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 +0000,
Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
