A paper on the importance of shoulder reflections and torso diffraction in lower frequencies for elevation cues. Sadly no data for impact of torso turning in relation to the head.
https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://interface.cipic.ucdavis.edu/pubs/ICASSP_Mar_1999.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjMocuLu9LKAhVHXCwKHVQ7BTsQFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNHNy5xgR2G1tTpsTrtx9fsCPMPFjw&sig2=KuW3SUOJgUJmlJUoHpVGqA Bo-Erik On 30 Jan 2016 21:48, "Stefan Schreiber" <st...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote: > > >> >> 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. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20160130/aa8a5f48/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ 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.
