Auditory Perception and Spatial (3D) Auditory Systems

Auditory Perception and Spatial (3D) Auditory Systems
Auditory Perception and Spatial (3D)
Auditory Systems1
B. Kapralos1,3 , M. Jenkin1,3 , and E. Milios2,3
Dept. of Computer Science, York University. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. M3J 1P3
Faculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University. Halifax Nova Scotia, Canada.
Centre for Vision Research, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. M3J 1P3
{billk, jenkin}
1 The
[email protected]
financial support of NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada) and CRESTech (Centre for Research in Earth and Space Technology) is gratefully
The sounds present in our environment aid us in determining the distance and direction to
objects and provide us with detailed information about our surroundings. In order to enable
the user of a virtual reality system to be fully immersed in the virtual environment, the
user must be presented with believable sensory input. Although the majority of virtual
environments place the emphasis on visual cues, replicating the complex interactions of
sound within an environment will benefit the level of immersion and hence the user’s
sense of presence. Three dimensional (spatial) sound systems allow a listener to perceive
the position of sound sources, and the effect of the interaction of sound sources with the
acoustic structure of the environment. This paper reviews the relevant biological and
technical literature relevant to the generation of accurate acoustic displays for immersive
projective virtual environments. It describes the process of sound perception in humans,
as well as various perceptual models. This paper also critically examines techniques for
the recording and generation of accurate audio displays.
1 Introduction
1.1 What Exactly is Sound? . . . . . . . .
1.1.1 Measuring Sound . . . . . . . .
1.1.2 Near Field vs. Far Field . . . .
1.1.3 Coordinate System . . . . . . .
1.2 Sound Localization . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.1 Duplex Theory . . . . . . . . .
1.2.2 Head Related Transfer Function
1.2.3 Reverberation . . . . . . . . . .
1.2.4 Precedence Effect . . . . . . . .
1.2.5 Head Movements . . . . . . . .
1.2.6 Auditory Distance Perception .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
2 Recording Techniques
2.1 Listener Sweet Spot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Microphones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Monaural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Stereophonic Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 Artificial Stereo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 Coincident Microphone Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3 Spaced Microphone Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.4 Combining Coincident and Spaced Microphone Techniques
2.5 Binaural Audio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5.1 Binaural Recording Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Surround Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.1 Quadraphonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.2 Ambisonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.3 Dolby Stereo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.4 Dolby Pro Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.5 Dolby Digital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Digital Theater Systems (DTS) Digital Surround . . . . . . . . . .
3 Simulating Audio in a Virtual Environment
3.1 Modeling the ITD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Binaural Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 HRTF Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Interpolation of HRTFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.2 The Use of Non-individualized (“Generic”) HRTFs
3.3.3 Available HRTF Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3.4 Equalization of the HRTF Impulse Response . . . .
3.4 Adding Reverberation and Modeling of Room Acoustics . .
3.4.1 Auralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Distance Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.1 Loudness as a Distance Cue . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.2 Reverberation as a Distance Cue . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.3 Source Spectral Content as a Distance Cue . . . . .
3.5.4 Binaural Cues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5.5 Sound Source Familiarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Conveying Sound in a Virtual Environment
4.1 Headphone Listening . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1 Headphones and Comfort . . . . . .
4.1.2 Inside-the-Head Localization . . . . .
4.2 Loudspeaker Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Transaural Audio . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2 Amplitude Panning . . . . . . . . . .
5 Discussion
5.1 Open Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.2 Future Research Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Chapter 1
We constantly use our hearing to obtain information about our environment. The sounds
we hear provide us with detailed information about our surroundings and can assist us in
determining both the distance and direction to objects, at times, very accurately [147].
This ability is extremely beneficial for both humans and a variety of other species and in
many situations, is crucial for survival. We can hear a sound in the dark where we may
not necessarily make use of vision (sight) and in contrast to the limited visual field of view,
the auditory system is omni-directional, allowing us to hear sounds reaching us from any
position in three dimensional space. Given this omni-directional aspect, hearing serves to
guide our visual senses, or to quote Cohen and Wenzel [29], “the function of the ears is to
point the eyes”. Hearing, or audition also serves to guide the more “finely tuned” visual
attention thereby easing the burden of the visual system [125].
Although sound is a critical cue to perceiving our environment, it is often overlooked in
immersive virtual environments, where, historically, emphasis has been placed on the visual
senses [29, 24]. The spatial audio cues present in many of the virtual environments are
rather poor and do not necessarily reflect natural cues despite the fact that natural (spatial)
sound cues can allow a user to orient themselves in a virtual environment. In addition,
audio cues can add a “pleasing quality” to the simulation, add a better sense of “presence”
or “immersion” and compensate for poor visual cues (graphics) [3, 125]. Furthermore,
the virtual environments which actually employ spatial audio typically, assume a far field
source acoustical model, emphasizing the direction (azimuth and elevation) to a sound
source only, offering little, if any, sound source distance information [126, 98]. Despite
the importance of distance discrimination in maintaining a sense or realism among the
virtual sound sources [15], accurate sound source distance is often ignored in virtual audio
A three-dimensional (3D) (or spatial) audio system (or audio display) allows a listener to perceive the position of a sound source(s), emanating from a static number of
stationary loudspeakers or a pair of headphones, as coming from arbitrary locations in
three-dimensional space. Spatial sound technology goes far beyond traditional stereo and
surround sound techniques by allowing a virtual sound source to have such attributes as
left-right, back-forth and up-down [29]. The foundation of 3D audio rests on the ability
to control the auditory signals arriving at the listener’s ears such that these signals are
perceptually equivalent to the signals the listener would receive in the environment being
simulated [146]. When considering the design of any spatial sound system for use in a virtual environment, it is therefore necessary to consider issues related to human perception
In our natural environment, various acoustical cues, arising from the environment itself
(e.g. source distance, air propagation, reverberation etc.), as well as our own physical
make-up (e.g. two ears physically spaced apart, notches and grooves of our pinnae etc.),
allow us to localize sound sources. However, in a virtual environment, these cues may not
necessarily be present and must therefore be simulated in order to reproduce (as closely
as possible) the cues available under “natural” listening conditions. In order to localize a
sound source, the human auditory system relies primarily on:
Interaural Time Difference (ITD): The difference in time between the arrival of the
sound to each of the ears.
Interaural Level Difference (ILD1 ): The difference in sound pressure level (SPL) between the sound at both ears.
Head Related Transfer Functions (HRTFs): The complex interaction of a sound wave
with the torso, shoulders, head and particularly the pinna (outer ear) of a listener.
Essentially, the pinna of each ear filters every sound wave passing through it in some
manner unique to the sound source position. Given these filtered signals, the brain
estimates the exact 3D position of a sound source relative to the listener [32].
Reverberation: Reflections of the sound waves off of other objects in the environment
(e.g. the walls of a room).
Interaction with Vision: We can determine the location of a sound source which we
can see.
ITD and ILD cues are known as binaural cues, since they result from a comparison of
the signals received at each ear. Monaural cues, such as HRTFs, result from the signal
received at each ear independently, without any comparisons. Three-dimensional audio
systems spatialize a sound source by simulating some (or all) of the cues listed above.
Although systems incorporating ITD and/or ILD cues only are fairly simple to model and
implement, they generally produce poor results, providing limited sound spatialization
capabilities. For example, a listener may not be able to disambiguate between a sound
source directly in front or in back of them or from a sound source directly above or below
them. As with human hearing in a natural setting and as will be described further in
Section 1.2.2, the ability for a user in a virtual environment to spatialize a sound source
and eliminate (or greatly reduce) such confusions can be greatly improved by incorporating
HRTFs into the system.
The purpose of this report is to present an overview of some of the methods and
techniques employed by 3D (spatial) sound systems in order to position virtual sound
sources arbitrarily in three dimensional space. In addition, the problems and limitations
associated with these techniques as well as potential solutions to these drawbacks will
also be described. Prior to discussing 3D sound technologies, given the importance of
understanding the perception of sound and sound localization, this report begins with a
brief introduction on the physical attributes of sound and how these attributes can be
measured, followed by an elaborate discussion on the primary human auditory localization
cues. Several auditory phenomena such as the precedence effect and auditory distance
perception are introduced and will also be described. Chapter 2 presents a brief history
of the methods used to convey sound to listeners using loudspeakers, beginning with an
introduction of monaural based systems, two-channel stereo based systems, and surround
sound systems such as Quadraphonics, Ambisonics. Chapter 3 focuses on the simulation of
human auditory localization for a spatial auditory display. In particular, this chapter will
describe techniques and models in order to re-create the cues available in our “natural”
listening environment, including models to predict the ITD. methods of measuring the
HRTF for a specific position and techniques to model reverberation. Several techniques
for conveying sound in a virtual environment using loudspeakers and the problems and
drawbacks associated with these techniques is presented in Chapter 4, including transaural
audio and amplitude panning. In addition, this chapter discusses some of the issues related
to the presentation of spatial audio using headphones such as in-head-localization (IHL)
and the externalization of sound.
