Re: [Sursound] Renting a TetraMic or other ambisonic mic

[John Leonard]

Yep, that’s a bigger ship alright. There looks to be a pretty good mounting 
point on the bow, in which case my major concern would be structure/cable-borne 
vibration. I’ve recorded on a couple of large vessels, especially to capture 
the throbbing drone that they make:  handheld works well to alleviate the 
problem, but that’s obviously not a choice for you. 

Do let us know how you get on: I’m always interested in situations like this.

All the best and I hope the snow’s not too irksome.

John

email: j...@johnleonard.uk
phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942


> On 23 Jan 2016, at 16:54, Billy Wirasnik  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the insight John. I'm on a bigger than ship than you were but my
> biggest worry is the engine noise.

___
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] Sennheiser Easy 3D Recording and Modeling

[Stefan Schreiber]

Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:


On 01/06/2016 06:36 PM, Courville, Daniel wrote:


« Sennheiser realizes that content is king and that for any new
technology to gain traction, it must be easy to develop in.
Sennheiser is therefore looking to help content creators take
advantage of their 3D audio platform with easy-to-use recording and
modeling tools.

...

From
http://www.techhive.com/article/3019706/home-audio/sennheiser-launches-new-flagship-headphones-the-hd-800-s-and-moves-into-the-3d-audio-space-with-amb.html 





Too bad they kicked the Eigenmike guys out :-D
Those who do not understand spherical harmonics have to reinvent it...

Did they (kick), or didn't they?


http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dr-andreas-sennheiser-interview-ambeo-vr-3d-surround-sound-ces/#/6

There’s playback in 9.1, there’s playback over headphones, there’s 
recording with VR mics which capture the sound from the signal source 
(??? ;-), and there’s recordings which capture the < sphere >  (aha... 
;-) ) differently. Ambeo is a stream of different technologies and 
configurations





Another major element of the system is the hardware used to capture 
it. For the recording side, Sennheiser has partnered with hallowed 
microphone company Neumann, but it has also developed its own 
hardware, including a line-array microphone comprised of 31 individual 
capsules — the individual elements that capture sound — as well as a 
little multi-capsule ambisonic directional mic (below) of which only a 
few exist in the world right now.




If you look to the video: Is this a new form of (spherical array) HOA 
microphone?


(It doesn't look like an Eigenmike.)

“Atmos, for instance, is another format which is certainly optimized 
for film, for effects,” he said. “And our format is optimized for 
music. So we’re really focused on how people perceive music, and all 
the little elements — not just to have the biggest wow effect, but to 
make the music sound as natural as possible.”




Fair enough, I would say.

Now comments about the < VR mike >...


« On the capture front, Sennheiser will feature a virtual-reality

microphone. Unlike traditional microphone designs, the new mic will
capture high-quality audio in four quadrants. Sennheiser says the mic
was designed in coordination with VR content producers. The VR mic is
scheduled to launch in the third quarter of 2016. In 2017, Sennheiser
will ship a software plug-in that will be bundled with the same mic
for VR content post-production. »





Luvly : "audio in four quadrants"
my latest composition has sea noises in three tridents,

at least 'three hundred and sixty degrees' sounds less (?)tautologous.


(Michael)

I fully agree! A "four quadrant mike" might sound impressing for some 
"VR journalists" or cheerleaders, but not for us. This expression is 
unclear, to say the least. (Could be a form of IRT Cross, or anything 
tetrahedral... )


Sennheiser/Neumann should abstain from any such PR speech, IMO. (They 
don't have  to cheat.  :-D )



Best regards,

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.

Re: [Sursound] Sennheiser Easy 3D Recording and Modeling

[Stefan Schreiber]

(Sorry, 2nd posting should look better...)

Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:


On 01/06/2016 06:36 PM, Courville, Daniel wrote:


« Sennheiser realizes that content is king and that for any new
technology to gain traction, it must be easy to develop in.
Sennheiser is therefore looking to help content creators take
advantage of their 3D audio platform with easy-to-use recording and
modeling tools.

...

From
http://www.techhive.com/article/3019706/home-audio/sennheiser-launches-new-flagship-headphones-the-hd-800-s-and-moves-into-the-3d-audio-space-with-amb.html 






Too bad they kicked the Eigenmike guys out :-D
Those who do not understand spherical harmonics have to reinvent it...


