Recherche
Recherche simple
Recherche avancée
Panier électronique
Votre panier ne contient aucune notice
Connexion à la base
Identification
(Identifiez-vous pour accéder aux fonctions de mise à jour. Utilisez votre login-password de courrier électronique)
Entrepôt OAI-PMH
Soumettre une requête
| Consulter la notice détaillée |
| Version complète en ligne |
| Version complète en ligne accessible uniquement depuis l'Ircam |
| Ajouter la notice au panier |
| Retirer la notice du panier |
English version
(full translation not yet available)
Liste complète des articles
|
Consultation des notices
%0 Conference Proceedings
%A Bertet, Stéphanie
%A Daniel, Jérôme
%A Parizet, Etienne
%A Gros, Laetitia
%A Warusfel, Olivier
%T Investigation of the Perceived Spatial Resolution of Higher Order Ambisonic Sound Fields: A Subjective Evaluation Involving Virtual and Real 3D Microphones
%D 2007
%B 30th AES Conference - Intelligent Audio Environnments
%C Saariselkä
%F Bertet07a
%K Ambisonic
%K spatial reproduction
%X Natural sound fields can be reproduced through loudspeakers using ambisonic and Higher Order Ambisonic (HOA) microphone recordings. The HOA sound field encoding approach is based on a spherical harmonic decomposition. The more components are used to encode the sound field, the finer the spatial resolution is. Two HOA (2nd and 4th order) microphone prototypes were developed as a result of previous studies. To evaluate the perceived spatial resolution and encoding artefacts on the horizontal plane, a localisation test was performed comparing the performances of the two prototypes with those of a SoundField microphone and an ideal 4th order encoder. The HOA reproduction system was composed of 12 equiangular spaced loudspeakers disposed along a circle twelve loudspeakers equally distributed on a circle. Thirteen target positions were chosen around the listener. An adjustment method using an auditory pointer was used to avoid bias effects of usual reporting methods. The human localisation error occurring for each of the tested systems was compared. A statistical analysis showed significance differences when using the 4th order system, the 2nd order system and the SoundField microphone.
%1 6
%2 1
|
|