What Exactly is Sound?
Sound results from the rapid variations in air pressure caused from the vibrations of an
object (e.g. a vibrating guitar string, human vocal chords etc.) or an object in motion
[92]. As shown in Figure 1.1, sound waves consist of alternating regions of compression
Figure 1.1: Sound waves consist of alternating regions of compression and rarefaction (e.g.
“back and forth” motion) of the air molecules (top), corresponding to the “high” and “low”
points of a “sine wave” (bottom).
and rarefaction (e.g. “back and forth” motion) of the molecules comprising the medium
[155] (typically air although sound can also propagate through other mediums such as
water or steel). The molecules themselves do not move with the wave but rather oscillate
about some position. The wave itself propagates through the interaction of molecules in
the medium. Considering a sound propagating through air, the air molecules surrounding
the vibrating object will be compressed during forward motion and expanded during the
object’s backward movement. As these molecules are displaced, they will also “push or
pull” the molecules neighboring them, causing these neighboring molecules to also be displaced from their resting position. This forward and backward movement of the molecules
propagates throughout the entire medium, with each molecule displacing its neighbors.
Sound waves may propagate in an omni-directional manner whereby the wave propagation is independent of direction (e.g. equal in all directions), or it may exhibit directional
properties leading to wave propagation in a particular direction only.
Perception of sound begins with the arrival of this varying sound pressure at our ear
drums. Through the actions of the eardrum these oscillating (“mechanical”) variations of
air pressure are passed through to the middle ear and converted (transduced) into electrical
signals in the inner ear and ultimately coded into a pattern of neuronal spikes which are
interpreted by the brain (a complete discussion of the physiology of the ear is beyond
the scope of this report - see [92, 16] for greater details). However, the pattern of sound
pressure variations arriving at our ears may not necessarily be identical to the pressure
variations originally generated by the vibrating object. In order to propagate, sound waves
require a medium (e.g. they are mechanical waves and therefore cannot travel in a vacuum).
However, any medium (e.g. liquid, gas or solid), will affect the waves traveling through
it in some manner. As a wave propagates, a portion of it is absorbed by the medium,
modifying the sound spectrum in some manner. The amount of absorption of a sound
wave as it propagates through the medium is affected by the characteristics of the medium
itself, including (when the medium is air for example) temperature, and humidity level
(see Harris [61] for a detailed description on the effect of relative humidity and absorption
of sound in air) and the distance the wave has traveled [68]. In addition, absorption of
sound waves is also a function of frequency, where the higher frequency components are
absorbed more readily than the lower frequency components. Furthermore, typical listening
environments are echoic, as opposed to anechoic, whereby reflections and refractions result
when the sound waves encounter any number of obstacles/objects in the environment (e.g.
walls of a room), on their path from the source to the listener. In an anechoic environment
there are (ideally) no reflections and the listener will receive the sound on the direct path
from the sound source only (e.g. no reflections will arrive). Anechoic settings occur rarely
in nature. A large open space or the top of a mountain summit does however approach
anechoic [15]. Anechoic chambers are artificially created anechoic environments. They
are rooms where the walls, floor and ceiling are covered with sound absorbing material to
prevent any reflections of sound waves which may encounter any surfaces.
A very simple type of sound wave is a sinusoid (sine wave), illustrated in Figure 1.2.
Sinusoids are also known as tones or pure tones and actually result in simple auditory
responses, producing a very “clean” sound [92]. Mathematically, a sinusoid x(t) can be
described as:
x(t) = Acos(2πfo t + φ)
where, referring to Figure 1.2, A is the amplitude or intensity of the sine wave (e.g. amount
of variation about the mean), fo is the frequency, representing the number of “cycles”
per second or in other words, the number of times each second the sinusoid repeats itself,
measured in Hertz (Hz) and φ is the phase or relative starting time (generally important
only when considering more than one sinusoid). The time taken for one complete cycle
of the wave is known as the period p and can be obtained by taking the reciprocal of the
frequency. Waves exhibiting this periodic property are known as periodic and periodicity
is certainly not specific to sinusoidal waveforms as non-sinusoidal waveforms can also can
be periodic.
Although sinusoids are very simple to analyze, they are not typically encountered in
normal listening situations. Rather, the sounds we hear under normal listening conditions
are much more complex and may not even be periodic. These complex waveforms can be
“broken-down” into a series of sinusoids, each with its own frequency, amplitude and phase,
using Fourier analysis [100]. A complex tone (periodic and non-periodic) can be described
as the superposition of a number of sinusoids, where the frequency of each sinusoid is
an integral multiple of the fundamental frequency, the frequency of the lowest common
Figure 1.2: A sinusoid (sine) wave is a very simple sound wave. Taken from [96].
“fundamental” component which may not necessarily be present [92]. Frequencies other
than the fundamental are known as the harmonics, where the first harmonic is the first
multiple of the fundamental, the second harmonic is the second multiple of the fundamental
and so on. For example, a square wave consists of a fundamental frequency sinusoid and the
superposition of the odd harmonics of the fundamental (e.g. if the fundamental is 100Hz,
the odd harmonics are 300Hz, 500Hz, 700Hz etc.). The amplitude of each harmonic is
equal to the amplitude of the fundamental scaled by the inverse of the harmonic index (see
Figure 1.3). Mathematically, a square wave x(t) is represented as follows:
x(t) =
sin(2πKf )
where, f is the fundamental frequency and K is the harmonic index (a square wave contains
an infinite number of odd-harmonics). A discussion of Fourier analysis is beyond the scope
of this report, however, an excellent mathematical description is provided by Oppenheim
et. al. [100].
Finally, the range of frequencies to which humans are sensitive (e.g. can hear) is restricted to the range of 20Hz to 20kHz for a young healthy adult [24]. Frequencies below
20Hz are known as subsonic and can at times be felt rather than heard, while frequencies
above 20kHz are known as supersonic [15].
Measuring Sound
As described in Section 1.1, sound results from the variation of pressure arising when the
molecules in the medium of propagation are compressed and expanded due to a vibrating
object. Intensity is usually used to specify the magnitude of these variations (the compressions and expansions of the medium of propagation) and is defined as the sound energy
transmitted each second through a unit area in a soundfield [92].
Figure 1.3: A square wave consists of a fundamental frequency sinusoid and the superposition of the odd harmonics of the fundamental. The amplitude of each harmonic is
equal to the amplitude of the fundamental scaled by the inverse of the harmonic index. In
this example, the superposition of a sine wave of frequency “x” (top diagram) along with
its first odd harmonic (middle diagram) of “3x” suitably scaled (e.g. by 13 ), produces the
square wave approximation shown in the bottom diagram. As more scaled multiples of the
fundamental are added, the superposition approaches the ideal square wave.
The range of intensity levels which the human auditory system is sensitive to is very
large, and therefore, rather than giving direct intensity measures, a logarithmic scale is
used instead. Given this logarithmic scale, the measures are therefore known as levels and
specified as a ratio with respect to some reference intensity measure [92]:
SL = 10 × log10
where, SL is the number of Decibels (dB) corresponding to the ratio of intensities between
I1 and the reference intensity I0 . With a decibel scale, a 3dB increase in the intensity ratio
corresponds to a doubling of the ratio of intensities.