Did they (kick), or didn't they?
http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/dr-andreas-sennheiser-interview-ambeo-vr-3d-surround-sound-ces/#/6 




There’s playback in 9.1, there’s playback over headphones, there’s 
recording with VR mics which capture the sound from the signal source 
(???) , and there’s recordings which capture the < sphere > (aha... 
;-) ) differently. Ambeo is a stream of different technologies and 
configurations




Another major element of the system is the hardware used to capture 
it. For the recording side, Sennheiser has partnered with hallowed 
microphone company Neumann, but it has also developed its own 
hardware, including a line-array microphone comprised of 31 individual 
capsules — the individual elements that capture sound — as well as a 
little multi-capsule ambisonic directional mic (below) of which only a 
few exist in the world right now.



If you look to the video: Is this a new form of (spherical array) HOA 
microphone?


(It doesn't look like an Eigenmike.)

“Atmos, for instance, is another format which is certainly optimized 
for film, for effects,” he said. “And our format is optimized for 
music. So we’re really focused on how people perceive music, and all 
the little elements — not just to have the biggest wow effect, but to 
make the music sound as natural as possible.”



Fair enough, I would say.

Now comments about the < VR mike >...


« On the capture front, Sennheiser will feature a virtual-reality


microphone. Unlike traditional microphone designs, the new mic will
capture high-quality audio in four quadrants. Sennheiser says the mic
was designed in coordination with VR content producers. The VR mic is
scheduled to launch in the third quarter of 2016. In 2017, Sennheiser
will ship a software plug-in that will be bundled with the same mic
for VR content post-production. »







Luvly : "audio in four quadrants"
my latest composition has sea noises in three tridents,

at least 'three hundred and sixty degrees' sounds less (?)tautologous.


(Michael)

I fully agree! A "four quadrant mike" might sound impressing for some 
"VR journalists" or cheerleaders, but not for us. This expression is 
unclear, to say the least. (Could be a form of IRT Cross, or anything 
tetrahedral... )


Sennheiser/Neumann should abstain from any such PR speech, IMO. (They 
don't have to cheat. :-D )



Best regards,

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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Stefan Schreiber]

http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber

The IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data contains measured HRTFs from about 50 
different people - this must have taken a lot of effort and we're very 
grateful to the good folk of IRCAM for doing the work and making the 
results available to the world! What we've done is analyse this data 
and come up with an 'average' HRTF that is a sensible compromise, 
using some new work. As it's an average, it wouldn't be perfect for 
any of the people actually measured, but hopefully not awful for any 
of them either! It's certainly much better than conventional "panning" 
techniques.



(See also:

http://www.blueripplesound.com/personalized-hrtfs
)

We provide "generic" HRTFs models (for instance, our Amber HRTF 
) which work well for many 
people, but even better results can be achieved using personalized 
HRTF measurements.



Could any people, companies or institutions on this list provide access 
to such a practical and < usable > generic HRTF model?


If not: I believe that some essential theses and papers should have been 
done in the academic world, but don't exist anyway.


Richard Furse basically states that a "good" generic HRTF is derived 
from many HRTF measurements (data sets) via some  form of averaging, as 
a "sensible compromise". I doubt that this is a trivial process, though...


Best regards,

Stefan


P.S.:  VR companies will currently have to look into these issues, and 
to find solutions which are practical at least < for most > people. If 
some proposed HRTF data set doesn't fit to an individual listener it 
should be pretty hard to distinguish between front/back sources, for 
example. (Even with head-tracking.)


Don't tell me that I didn't present a paper to prove my point... 
Instead, give me the link to a paper which delivers some kind of 
optimized generic HRTF data set. If such a paper doesn't exist (yet), I 
don't see any reason why something like "Amber HRTF" can't be 
re-engineered.
(Amber HRTF itself is derived from IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data, a 
public available list. And even IRCAM should be interested to provide a 
good universal  HRTF based on its own and public HRTF research!)

___
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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Augustine Leudar]

I have idea of how hrtfs could be individually measured and could work on a
commercial scale with minimum inconvenience to the public (so they might
actually use it ). Not sure who to talk to about htis though.

