Reproduction of Phantom Sources Improves with Separation of Direct and Reflected Sounds

• Autorzy: Kleczkowski P. , Król A. , Małecki P.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/aoa-2015-0057

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In virtual acoustics or artificial reverberation, impulse responses can be split so that direct and reflected components of the sound field are reproduced via separate loudspeakers. The authors had investigated the perceptual effect of angular separation of those components in commonly used 5.0 and 7.0 multichannel systems, with one and three sound sources respectively (Kleczkowski et al. (2015b). In that work, each of the front channels of the 7.0 system was fed with only one sound source. In this work a similar experiment is reported, but with phantom sound sources between the front loudspeakers. The perceptual advantage of separation was found to be more consistent than in the condition of discrete sound sources. The results were analysed both for pooled listeners and in three groups, according to experience. The advantage of separation was the highest in the group of experienced listeners.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

spatial audio; multichannel sound reproduction; phantom sources; auralization; ambisonics abbreviations; IR (impulse response); SIR (spatial impulse response); RT (reverberation time); ANOVA (analysis of variance); DS – direct sound; RSs – reflected sounds

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki PAN ; Komitet Akustyki PAN ; Polskie Towarzystwo Akustyczne
• Czasopismo: Archives of Acoustics
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: Vol. 40, No. 4
• Strony: 575--584
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 38 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Kleczkowski P.

• Department of Mechanics and Vibroacoustics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland

autor

Król A.

• Department of Mechanics and Vibroacoustics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland

autor

Małecki P.