Although the sound level ratio between two intensities can be determined, there may
be times where a single measure of intensity is required. To allow for such a situation,
a standard reference intensity level is used. The standard reference level chosen is the
threshold of human hearing for a 1000Hz tone and is equal to 10−12 W/m2 (Watts per meter
square) or 20µPa (micropascals) when considering pressures [62]. Intensity levels given
relative to this particular reference level are known as a sound pressure level (SPL). As an
example, a sound level of 3dB SPL represents an intensity twice that of the reference level,
while a sound level of 0dB SPL represents an intensity equal to the reference level. Finally,
intensity ratios can also be given as pressure ratios as well since there is a relationship
between intensity and pressure (e.g. intensity is proportional to the square of pressure)
SL = 10 × log10
= 10 × log10
= 20 × log10
where P1 and P2 are the two pressure measurements in Pa (Pascals). As with intensity
level, pressure level can also be given relative to the standard measurement, where the
standard pressure measurement is 20µPa (e.g. P0 = 20µPa).
Near Field vs. Far Field
In physical acoustics, when describing the distance to a sound source, a distinction is
distinction between a sound source in the near field or in the far field. When the distance
to the sound source is “very large”, the sound source is in the far field and the sound waves
reaching a listener are planar. On the other hand, the sound waves reaching the listener
from a sound source which is “very close” are not planar but rather spherical and therefore
curved with respect to the listener’s head.
The notion of a “very large” source distance or of a sound source “very close” to the
listener is not very clear. Brungart and Rabinowitz [20], define the near field is defined
as “the region of space surrounding the listener within a fraction of a wavelength away
from the sound source”. Using this definition, the designation of near field vs. a far field
sound source is frequency dependent given the inverse relationship between frequency and
wavelength. However, for practical considerations, assuming propagation in the air, when
the distance to a sound source is greater than approximately one meter, a far field source is
assumed [20] and the propagating waves are approximated by planar waves (for propagation
underwater, you must multiply by a factor of 4). As a result, binaural localization cues
(e.g. cues involving a comparison between the signals arriving at both ears) are assumed
to be independent of source distance (e.g. source distance can be ignored). A sound source
within one meter of an observer is considered to be in the “near field”. Given the spherical
nature of the sound waves in the near field, ILD cues as well as monaural spectral cues
(HRTFs) are very dependent on sound source distance and unlike the planar waves, these
spherical waves are influenced greatly by such factors as head size and pinnae structure
Coordinate System
In any audio environment, the position of a sound source is given relative to some reference
point. In a single user system, typically the listener is chosen as the reference point and
sound source positions are given relative to the listener. However, with systems supporting
multiple users, some arbitrary point may be used instead. Various coordinate systems
exist. In the “head centered rectangular system”, the center of the head defines the origin,
with positive x-axis (also known as the interaural axis) going through the right ear, positive
y-axis pointing directly in front of the head while positive z-axis points directly upwards
(vertically). In this coordinate system, the axes form three planes (see Figure 1.4). The
y-z axis form the median (or sagittal) plane whereby any point on this plane is equidistant
from the left and right ears. The x-y plane is known as the horizontal plane and is level
with the listener’s ears and finally, the x-z plane is referred to as the frontal plane.
Figure 1.4: Coordinate system: Three planes of interest. Reprinted from [74].
Rather than specifying individual x, y, z axis components, a “spherical coordinate
system”, in which coordinates are specified with an azimuth, elevation and range, may
be used instead. In the “single pole” spherical system (see Figure 1.5(a)), the center of
the head defines the origin while azimuth (θ) and elevation (φ) are specified by lines of
latitude and longitude respectively [24]. An azimuth angle of 0o is directly in front (e.g.
median plane) while an angle of −90o is directly to the right (e.g. moving clockwise from
0o results in negative azimuth angles). The horizontal plane is at an elevation of 0o and
moving upwards from this point, elevation increases positively, with +90o directly on top
of the head. Range specifies the distance between the origin (center of the head) to the
point of interest. The single pole system is intuitive and the most widely used coordinate
system. However, it does have its problems. Most importantly, the length of an arc length
(semi-circle) between two angles of azimuth is dependent on elevation. For example, the
arc length between 0o and 90o azimuth at an elevation of 0o is greater than the same arc
at an elevation of 75o . As will be described in Section 3.3.3, this dependence of arc-length
and elevation may be problematic when measuring HRTFs.
Another spherical coordinate system is the “double pole” system (Figure 1.5(b)). In
the double pole system, elevation is specified in the same way as in the single pole system
however, azimuth is given as a series of rings which are parallel to the “midline” (the zaxis) and centered at the poles at each interaural axis [24]. In this system, the arc length
between two angles of azimuth is independent of elevation however, this system is not as
intuitive as the single pole system and is therefore not widely used.
For the remainder of this report, unless specified otherwise, all positions are specified
with respect to the single pole polar system.
(a) Single pole polar coordinate system.
(b) Double pole polar coordinate system.
Figure 1.5: Coordinate system: Single (a) and double (b) pole coordinate systems.
Reprinted from [24].
Sound Localization
In this section, human sound localization will be introduced, beginning with the duplex theory formulated in the early 1900s followed by the head related transfer functions (HRTFs).
In addition, several other sound localization cues will also be introduced, including reverberation, precedence effect and head movements. Finally, a description of auditory distance
perception will also be provided.
Duplex Theory
The duplex theory formulated by Lord Raleigh [71] is a theory of human sound localization
based on the two binaural cues, interaural time delay (ITD) and interaural level difference
(ILD) and on the assumption that the head is spherical with no external ears (pinnae).
These two cues arise from the fact that the two ears do not share the same position in
space but are rather separated by the (rather large) head. Given this separation, unless the
sound source lies on the median plane, the distance traveled by the sound waves emanating
from the sound source to the listener’s left and right ear will differ. This will cause the
sound to reach the ipsilateral ear (the ear closest to the sound source) prior to reaching the
contralateral ear (the ear farthest from the sound source). The difference between the onset
of non-continuous (transient) sounds or phase of more continuous sounds [24] at both ears
is known as the interaural time delay (ITD). Similarly, given the separation of the ears by
the head, when the wavelengths of a sound are short relative to the size of the head, the
head will act as an “acoustical shadow”, attenuating the sound pressure level of the waves
reaching the contralateral ear [152]. This difference in level between the waves reaching
the ipsilateral and contralateral ears is known as the interaural level difference (ILD).
When the sound source lies on the median plane, the distance from the sound source
to the left and right ear will be the same therefore causing the sound to reach each of the
ears at the same time. In addition, the sound pressure level of the sound at both ears will
also be the same. As a result, both the ITD and ILD will be (near) zero. As the source
moves to the right or left ITD and ILD cues will increase until the source is directly to the
right or left of the listener respectively (e.g. ±90o azimuth).
“Separation” of ITD and ILD Cues
Although the duplex theory incorporates both ITD and ILD cues, they do not necessarily
operate together. ITDs are prevalent primarily for low frequencies, less than approximately
1500Hz [16], where the wavelengths of the arriving sound are long relative to the diameter
of the head and the phase of the sounds reaching the ears can be determined without
ambiguity. For wavelengths smaller than the diameter of the head, the difference in distance
may be greater than one wavelength, leading to an ambiguous situation (e.g. aliasing),
where the difference does not correspond to a unique location [26].
For low frequency sounds in which the ITD cues are prevalent and the waves are greater
than the diameter of the head, the sound waves experience diffraction whereby, they are
not blocked by the head but rather they “bend” around the head to reach the contralateral
ear. As a result, ILD cues for these low frequency sounds will be very small (although they
can at times be as large as 5dB [152]). However, for frequencies greater than approximately
1500Hz, where the wavelengths are smaller than the head, the wavelengths are too small
to bend around the head and are therefore blocked by the head (e.g. “shadowed” by the
head). As a result, a decrease in the energy of the sound reaching the contralateral ear
will result and hence the ILD cue.
Shortcomings of the Duplex Theory of Sound Localization
The duplex theory can explain localization of a sound source in the azimuthal plane, where
a sound is perceived to be closer and louder to the ear in which the sound first arrives.
However, the duplex theory alone is incomplete as it cannot account for many aspects of
human auditory localization [24]. We are capable of localizing a sound source even with a
single ear as evidenced by listeners who are deaf in one ear [130]. Furthermore, ITD and
ILD cues are not unique. According to the duplex theory, for sound sources located on the
median plane (e.g. θ = 0o or θ = 180o ), or directly above or below the listener (e.g. φ = 0o
or φ = 180o ), both ITD and ILD cues are (nearly) zero, presenting an ambiguous situation.
