Augustine Leudar wrote:
In reply to your original question - I believe there are available data
sets for Kemar head measurements - not quite what you asking for but it is
supposed to be an "average" head
http://sound.media.mit.edu/resources/KEMAR.html
I was aware of the fact that dummy head HRTFs are often used as generic
HRTFs..
But are they more < objective > than the HRTFs of any real person?
If I understood Richard Furse well, it is better to derive a generic
HRTF set by averaging across some HRTF measurement data base (containing
HRTFs of many individuals).
Whereas KEMAR is supposed to be a standard (= averaged) dummy head, the
Amber HRTF is derived in a different form.
Should we "normalize" anthropometric data or (measured) HRTF data sets?
In any case: Methods and results will differ!
Best,
St.
P.S.: Alas, Richard Furse didn't use KEMAR measurements as standard
HRTF... :-)
On 24 January 2016 at 20:19, Augustine Leudar <augustineleu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I have idea of how hrtfs could be individually measured and could work on
a commercial scale with minimum inconvenience to the public (so they might
actually use it ). Not sure who to talk to about htis though.
On 24 January 2016 at 19:31, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt>
wrote:
http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber
The IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data contains measured HRTFs from about 50
different people - this must have taken a lot of effort and we're very
grateful to the good folk of IRCAM for doing the work and making the
results available to the world! What we've done is analyse this data and
come up with an 'average' HRTF that is a sensible compromise, using some
new work. As it's an average, it wouldn't be perfect for any of the people
actually measured, but hopefully not awful for any of them either! It's
certainly much better than conventional "panning" techniques.
(See also:
http://www.blueripplesound.com/personalized-hrtfs
)
We provide "generic" HRTFs models (for instance, our Amber HRTF <
http://www.blueripplesound.com/hrtf-amber>) which work well for many
people, but even better results can be achieved using personalized HRTF
measurements.
Could any people, companies or institutions on this list provide access
to such a practical and < usable > generic HRTF model?
If not: I believe that some essential theses and papers should have been
done in the academic world, but don't exist anyway.
Richard Furse basically states that a "good" generic HRTF is derived from
many HRTF measurements (data sets) via some form of averaging, as a
"sensible compromise". I doubt that this is a trivial process, though...
Best regards,
Stefan
P.S.: VR companies will currently have to look into these issues, and to
find solutions which are practical at least < for most > people. If some
proposed HRTF data set doesn't fit to an individual listener it should be
pretty hard to distinguish between front/back sources, for example. (Even
with head-tracking.)
Don't tell me that I didn't present a paper to prove my point... Instead,
give me the link to a paper which delivers some kind of optimized generic
HRTF data set. If such a paper doesn't exist (yet), I don't see any reason
why something like "Amber HRTF" can't be re-engineered.
(Amber HRTF itself is derived from IRCAM AKG "Listen" HRTF data, a public
available list. And even IRCAM should be interested to provide a good
universal HRTF based on its own and public HRTF research!)
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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.