On 24 January 2016 at 19:31, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:

> http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber
>
> The IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data contains measured HRTFs from about 50
>> different people - this must have taken a lot of effort and we're very
>> grateful to the good folk of IRCAM for doing the work and making the
>> results available to the world! What we've done is analyse this data and
>> come up with an 'average' HRTF that is a sensible compromise, using some
>> new work. As it's an average, it wouldn't be perfect for any of the people
>> actually measured, but hopefully not awful for any of them either! It's
>> certainly much better than conventional "panning" techniques.
>>
>
>
> (See also:
>
> http://www.blueripplesound.com/personalized-hrtfs
> )
>
> We provide "generic" HRTFs models (for instance, our Amber HRTF <
>> http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber>) which work well for many
>> people, but even better results can be achieved using personalized HRTF
>> measurements.
>>
>
>
> Could any people, companies or institutions on this list provide access to
> such a practical and < usable > generic HRTF model?
>
> If not: I believe that some essential theses and papers should have been
> done in the academic world, but don't exist anyway.
>
> Richard Furse basically states that a "good" generic HRTF is derived from
> many HRTF measurements (data sets) via some  form of averaging, as a
> "sensible compromise". I doubt that this is a trivial process, though...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stefan
>
>
> P.S.:  VR companies will currently have to look into these issues, and to
> find solutions which are practical at least < for most > people. If some
> proposed HRTF data set doesn't fit to an individual listener it should be
> pretty hard to distinguish between front/back sources, for example. (Even
> with head-tracking.)
>
> Don't tell me that I didn't present a paper to prove my point... Instead,
> give me the link to a paper which delivers some kind of optimized generic
> HRTF data set. If such a paper doesn't exist (yet), I don't see any reason
> why something like "Amber HRTF" can't be re-engineered.
> (Amber HRTF itself is derived from IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data, a public
> available list. And even IRCAM should be interested to provide a good
> universal  HRTF based on its own and public HRTF research!)
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160124/cbaadecb/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.

Re: [Sursound] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Augustine Leudar]

In reply to your original question - I believe there are available data
sets for Kemar head measurements - not quite what you asking for but it is
supposed to be an "average" head

http://sound.media.mit.edu/resources/KEMAR.html

On 24 January 2016 at 20:19, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

> I have idea of how hrtfs could be individually measured and could work on
> a commercial scale with minimum inconvenience to the public (so they might
> actually use it ). Not sure who to talk to about htis though.
>
> On 24 January 2016 at 19:31, Stefan Schreiber 
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber
>>
>> The IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data contains measured HRTFs from about 50
>>> different people - this must have taken a lot of effort and we're very
>>> grateful to the good folk of IRCAM for doing the work and making the
>>> results available to the world! What we've done is analyse this data and
>>> come up with an 'average' HRTF that is a sensible compromise, using some
>>> new work. As it's an average, it wouldn't be perfect for any of the people
>>> actually measured, but hopefully not awful for any of them either! It's
>>> certainly much better than conventional "panning" techniques.
>>>
>>
>>
>> (See also:
>>
>> http://www.blueripplesound.com/personalized-hrtfs
>> )
>>
>> We provide "generic" HRTFs models (for instance, our Amber HRTF <
>>> http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber>) which work well for many
>>> people, but even better results can be achieved using personalized HRTF
>>> measurements.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Could any people, companies or institutions on this list provide access
>> to such a practical and < usable > generic HRTF model?
>>
>> If not: I believe that some essential theses and papers should have been
>> done in the academic world, but don't exist anyway.
>>
>> Richard Furse basically states that a "good" generic HRTF is derived from
>> many HRTF measurements (data sets) via some  form of averaging, as a
>> "sensible compromise". I doubt that this is a trivial process, though...
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> P.S.:  VR companies will currently have to look into these issues, and to
>> find solutions which are practical at least < for most > people. If some
>> proposed HRTF data set doesn't fit to an individual listener it should be
>> pretty hard to distinguish between front/back sources, for example. (Even
>> with head-tracking.)
>>
>> Don't tell me that I didn't present a paper to prove my point... Instead,
>> give me the link to a paper which delivers some kind of optimized generic
>> HRTF data set. If such a paper doesn't exist (yet), I don't see any reason
>> why something like "Amber HRTF" can't be re-engineered.
>> (Amber HRTF itself is derived from IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data, a public
>> available list. And even IRCAM should be interested to provide a good
>> universal  HRTF based on its own and public HRTF research!)
>> ___
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.augustineleudar.com
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160124/b352a6f4/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.

Re: [Sursound] Renting a TetraMic or other ambisonic mic

[Billy Wirasnik]

John - I've been warned about flying ice chunks on the bow otherwise I'd
agree. I'm scouting this week and will be able to make some educated
placement choices before the filming thankfully. I'll let you know how it
goes!

