Hello everyone, I am writing in response to the question raised regarding our recent JAES paper on vertical precedence effect (Wallis and Lee).
Firstly, on the debate about whether the precedence effect works vertically or not, we first need to clarify the original definition of the precedence effect. In a strict sense, the precedence effect means that sound is localised at the exact direction of the leading sound in the presence of lagging sound (e.g. full phantom image shift to one loudspeaker position), if the delay time exceeds a certain limit (e.g. 1ms). Here the lagging sound is not required to be reduced in level (e.g.the leading and lagging sounds have the same level. The Haas effect suggest lagging sound could even be louder than leading sound within a certain delay range, but this is only the case for horizontal stereo). As Peter initially pointed out in this discussion, Litovsky et al 1997 claim that the precedence effect is still valid in the median plane, however, what they investigated was actually "localisation dominance" rather than the strict precedence effect. That is, they concluded that the precedence effect was still evident when the perceived sound image was shifted "towards" the leading source position, even though the perceived position was not exactly at the position of the leading source. In fact the subjects' responses were collected as percentages for whether image was perceived closer to leading or lagging source rather than actually perceived position, so it's unclear where the image was localised. Another difference is that we used speakers at 0 and 30deg elevation angles, whereas Litovsky et al speakers at front, overhead, and behind. The definition used in our study, on the other hand, is close to the strict definition for the precedence effect: perceived phantom image created from lower and upper loudspeakers (30degree elevation) has to be perceived at the "same" position as the perceived position of the leading loudspeaker (lower speaker). The reason why we compared phantom image position with the "perceived" position of the leading loudspeaker rather than the "physical" position was due to the fact that vertical localisation is governed by the pitch height effect, which means that the physical speaker position is not necessarily same as the perceived position. What we found was that no time delay between 0 and 10ms gave rise to a shift of image position fully to the perceived position of lower loudspeaker. Rather the perceived position was random with time delay change, which we explains in the paper based on comb filtering resulting at the ear. The results of our previous studies support this further. For two speakers with 30degree elevation in the median plane, with various musical sources, we found that at least 6-7dB level reduction needed to be applied to delayed upper speaker signal (lagging) in order to localise resulting image at the perceived position of the lower loudspeaker (Lee 2011). Similar results were obtained for diagonally arranged loudspeaker pair (Stenzel et al 2014). For octave band noise stimuli, the amount of level reduction required for delayed upper speaker signal varies significantly depending on the band, but for broadband noise the required level reduction was about 12dB (Wallis and Lee 2014). If the precedence effect had operated, non of this level reduction would have been required. Below are the references for these studies. Lee, H. (2011) 'The Relationship Between Interchannel Time and Level Differences in Vertical Sound Localization and Masking', In: 131st Audio Engineering Society Convention, Preprint 8556. Stenzel, H., Scuda, U. and Lee, H. (2014) ‘Localization and Masking Thresholds of Diagonally Positioned Sound Sources and Their Relationship to Interchannel Time and Level Differences’. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Spatial Audio 2014. Erlangen, Germany: Verband Deutscher Tonmeister. . ISBN 978-3-98 12830-4-4 Wallis, R. and Lee, H. (2014) ‘Investigation into Vertical Stereophonic Localisation in the Presence of Interchannel Crosstalk’. In: 136th Audio Engineering Society Convention, Preprint 9026. I hope this helps clarify the discrepancy between our result and Litovsky's. Basically it is due to how we define the precedence effect, and if we use the more strict definition, there are enough evidences showing that the effect doesn't work vertically. If we just mean localisation dominance by the precedence effect, I guess it is a bit risky in that it can be confused with summing localisation. Best regards, Hyunkook ========================================= Dr Hyunkook Lee, BMus(Tonmeister), PhD, MAES, FHEA Senior Lecturer in Music Technology Leader of the Applied Psychoacoustics Laboratory (APL) http://www.hud.ac.uk/research/researchcentres/mtprg/projects/apl/ School of Computing and Engineering University of Huddersfield Huddersfield HD1 3DH United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0)1484 471893 Email: h....