Re: [Sursound] the power of doppler shift illusion

[etienne deleflie]

Hi Dave,

The paper Blauert cites is by Gardener, M.B (1969) ... this one:

http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v45/i1/p47_s1?isAuthorized=no

(I dont have access to it right now)

The abstract says the experiment included the use of both loudspeakers and
voices. Blauert's wording suggests he is referring to the results using a
real speaker .

Maybe you can access the paper and give us more details.

Etienne



On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Dave Malham  wrote:

> Hi,
>I don't have Blauert handy unfortunately, so perhaps someone could
> enlighten me about how the study mentioned was conducted - real
> whisperers or recordings? It pretty well has to be recordings -
> because otherwise a whisper at 9 metres would pretty well be inaudible
> (that being the whole point of whispering) - and amplified ones at
> that, so doesn't this kind of make the whole thing pointless as the
> experimental subject would be getting similar physical cues for the
> distance and the close sounds.enlighten me!
>
>Dave
>
> On 26 February 2013 11:58, etienne deleflie  wrote:
>
> > In Blauert's Spatial Hearing (1997, p.45-46), he mentions a study,
> > conducted in an anechoic chambre, where listeners consistently appraise
> the
> > sound of a whispering voice to be much closer than it physically is. When
> > the whispering is 9m away, the perception is that it is no more than 3m
> > away. Distance of speakers using normal speech is consistently judged
> > accurately. It is not the recognition of certain qualities within the
> sound
> > of the whispering (cant be because it is actually 9m away), but rather
> the
> > identification of the sounding object itself that creates the impression
> of
> > proximity. Again, that's a Peircian index. It follows that when you hear
> > someone whispering, they are close to you. Its a logical association, not
> > one of similarity.
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this
> disclaimer is redundant
>
>
> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
>
> Dave Malham
> Ex-Music Research Centre
> Department of Music
> The University of York
> Heslington
> York YO10 5DD
> UK
>
> 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>



-- 
http://etiennedeleflie.net
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130227/4e276d8b/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the power of doppler shift illusion

[Augustine Leudar]

I used whispers in a sound installations quite often . We had several PA
speakers hidden around the trees and amongst other things whispers were on
the soundscape (in the darkness) . I dont really recall any proximity
illusions being created but I had the whispers at the volume that was not a
lot louder than you'd expect a larger scary electroacoustic beast to be
making  . I hold that the main reason these kind of cognitive effects work
is if you cant see the speakers. If you can see , or expect speakers, then
your brain says - ok not whispers - recordings of whispers on large
speakers - and the illusion is shattered. The sounds and settings have to
be convincing enough, believable enough, for cognitive effects to work -
then you can get away with all sorts of acoustic inaccuracies - thats why I
think so many sound installations in galleries leave me cold - you can see
all the nuts and bolts.
The best example I can think of is I left a microphone going in the rain
forest once - mosquitoes would land on the microphone. The recordings
exhibited the really annoying buzzing noise that mosquitoes make before
they land on your face (a study showed this is actually to deliberatly to
irritate you, raise your blood pressure, and cause the blood to be closer
to the surface of the skin !). Even though these recordings were played
over a PA speaker - because this speaker was hidden in a rainforest
setting, even though the sound was much louder than a real mosquito - it
still caught me by surprise a couple of times and had me brushing my face.
Still to use cognitive effects and have accurate spatial effects would be
the ideal.

On 27 February 2013 07:48, Dave Malham  wrote:

> Hi,
>I don't have Blauert handy unfortunately, so perhaps someone could
> enlighten me about how the study mentioned was conducted - real
> whisperers or recordings? It pretty well has to be recordings -
> because otherwise a whisper at 9 metres would pretty well be inaudible
> (that being the whole point of whispering) - and amplified ones at
> that, so doesn't this kind of make the whole thing pointless as the
> experimental subject would be getting similar physical cues for the
> distance and the close sounds.enlighten me!
>
>Dave
>
> On 26 February 2013 11:58, etienne deleflie  wrote:
>
> > In Blauert's Spatial Hearing (1997, p.45-46), he mentions a study,
> > conducted in an anechoic chambre, where listeners consistently appraise
> the
> > sound of a whispering voice to be much closer than it physically is. When
> > the whispering is 9m away, the perception is that it is no more than 3m
> > away. Distance of speakers using normal speech is consistently judged
> > accurately. It is not the recognition of certain qualities within the
> sound
> > of the whispering (cant be because it is actually 9m away), but rather
> the
> > identification of the sounding object itself that creates the impression
> of
> > proximity. Again, that's a Peircian index. It follows that when you hear
> > someone whispering, they are close to you. Its a logical association, not
> > one of similarity.
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this
> disclaimer is redundant
>
>
> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
>
> Dave Malham
> Ex-Music Research Centre
> Department of Music
> The University of York
> Heslington
> York YO10 5DD
> UK
>
> 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>



-- 
07580951119

augustine.leudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130227/b1f0f707/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the power of doppler shift illusion

[Peter Lennox]

Knowledge about typical source output influences perceived auditory distance

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 111, Issue 5, pp. 1980-1983 (2002); (4 pages)
John W. Philbeck and Donald H. Mershon

Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North 
Carolina 27695 



Dr. Peter Lennox

School of Technology,
Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology
University of Derby, UK
e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk 
t: 01332 593155


-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On 
Behalf Of etienne deleflie
Sent: 27 February 2013 08:59
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: Re: [Sursound] the power of doppler shift illusion

Hi Dave,

The paper Blauert cites is by Gardener, M.B (1969) ... this one:

http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v45/i1/p47_s1?isAuthorized=no

(I dont have access to it right now)

The abstract says the experiment included the use of both loudspeakers and 
voices. Blauert's wording suggests he is referring to the results using a real 
speaker .