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:24 AM, John Leonard  wrote:

> Yep, that’s a bigger ship alright. There looks to be a pretty good
> mounting point on the bow, in which case my major concern would be
> structure/cable-borne vibration. I’ve recorded on a couple of large
> vessels, especially to capture the throbbing drone that they make:
> handheld works well to alleviate the problem, but that’s obviously not a
> choice for you.
>
> Do let us know how you get on: I’m always interested in situations like
> this.
>
> All the best and I hope the snow’s not too irksome.
>
> John
>
> email: j...@johnleonard.uk
> phone +44 (0)20 3286 5942
>
>
> > On 23 Jan 2016, at 16:54, Billy Wirasnik 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the insight John. I'm on a bigger than ship than you were but
> my
> > biggest worry is the engine noise.
>
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 

*Billy Wirasnik*

*Director | Slo.Media <http://Slo.Media>*

*Sound Designer | BillyWirasnik.com <http://BillyWirasnik.com>*

845-417-8290
------ next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160124/4c5e036b/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.

Re: [Sursound] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Marc Lavallée]

The LISTEN set from IRCAM, the KEMAR set from MIT and the spherical set
by R. Duda are included in the Ambisonic Toolkit. I use them on
http://ambisonic.xyz/ . The spherical set is probably a good enough
compromise for VR applications, because perfection is not required for a
good experience. What seems to be missing is a practical method to
provide personalized HRTFs to users.
--
Marc

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:31:33 +,
Stefan Schreiber  wrote :

> http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber
> 
> > The IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data contains measured HRTFs from about
> > 50 different people - this must have taken a lot of effort and
> > we're very grateful to the good folk of IRCAM for doing the work
> > and making the results available to the world! What we've done is
> > analyse this data and come up with an 'average' HRTF that is a
> > sensible compromise, using some new work. As it's an average, it
> > wouldn't be perfect for any of the people actually measured, but
> > hopefully not awful for any of them either! It's certainly much
> > better than conventional "panning" techniques.
> 
> 
> (See also:
> 
> http://www.blueripplesound.com/personalized-hrtfs
> )
> 
> > We provide "generic" HRTFs models (for instance, our Amber HRTF 
> > ) which work well for
> > many people, but even better results can be achieved using
> > personalized HRTF measurements.
> 
> 
> Could any people, companies or institutions on this list provide
> access to such a practical and < usable > generic HRTF model?
> 
> If not: I believe that some essential theses and papers should have
> been done in the academic world, but don't exist anyway.
> 
> Richard Furse basically states that a "good" generic HRTF is derived 
> from many HRTF measurements (data sets) via some  form of averaging,
> as a "sensible compromise". I doubt that this is a trivial process,
> though...
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Stefan
> 
> 
> P.S.:  VR companies will currently have to look into these issues,
> and to find solutions which are practical at least < for most >
> people. If some proposed HRTF data set doesn't fit to an individual
> listener it should be pretty hard to distinguish between front/back
> sources, for example. (Even with head-tracking.)
> 
> Don't tell me that I didn't present a paper to prove my point... 
> Instead, give me the link to a paper which delivers some kind of 
> optimized generic HRTF data set. If such a paper doesn't exist (yet),
> I don't see any reason why something like "Amber HRTF" can't be 
> re-engineered.
> (Amber HRTF itself is derived from IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data, a 
> public available list. And even IRCAM should be interested to provide
> a good universal  HRTF based on its own and public HRTF research!)
> ___
> 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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Stefan Schreiber]

Augustine Leudar wrote:


In reply to your original question - I believe there are available data
sets for Kemar head measurements - not quite what you asking for but it is
supposed to be an "average" head

http://sound.media.mit.edu/resources/KEMAR.html
 

I was aware of the fact that dummy head HRTFs are often used as generic 
HRTFs..


But are they more < objective > than the HRTFs of any real person?

If I understood Richard Furse well, it is better to derive a generic 
HRTF set by averaging across some HRTF measurement data base (containing 
HRTFs of many individuals).


Whereas KEMAR is supposed to be a standard (= averaged) dummy head, the 
Amber HRTF is derived in a different form.


Should we "normalize" anthropometric data or (measured) HRTF data sets?

In any case: Methods and results will differ!

Best,

St.

P.S.: Alas, Richard Furse didn't use KEMAR measurements as standard 
HRTF...  :-)






On 24 January 2016 at 20:19, Augustine Leudar 
wrote:

 


I have idea of how hrtfs could be individually measured and could work on
a commercial scale with minimum inconvenience to the public (so they might
actually use it ). Not sure who to talk to about htis though.