Indeed, as shown in Figure 1.9, a sound source positioned anywhere on the surface of a
cone (the cone of confusion), centered on the interaural axis will have identical ITD values
[74]. Strictly speaking, the cone of confusion as well as ITD and ILD values of zero occur
only in theory with the assumption of a perfect spherical head without the external ears
(pinnae). In reality, of course, our head is not completely spherical and we certainly cannot
disregard the effects of the pinnae (as discussed in Section 1.2.2). As a result, ITD and
ILD cues are never really zero and will differ slightly even when the source is directly in
front or directly in back of us. More generally, when the ITD or ILD cues are similar for
two different locations, an ambiguous situation can potentially arise without the presence
of any other cues [15].
Under normal listening conditions, humans are capable of resolving ambiguous situations such as the front-back confusions, leading many researchers to believe the duplex
theory is incomplete. Although it does have its shortcomings, the duplex theory remained
the dominant theory of human auditory localization for about half a century after its introduction in the beginning of the 20th century. However, as described by Wightman and
Kistler [152], the next “revolution” in the study of human auditory localization occurred
with the theories published by Batteau [8] in 1967, on the filtering effects introduced by the
pinnae (external ear). These monaural filtering effects have come to be known as the head
related transfer functions (HRTFs) and allow us to overcome the localization limitations
inherent using ITD and ILD cues alone. Greater details regarding the head related transfer
functions and their importance to sound localization are provided in the following section.
Head Related Transfer Function (HRTF)
The filtering of the sound source spectrum caused by the complex interactions of the sound
waves with the head, shoulders, torso and particularly the outer ear (pinna or auricle) prior
to reaching the ear drum (in addition to the interaural time delays and level differences), are
collectively known as the head related transfer functions (HRTFs). The physical structure
of each person’s pinna consists of a series of grooves and notches and varies widely amongst
individuals (an illustration of a typical person’s pinna is provided in Figure 1.6). These
asymmetrical grooves and notches accentuate or suppress the mid and high frequency
energy content of the sound spectrum to a certain degree, depending very much on both
the location and frequency content of the sound source. The multiple reflections of the
sound waves off the grooves and notches of the pinnae lead to very small time delays, in
the order of 0 - 300µs, once again depending on the source location [7]. Essentially, the
HRTF modifies the spectrum and timing of a sound signal reaching the ears in a location
dependent manner which is recognized by the listener and used as a localization cue [15].
Mathematically, as described in [159] the left and right ear HRTFs HL and HR respectively, can be defined as the ratio between the sound pressure level (SPL) present at the
eardrum of the left and right ears, ΦL (ω, θ, φ, d) and ΦR (ω, θ, φ, d) respectively, and the
Figure 1.6: Diagram of the human pinna. After [85].
free field SPL at the position corresponding to the center of the head but with the head
absent Φf (ω):
HL =
ΦL (ω, θ, φ, d)
Φf (ω)
HR =
ΦR (ω, θ, φ, d)
Φf (ω)
where ω is the angular frequency, θ and φ are the azimuth and elevation angles respectively
and d is the distance from the listener to the sound source (measured from the center of the
listener’s head). Example HRTFs from three individuals, as measured by Wightman and
Kistler [15] are shown in Figures 1.7 and 1.8 (see Section 3.3 for greater details regarding the
measurement of HRTFs). In particular, Figure 1.7 top and bottom illustrate the resulting
left and right ear HRTFs respectively, for a sound source located at θ = 90o and φ = 0o
(e.g. directly to the left of the listener), The left and right HRTFs for a sound source
located at θ = 0o and φ = 36o are shown in Figure 1.8 (top and bottom respectively).
Examination of each plot clearly reveals several differences. The inter-subject differences
in each plot are clearly evident (the HRTF for each individual of each plot are denoted by
the three different line styles: non-dashed, small dashes and large dashes), especially for
higher frequencies i. e. frequencies greater than approximately 5kHz.
HRTFs can provide information used to judge vertical directions and to disambiguate
front-back confusions [92]. Many studies have been performed in order to investigate the
filtering effects of the pinnae. In several studies, when portions of the outer ear were
occluded (filled with plasticine for example) [44, 99], an increased number of front-back
confusions and a decrease in elevation accuracy occurred. The filtering actually performed
on the source spectrum is dependent on the source frequency content as well. Studies
have shown that the number of front-back ambiguities increases and localization accuracy
Figure 1.7: Example left and right ear HRTF measurements for a source at azimuth θ = 90o
and elevation φ = 0o . Reprinted from [15].
decreases as the bandwidth of the source is decreased [24, 16, 90], leading Carlile [24], to
believe that, to allow for accurate source localization, a source containing a wide range of
frequencies is required.
Greater detail regarding both the measurement and use of HRTFs in a spatial auditory
display as well as the problems associated with their use, is provided in Section 3.3.
Various factors affect a propagating sound wave before it reaches the listener (receiver).
The condition of the air itself (e.g. humidity level, heat etc.) may have an effect on
the propagating waves (see Section 1.2.6 for further details on how the medium affects a
propagating sound). In addition, the sound waves may encounter any number of objects
and obstructions both on the path from the source to the listener and after reaching the
listener (e.g. the listener will not solely receive and completely absorb the sound waves,
which may continue to propagate). When a sound wave encounters an object, the object
itself may absorb a portion of the wave while the remainder is reflected in some other
direction. In other words, typical environments are rarely anechoic, except, as previously
Figure 1.8: Example left and right ear HRTF measurements for a source at azimuth θ = 0o
and elevation φ = 36o . Reprinted from [15].
Figure 1.9: Cone of confusion. A sound source positioned anywhere on the surface of the
cone will produce an identical ITD value. After [74]
Figure 1.10: Direct and reflected sound waves reaching a listener. In addition to the sound waves
reaching a listener via a “straight line path” directly from the sound source, reflected sound will
also reach a listener. The number of times a wave is reflected before reaching a the listener is
know as its order. The wave order in this example is provided next to the reflected wave. The
direct sound has an order of zero. In a typical scenario, the number of reflected waves may reach
several thousands.
described, in certain infrequent situations such as within a large open area with snow
covered ground or on a mountain summit [15]. As shown in Figure 1.10 in a typical
listening environment, sound waves emitted by the source reach the listener both directly,
via the straight line path between the source and receiver (assuming there is such a path)
and indirectly as reflections (e.g. echoes) from any walls, floor, ceiling or any other obstacles
and obstructions. This collection of reflected waves, which may consist of several thousands,
reflecting from the various surfaces within a space, is known as reverberation [28].
The collection of reflected sound reaching the listener varies as a function of the geometry of the room relative to the listener [24], as well as the material of the room, the
source spectrum (e.g. frequency components) and is rather irregular [49]. Reverberation
can be used as a cue to source distance estimation, and can also provide information with
regards to the physical “make-up” of a room (e.g. size, types of materials on the walls,
floor, ceiling). Reverberation can also add a pleasing “lively” aspect to voice and music
[147], making it attractive to the music recording and entertainment industry [157]. Radio
and home theater manufacturers have also taken advantage of the benefits reverberation
has to offer. Many radios, sound systems and home theater systems include DSP technology offering various reverberation settings. Greater details regarding the characteristics of
reverberation are provided in the following section.
Characteristics of Reverberation
Reverberation results from the reflections by the sound waves. Prior to reaching the listener, a sound wave may be reflected multiple times from different surfaces. The number
Figure 1.11: Theoretical room impulse response. In addition to the sound waves reaching
a listener by traveling from the sound source to the listener directly, indirect sound waves
reflected from the walls, floor or other objects in the environment will also reach the
listener, albeit after the direct waves. Early reflection will occur within 80ms of the arrival
of the direct sound. Reflections arriving after 80ms can be considered diffuse and can be
described as exponentially decreasing noise.
of times a wave is reflected is denoted by its order (e.g. a reflection of order n indicates the
wave has been reflected n times). In many situations, a higher reflection order, indicates
a reduction in the intensity level due to the absorption by the reflecting surfaces and the
inverse square law characteristics of propagating waves [129]. An example illustrating the
order of reflected waves is provided in Figure 1.10.
In addition to the reflection order, reverberation can be broken down into two categories:
early and late reflections. Upon arrival of the direct sound, reflections of order one, resulting
from the room boundaries (e.g. walls, floor and ceiling) are known as early reflections and
typically arrive within 80ms of the direct sound. Reflections arriving after 80ms and with
reflection orders greater than one are known as late reflections. Late reflections, arising
from “reflected reflections” from one surface to another, can be assumed to arrive equally
from all directions (e.g. diffuse) and can be described statistically as exponential decaying
noise [49]. A graphical illustration of the concepts described above is provided in Figure
1.11, where the theoretical “room impulse response” (see Section 3.4.1) is shown.