Maybe you can access the paper and give us more details.

Etienne



On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Dave Malham  wrote:

> Hi,
>I don't have Blauert handy unfortunately, so perhaps someone could 
> enlighten me about how the study mentioned was conducted - real 
> whisperers or recordings? It pretty well has to be recordings - 
> because otherwise a whisper at 9 metres would pretty well be inaudible 
> (that being the whole point of whispering) - and amplified ones at 
> that, so doesn't this kind of make the whole thing pointless as the 
> experimental subject would be getting similar physical cues for the 
> distance and the close sounds.enlighten me!
>
>Dave
>
> On 26 February 2013 11:58, etienne deleflie  wrote:
>
> > In Blauert's Spatial Hearing (1997, p.45-46), he mentions a study, 
> > conducted in an anechoic chambre, where listeners consistently 
> > appraise
> the
> > sound of a whispering voice to be much closer than it physically is. 
> > When the whispering is 9m away, the perception is that it is no more 
> > than 3m away. Distance of speakers using normal speech is 
> > consistently judged accurately. It is not the recognition of certain 
> > qualities within the
> sound
> > of the whispering (cant be because it is actually 9m away), but 
> > rather
> the
> > identification of the sounding object itself that creates the 
> > impression
> of
> > proximity. Again, that's a Peircian index. It follows that when you 
> > hear someone whispering, they are close to you. Its a logical 
> > association, not one of similarity.
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this 
> disclaimer is redundant
>
>
> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
>
> Dave Malham
> Ex-Music Research Centre
> Department of Music
> The University of York
> Heslington
> York YO10 5DD
> UK
>
> 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>



--
http://etiennedeleflie.net
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130227/4e276d8b/attachment.html>
___
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 email was sent to you in 
error, please notify the sender and delete this email. Please direct any 
concerns to info...@derby.ac.uk.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the power of doppler shift illusion

[Martin Leese]

Augustine Leudar wrote:
...
> The sounds and settings have to
> be convincing enough, believable enough, for cognitive effects to work -
> then you can get away with all sorts of acoustic inaccuracies - thats why I
> think so many sound installations in galleries leave me cold - you can see
> all the nuts and bolts.
> The best example I can think of is I left a microphone going in the rain
> forest once - mosquitoes would land on the microphone. The recordings
> exhibited the really annoying buzzing noise that mosquitoes make before
> they land on your face (a study showed this is actually to deliberatly to
> irritate you, raise your blood pressure, and cause the blood to be closer
> to the surface of the skin !). Even though these recordings were played
> over a PA speaker - because this speaker was hidden in a rainforest
> setting, even though the sound was much louder than a real mosquito - it
> still caught me by surprise a couple of times and had me brushing my face.
> Still to use cognitive effects and have accurate spatial effects would be
> the ideal.

I wasn't aware that a mosquito's buzzing was
anything other than accidental.  Below, is some
conjecture.

Mosquitoes don't just feed on humans, but
on many warm blooded creatures.  It is
reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the
buzzing is "designed" to irritate a large number
of species.  This means that the buzzing
probably triggers a primitive response in
humans (allocortex, as opposed to neocortex),
and it is this that makes it so difficult to ignore.

So, finally, for powerful cognitive effects, aim
to use sounds that trigger a primitive response.

Regards,
Martin
-- 
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

[Sursound] Loud Whispers and Quiet Shouts

[Eric Carmichel]

For those who do not have access to Spatial Hearing: The Pyschophysics of Human 
Sound Localization, Revised Ed. By Jens Blauert, I have provided a few 
sentences from this book. Another book that is recommended is Binaural and 
Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments by Gilkey and Anderson 
(Chapter 13 of this book, written by D. H. Mershon, addresses distance 
perception). From Blauert:

“Familiarity of the experimental subject with the signal plays an important 
role in the localization between the distance of the sound source and that of 
the auditory event. For familiar signals such as human speech at its normal 
loudness, the distance of the auditory event corresponds quite well to that of 
the sound source. Discrepancies arise, however, even for unusual types of 
speech at their normal loudness. As an example, figure 2.7 [see note below*] 
shows localization in the range of distance from 0.9 to 9 m with a human 
speaker whispering, speaking normally, and calling out loudly (Gardner 1969).”