On 24 January 2016 at 19:31, Stefan Schreiber 
wrote:

   


http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber

The IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data contains measured HRTFs from about 50
 


different people - this must have taken a lot of effort and we're very
grateful to the good folk of IRCAM for doing the work and making the
results available to the world! What we've done is analyse this data and
come up with an 'average' HRTF that is a sensible compromise, using some
new work. As it's an average, it wouldn't be perfect for any of the people
actually measured, but hopefully not awful for any of them either! It's
certainly much better than conventional "panning" techniques.

   


(See also:

http://www.blueripplesound.com/personalized-hrtfs
)

We provide "generic" HRTFs models (for instance, our Amber HRTF <
 


http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber>) which work well for many
people, but even better results can be achieved using personalized HRTF
measurements.

   


Could any people, companies or institutions on this list provide access
to such a practical and < usable > generic HRTF model?

If not: I believe that some essential theses and papers should have been
done in the academic world, but don't exist anyway.

Richard Furse basically states that a "good" generic HRTF is derived from
many HRTF measurements (data sets) via some  form of averaging, as a
"sensible compromise". I doubt that this is a trivial process, though...

Best regards,

Stefan


P.S.:  VR companies will currently have to look into these issues, and to
find solutions which are practical at least < for most > people. If some
proposed HRTF data set doesn't fit to an individual listener it should be
pretty hard to distinguish between front/back sources, for example. (Even
with head-tracking.)

Don't tell me that I didn't present a paper to prove my point... Instead,
give me the link to a paper which delivers some kind of optimized generic
HRTF data set. If such a paper doesn't exist (yet), I don't see any reason
why something like "Amber HRTF" can't be re-engineered.
(Amber HRTF itself is derived from IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data, a public
available list. And even IRCAM should be interested to provide a good
universal  HRTF based on its own and public HRTF research!)
___
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.

 



--
www.augustineleudar.com

   





 



___
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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Stefan Schreiber]

Marc Lavallée wrote:


The LISTEN set from IRCAM, the KEMAR set from MIT and the spherical set
by R. Duda are included in the Ambisonic Toolkit. I use them on
http://ambisonic.xyz/ . The spherical set is probably a good enough
compromise for VR applications, because perfection is not required for a
good experience. What seems to be missing is a practical method to
provide personalized HRTFs to users.
--
Marc

 


This is not completely logic.


The spherical set is probably a good enough
compromise for VR applications, because perfection is not required for a
good experience.


vs.


What seems to be missing is a practical method to
provide personalized HRTFs to users.



If the 2nd option would be ideal (I very obviously do agree!), you could 
also try to improve on "good enough" (1st option).


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.

Re: [Sursound] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Marc Lavallée]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:00:37 +,
Stefan Schreiber  wrote :

> Should we "normalize" anthropometric data or (measured) HRTF data
> sets?

That would discriminate potential users at the sides of the normal
curve...

There could be a way to find a "best match" from sets of measured
heads, maybe using 3D scanning, or with simple measurements. For
example, the spherical HRTF model have different diameters, which is a
good start.

There's a paper on "Rapid Generation of Personalized HRTFs" :
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17365
(unfortunately, it's not free).

--
Marc 
___
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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Marc Lavallée]

Le Sun, 24 Jan 2016 16:35:03 -0500,I wrote:
> There could be a way to find a "best match" from sets of measured
> heads, maybe using 3D scanning, or with simple measurements. For
> example, the spherical HRTF model have different diameters, which is a
> good start.
> 
> There's a paper on "Rapid Generation of Personalized HRTFs" :
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17365

A quick googling on "hrtf 3d scanning" returns more interesting results:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527826/microsofts-3-d-audio-gives-virtual-objects-a-voice/

http://dsp.eng.fiu.edu/HRTFDB/main.htm

http://www.mirlab.org/conference_papers/International_Conference/ICASSP%202010/pdfs/169.pdf

http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/icisce/2015/6850/00/6850a225.pdf

https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00606814/document

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ait1/head.htm

--
Marc
___
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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Stefan Schreiber]

Marc Lavallée wrote:


On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:00:37 +,
Stefan Schreiber  wrote :

 


Should we "normalize" anthropometric data or (measured) HRTF data
sets?
   



That would discriminate potential users at the sides of the normal
curve...

There could be a way to find a "best match" from sets of measured
heads, maybe using 3D scanning, or with simple measurements. For
example, the spherical HRTF model have different diameters, which is a
good start.
 


Yes, I wrote about this.

Actually several times, and quite some time before "Oculus Audio".

(s. http://www.vrvis.at/projects/locaphoto, an "older" but ongoing 
project which I had mentioned.)


But please, let's not mix up things again.

The thread subject is clear enough! What happens if you can't 
personalise HRTF data, which is (from any practical point of view) still 
the standard case?