@hud.ac.uk Office: CE 2 /14a ________________________________________ From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] on behalf of sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu [sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu] Sent: 09 December 2015 17:00 To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Sursound Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9 Send Sursound mailing list submissions to sursound@music.vt.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sursound-requ...@music.vt.edu You can reach the person managing the list at sursound-ow...@music.vt.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Sursound digest..." WHEN REPLYING EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE AND THE MESSAGE BODY You are receiving the digest so when replying, please remember to edit your Subject line to that of the original message you are replying to, so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Sursound-list digest?" the subject should match the post you are replying to. Also, please EDIT the quoted post so that it is not the entire digest, but just the post you are replying to - this will keep the archive useful and not polluted with extraneous posts. Today's Topics: 1. Re: OZO? (Fons Adriaensen) 2. Re: Visual monitoring of surround sound (D Ryan) 3. Re: OZO? vertical precedence (Augustine Leudar) 4. Re: Dolby Atmos audio recording on sale... (Augustine Leudar) 5. Re: Dolby Atmos audio recording on sale... (Augustine Leudar) 6. Re: OZO? vertical precedence (Peter Lennox) 7. vertical precendence and summing localisation (wallis and lee 2015) (J?rn Nettingsmeier) 8. Re: vertical precendence and summing localisation (wallis and lee 2015) (Peter Lennox) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 17:12:44 +0000 From: Fons Adriaensen <f...@linuxaudio.org> To: sursound@music.vt.edu Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? Message-ID: <20151208171244.ga6...@linuxaudio.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 01:55:36AM +0000, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > But your plots surely don't apply directly to the Ozo sphere, which > is packed with electronics inside? (s. Nokia's videos.) > The word "case" includes the interior of the sphere, which is not hollow. > Your plots refer to an empty sphere, don't they? A solid (i.e. acoustically not transparent) sphere. It doesn't matter what is inside. Ciao, -- FA A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 17:30:15 +0000 From: D Ryan <digima...@gmail.com> To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Visual monitoring of surround sound Message-ID: <caoyhszzdauc4mgttarrtzfypkzerc3pqlbmr_f44ntay7jh...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" see: http://www.fluxhome.com/products/analyzer_modules/pas_surround On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:13 PM, David Pickett <d...@fugato.com> wrote: > Apart from the obvious measurement of the amplitude and phase of the > individual signals, which I do, I only have access to two ways of visually > monitoring surround signals. > > I have always found a phase meter very informative in stereo. There is > the centre zero "correlation" meter type, either analog or with LED bars, > and the oscilloscope L/R or M/S method which I find less useful. Having > written that, I must say that I find the "Vector scope" in RME's Digicheck > works well. This is an oscilloscope display but there is the option of > AGC, and the rise and fall times are adjustable. > > Digicheck's surround visualisation includes phase meters between all the > channels of the "correlation" type and a synthesized two dimensional > display which assumes five channels in the directions of 5.1. If there is > sound on one channel, one sees a line pointing in the direction of the > relevant loudspeaker. Two adjacent channel produce a triangle, one apex at > the centre, four a quadrilateral, etc. Thus the space between the channels > is filled in, although to me this conveys no real information. One can > read the individual phase meters, which are mostly of use with tones, or > read the position of the corners of the display to see the relative > magnitude of the levels in each channel. (There are also separate level > meters on the same panel.) > > The other surorund display that I have is in Samplitude, and also assumes > 5.1. This produces cigar shaped signals for individual channels, coming to > a point at the origin, but very rounded at the outer end. Two front > signals will fill in the space between the L&R cigars, etc. Other than > that, I have been uinable to discover how it works. With this display, one > can see if a single channel is low or high in level, and gauge the relative > levels of F and B. But there is no indication of the coherence, or lack of > it, between channels. > > On a stereo phase display, such as that in Digicheck, one can readily see > if a mono signal has been placed in the stereo by means of a panpot; but > this cannot be seen in either of the surround visualizations that I have. > > What might work would be the Digicheck stereo display modified such that > signals in the front half on the soundfield are placed in the top half of > the display, while the rear half is in the lower part. Then it might be > possible to distinguish between panpotted signals and coherent pairs. > > I'd be very interested to know about other methods of visualizing surround > -- in the horizontal plane, at least to start with. In my experience I can > tell a lot about a stereo signal by watching the level and phase meters, > and I would like to be able to do also in surround. > > David > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20151208/cd552afe/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:57:47 +0000 From: Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence Message-ID: <cabx2juorvyxvgld2tbjljm01y48jx-jypcgxf7t+4vted7n...