• Department of Mechanics and Vibroacoustics, AGH University of Science and Technology, Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Ando Y. (1997), Subjective Preference in Relation to Objective Parameters of Music Sound Fields with a Single Echo, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 62, 1436–1441.
• 2. Audio Ease, Altiverb 7 Manual, www.audioease.com/Pages/Altiverb/Altiverb-7-manual.pdf.zip, accessed 2014 Nov. 10.
• 3. Bech S., Zacharov N. (2006), Perceptual audio evaluation: theory, method and application, John Wiley, Hoboken, New York.
• 4. Bennett J.C., Keith B., Frederick O.E. (1985), A new approach to the assessment of stereophonic sound system performance, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 33, 314–321.
• 5. Christian Knufinke Software, SIR2 Manual, www.knufinke.de/sir/downloads/SIR2 Manual.pdf, accessed 2014 Jul. 10.
• 6. Faller C. (2006), Multiple-Loudspeaker Playback of Stereo Signals, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 54, 1051–1064.
• 7. Farina A., Ayalon R. (2003), Recording Concert Hall Acoustics for Posteriority, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference: Multichannel Audio, The New Reality, Canada.
• 8. Farina A., Glasgal R., Armelloni E., Torger A. (2001), Ambiophonic Principles for the Recording and Reproduction of Surround Sound for Music, Proceedings of the 19th AES Conference on Surround Sound, Techniques, Technology and Perception, Schloss Elmau, Germany.
• 9. Frank M. (2013), Source Width of Frontal Phantom Sources: Perception, Measurement, and Modeling, Archives of Acoustics, 38, 3, 311–319.
• 10. Gerzon M.A. (1973), Periphony: With-Height Sound Reproduction, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 21, 2–10.
• 11. Glasgal R. (2001), Ambiophonics. Achieving Physiological Realism in Music Recording and Reproduction, Proceedings of the 111th AES Conv., USA.
• 12. Grosse J., van de Par S. (2014), Perceptual Optimization of Room-in-Room Reproduction with Spatially Distributed Loudspeakers, Proceedings of the EAA Joint Symposium on Auralization and Ambisonics, Germany.
• 13. Imamura H., Marui A., Kamekawa T., Nakahara M. (2014), Influence of directional differences of first reflections in small spaces on perceived clarity, Proceedings of the 134th AES Conv., Germany.
• 14. ITU-R BS.775-3: 2012, Multichannel Stereophonic Sound System with and without Accompanying Picture, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland, Tech. Rep.
• 15. Johnston J.D., Jot J., Fejzo Z., Hastings S. (2010), Beyond Coding – Reproduction of Direct and Diffuse Sounds in Multiple Environments, Proceedings of the 129th AES Conv., USA.
• 16. Kin M.J., Plaskota P. (2011), Comparison of Sound Attributes of multichannel and Mixed-Down Stereo Recordings, Archives of Acoustics, 36, 2, 333–345.
• 17. Kleczkowski P., Krol A., Małecki P. (2015a), On the Management of Direct and Reflected Sounds in the 5.0 Surround Sound Reproduction System, Acta Physica Polonica A, 128, 1A, A11–A16.
• 18. Kleczkowski P., Krol A., Małecki P. (2015b), Multichannel Sound Reproduction Quality Improves with Angular Separation of Direct and Reflected Sounds, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 63, 6, 428–443.
• 19. Kleczkowski P., Pluta M. (2012), Normally Hearing Subjects Have no Advantage of Better Audiograms in Listening Tasks, Acta Phys. Pol. A, 121, A120–A125.
• 20. Kleczkowski P., Pluta M. (2014), Perceptual Evaluation of the Effect of Threshold in Selective Mixing of Sounds, Acta Physica Polonica A, 125, 4-A, A117–A121.
• 21. Kleiner M., Dalenbäck B.I., Svensson P. (1993), Auralization – An Overview, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 41, 861–875.
• 22. Malecki P. (2013), Evaluation of objective and subjective factors of highly reverberant acoustic field [in Polish], Doctoral thesis, AGH University of Science and Technology, Krakow.
• 23. Merimaa J., Pulkki V. (2005), Spatial Impulse Response Rendering I: Analysis and Synthesis, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 53, 1115–1127.
• 24. Moore B.C.J. (1999), Controversies and mysteries in spatial hearing, Proceedings of the 16th AES International Conference on spatial sound reproduction, Germany.
• 25. Newell P.M., Katz S.M. (2006), Discrete Layered Sound, Proc. Ist. Acoust., 28, 8, 169–178.
• 26. Pilch A., Kamisiński T. (2011), The effect of geometrical and material modification of sound diffusers on their acoustic parameters, Archives of Acoustics, 36, 1, 955–966.
• 27. Pulkki V., Merimaa J. (2006), Spatial Impulse Response Rendering II: Reproduction of Diffuse Sound and Listening Tests, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 54, 3–20.
• 28. Tervo S., Laukkanen P., Patynen J., Lokki T. (2014), Preferences of Critical Listening Environments Among Sound Engineers, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 62, 300–314.
• 29. Toole F. (2008), Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms, Focal Press, Oxford.
• 30. Vorländer M. (2008a), Auralization, Fundamentals of Acoustics, Modelling, Simulation, Algorithms and Acoustic Virtual Reality, Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg.
• 31. Vorländer M. (2008b), Virtual acoustics: opportunities and limits of spatial sound reproduction, Archives of Acoustics, 33, 4, 413–422.
• 32. Vorländer M. (2014), Virtual acoustics, Archives of Acoustics, 39, 3, 307–318.
• 33. Waves Audio, IR-1, IR-L and IR-360 User’s Guide, http://www.waves.com/1lib/pdf/plugins/ir-convolution-reverb.pdf, accessed 2014 Nov. 10.
• 34. Woszczyk W. (2014), private communication.
• 35. Woszczyk W., Beghin T., de Francisco M., Ko D. (2009), Recording Multichannel Sound Within Virtual Acoustics, Proceedings of the 127th AES Conv., USA.
• 36. Woszczyk W., Ko D., Leonard B. (2012), Virtual Acoustics at the Service of Music Performance and Recording, Archives of Acoustics, 37, 1, 109–113.
• 37. Zotter F., Frank M. (2013), Efficient Phantom Source Widening, Archives of Acoustics, 38, 1, 27–37.
• 38. Zotter F., Frank M. (2012), All-Round Ambisonic Panning and Decoding, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 60, 807–820.