(So, just some suggestion: Combine a "good universal HRTF data set" with 
the possibility to load another < closely matched >  or even < 
personalised > HRTF set, maybe in the AES-69 format. If you provide such 
a solution you will be future-proof. I hope this makes some sense...  ;-) )


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.

Re: [Sursound] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Marc Lavallée]

You are right, the SOFA effort is important.
Here I see that many more data sets are available now:
http://www.sofaconventions.org/mediawiki/index.php/Files
I suspect that there will be many different solutions based of
the available sets. 

I don't think there could be a "universal" or optimal HRTF data set,
but I'm not a scientist, so maybe such a thing could exist. I don't
know if the publicly available data sets are good enough, if much
more measures are required, and if a simple matching method could help
listeners to find the best. Or if HRTF synthesis (LocaPhoto) have a
future.

But I'm sure that we can use existing HRTFs and adapt the experience in
creative ways, as with any other audio technology, because audio
producers never waited for the ultimate technology to appear and be
universally adopted.

--
Marc


Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:38:41 +,
Stefan Schreiber  wrote :
> Marc Lavallée wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:00:37 +,
> >Stefan Schreiber  wrote :
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Should we "normalize" anthropometric data or (measured) HRTF data
> >>sets?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That would discriminate potential users at the sides of the normal
> >curve...
> >
> >There could be a way to find a "best match" from sets of measured
> >heads, maybe using 3D scanning, or with simple measurements. For
> >example, the spherical HRTF model have different diameters, which is
> >a good start.
> >  
> >
> Yes, I wrote about this.
> 
> Actually several times, and quite some time before "Oculus Audio".
> 
> (s. http://www.vrvis.at/projects/locaphoto, an "older" but ongoing 
> project which I had mentioned.)
> 
> But please, let's not mix up things again.
> 
> The thread subject is clear enough! What happens if you can't 
> personalise HRTF data, which is (from any practical point of view)
> still the standard case?
> 
> (So, just some suggestion: Combine a "good universal HRTF data set"
> with the possibility to load another < closely matched >  or even < 
> personalised > HRTF set, maybe in the AES-69 format. If you provide
> such a solution you will be future-proof. I hope this makes some
> sense...  ;-) )
> 
> 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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Stefan Schreiber]

Marc Lavallée wrote:


The LISTEN set from IRCAM, the KEMAR set from MIT and the spherical set
by R. Duda are included in the Ambisonic Toolkit. I use them on
http://ambisonic.xyz/ . The spherical set is probably a good enough
compromise for VR applications, because perfection is not required for a
good experience. What seems to be missing is a practical method to
provide personalized HRTFs to users.
--
Marc
 



Marc, just some idea:

If the ATK includes different HRTF sets, doesn't it already provide an 
open interface/standard for exchangeable HRTF data?


The "competition" would be AES-69, a non-open standard provided by AES 
and BiLi project. (They needed a looong time to agree on AES-69.)


As anything simpler but functional might be sufficient and even 
preferable in most cases:


- Does ATK define an HRTF interface which is sufficiently flexible to be 
the base for a real < standard > ?


- Does anyone want to write down such a standard (maybe in RFC form), 
which would be usable for every type of binaural decoder? (say also 5.1, 
9.1, 7+4H and 22.2 to binaural decoders)


Best,

Stefan






On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:31:33 +,
Stefan Schreiber  wrote :

 


http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber

   


The IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data contains measured HRTFs from about
50 different people - this must have taken a lot of effort and
we're very grateful to the good folk of IRCAM for doing the work
and making the results available to the world! What we've done is
analyse this data and come up with an 'average' HRTF that is a
sensible compromise, using some new work. As it's an average, it
wouldn't be perfect for any of the people actually measured, but
hopefully not awful for any of them either! It's certainly much
better than conventional "panning" techniques.
 


(See also:

http://www.blueripplesound.com/personalized-hrtfs
)

   

We provide "generic" HRTFs models (for instance, our Amber HRTF 
) which work well for

many people, but even better results can be achieved using
personalized HRTF measurements.
 


Could any people, companies or institutions on this list provide
access to such a practical and < usable > generic HRTF model?

If not: I believe that some essential theses and papers should have
been done in the academic world, but don't exist anyway.

Richard Furse basically states that a "good" generic HRTF is derived 
from many HRTF measurements (data sets) via some  form of averaging,

as a "sensible compromise". I doubt that this is a trivial process,
though...