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Very interesting paper. I would love to read it properly - can you just tell me - does precedence work as well vertically as it does horizontally ? On 8 December 2015 at 13:30, J?rn Nettingsmeier < netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote: > On 12/08/2015 01:47 PM, Peter Lennox wrote: > >> Couldn't find the full paper again - but there's this one in full: >> https://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/litovsky.pdf >> >> The abstract ends "...models that attribute the precedecence effect >> entirely to processes that involve binaural differences are no longer >> viable" >> >> The researchers are known as excellent contributors to the corpus of >> psychophysics (Ruth Litovsky did the defninitive review of precedence >> effects). >> >> So I would be interested to examine the differences in their findings and >> Huddersfield's >> > > thanks, very interesting! a quick glance makes me very curious, i'm > looking forward to reading this tonight. > > > > -- > J?rn Nettingsmeier > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio) > Tonmeister VDT > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- www.augustineleudar.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151208/2be0465c/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:01:37 +0000 From: Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Dolby Atmos audio recording on sale... Message-ID: <CABx2juoGumx+KVNJHmdTSKWZjika5YEDV00naD1=rkrqgra...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" The problem with protoos is it only does 7.1 ? I was speaking to one of the DTS guys and they have to mix hight using only a horizontal monitoring environment - obviously not ideal ! On 8 December 2015 at 07:10, Douglas Murray <dmur...@well.com> wrote: > Atmos has a 9.1 ?bed" (7.1 with two ceiling arrays), and more objects than > speakers. Therefore each speaker could have an object dedicated to it. Each > playback space is different though, so Atmos interpolates objects between > available speakers to ?render" desired pan location to actual monitor > speaker locations. > > I suspect that if you wanted to you could set an object at each speaker?s > location and send a ?holistic? recording to each of those speakers. They > may not be in the optimum locations for ambisonic decoders but it might not > be entirely incompatible. That could be made to work with some success in a > particular auditorium for which the objects match the speaker locations. > The sound field might not translate so well to other Atmos rooms. Which > makes me wonder: how would an ambisonic sound field would pay back in other > sized and equipped Atmos rooms? > > I can?t answer any of Spencer?s questions properly. I do know that the > Atmos RMU (renderer) takes each mono or stereo object audio channel and > places or pans it around the room based on XYZ and size metadata. These > positions are mapped to the available speakers based on a stored "room > configuration" file in the RMU of the number and location of speakers in > the particular room. These objects can coexist with a conventional ?bed? of > 7.1 L, C, R, Lss, Rss, Lsr, Rsr, LFE arrangement with the addition of the > "overhead" two arrays of ceiling speakers, 1 running down the left center > of the ceiling, and one on the right center of the ceiling (called Lts and > Rts). > > There is practical documentation for cinema mixers at > http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/authoring-for-dolby-atmos-cinema-sound-manual.pdf > < > http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/authoring-for-dolby-atmos-cinema-sound-manual.pdf> > which contains specific instructions on how to use current technology, > primarily Pro Tools, to prepare Atmos masters correctly. They don?t address > HOA at all. Cinemas have RMU hardware in their projection booths, but there > is also a software only renderer available for sound design rooms, which > often have a minimal surround and overhead allotment of speakers. > > Doug Murray > Film sound editor > > > > > On Dec 7, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Ben Bloomberg <b...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > I think the default configuration is 118 objects > > and two 9.1 beds. > > > > :/ not ideal. > > > > Ben > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Spencer Russell <s...