I agree about the headphone path. I have made some in-ear mics from Panasonic WM61 for tuning headphone mods and EQing. For blocked meatus I've found consistency up to about 7 kHz when you take them out, put them back in, and measure again. I want to do some silicon tube ones like Griesinger to get closer to the ear drum, at some point.
If physical stimulation is also important it's easy to set up nearfield speakers for the low frequencies. I think that, given how readily our brain will accept location cues, HRTF manipulation with headphones has the best bang for buck potential.
It would be nice to have more visual clues without having to play a concert DVD.
@markus. Any chance that you'll be doing some outdoor setups with the Realiser, now that spring is coming? How about extracting the impulse respones for left/right ear and messing with their volume instead of using a physical ambio barrier? You could using something like Voxengo Deconvolver and a sine sweep to get the output of the Realiser for each channel. I've done this to look at Dolby Headphone's EQ.
If physical stimulation is also important it's easy to set up nearfield speakers for the low frequencies. I think that, given how readily our brain will accept location cues, HRTF manipulation with headphones has the best bang for buck potential.
It would be nice to have more visual clues without having to play a concert DVD.
@markus. Any chance that you'll be doing some outdoor setups with the Realiser, now that spring is coming? How about extracting the impulse respones for left/right ear and messing with their volume instead of using a physical ambio barrier? You could using something like Voxengo Deconvolver and a sine sweep to get the output of the Realiser for each channel. I've done this to look at Dolby Headphone's EQ.
The primo capsules seem very promising, although the seem to roll off a bit. I will have a better idea when I finish my preamp.
I am mystified why people are not fascinated by the imaging of dacing tractors at 24 bits to actually download anything. Curiosity is not going to kill any cats here!
I also wonder hoe object based 22 channels will cope with recording the sea..
I am mystified why people are not fascinated by the imaging of dacing tractors at 24 bits to actually download anything. Curiosity is not going to kill any cats here!
I also wonder hoe object based 22 channels will cope with recording the sea..
I'd love to do more outdoor experiments but I just don't see that happening in the near future.
Not sure why I would want to get IRs from the Realiser?
I'd like to have an editor to (partially) remove interaural crosstalk from the Realiser's IRs. I'll have to simulate that by using a physical barrier.
I was a bit unclear there. Editing is what I had in mind. Capturing the IRs and feeding them back in again after adjusting the crosstalk.
Here is the HeadFi exchange thread.
Smyth SVS Realiser - PRIR Exchange Thread
Another thing that I would try, if I had a Realiser, would be to create an IR set from an average of woofer and tweeter measurements, where they have have been physically aligned between sweeps. i.e. woofer sweep, replace with tweeter at acoustic center, and then tweeter sweep.
Here is the HeadFi exchange thread.
Smyth SVS Realiser - PRIR Exchange Thread
Another thing that I would try, if I had a Realiser, would be to create an IR set from an average of woofer and tweeter measurements, where they have have been physically aligned between sweeps. i.e. woofer sweep, replace with tweeter at acoustic center, and then tweeter sweep.
Or very large outstanding ears.
I find that the effect of cupping my hands behind my ears is far larger than that of pushing my nose against a board between the two speakers.
I find it interesting that both effects are of a similar nature, that is, the auditory effect to me is very comparable. Therefore, I find it likely that the effect of the board has more to do with the change in room acoustics (= pathway of sound into the ear) than with a reduction of ICT. Which, as I posted before, is only a problem in theory.
Do you have any evidence to support that claim? It would seem to me that cupping hands behind ears would simply increase collector area and would have a similar effect on both the direct signal and the cross talk.
I have often done the same thing and my experience is increased definition which is attributable to increased higher frequency levels, whether I do it with stereo, mono TV, or just out and about to hear something a little clearer. The effect is the same whether the signal is stereo, or mono from a single source. I don't see how cupping ones hands behind the ears would be selective as to what signal it amplifies other than with regard to frequency.
No, cupping ears demonstrates that shifting timing cues fractions of a millisecond impact imaging performance. This hold true at ears, and at speaker.
Interaural crosstalk is exactly why simple panning techniques may be used to construct very complex and convincing phantom images for loudspeakers, that fall short when listened to with headphones. Likewise, this is why binaural recordings don't work as intended with loudspeakers, unless a barrier effectively turns loudspeakers into headphones. Binaural cues then combine with speaker's distance cues to form very nice phantom image.
That was my plan, but alas, the WM-61A has been discontinued. Had a bunch in my Digikey shopping cart, then went out on the road for a few weeks and they disappeared, now obsolete. That's what I get for trying to earn a living.
Gotta find an alternative capsule for in-ear.
Floor reflection is evolutionarily the most common source of distance cues. It tends to be first reflection after speaker's own reflections.
Diffraction of source horizontally provides cues for source width. This combined with memory of previously experienced sources also impacts perception of source distance.
Diffraction of source horizontally provides cues for source width. This combined with memory of previously experienced sources also impacts perception of source distance.
That was my plan, but alas, the WM-61A has been discontinued. Had a bunch in my Digikey shopping cart, then went out on the road for a few weeks and they disappeared, now obsolete. That's what I get for trying to earn a living.
Gotta find an alternative capsule for in-ear.
Pano, very narrow soft tube may be used to create microphone probe. Modified probe is then calibrated against known microphone for near field conditions. Been there, done that.
What timing cues are shifted by cupping ears and how? Care to elaborate?
Thanks. Got any further details or links? I'll look around the mic builders group on Yahoo. Over there, no one has yet come up with a known good substitute for the WM-61A. Digikey has a substitute capsule, but no one seems to know anything about it.
I may have to break down and order the Panasonic out of Taiwan eBay, at 2x the price + shipping.
When those cues formed by stereo's "level to phase conversion" are attenuated with a barrier, localization improves. Doesn't that indicate that it's not only speaker properties dominating localization performance?
That was my plan, but alas, the WM-61A has been discontinued. Had a bunch in my Digikey shopping cart, then went out on the road for a few weeks and they disappeared, now obsolete. That's what I get for trying to earn a living.
Gotta find an alternative capsule for in-ear.
This has been discussed at length on a LinkedIn thread and I am told that Knowles has a silicon mic that works very well. I think that DigiKey sells Knowles mics.