Other parameters used to describe reverberation include reverberation time and reverberation distance. A definition of each parameter, according to Garas [49], is provided in
the following sections.
Reverberation Time and Reverberation Distance
Reverberation time T60 can be defined as the time required for the sound pressure level
(SPL) to be attenuated by 60dB (e.g. by a factor of one million), independent of the
intensity of the sound after a steady state sound is turned off and can be approximated by
T60 ≈
where V is the volume of the room (in m3 ), β is the (frequency dependent) average absorption coefficient of the room boundaries and S is the sum of the surface areas of the
room in m2 .
Reverberation time, as given, is rather arbitrary and depends on the characteristics of
the enclosure, including the material of the walls, floor and ceiling, number and type of
objects in the room etc. Depending on the level of the background noise, it may be the case
that reflections arriving after T60 are still considerably audible [15]. However, the choice of
60dB was made by considering a good “music making area”, such as a concert hall. In such
a situation, the loudest level reached for most orchestral music is typically 100dB (SPL),
while the level of background noise is around 40dB. As a result, a reverberation time of
60dB can be seen as the time required for the loudest sounds of an orchestra to be reduced
to the level of the background noise.
Reverberation time is highly affected by the reflective surfaces encountered by the
propagating waves. When a surface is highly reflective, very little energy is absorbed by
the surface (e.g. the reflected wave contains most of its energy) leading to an increase in
the reverberation time. In contrast, highly absorbing materials will absorb much of the
energy of a wave striking it, greatly reducing the energy in the reflected portion thereby
reducing the reverberation time.
Late reflections can be considered diffuse, arriving any time after 80ms of the direct
sound. However, as the distance between the source and listener ds increases, the intensity
(loudness) of the direct sound Ldirect will decrease until the level of the direct sound equals
the level of the reverberation Lreverb . Reverberation distance dreverb is defined as the
distance such that Ldirect = Lreverb and is given by the following expression [49]:
r π
= 0.006 ×
dreverb = 0.25 ×
Precedence Effect
In a typical listening situation, the listener receives the direct sound emitted by the sound
source as well as delayed and attenuated versions of the direct sound resulting from the
reflection of the sound with objects in the environment. The reflected sounds reaching the
listener may emanate from any direction in the environment, potentially creating a false
impression of a sound source at the location of reflection. However, this is certainly not the
case as the auditory system can clearly localize a sound source in the presence of multiple
reflections (reverberation). The ability of the auditory system to “combine” both the direct
as well as reflected sounds such that they are heard as a single “entity” and localized in
the direction corresponding to the direct sound has been termed the precedence effect by
Wallach et. al. over fifty years ago [145] (also known as the Haas effect and the law of first
waveforms). The precedence effect allows us to localize a sound source in the presence of
reverberation, even when the energy of the reverberant sound is greater than that of the
direct sound [92, 63].
Since the work of Wallach et. al. others have conducted various experiments to investigate the precedence effect. As described by Grantham [58], typically, these experiments
include a listener and two loudspeakers, placed at differing locations, in an anechoic environment. One loudspeaker is used to provide the direct sound while the other provides
a delayed and appropriately attenuated version of the direct sound in order to simulate a
reflection. Such studies indicate the following:
• When the reflection and direct sound are presented simultaneously (e.g. a delay of
zero), a single sound source (virtual source) is perceived at a location about half way
between the two loudspeakers.
• As the time delay between the direct sound and the echo is increased from 0 to
1ms the location of the perceived sound source moves towards the “direct sound
loudspeaker” (this is known as summing localization [16]).
• When the delay is between 1 and 30ms the sound source is correctly localized (e.g.
coming from the direct sound loudspeaker) without being affected by the reflected
• When the delay exceeds approximately 30 to 35ms, the direct sound is correctly
localized however, the delayed sound is also localized at the position of the “reflection
The experiments show how we are capable of correctly localizing a sound source in
the presence of reverberation provided the reflections arrive within a short period after
receiving the direct sound.
Head Movements
ITD and ILD cues alone are not unique and may therefore result in ambiguous localization
judgments, as evidenced by the cone of confusion. As previously described, other cues, most
notably the filtering described by HRTFs, are used in order to resolve such ambiguities.
Furthermore, in any normal listening environment, we are not stationary but are rather
free to move about. In particular, we can move our heads, from side-to-side, up and
down or in any other manner. These head movements are a very important and natural
component of sound localization which can greatly reduce front-back confusions and can
increase sound localization accuracy [144, 140, 153]. Head movements result in a change
of position between the sound source and the listener, leading to changes in the ITD and
ILD cues. According to Begault [13], we are capable of integrating these changes as they
occur over time in order to resolve ambiguous situations such as front-back confusions.
Referring to Figures 1.12 and 1.13, the following example illustrates how a simple head
movement can be used to overcome an ambiguous front-back situation. Consider a sound
source directly in front of a listener (e.g. θ = 0o ). In such a situation, both ITD and ILD
will be negligible and the listener will not be able to determine whether the sound source
is directly in front or in back of them (assuming ITD and ILD cues are the only available
cues and the listener of course cannot see the sound source). Now further consider the
listener rotates his/her head to the left by a certain amount. Since the head has rotated,
the ears are moved from their initial position to some new position. Although the sound
source has not actually moved from its initial location, relative to the listener, the sound
source position has changed. (e.g. whether the listener moves or the sound source moves,
there is a relative change). Now, the sound source is no longer on the median plane but,
is rather closer to the right ear. As a result, ITD and ILD have now increased. A similar
situation arises when the listener’s head is rotated to the right. However, in this case, the
sound will be closer to the left ear.
Figure 1.12: Head movements to resolve front-back ambiguities. When the sound source
is directly in front of the listener, the path length to the left and right ears (SL and SR
respectively), is the same. A head movement to the left will increase the distance between
the left ear and the sound source SL , while a head movement to the right will increase the
distance between the right ear and the sound source SR .
Since the source was directly in front of the listener prior to the head movement, a
head rotation to the left will bring the sound source closer to the right ear, while a head
rotation to the right would bring the source closer to the left ear. However, had the source
been directly to the back of the listener, as shown in Figure 1.13, a head movement to the
left would bring the sound source closer to the left ear while a head rotation to the right
would result in the source being closer to the right ear. As a result, head movements to the
left or right bring the source closer to one ear and which ear is actually closer to the sound
source depends on whether the sound source is directly in front or in back of the listener,
thus, eliminating any ambiguities. Finally, when head movements produce no change in
ITD or ILD cues, the sound source lies directly above or below the listener.
Auditory Distance Perception
The auditory system is capable of localizing a sound source using a variety of cues, including
interaural time and intensity (level) differences and the head related transfer functions
(HRTFs). However, when the sound source is in the far field (e.g. source distance greater
than about 1m), these cues offer, primarily, directional information (e.g. azimuth and
elevation), providing few, if any, cues to source distance.
Vision can be used to determine the distance to a sound source when the sound source
is in our visual field of view but, our visual field of view is limited and is of little use in a
very dark environment. With the use of vision, auditory distance discrimination may not
Figure 1.13: Head movements to resolve front-back ambiguities. When the sound source
is directly in back of the listener, the path length to the left and right ears (SL and SR
respectively), is the same. A head movement to the left will increase the distance between
the right ear and the sound source SR , while a head movement to the right will increase
the distance between the left ear and the sound source SL .
be as important however, auditory distance discrimination is of great importance when we
cannot make use of visual cues such as in the dark, when the sound source is not within
the visual field of view, or if a person is visually impaired. In such a situation, auditory
information can be of critical importance and can be used to determine the distance to a
sound source or the distance to some object in our environment which we cannot see. For
example, by emitting certain sounds (e.g. “clicking” or “hissing” sounds from the mouth or
tapping a cane on the ground), the visually impaired are capable of estimating the distance
to an object(s) using the direct relationship between the distance to the object and the
time taken for the reflected sound waves to reach the observer (see Section 1.2.3 for greater
details). The greater the distance between an observer and a sound source, the greater the
time required before the arrival of any reflections. This concept has been used in various
“environmental” and navigational aids for the visually impaired. For example, Milios et.
al. [91] developed a device which converts a stream of range measurements obtained with
a laser range finder into an auditory signal whose frequency and/or amplitude varies as a
function of range, in order to provide the visually impaired user a greater sense of “spatial
The ability to locate objects using reflected sounds (echoes) was termed echolocation
by David Griffin [60] and has been used by the visually impaired to avoid obstacles which
may be in their way [116]. Despite contrary belief, echolocation is certainly not exclusive
to the visually impaired. Studies have shown that both the visually impaired as well as
sighted blindfolded subjects are capable of employing echolocation to estimate the distance
to, width and even material decomposition of objects [137, 15]. Similarly, various animals,
most notable bats and dolphins, utilize echolocation to navigate and search for food [142].