@media.mit.edu> > wrote: > > > >> Is there any technical info available about how Atmos content is > >> encoded? I've seen reference to "128 channels" so does that mean things > >> are encoded as up to 128 simultaneous channels coming from different > >> virtual locations? How do they get re-panned for the client-side speaker > >> configuration? If so are the locations movable or hard-coded in the > >> format? Are there any shoot-outs out there between Atmos and HOA? It's > >> hard to find technical info among all the marketing. > >> > >> -s > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > >>> Peter Lennox wrote: > >>> > >>>> Yes, the thinking is that a speaker-layout-agnostic format file can be > >> transmitted and decoded at the client end of things, so it could end up > >> being mono, stereo, surround, surround with height, large-scale surround > >> (eg cinema) and so on, depending on the technical competence of the > client > >> machine. > >>>> Of course, a lot could go wrong... > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> With the limitation that audio objects alone don't define a real > >>> acoustic space/environment. (You would have to render this.) > >>> > >>> It is good to have options. But audio objects are not very compatible > >>> with holistic = real recordings? > >>> > >>> (Audio objects have been used for ages in game audio, including > >>> rendering of reflections and simulated acoustics.) > >>> > >>> Dolby Atmos is actually a hybrid (C/O) format. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Stefan > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Dr. Peter Lennox > >>>> Senior Lecturer in Perception > >>>> College of Arts > >>>> University of Derby, UK > >>>> e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk > >>>> t: 01332 593155 > >>>> https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox > >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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/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/20151207/d05105f0/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. > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151207/4f1fdabb/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. > -- www.augustineleudar.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151208/1c77676c/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:06:40 +0000 From: Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com> To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> Subject: Re: [Sursound] Dolby Atmos audio recording on sale... Message-ID: <cabx2jur6r-h5zjfcu4o974pvcejodesajwxghvoxmcur+gg...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Stefan - what software is used to render/design these audio objects ? best Gus On 7 December 2015 at 17:37, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote: > Peter Lennox wrote: > > Yes, the thinking is that a speaker-layout-agnostic format file can be >> transmitted and decoded at the client end of things, so it could end up >> being mono, stereo, surround, surround with height, large-scale surround >> (eg cinema) and so on, depending on the technical competence of the client >> machine. >> Of course, a lot could go wrong... >> >> > > With the limitation that audio objects alone don't define a real acoustic > space/environment. (You would have to render this.) > > It is good to have options. But audio objects are not very compatible with > holistic = real recordings? > > (Audio objects have been used for ages in game audio, including > rendering of reflections and simulated acoustics.) > > Dolby Atmos is actually a hybrid (C/O) format. > > > Best, > > Stefan > > > > Dr. Peter Lennox >> Senior Lecturer in Perception >> College of Arts >> University of Derby, UK >> e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk t: 01332 593155 >> https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- www.augustineleudar.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151208/61fdebf5/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:07:59 +0000 From: Peter Lennox <p.len...@derby.ac.uk> To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence Message-ID: <28f33490c302424e98cc6dc2531b2048010969e41...@mkt-mbx01.university.ds.derby.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" no -percedence effects include a range of phenomena. But precedence in the median plane isn't quite as effective as in the azimuthal plane, according to Litovsky, Rakerd, Hartmann et al, but is still quite effective and so not negligible. So I'd like to understand what Lee (Huddersfield) was saying, to compare. Certainly, in respect of producing phantom imagery in the vertical, I've found this to be quite effective (though often slightly more vague than in horizontal) which would explain why periphonic ambisonics works at all - and this seems to be a related issue to the precedence one cheers ppl Dr. Peter Lennox Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy Senior Lecturer in Perception College of Arts University of Derby Tel: 01332 593155 ________________________________________ From: Sursound [sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of Augustine Leudar [augustineleu...