[Sursound] Measuring sounds and voice for stroke patients
Greetings All, My partner is needing to develop assessments for measuring deprivation of hearing and comprehension post stroke (aphasia etc) and wants to work out a way of assessing how intelligible interviews with patients are in different settings, for example, do patients comprehend or hear differently in say a quiet surgery, or noisy outpatient setting. Is there DSP available to measure the environment and quantify the ambient sounds (which she can use to possibly corelate against comprehension results)? I have a range of microphones to use for this including a Soundfield (digital) and can work on most platforms such as PC, Mac, Linux. Thanks in advance, Haig (Melbourne, Australia) ___ 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.
Re: [Sursound] Rode vs Ambeo as ST350 replacement?
Greetings Folks, If anyone is interested, we have an unused, new-in-box SPS-200 available. Price is negotiable. Best wishes, Haig Sent in a frenzy from my iPad HaigelBagel.com.au > On 30 Nov 2022, at 9:41 am, Thorsten Michels wrote: > > Hi Justin! > > It directly depends on what you want to record and for which purpose. > > I strive for solutions where I can record "the max" for a reasonable price > and can still decide in post, what will be the final result. > Just like with M/S Stereo-recordings. You may decide even in post, how wide > your stereo image will sound like. > > In this kind of habbit I see the https://spcmic.com. On their internet site, > they claim to record 3rd order Ambisonic. > And due to a presentation I saw at the Schoeps "Mikroforum 2022", given by > Mr. Zotter, I understand, that only 3rd order (and above) Ambisonic > recordings give you the required details to decide in at latest in post, how > your "virtual room" and any event inside of it, will sound like. > > And for me the https://spcmic.com, looks like a better choice, as it offers > 3rd order Ambisonic instead of FOA. > Especially if you take a closer look on the price. ;-) > > To be honest, I just listened to some "demo-recordings", but that already was > mind-blowing. > So, for me, this would be an honest option to check, BEFORE I spend twice the > money. > > Just my 2 cents. > > Take care and stay healthy > > Best Regards > Thorsten > > >> Am 29.11.2022 um 20:21 schrieb j...@bmbcon.demon.nl: >> Hi everybody, >> >> I know this has been gone over before, but now more of you must have >> experience of the Rode NT-SF1 and the Sennheiser Ambeo mics. >> >> I’m thinking of selling my Soundfield ST350 and getting a smaller, more >> portable mic. I have heard recordings of course, but I haven’t been able >> to try either mic. It’s more for field recording use, sometimes in the >> studio. >> >> Is there really a bit difference between the two, do you think? or will >> everyone go “N! Don’t sell the 350!” >> >> best wishes, Justin >> >> >> >> Justin Bennett >> >> jus...@justinbennett.nl >> www.justinbennett.nl >> http://jubilee-art.org/ >> >> https://vimeo.com/justinbennett >> >> https://justinbennett.bandcamp.com/ >> >> ___ >> 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/listin ___ 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.
Re: [Sursound] Barber Poles and Zeroes (life in the S-domain?)
On 4/02/2013 8:51 PM, Dave Malham wrote: and scorpions hear vibrations through their feet and have incredibly good direction sensingI was particularly struck by your comment about distance perception, as that's one I hadn't thought about - I'll have to add that to my list I used to work with the astounding Scottish percussionist, Evelyn Glennie (who is profoundly deaf). She wears bare feet and combines lip-reading with vibrations through the ground/floor. American Indians (among others) can judge distances too by attenuation of frequencies. Haig ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Flux Ircam Tools
Keep an eye out for specials Sometimes Ircam Tools go on sale for half price. Cheers, Haig On 11/10/2012 1:41 AM, Dave Malham wrote: Spat has supported B format for quite a long time and is (or at least was - I haven't used it for a decade or so) quite a nice piece of software, but I do think it's rather expensive at around a 1000 Euros. Dave On 10 October 2012 15:25, Moritz Fehr m...@moritzfehr.de wrote: Hi List, do you have experience with the Flux Ircam Tools? I am especially interested if it is possible to work in Spat using B-Format. Regards, Moritz -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20121010/37cf9c3b/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] OT: Spatial music
On 13/04/2012 12:13 AM, seva wrote: but for me, i'd really like some tools to use in film mixing (even with the distributed Ls and Rs speakers). anyone on the list care to tell me what tools might be best, or why it just won't work? the idea is to simply improve location and immersive aspects of film sound, whether played in a theatre or in home theatre. Have you tried SPAT from IRCAM? It's pretty good and has sped up workflow for film mixing. Cheers, Haig ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Surround sound for CI