Best regards,

Stefan


P.S.:  VR companies will currently have to look into these issues,
and to find solutions which are practical at least < for most >
people. If some proposed HRTF data set doesn't fit to an individual
listener it should be pretty hard to distinguish between front/back
sources, for example. (Even with head-tracking.)

Don't tell me that I didn't present a paper to prove my point... 
Instead, give me the link to a paper which delivers some kind of 
optimized generic HRTF data set. If such a paper doesn't exist (yet),
I don't see any reason why something like "Amber HRTF" can't be 
re-engineered.
(Amber HRTF itself is derived from IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data, a 
public available list. And even IRCAM should be interested to provide

a good universal  HRTF based on its own and public HRTF research!)
___
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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Marc Lavallée]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:57:37 +,
Stefan Schreiber  wrote :

> Marc, just some idea:
> 
> If the ATK includes different HRTF sets, doesn't it already provide
> an open interface/standard for exchangeable HRTF data?

ATK provides HRTF data as wav files, ready to be used with
convolvers. It a "ready to use" application specific format.

> The "competition" would be AES-69, a non-open standard provided by
> AES and BiLi project. (They needed a looong time to agree on AES-69.)

It's not a case for competition; the AES-69 format can be used to
create application specific formats (or as in the web developer
language: a "micro-format"). For example, on ambisonic.xyz, I had to
change the ATK files a little bit.

> As anything simpler but functional might be sufficient and even 
> preferable in most cases:
> 
> - Does ATK define an HRTF interface which is sufficiently flexible to
> be the base for a real < standard > ?

Not really, but you should ask the maintainers of ATK.

> - Does anyone want to write down such a standard (maybe in RFC form), 
> which would be usable for every type of binaural decoder? (say also
> 5.1, 9.1, 7+4H and 22.2 to binaural decoders)

Formats like 5.1 to 22.2 are application specific, so I think they
should not be part of a standard. Creating *.* to binaural renderers
are special cases, that can use the SOFA specifications and data.
Adding *.* formats to the SOFA specifications would simply add to the
confusion about "spatial audio".

> Best,
> 
> Stefan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:31:33 +,
> >Stefan Schreiber  wrote :
> >
> >  
> >
> >>http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>The IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data contains measured HRTFs from about
> >>>50 different people - this must have taken a lot of effort and
> >>>we're very grateful to the good folk of IRCAM for doing the work
> >>>and making the results available to the world! What we've done is
> >>>analyse this data and come up with an 'average' HRTF that is a
> >>>sensible compromise, using some new work. As it's an average, it
> >>>wouldn't be perfect for any of the people actually measured, but
> >>>hopefully not awful for any of them either! It's certainly much
> >>>better than conventional "panning" techniques.
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>(See also:
> >>
> >>http://www.blueripplesound.com/personalized-hrtfs
> >>)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>We provide "generic" HRTFs models (for instance, our Amber HRTF 
> >>>) which work well for
> >>>many people, but even better results can be achieved using
> >>>personalized HRTF measurements.
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>Could any people, companies or institutions on this list provide
> >>access to such a practical and < usable > generic HRTF model?
> >>
> >>If not: I believe that some essential theses and papers should have
> >>been done in the academic world, but don't exist anyway.
> >>
> >>Richard Furse basically states that a "good" generic HRTF is
> >>derived from many HRTF measurements (data sets) via some  form of
> >>averaging, as a "sensible compromise". I doubt that this is a
> >>trivial process, though...
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>
> >>Stefan
> >>
> >>
> >>P.S.:  VR companies will currently have to look into these issues,
> >>and to find solutions which are practical at least < for most >
> >>people. If some proposed HRTF data set doesn't fit to an individual
> >>listener it should be pretty hard to distinguish between front/back
> >>sources, for example. (Even with head-tracking.)
> >>
> >>Don't tell me that I didn't present a paper to prove my point... 
> >>Instead, give me the link to a paper which delivers some kind of 
> >>optimized generic HRTF data set. If such a paper doesn't exist
> >>(yet), I don't see any reason why something like "Amber HRTF" can't
> >>be re-engineered.
> >>(Amber HRTF itself is derived from IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data, a 
> >>public available list. And even IRCAM should be interested to
> >>provide a good universal  HRTF based on its own and public HRTF
> >>research!) ___

___
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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Stefan Schreiber]

Marc Lavallée wrote:




Formats like 5.1 to 22.2 are application specific, so I think they
should not be part of a standard. 

No, but any 5.1 to binaural decoder (application, as you say) would have 
to use some HRTF data brought into some specific shape/format. You would 
have to match loudspeakers/rotational data to HRTF positions/data.



