On 08/07/2011 22:48, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 09:53:31PM +0100, dw wrote:
One would never be able to locate the source of a gun shot then, since
you don't have time to sample the soundfield.
In anechoic conditions the direction of such a sound could be
ambiguous, apart from pinna coloration if there is enough HF
energy.
And I didn't say that 'exploring the sound field' is required
to have any directional perception at all. The effect of head
movements is to resolve ambiguities (e.g. front to back at LF),
or if the sound field isn't consistent with that of a real source,
to create confusion and destroy the illusion.
Imagine a XTC system reproducing someone speaking at say 60
degrees left. If I turn my head towards the virtual speaker
I expect more or less the same signal in both ears. There's
no way to achieve that with one ear almost facing the speakers
and the other one turned away from them.
Ciao,
60 degrees seems excessive head movement for someone seated listening to
speakers..
Although head movement is a very useful cue, as is sight for
'calbrating' auditory cues.
I am fed up with the lack of *head tracking' being used as an excuse for
poor sound localization performance. I remember so called 'researchers'
20 years ago recording the sound pressures in ear canals in an anechoic
chamber, and then playing the recordings back via earphone or headphones
in an anechoic chamber, and getting front to back discrimination little
better than chance. The excuse was 'head tracking' . It did not seem to
occur to them that they might not be recording anything representative
of something useful, or that the lack of a diffuse sound field might
have something to do with the problem.
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
