Greetings,
I very much agree with Bo-Erik that what I proposed would be a difficult, if
not nearly impossible goal to achieve. Loudspeakers are certainly one of the
weak links in the system--and the link most open to subjective impressions. Dr.
Bengt-Inge Dalenbäck (CATT-Acoustic) had suggested using the Tannoy System 600
near-field monitors (a great choice for my budget). I have a few of these, and
saving for more. At present, I’m using older, passive KRK monitors with Focal
drivers; I’ve matched the dozen or so I own for frequency response. The KRKs
are fairly compact, yet each speaker has enough of a low end response that it
can provide the requisite stimulus without need of a sub or second loudspeaker.
Note: Some stimuli are designed to originate from a single location, hence the
need for speakers that are independently full-range.
It’s probably a lot more reasonable to state that what I wish to achieve is a
system that is “close enough” to a real world (acoustic) environment so that my
listening experiments have external validity. Experiments that purport
significant improvement in hearing aid or cochlear implant performance won’t
mean much if (for example) noise is coming from one loudspeaker and a single
talker (target stimulus) is emanating from a second speaker on the opposite
side of the listener. This, to me, just isn’t “real world.” I’ve investigate
several surround systems and I’m very pleased with results I get from my
Ambisonics set up and recordings made with my TetraMic (in addition to more
musical recordings made by many of you on the sursound list). Of course, my
subjective impression of my personal system would hardly pass scientific
scrutiny without measurable claims. Fortunately, nobody would expect a perfect
system, but I should have a
measurably “realistic” system if I’m going to denounce or applaud a new CI or
HA processing strategy.
When it comes to sound source localization, I received a very kind email from
Dr. WilliamYost the other day. Bill is undoubtedly one of the great names in
psychoacoustics. The note below (from Bill) may be of interest to those
interested in spatial hearing, ecological psychology (previous posts), and
hearing in general:
“I have been struck with how little we actually know about free-field sound
source localization. My [Air Force] grant, which just started, deals with
gaining more information about localizing more than one sound source, esp. when
the sources produce sound at the same time. This is a topic with almost no
literature... I am very interested in how the auditory system deals with
situations in which the source moves and the listener is stationary as opposed
to when the listener moves and the source is stationary. Both can produce
nearly identical changes in cues like ITDs and ILDs, but it would not be good
if the source was perceived as moving when the listener moves. There is a long
and rich literature on this problem in vision, with several known neural
circuits that cancel the retinal image changes based on vestibular or
proprioceptive cues when the observer moves. There is very little work on this
topic in the hearing literature.” [end abridged email]
As always, I am grateful for the help and insights that I receive on this
mailing list and other sources. Fortunately, I’m also spending a lot of time
making live (studio) recordings behind an SSL 4000 console, so my audio
endeavors continue to be more play than work. Life is good.
Best always,
Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20120601/4e42fc7d/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