ATK provides HRTF data as wav files, ready to be used with
convolvers. It a "ready to use" application specific format.


In which (angular) resolution, etc.? Azimuth/elevation resolution?


Creating *.* to binaural renderers
are special cases, that can use the SOFA specifications and data.
Adding *.* formats to the SOFA specifications would simply add to the
confusion about "spatial audio".
 



No, I meant really an HRTF standard (such as Sofa/AES-69).

Citing myself:

Does anyone want to write down such a standard (maybe in RFC form), 
which would be usable for every type of binaural decoder? (say also 
5.1, 9.1, 7+4H and 22.2 to binaural decoders)


Decoder != HRTF interface/standard.

I also didn't try to teach informatics, BTW.

Best,

Stefan


 


Best,

Stefan





   


On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:31:33 +,
Stefan Schreiber  wrote :



 


http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber

  

   


The IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data contains measured HRTFs from about
50 different people - this must have taken a lot of effort and
we're very grateful to the good folk of IRCAM for doing the work
and making the results available to the world! What we've done is
analyse this data and come up with an 'average' HRTF that is a
sensible compromise, using some new work. As it's an average, it
wouldn't be perfect for any of the people actually measured, but
hopefully not awful for any of them either! It's certainly much
better than conventional "panning" techniques.


 


(See also:

http://www.blueripplesound.com/personalized-hrtfs
)

  

   

We provide "generic" HRTFs models (for instance, our Amber HRTF 
) which work well for

many people, but even better results can be achieved using
personalized HRTF measurements.


 


Could any people, companies or institutions on this list provide
access to such a practical and < usable > generic HRTF model?

If not: I believe that some essential theses and papers should have
been done in the academic world, but don't exist anyway.

Richard Furse basically states that a "good" generic HRTF is
derived from many HRTF measurements (data sets) via some  form of
averaging, as a "sensible compromise". I doubt that this is a
trivial process, though...

Best regards,

Stefan


P.S.:  VR companies will currently have to look into these issues,
and to find solutions which are practical at least < for most >
people. If some proposed HRTF data set doesn't fit to an individual
listener it should be pretty hard to distinguish between front/back
sources, for example. (Even with head-tracking.)

Don't tell me that I didn't present a paper to prove my point... 
Instead, give me the link to a paper which delivers some kind of 
optimized generic HRTF data set. If such a paper doesn't exist

(yet), I don't see any reason why something like "Amber HRTF" can't
be re-engineered.
(Amber HRTF itself is derived from IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data, a 
public available list. And even IRCAM should be interested to

provide a good universal  HRTF based on its own and public HRTF
research!) ___
   



___
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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Augustine Leudar]

As far as I know the Kemar head is the average human head shape taken from
thousands of measurments - http://kemar.us/   Im not quite sure why an HRTF
from a Kemar head would be less desirable than averaging of 50 seperate
head measurements in real human head. I dont know how well Kemar averages
the delicate folds of the Pinna though.

On 24 January 2016 at 21:47, Marc Lavallée  wrote:

> Le Sun, 24 Jan 2016 16:35:03 -0500,I wrote:
> > There could be a way to find a "best match" from sets of measured
> > heads, maybe using 3D scanning, or with simple measurements. For
> > example, the spherical HRTF model have different diameters, which is a
> > good start.
> >
> > There's a paper on "Rapid Generation of Personalized HRTFs" :
> > http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17365
>
> A quick googling on "hrtf 3d scanning" returns more interesting results:
>
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527826/microsofts-3-d-audio-gives-virtual-objects-a-voice/
>
> http://dsp.eng.fiu.edu/HRTFDB/main.htm
>
>
> http://www.mirlab.org/conference_papers/International_Conference/ICASSP%202010/pdfs/169.pdf
>
> http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/icisce/2015/6850/00/6850a225.pdf
>
> https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00606814/document
>
> http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ait1/head.htm
>
> --
> Marc
> ___
> 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.
>



-- 
www.augustineleudar.com
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
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] How to derive a good "universal" HRTF data set?

[Marc Lavallée]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:04:30 +,
Stefan Schreiber  wrote :

> >ATK provides HRTF data as wav files, ready to be used with
> >convolvers. It a "ready to use" application specific format.
> >
> In which (angular) resolution, etc.? Azimuth/elevation resolution?

The wav files are impulse response files, to be used with convolvers
in order to render FOA streams to binaural. That's all I know.

Unfortunately, http://www.ambisonictoolkit.net/ is down.

--
Marc
___
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.