Bats are very proficient with echolocation and can, using echolocation, determine the size,
shape and texture of tiny insects.
Various researchers have examined the perception of auditory distance by humans (e.g.
[48, 143, 30, 88, 15, 158, 97]) however, very little is known due to the inherent difficulties
associated with the sound stimulus used in auditory distance experiments [158]. According
to Coleman [30] and Mershon and King [89], the following auditory distance cues may
potentially play a role in the perception of the distance to a sound source when both the
observer and the sound source are stationary:
1. Intensity (sound level) of the sound waves emitted by the source.
2. Reverberation (direct-to-reverberant energy).
3. Frequency spectrum of the sound waves emitted by the sound source.
4. Binaural differences (e.g. ITD and ILD).
5. Type of stimulus used (e.g. familiarity with the sound source).
Source intensity (sound level) and reverberation (direct-to-reverberant energy) are believed to be the most effective cues [49], however, any number of these cues may be present
and certain cues may dominate depending on the listening environment. As a result, auditory distance perception may be influenced by such factors as the user’s familiarity with
the room as well as the stimulus and the distance estimation process actually employed by
a listener must adapt to the cues which may be available in each situation. In addition,
changes in these cues may not necessarily be due to a change in distance between the
listener and the source, but rather, may result from changes in the spectrum emitted by
the source (e.g. the source power is reduced), or changes to the source spectrum due to
changes in the environment, thereby further complicating matters, leading to poor judgments in source distance estimation [158]. For example, as described in Section 1.2.6, as
source distance is increased, the intensity of the sound received by the listener will decrease. However, sound source intensity of the sound waves received by the listener may
also decrease without an increase in source distance, but rather with a decline in source
intensity. In such an ambiguous situation, the user may not necessarily be able to discriminate between the two scenarios. Fortunately, as described in the following sections, the
presence of any other distance cues may assist the listener in making the correct judgment.
Given these considerations, it appears that auditory distance studies should be conducted in normal, reverberant environments. Contrary to this, most earlier studies were
conducted in anechoic environments [98] thereby limiting the cues presented to the listeners. Researchers have observed the importance of all the cues listed above (especially
reverberation) required for accurate source distance estimation and there have been several
studies conducted in normal reverberant environments. For example, a series of auditory
distance experiments were conducted by Nielson [98] in “normal” reverberant rooms. In
addition, to reduce the potential for erroneous results, rather than varying a single signal parameter, several parameters were varied in each of these experiments (e.g. source
distance, angle between source and listener, source loudness, echoic and anechoic environments) to ensure the subjects did not “learn to use a single factor to achieve certain
dynamics in the responses”. Using virtual acoustics to provide accurate measurement and
control of multiple auditory distance cues presented to the listener, Zahorik [158] examined
auditory distance perception by listeners in a normal environment (a 264 seating capacity
“complex shaped” room).
Source distance cues can be divided into two categories, exocentric and egocentric. Exocentric or relative cues provide information with respect to the relative distance between
two sounds whereas egocentric or absolute cues provide information about the actual absolute distance between the listener and the sound source. Consider a sound source and a
listener in a room where the listener cannot see and does not have any prior information
regarding source position or distance. Now further imagine the source distance is doubled.
Using the decrease in sound intensity between the sound source at the initial position and
the sound source at the new position to determine that the distance has increased, is an
example of an exocentric cue. On the other hand, when the listener uses the ratio of
direct-to-reverberant levels to determine the source is five feet away from him or her is an
example of an egocentric cue.
Greater details regarding the auditory distance cues listed above as well as their classification as either exocentric or egocentric are provided in the following sections.
Intensity Cues and Loudness
The importance of sound intensity (level) as a cue to source distance has been known for
many years. According to Zahorik [157], in 1892 Thompson observed that the intensity of
the sound reaching the listener is the primary cue to source distance. Furthermore, given
its relatively simple physical properties, it has also been the most studied auditory distance
cue. This section will describe how sound intensity is used by humans as a cue to source
distance and will also provide details of why it is an insufficient cue when used alone.
Consider a far field sound source and a listener placed in an anechoic environment.
Furthermore, assume the listener’s head is a perfect sphere with no external ears (pinnae).
In such a situation, where the only auditory cue available is intensity of the emitted sound
(a measure of energy propagated from the source per unit area and time), will be attenuated
as the source distance sd is increased following the inverse square law 1/s2d , where the loss
of intensity Lloss (in dB), due to increasing source distance, is given by Coleman [30] as:
Lloss = 20 × log10
where s0 is the original source distance (e.g. reference distance). In other words, for each
doubling of source distance, the intensity (level) of the sound waves reaching the listener
will be decreased by 3dB. Such a model (although as described below, is certainly not
completely correct) has been used in most 3D audio displays to convey source distance
information to the users, without requiring any absolute (reference) sound pressure level
[15, 18]
Reverberation as a Distance Cue
The inverse square 1/s2d attenuation of intensity of a propagating sound wave is valid under
very restricted conditions. In particular, it assumes that the propagating waves reach the
listener (receiver) directly without encountering any obstructions on their direct path from
the source to the receiver or without any modifications due to environmental conditions.
Furthermore, the majority of the experiments examining the relationship between distance
and loudness were also conducted under intensity controlled conditions, taking place in
anechoic chambers for example, where reflections of the propagating waves have a minimal (if not negligible) effect. However, in normal “everyday” listening situations, these
restricted conditions rarely occur.
Reverberation can provide a cue to absolute source distance estimation, regardless of
source intensity level due to changes in ratio of the direct-to-reverberant sound energy level
as a function of source distance. In particular, as source distance is increased, the level
of the sound reaching a listener directly will decrease leading to a reduction in the directto-reverberant ratio. Greater detail regarding this phenomenon as well as the drawbacks
associated with the inclusion of reverberation in an auditory display is provided in Section
Spectral Content of the Sound as A Distance Cue
The majority of sounds encountered in the “real world” are comprised of many different
frequency components and may contain components from the entire audible frequency
range. It has been known for some time that the frequency spectrum of a sound source
varies with respect to source distance due to absorption effects [30, 15, 98, 97]. In particular,
there is a greater attenuation of the higher frequency components as source distance is
increased. The spectral content of the received sound provides a relative distance cue
only, unless the listener has prior information regarding the sound source. As with the
loudness cue to source distance, allowing a listener to familiarize themselves with the
sound source and the environment, improves the accuracy of source distance judgments
[30]. The environmental conditions, including atmospheric conditions (the medium the
sound must travel through), and any objects (reflective surfaces) the sound waves may
encounter in the environment will affect any source distance estimation [15, 158].
Binaural Cues
As described in Section 1.2.1, ILD cues provide source localization information for frequencies greater than about 1500Hz. When the distance to the source is greater than
approximately one meter, a far field source can be assumed (e.g. planar waves reaching
the listener) and the ILD cues are distance independent. However, when the sound source
is in the near field (e.g. within one meter of the listener), the waves reaching the listener
can not be assumed to be planar. In this situation, the waves are spherical and the ILD
cues are, in addition to direction, dependent on source distance [143, 126]. Confirmation
of this can be seen in Figure 1.14 which is reprinted from the study performed by Brungart
and Rabinowitz [19]. In this particular study, they investigated the distance dependence of
HRTFs for source distances ranging from 0.12m to 1.0m through calculations using a rigid
spherical head model and by actually measuring the response using a KEMAR dummy
head. The graph shows the measured ILD for both a 500Hz (middle plot) and 3kHz (top
plot) tone source as a function of distance (from 0m to 1.0m), for the source azimuths
of 15, 45 and 90 degrees. The dependence of distance is clearly evident, as the ILD cues
noticeably decrease as distance increases. In addition, this dependence to source distance
is greatest when the source is close to or on the interaural axis, reaching values as high
as 20-30dB and decreases as the source moves towards the median plane. Also included is
the graph illustrating the dependence of distance with respect to ITD (bottom plot). As
shown, the ITD is less dependent on distance as opposed to the ILD cue.
