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.
https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1207048/1207048.pdf
Not to forget my Portuguese colleagues:
http://webs.psi.uminho.pt/lvp/publications/Mendonca_et_al_20120_JAES.pdf
Learn to use (others') HRTFs!
Learn to use the Force! :-D =-O
Best,
St.
Another study and (yet) another view:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.116.4309&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Subjects
1 through 4 reported that they are able to better feel
the sound source motion in the median plane and the VAS
synthesized with the personalized HRTF sounds better (better
externalization and better perception of DOA and source
distance). Subject 5 reported that motion can’t be perceived
reliably both with generic and customized HRTF, which
agrees with experimental data. Subject 6 also reports that
the generic HRTF just “sounds better”.
Overall, it can be said that the customization based on visual
matching of ear parameters can provide significant enhancement
for the users of the virtual auditory space. This is
confirmed both by objective measures, where the localization
performance increases by 30% for some of the subjects
(the average gain is about 15%), and by subjective reports,
where the listener is able to distinguish between HRTFs that
“fits” better or worse. These two measures correlate well,
and if the customized HRTF does not “sound” good for a
user a switchback to the generic HRTF can be made easily.
I'll come back to my former implementation "recommendation":
Implement some "good" generic HRTF data set into your binaural
surround/3DA decoder, but also some interface to import customized
(matched) or even personalised HRTF data sets. (If some open and
accepted HRTF interface exists. So, maybe SOFA...)
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.