In a subsequent chapter, Blauert writes:

“The closer a person approaches a sound source in an enclosed space, the 
stronger the component of the primary field in comparison with that of the 
diffuse field (figure 3.48). The difference between the levels of the primary 
and reflected sound furnishes information to the auditory system about the 
distance of the sound source. The auditory system takes this information into 
consideration in forming the distance of the auditory event. This relationship 
has been described many times [references go back as far as von Hornbostel, 
1926]...”
In the next paragraph, Blauert writes:
“It must be pointed out that meager statements about spatial hearing in 
enclosed spaces up to this point are only valid as general rules. Departures 
from these rules and additional effects can occur in connection with rooms of 
specific shapes, with particular sound sources, and with specific types of 
signals.”

When it comes to my personal interests, I have considered distance and 
loudness effects as well as well as how to present them. I have created 
real-world stimuli that are to be presented at “normal” 
levels. I have included subtleties, such as talker voice level as a 
function of background noise level, to make the audio (and video) 
stimuli more realistic. For example, it shouldn’t take a lot to convince
 anyone that we tend to raise the level of our own voice in a noisy 
environment--this phenomenon is known as the Lombard effect (see, for 
example, Lane & Tranel, 1971). Tufts & Frank (2003) showed that 
talkers’ voice levels increase, on average, 5 dB for every 10 dB 
increase in background noise level. I am aware of studies that used restaurant 
noise presented at low levels (60 dBA) to maintain a favorable SNR. Conversely, 
some researchers used the same surround of restaurant noise (recorded with 8 
Sennheiser mics) at its actual level, but elevated “normal” speech to 85 dBA to 
maintain a favorable SNR. What I mean by favorable is on the order of + 15 dB 
SNR. I should have asked, “Does the restaurant noise sound far away, or does it 
sound like a “quiet” pizzeria?” Research participants' thoughts on this topic 
might have been interesting. Anyway, I'd prefer to use a recording of a quiet 
environment for the instances I need a +10 dB (for example) SNR in lieu of a 
moderately loud restaurant simply turned down in presentation level. I also 
recorded "loud" speech--features of which certainly differ from whispers 
presented at a loud level.
So how did I plan to record a variety of background noises for research? 
Ambisonics miking, of course!
Best,
Eric C.

Gardner, M. B. (1969): Distance Estimation of 0 Degree or Apparent 0 Degree 
Oriented Speech Signals in Anechoic Space. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., pp. 47-53.

*If anybody would like for me to photocopy the figure (or entire page), I will 
be glad to do so and upload the image to my website.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130227/e42f2160/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] the power of doppler shift illusion

[etienne deleflie]

Another point that is interesting, in considering the cognitive dimension
of spatial perception, is that some processes involve the identification of
a sounding object, and some do not.

The recognition of an over-simplified mono reverb algorithm, as an "Icon"
of the sound of a large space, requires no identification of a sounding
object. In fact, the sounding object can be totally abstract and not even
have any pretence to represent a real physical sounding object (so reverbs
are kind to electronic music which uses many abstract sounds).

Whispers, mosquitoes, hair clippers create a perception of proximity only
through knowledge of the typical circumstances these objects are heard in
... so their identification is critical (and these are Peircian Indices)

The third Peircian mechanism is "Symbols" ... in which there is no
association between sign and perception other than an agreed one. In
spatial audio terms, an example is language. In the binaural demos, the use
of a voice saying "over here on the right there is a dog barking" ...is an
example of a Peircian symbol of space. Peirce calls all of these things
"signs".

What is the relative importance of the presence of "signs of space"
compared to "realistically projected stimuli"? ... no idea. But the signs
are there and active.

Etienne

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Martin Leese <
martin.le...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

> Augustine Leudar wrote:
> ...
> > The sounds and settings have to
> > be convincing enough, believable enough, for cognitive effects to work -
> > then you can get away with all sorts of acoustic inaccuracies - thats
> why I
> > think so many sound installations in galleries leave me cold - you can
> see
> > all the nuts and bolts.
> > The best example I can think of is I left a microphone going in the rain
> > forest once - mosquitoes would land on the microphone. The recordings
> > exhibited the really annoying buzzing noise that mosquitoes make before
> > they land on your face (a study showed this is actually to deliberatly to
> > irritate you, raise your blood pressure, and cause the blood to be closer
> > to the surface of the skin !). Even though these recordings were played
> > over a PA speaker - because this speaker was hidden in a rainforest
> > setting, even though the sound was much louder than a real mosquito - it
> > still caught me by surprise a couple of times and had me brushing my
> face.
> > Still to use cognitive effects and have accurate spatial effects would be
> > the ideal.
>
> I wasn't aware that a mosquito's buzzing was
> anything other than accidental.  Below, is some
> conjecture.
>
> Mosquitoes don't just feed on humans, but
> on many warm blooded creatures.  It is
> reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the
> buzzing is "designed" to irritate a large number
> of species.  This means that the buzzing
> probably triggers a primitive response in
> humans (allocortex, as opposed to neocortex),
> and it is this that makes it so difficult to ignore.
>
> So, finally, for powerful cognitive effects, aim
> to use sounds that trigger a primitive response.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
> --
> Martin J Leese
> E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
> Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
>



-- 
http://etiennedeleflie.net
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound