain. I.e. my idea of what an HRTF is, is the full, optimal, linearly and time-invariantly modelable subset in L^2 norm, of any and all phenomena in both time and space/angle, which our too ears appear to be able to hear. So how could it be falsified? Tell me? At least as far as all of the linear acoustics happening around the head, and pinna, and shoulders, and the ear canal, go, it's a tautology that a full set of HRTF's captures it all. So what are you talking about, really? Something else than linear acoustics governed by the usual wave equation, for sure. But what precisely? I'd really want to hear. ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit account or options, view archives and so on.
