On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 01:19:40PM +, Politis Archontis wrote:
> > The point is that, since the direct method is equivalent to
> > a decoding for the set of directions used to compute the SHT
> > (which will be the set for which you have HRIR), there is
> > nothing 'ideal' or special to it. It
> The point is that, since the direct method is equivalent to
> a decoding for the set of directions used to compute the SHT
> (which will be the set for which you have HRIR), there is
> nothing 'ideal' or special to it. It is just one specific case
> of the decoder + virtual speakers method in dis
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:52:20PM +, Politis Archontis wrote:
> One case I can think of when it is really necessary is when one needs
> to auralize binaurally the effect of a certain decoder, e.g. due to
> non-uniform arrangement of virtual loudspeakers, compared to an ideal case..
The poin
>> So what is the benefit then of adding a decoding stage in the middle?
> The advantage of having an explicit decoder stage is that you
> can tweak the decoder for optimum results. For example it can
> be dual-band [1], or have some front preference, etc.
I see. I find that more a matter of pref
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:21:30PM +, Politis Archontis wrote:
> > No, this is not true. The decoder and convolution matrix can be combined
> > into a (N+1)^2 * 2 convolution matrix.
>
> Ah true! by summing the terms..
>
> > The only remaining difference is the set of directions. And it is k
> No, this is not true. The decoder and convolution matrix can be combined
> into a (N+1)^2 * 2 convolution matrix.
Ah true! by summing the terms..
> The only remaining difference is the set of directions. And it is known
> that using too many speakers for a given order is suboptimal.
So what is
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:54:39AM +, Politis Archontis wrote:
> And I forgot to mention in the previous message that, while I don't
> see any benefit in the virtual loudspeaker approach, I see benefits
> in the direct approach. Doing the virtual loudspeaker decoding, you'll
> need some unifor
Adriaensen
[f...@linuxaudio.org]
Sent: 27 February 2016 12:14
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] expressing HRTFs in spherical harmonics
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:25:48PM +, Politis Archontis wrote:
> - Measure the HRIRs at Q directions around the listener
> - Take the FFT of all meas
ding) in this case.
Regards,
Archontis
From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] on behalf of Fons Adriaensen
[f...@linuxaudio.org]
Sent: 27 February 2016 12:14
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: Re: [Sursound] expressing HRTFs in spherical harmoni
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 09:25:48PM +, Politis Archontis wrote:
> - Measure the HRIRs at Q directions around the listener
> - Take the FFT of all measurements
> - For each frequency bin perform the SHT to the complex HRTFs,
> up to maximum order that Q directions permit (and their arrangement
Hi Jorn,
Yes, you’re right. To summarize the process:
- Measure the HRIRs at Q directions around the listener
- Take the FFT of all measurements
- For each frequency bin perform the SHT to the complex HRTFs, up to maximum
order that Q directions permit (and their arrangement: for equiangular
me
To: sursound@music.vt.edu
Subject: [Sursound] expressing HRTFs in spherical harmonics
On 01/27/2016 01:56 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> On 01/26/2016 11:05 PM, Politis Archontis wrote:
>> Hi Jorn,
>>
>> yes that is correct. I think however that the virtual loudspeaker
>&g
On 01/27/2016 01:56 PM, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
On 01/26/2016 11:05 PM, Politis Archontis wrote:
Hi Jorn,
yes that is correct. I think however that the virtual loudspeaker
stage is unnecessary. It is equivalent if you expand the left and
right HRTFs into spherical harmonics and multiply their
13 matches
Mail list logo
