Richard Lee wrote:
Just to bring everyone down to earth ..
There are two easily reproduced experiments first carried out by prominent
members of this group which put these effects into perspective. They are
the
Greene/Lee Neckbrace
and
Malham/Van Gogh Experiment
The first shows 'real life' Fixed Head Localisation (which matched HRTFs
address) is TERRIBLE. Many people can't even distinguish back/front with
perfect (measured on their own noggin) HRTFs ... or even in 'real life'
with a Greene/Lee neckbrace. Anyone who has done fixed head localisation
experiments finds this out real quick.
The second shows that even the tiniest amount of head movement improves
localisation immensely and any ambiguity due to mismatched Pinnae etc (and
YES, the pinnae colouration effects are chaotic) are INSTANTLY resolved.
No 'training' is necessary with head movement.
After reading lots views, which seems to be wildly different:
Did actually anyone set up some scientific test about HT binaural
systems which would show (via statistical results) that the application
of personalised (or roughly matched) HRTFs (compared to averaged HRTFs)
is just and only some "minor issue"?
There is some professional equipment available which is measuring and
using personalized HRTF sets. (And of course applying HT, which is
certainly more important. It is highly unnatural if you move your head
and the sound doesn't change. Or that all sound sources/elements will
follow exactly your head movements, in an equivalent interpretation.)
It would actually not be very difficult to design some test(s) as
suggested above. But I don't know any such a study.
It is not enough to pretend that generic HRTFs "just work", and that you
could learn to use these even if not. Maybe your own ears/pinna will
still perform in some superiour way? What about more subtile issues, for
example < listening fatigue >? (This might not show up in scientific
test results... Headphone listening is currently never anything natural
- even in the stereo case. Because there is not any real
externalization without HRTF sets, listening fatigue is an issue for
many people. A$$ple and even Sennheiser won't tell you, of course...
The bigger issue for Apple seems to be an attempt to introduce some
"new" or say "their" interface for headphones, which of course is
laughable - but if people still buy?)
As Jörn says: An illusion can be there, but it also can break down. It
is sometimes worthwile to do things well.
CONCLUSIONS
If you have Head Tracking (ie Moving Head Localisation), don't bother with
fancy HRTFs.
Eric Benjamin found that you get most of the benefits from just getting
head size right but even this isn't necessary if you have Head Tracking.
Blumlein shuffle probably worth doing as you essentially get it free with
your simple IIR implementation.
Frankly: This is an extreme view, and it would to have been proven...
Best regards,
Stefan
Even vertical localisation, for which Fixed Head HRTFs have the most
benefit, require a priori knowledge of the source spectrum.
Why don't we just talk about persoanlised, matched and generic HRTFs?
Fixed Head HRTFs (without HT...) are not the way to go, as "everybody
knows". And head orientation data is not an issue nowadays. There are
6DOF and 9DOF movement sensors applied everywhere...
_______________________________________________
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.