Familiarity with the Sound Source and the Environment
A listener’s prior experience with a particular sound source and the environment (e.g.
the source transmission path) can greatly affect a listener’s ability to determine the source
distance, especially when the sound level is the only available cue. As previously described,
without any prior information regarding the sound source and environment, the intensity
(loudness) of a sound can only provide relative source distance cues. However, given prior
experience, sound level can be used to determine the absolute distance to a sound source
Figure 1.14: ILD as a function of distance (0m to 1.0m for two pure tones: 3kHz (top plot)
and 500Hz (middle plot) for source azimuths of 15o , 45o and 90o . Bottom plot illustrates
the dependence of ITD on source distance for a source also at azimuths of 15o , 45o and
90o . Reprinted from [21].
[126] and overall distance judgments may be improved [158, 97], especially when the sound
is speech [15]. Prior information about a sound source or environment allows a listener to
use their previous experiences and knowledge to provide a more accurate distance estimate
or to overcome ambiguous situations. For example from a very young age, we engage in
conversations with others. For normal listeners, speech has become an important aspect
of life as it allows us to communicate with others and express our thoughts. As a result,
we have become familiar with the characteristics of speech (e.g. how loud a whisper or
shouting may be and who is speaking) and are capable of accurately judging the distance
to a live talker under normal conditions, especially when the distances are within a few
feet [50, 21].
In many of the studies examining the relation between intensity (loudness) and source
distance (as well as many other auditory studies), a single tone stimulus was employed.
However, pure tones are not “particularly ecological” as most sounds in our environment
contain various spectral components, generally leading to a decrease in localization accuracy [24]. In addition, as previously described, many of the earlier source distance studies
were performed in restricted environments (e.g. anechoic chambers) in the absence of other
distance cues, leading to a further reduction in localization accuracy. Familiarity with the
sound source may have also affected the outcome of such experiments and even without prior knowledge of the listening environment and sound source, after repeated trials,
knowledge of both may have been acquired by the subjects.
Finally, in a reverberant environment, source distance is also affected by the background
noise [87]. In the presence of background noise, we tend to underestimate the distance to
a sound source. This is probably due to the fact that since noise masks part of the weaker
indirect portion of the sound reaching the listener, we cannot detect the entire extent of
the reverberation [97].
Chapter 2
Recording Techniques
Since the introduction of the telephone in the late 1800s and the radio in the early 1900s,
there have been many developments and improvements to existing technologies for presenting sounds to a listener in such a manner that the original soundfield is reproduced. The
exact reproduction of a soundfield, including all spatial cues (e.g. reverberation, HRTFs,
ITD and ILD), as they would occur in a “natural seeting”, is certainly the goal of most
3D sound technologies. Current technologies also realize the importance of human psychoacoustics and employ many of the human auditory localization cues, including HRTFs.
However, this was not the case in the “early years” of audio technology. In fact, it wasn’t
until the mid to late 20th century that an understanding of human auditory localization
started to emerge (e.g. see the work of Batteau related to HRTFs [8], [7]). This “modern” approach to 3D sound, which employs human auditory localization cues, is fairly
new, dating back approximately 20 to 25 years. Prior to this, many techniques involved
recording a soundfield (e.g. concert, musical performance etc.) using one or more microphones and then playing back the recorded sound using one or more loudspeakers or a
pair of headphones. These techniques include monaural, stereo and surround sound and
resulted in a large part due to the demanding needs of the entertainment industry (e.g.
movie theaters, record companies etc.). Although such techniques couldn’t be “true” 3D
sound technologies, they paved the way for the many modern 3D sound technologies currently available. This chapter examines several of these recording techniques in greater
detail, beginning with monaural, two-channel stereo and binaural procedures followed by
multi-channel surround sound systems.
Since the techniques described in this chapter rely on the recording of a soundfield using
one or more microphones, before discussing any of these techniques, a brief introduction
outlining the operation and characteristics of microphones is provided.
Listener Sweet Spot
A problem common to all loudspeaker based audio systems, regardless the configuration
or the technique used (e.g. recording technique or “true” 3D sound technology), is the
fact that the intended auditory effect is restricted to a small region of space known as the
listener sweet spot. The listener must therefore be placed in a specific location relative to
the loudspeakers in order to achieve the desired effect. Any movements by the listener, even
small head movements, away from the sweet spot, quickly degrades the intended effect.
The size and span of the sweet spot as well as the degradation of the intended effect when
the listener moves out of the sweet spot, is dependent on the technique used, the range
of directions to be produced and the listening conditions (e.g. number of loudspeakers,
loudspeaker layout and the directivity characteristics of the loudspeakers and the listening
room) [73]. For example, in a two-channel stereo configuration, the listener should be
positioned such that they form an equilateral triangle with the two loudspeakers [128].
Back and forth movements by the listener result in only a slight degradation of the intended
stereo effect, as the distance to each loudspeaker remains the same. However, the intended
effect may be greatly affected with sideways movements since in this case the distance
between the listener and each loudspeaker differs.
A microphone is a transducer, with the sole purpose of converting variations in air pressure
into corresponding variations in electrical current (or electrical voltage) [94]. Each microphone contains a small component called the diaphragm which outputs a varying electrical
current (or voltage). The propagating sound waves reaching the diaphragm cause it to
vibrate and the rate of these vibrations determines the current (or voltage) output of the
diaphragm (e.g. the greater the rate of vibrations, the greater output produced by the
diaphragm). The electrical output of the diaphragm can then be processed and used as
desired (e.g. converted to a digital signal through an analog to digital converter, amplified
There are many different classifications of microphones, and typically, the classification
is based on the operation of the diaphragm. The dynamic microphone relies on elec31
Figure 2.1: Microphone polar patterns.
tromagnetism. The plastic diaphragm is attached to a coil of wire, which vibrates as the
diaphragm vibrates. As the coil vibrates, its position relative to a magnet changes resulting
in a varying current flow through the coil [117]. Given its high sensitivity, high frequency,
response, low amplitude pick-up and its acoustically natural sound output, the condenser
microphone (sometimes known as the capacitor microphone) is one of the most widely used
microphones available [117]. The diaphragm of a condenser microphone is metal and forms
one plate of a capacitor. Another metal disk positioned close to the diaphragm, acts as a
“backplate” (the other plate of the capacitor). A steady D.C. voltage is applied to either
the diaphragm or the backplate. As the diaphragm vibrates (due to the propagating sound
waves), the distance between the diaphragm and the backplate changes. The change in
distance leads to a change in capacitance which ultimately results in a change of electrical current output. Various other types of microphones exist, however, they will not be
discussed here. Greater details can be found in [38, 117].
Microphone Directivity Patterns
An important property of a microphone is its directivity or polar pattern. The directivity pattern refers to the direction(s) in which the microphone is sensitive. Ideally, the
microphone will respond only to sounds which are propagating in the directions of the
microphone’s directivity pattern. Various types of polar patterns are available, and type of
polar pattern used is typically determined by the application. Several of the more popular
polar patterns are illustrated in Figure 2.1.
A microphone with an omni-directional polar pattern (known as an omni-directional
microphone), will (ideally) respond equally to sounds coming from all directions (e.g. 360o )
and as a result, are often used to record ambient or background sounds. The bi-directional
or “figure of eight” polar pattern allows the microphone to respond to sounds coming from
in front or in back of the diaphragm and to be less sensitive to sounds that approach
at right angles to the diaphragm. The cardioid microphone has a heart shaped polar
pattern (hence the name “cardioid”) and is sensitive to sounds coming from in front of
the diaphragm while rejecting sounds from the back. This makes it useful in recording
musical performances such as concerts, where only the performance is of interest and not
any sound coming from the audience.
Although in theory the microphone is sensitive only to the directions defined by its
polar pattern, in practise this is certainly not the case. The microphone will respond
to some degree, to sounds coming from directions other than those defined by its polar
pattern, as such sounds are attenuated and not completely rejected. Finally, in addition
to direction, a microphone may also be more sensitive to certain frequencies.