@gmail.com] Sent: 08 December 2015 19:57 To: Surround Sound discussion group Subject: Re: [Sursound] OZO? vertical precedence Very interesting paper. I would love to read it properly - can you just tell me - does precedence work as well vertically as it does horizontally ? On 8 December 2015 at 13:30, J?rn Nettingsmeier < netti...@stackingdwarves.net> wrote: > On 12/08/2015 01:47 PM, Peter Lennox wrote: > >> Couldn't find the full paper again - but there's this one in full: >> https://www.pa.msu.edu/acoustics/litovsky.pdf >> >> The abstract ends "...models that attribute the precedecence effect >> entirely to processes that involve binaural differences are no longer >> viable" >> >> The researchers are known as excellent contributors to the corpus of >> psychophysics (Ruth Litovsky did the defninitive review of precedence >> effects). >> >> So I would be interested to examine the differences in their findings and >> Huddersfield's >> > > thanks, very interesting! a quick glance makes me very curious, i'm > looking forward to reading this tonight. > > > > -- > J?rn Nettingsmeier > Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 > > Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio) > Tonmeister VDT > > http://stackingdwarves.net > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- www.augustineleudar.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151208/2be0465c/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. The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was sent to you in error, please select unsubscribe. Unsubscribe and Security information contact: info...@derby.ac.uk For all FOI requests please contact: f...@derby.ac.uk All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/ ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 15:00:10 +0100 From: J?rn Nettingsmeier <netti...@stackingdwarves.net> To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> Subject: [Sursound] vertical precendence and summing localisation (wallis and lee 2015) Message-ID: <566833ea.5000...@stackingdwarves.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" On 12/08/2015 09:07 PM, Peter Lennox wrote: > no -percedence effects include a range of phenomena. But precedence > in the median plane isn't quite as effective as in the azimuthal > plane, according to Litovsky, Rakerd, Hartmann et al, but is still > quite effective and so not negligible. So I'd like to understand what > Lee (Huddersfield) was saying, to compare. i've attached the paper, since it is open access. i guess i misrepresented it a bit, because i was being sloppy about distinguishing between precedence effect and summing localisation. however, wallis and lee conclude: "Additionally, no evidence could be found to support the operation of the precedence effect in median plane stereophony. In the present study the only occasions whereby stimuli were localized at the position of the ear- lier emitting loudspeaker were due to the pitch height ef- fect. There was also no consistent effect of time panning observed, with localization judgments for the broadband source becoming more biased towards the upper loud- speaker as ICTD increased, as opposed to the lower." [the upper speaker was always lagging behind the lower in this experiment.] in comparing the results with litovsky et al, it should be pointed out that while both were conducted under anechoic conditions, the stimuli used by wallis and lee were long noise snippets with 1s fade-ins and fade-outs rather than clicks, with no transient information at all (which seem designed to test the presence of summing localisation), so i guess they are not in direct contradiction. it just shows that the musical reality will be somewhere in between... > Certainly, in respect of producing phantom imagery in the vertical, > I've found this to be quite effective (though often slightly more > vague than in horizontal) which would explain why periphonic > ambisonics works at all - and this seems to be a related issue to the > precedence one i found that vbap/stereophonic vertical localisation is excellent on speaker positions (because it gets the spectral cues right), and unusable anywhere else. 3rd-order ambisonic vertical localisation seems uniformly so-so throughout the elevation range, which to me is preferrable... -- J?rn Nettingsmeier Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio) Tonmeister VDT http://stackingdwarves.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 18040.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 299653 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151209/d9d9ec4c/attachment.pdf> ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:30:57 +0000 From: Peter Lennox <p.len...@derby.ac.uk> To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> Subject: Re: [Sursound] vertical precendence and summing localisation (wallis and lee 2015) Message-ID: <28f33490c302424e98cc6dc2531b204801096adf3...@mkt-mbx01.university.ds.derby.