On 6/04/2012 4:28 AM, Eric Carmichel wrote: Greetings All, I'm glad the topic of Blumlein, ORTF, etc. came up. I've been doing a lot of music recording (in contrast to my usual cochlear implant research). Eric, I keep meaning to mention the concert I recorded of music written specifically for cochlear implant folk. It was a little over a year ago and was funded by the Bionic Ear Institute. The composer Robin Fox wrote a work with the 22 notes that CI people hear best. In fact that work is now going to the Paris Rostrum this year. Here is a very good short doco on the whole concept http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s3051873.htm As this research continues, it may of course be possible for CI folk to actually have remarkably good surround sound experiences. But I do accept that the reality of that is still a little way off. Best regards, Haig ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] Rearward, march! (RE binaural listening rearward illusions)
Hi Eric. Thanks for the post, and yes, it makes a lot of sense regarding differing perceptions when auditioning binaural material. I think IRCAM have identified (at least) several different types of ears in relation to binaural perception. At least that was the information they gave me when I was discussing it with them in October last year. Best regards, Haig On 14/01/2012 7:10 AM, Eric Carmichel wrote: Hi Dave, I just wished to add my two bits regarding binaural listening and the rearward illusion you experience. Having investigated the effects of binaural electronic hearing protectors on localization, I do recall two sources of information (in addition to my own) where listeners experienced a rearward illusion of sound sources. The studies had to do with hearing protection devices (HPDs), but aspects of the studies apply to binaural listening in general. Of course, retaining head and pinna cues is what we desire with binaural recordings, but one man’s HRTF is another man’s, well...? In one of the (HPD) studies, pinna cues were absent because of occlusion, and this was believed to account for a rearward illusion. The references are Russell G, Noble WG. Localization response certainty in normal and disrupted listening conditions: Towards a new theory of localization. J Aud Res 1976; 16: 143-50 Oldfield SR, Parker SP. Acuity of sound localization: A topography of auditory space: II, Pinna cues absent. Perception 1984; 13: 601-17 For Russell and Noble, it was believed that loss of canal resonance accounted for a rearward illusion (this was for listeners wearing earplugs). Under earphones, things are different. For example: In my study*, it was easy for subjects’ to discern left-from-right sound source location but discrimination between left rear and left front (or right rear and right front) was difficult. Front-back reversals accounted for the largest percentage of errors. Most errors made for the HPD conditions occurred at 120 degrees and 240 degrees (rear plane) and sounds coming from these locations were often judged as coming from 60 and 300 degrees (front plane), respectively. One listener, however, made localization errors opposite from other listeners. For this listener, regardless of condition, more ipsilateral errors were made to sounds coming from 0 degrees than for sounds coming from 180 degrees. Localization under HPDs for this listener was also unique: Stimuli presented at 60 and 300 degrees were often judged to originate from 120 and 240 degrees, respectively, which was opposite from the other listeners. Why a frontal or rearward proclivity for any particular listener is a good question. But it does appear that it is consistent for a given person. For me, binaural recordings almost always seem to be in the head (despite everyone’s best efforts), but sounds will appear to be outside of my head if they’re to the extreme left or right and include the requisite cues (beyond ILDs). Results from my HPD study suggested that binaural electronic HPDs retain the ILD cue needed for lateralization (I carefully matched the gain between earcups). However, pinna-head cues needed to make accurate front/back judgments are not retained. According to Oldfield and Parker, such errors would be anticipated despite stereo sound provided by the HPDs because the ITD of sound at the tympanic membrane does not uniquely specify a location in space, only the left/right component. Incidentally, manufacturers’ statements for their respective binaural electronic HPDs included ‘True ‘stereo’ for directional sound detection’ ‘Stereo sound so much like your own hearing that you retain your natural sense of sound direction’ ‘…provides you with 360 degrees awareness of sound direction with the clearest sound amplification available’ Hmmm... Check out the following and see what at least one study revealed. *Noise Health, October-December 2007, Volume 9. I think it cost a bit to download; however, I won’t comment here on the cost of journal articles. If you’d like to see a PowerPoint regarding this study, you can download it from www.elcaudio.com/hearing/hpd_localization.pps [26.37 MB] I presented this study (and the PP) at a colloquium: Attendees included William (Bill) Yost and other noteworthy hearing scientists. Question: What if the same study was repeated only using an Ambisonic surround system? I wonder whether the same localization errors would occur. This, to some extent, might validate the usefulness of Ambisonics in hearing research. Another PP, for those interested in signal processing, otoacoustic emissions and hearing physiology (not too much psychoacoustics), can be downloaded from www.elcaudio.com/hearing/oae_study.pps [5.62 MB] (This study was kindly rejected by JASA, but it’s still in progress.) Kind regards, Eric C. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