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ah, that's becoming clearer, thanks. In respect of trying to measure precedence, then naturally, I'd say that without transients, one has something which would not appeal well to precedence effects anyway - (in the Franssen effect, which uses sinewaves as stimuli, I believe, it was shown that no re-localisation occurred even when panned through 180 degrees - until a transient is put in). But in respect of summing localisation (which, strictly, comes under the heading of Precedence effects) - I still think you need the transient content, otherwise, what is it that one is summing? - noise with a temporal offset is becoming decorrelated (I'm not talking about how it might generate lower interaural cross-correlation, obviously) but essentially has no source direction because it's not a source, if you see what I mean I'll look the paper up cheers Dr. Peter Lennox Senior Lecturer in Perception College of Arts University of Derby, UK e: p.len...@derby.ac.uk t: 01332 593155 https://derby.academia.edu/peterlennox https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Lennox -----Original Message----- From: Sursound [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu] On Behalf Of J?rn Nettingsmeier Sent: 09 December 2015 14:00 To: Surround Sound discussion group <sursound@music.vt.edu> Subject: [Sursound] vertical precendence and summing localisation (wallis and lee 2015) On 12/08/2015 09:07 PM, Peter Lennox wrote: > no -percedence effects include a range of phenomena. But precedence in > the median plane isn't quite as effective as in the azimuthal plane, > according to Litovsky, Rakerd, Hartmann et al, but is still quite > effective and so not negligible. So I'd like to understand what Lee > (Huddersfield) was saying, to compare. i've attached the paper, since it is open access. i guess i misrepresented it a bit, because i was being sloppy about distinguishing between precedence effect and summing localisation. however, wallis and lee conclude: "Additionally, no evidence could be found to support the operation of the precedence effect in median plane stereophony. In the present study the only occasions whereby stimuli were localized at the position of the ear- lier emitting loudspeaker were due to the pitch height ef- fect. There was also no consistent effect of time panning observed, with localization judgments for the broadband source becoming more biased towards the upper loud- speaker as ICTD increased, as opposed to the lower." [the upper speaker was always lagging behind the lower in this experiment.] in comparing the results with litovsky et al, it should be pointed out that while both were conducted under anechoic conditions, the stimuli used by wallis and lee were long noise snippets with 1s fade-ins and fade-outs rather than clicks, with no transient information at all (which seem designed to test the presence of summing localisation), so i guess they are not in direct contradiction. it just shows that the musical reality will be somewhere in between... > Certainly, in respect of producing phantom imagery in the vertical, > I've found this to be quite effective (though often slightly more > vague than in horizontal) which would explain why periphonic > ambisonics works at all - and this seems to be a related issue to the > precedence one i found that vbap/stereophonic vertical localisation is excellent on speaker positions (because it gets the spectral cues right), and unusable anywhere else. 3rd-order ambisonic vertical localisation seems uniformly so-so throughout the elevation range, which to me is preferrable... -- J?rn Nettingsmeier Lortzingstr. 11, 45128 Essen, Tel. +49 177 7937487 Meister f?r Veranstaltungstechnik (B?hne/Studio) Tonmeister VDT http://stackingdwarves.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 18040.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 299653 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20151209/d9d9ec4c/attachment.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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. The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was sent to you in error, please select unsubscribe. Unsubscribe and Security information contact: info...@derby.ac.uk For all FOI requests please contact: f...@derby.ac.uk All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/ ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound WHEN REPLYING EDIT THE SUBJECT LINE AND THE MESSAGE BODY ------------------------------ End of Sursound Digest, Vol 89, Issue 9 *************************************** University of Huddersfield inspiring tomorrow's professionals. [http://marketing.hud.ac.uk/_HOSTED/EmailSig2014/EmailSigFooter.jpg] This transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you receive it in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and remove it from your system. If the content of this e-mail does not relate to the business of the University of Huddersfield, then we do not endorse it and will accept no liability. _______________________________________________ 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.