Monaural Systems
A monaural recording is made using a single microphone and conveyed to the listener
through a single loudspeaker. It was the first method used to convey sound in films and
remained a standard in the film industry for over fifty years and still is a standard for AM
radio [57]. Since a single microphone is used, binaural cues cannot be captured, thereby
giving the listener the impression that all sounds are coming from a single location (e.g. it
is unidimensional). In addition, it is very difficult to convey any ambience (e.g. a certain
mood created by some environment), and any ambience present is of poor quality, given
that in a monaural recording, the signal of interest and the background noise essentially
sound the same and therefore, it may be difficult to differentiate between the two.
Despite these shortcomings, monaural systems are still relevant today. They may not
be used by the film and music industry anymore, however, monaural systems are very good
for conveying speech, providing good intelligibility [57]. The telephone, going back from
its introduction in 1876 by Alexander Graham Bell, to the present continues to employ a
monaural system to convey speech between participants.
Stereophonic Techniques
Stereophonic or stereo has become synonymous with two-channel audio. However, the word
stereophonic, derived from Greek for “solid sound” actually refers to the construction of
believable, solid, stable sound “images” regardless of the number of channels used [110].
It can refer to any number of channels, including two, three, four, five and even six (the
popular Dolby 5.1 surround sound format employs six channels). In fact, stereo and surround sound actually refer to the same thing (surround systems are covered in Section 2.6).
Regardless of the number of channels actually used, the purpose of stereo is to provide the
listener with a real life impression of a sound event [34]. However, given the widespread
association between stereo and two channels, for the purpose of this report, unless otherwise stated, stereo will refer to two-channel audio whereby sounds are output with two
loudspeakers (or headphones).
The first documented use of a stereo system was by Clement Ader, a French designer,
in Paris in 1881 (see [136]). However, despite the potential this technique had to offer,
very little attention was paid to it until the early 1930s. In the United Kingdom, Alan
Blumlein, a researcher working for EMI Corporation, developed a stereo recording system
based on coincident microphones while in the U.S, a team of researchers, led by Harvy
Fletcher developed their own stereo techniques based on spaced microphones. It wasn’t
for many years later until either of these techniques were used for commercial purposes.
Stereo has been (and still is) the main method for the playback of recorded music since
the introduction of vinyl stereo records in 1958, FM radio in 1961 and stereo television in
1986 [150].
The typical stereo listening setup is illustrated in Figure 2.2, where the listener is
typically positioned between the two loudspeakers. For optimal listening conditions, the
listener, along with the two loudspeakers should form an equilateral triangle, where the
separation between the two loudspeakers forms the base “b”, the offset angle (α) is equal
to 60o and the listener is positioned on the vertex of the triangle [66].
As with human sound localization in a natural setting, stereo systems utilize sound
level and (or) timing differences (ILD and ITD) to simulate a sound event between then
two loudspeakers. Stereo can provide the listener with a “sense of depth”, allowing them
to perceive the presence of a particular auditory environment in which sounds may be
localized, extending beyond the two loudspeakers [66]. Various stereo recording techniques
have been developed and experimented with over the years, however, the following three
methods are the most widely used [110]:
Artificial Techniques: Stereo images (or phantom sources or virtual sources) are produced by artificially adjusting the intensity and (or) time delays between the monaural signal delivered to the left (L) and right (R) channels (loudspeaker outputs).
Coincident Microphone Techniques: The sound event is recorded by two directional
microphones whose capsules point in different directions but are placed as physically
close to each other as possible. Since they point in different directions, the capsules
will be offset by a certain angle. Such a configuration will (ideally) eliminate any
timing differences between the two recorded signals while capturing any intensity
Figure 2.2: Ideal stereo configuration. The listener and two loudspeakers form an equilateral triangle, where the separation between the two loudspeakers forms the base b, the
offset angle α is equal to 60o and the listener is positioned on the vertex of the triangle.
Spaced Microphone techniques: Two or more identical microphones spaced some distance apart from each other are used to capture the sound event. Timing differences
between the sound at each microphone are captured and conveyed to the listener
during playback.
Details regarding each of these three stereo techniques are provided in the following
Artificial Stereo
In this technique, the difference in sound level and/or the time delay between the signal
fed to the left and right loudspeakers is adjusted in order to position the virtual sound
source somewhere between the two loudspeakers. This method takes advantage of the ITD
and ILD cues employed by a listener to localize a sound source in a natural setting. The
positioning of a stereo sound between loudspeakers using level and time delay adjustments
are referred to as intensity (or amplitude) and time panning respectively [51] given that the
position of the virtual source can be panned across the space between the two loudspeakers.
Greater details regarding these techniques are provided in the following sections.
Stereo Time Panning
As described in Section 1.2.1, unless the sound source is directly in front of the listener,
it will be closer to one ear (ipsilateral ear) and therefore arrive at this ear first, leading
to the ITD cue. In the artificial stereo technique, this cue can be simulated by simply
sending to the contralateral ear, a delayed version of the signal sent to the ipsilateral ear.
For example, when the desired sound source position is to the left of the listener of a stereo
setup, the right ear will receive a delayed version of the signal sent to the left ear. The
amount of delay determines the position of the virtual source and therefore, by allowing for
a variable time delay, the virtual source may be positioned between the two loudspeakers.
The time delay actually required to position the sound source to either the left or right
loudspeaker is rather small. According to [66], experiments indicate a delay of between
0.8ms to 1.4ms. Given this short range of delays required to position the virtual source
to either of the loudspeakers, the effect produced by this technique quickly degrades with
even small listener movements, especially side-to-side movements. Movements of a few feet
may lead to time delays which are much greater than the small amount described above
[51]. In other words, the extent of the sweet spot is very small.
Stereo Intensity Panning
Intensity panning is similar to time panning however, instead of adjusting the difference
in the time of arrival between the signal delivered to the left and right loudspeakers, the
difference in level (intensity) is adjusted instead to position the virtual source anywhere
between the two loudspeakers. Generally, level differences of approximately 12dB to 16dB
are sufficient to position the sound source to either of the loudspeakers, although the exact
value may depend on the individual, the listening environment and equipment [110]. Stereo
intensity panning is actually a more effective technique then stereo time panning. It is more
robust, given the greater dynamic operating range of level differences as opposed to time
delays. Furthermore, it is fairly consistent with different signal types and is less prone to
errors when the listener moves away from the “sweet spot” (e.g. the listener is “off axis”),
unlike the case with time delay adjustments [51]. Finally, as with time delay adjustments,
when the level difference between the two loudspeaker signals is zero, the source appears
to be directly in front of the listener. Once it reaches a maximum value, the virtual source
will continue to emanate from the loudspeaker corresponding to the ipsilateral ear, even
when the level difference is increased beyond the maximum.
Figure 2.3: Coincident stereo microphone techniques. One microphone capsule is placed
on top of the other, offset by θ degrees. Placing capsules on top of each other ensures there
is no offset between them with respect to the horizontal plane, resulting in a minimal time
delay between the recorded signals.
Coincident Microphone Techniques
Coincident microphone techniques, developed by Blumlein in the early 1930s, involve the
recording of a sound event using two directional microphones, spaced as close as physically
possible in order to avoid (or at least greatly reduce) any timing differences between the
two recorded signals. As shown in Figure 2.3, typically, one microphone capsule (e.g. the
part of the microphone housing the diaphragm) is placed on top of the other, displaced
by an angle of θ degrees (the displacement angle). Placing the microphone capsules one
on top of the other ensures there is no offset between both microphones with respect to
the horizontal plane (e.g. horizontal plane displacement is zero). The lack of “horizontal plane displacement” between the microphone capsules ensures the time delay is zero
when considering sound positions on the horizontal plane, the plane of interest for stereo
Coincident microphone techniques rely on intensity differences between the two recorded
signals, arising from the polar pattern of each microphone. The choice of microphone polar pattern actually used (e.g. the type of microphone), determines the range of allowable
angles spanned by the virtual source in front of the microphones, or in other words, the
acceptance angle, as illustrated in Figure 2.3. In addition, the choice of polar pattern used
for each microphone may differ and certain combinations of polar patterns may produce
more favorable results for certain listening scenarios.
Referring to Figure 2.3, when the source lies directly in front of the two microphones,
at source position S1 , the level of the sound recorded by each microphone will be the
same (e.g. the sound must travel an equal distance to reach the right and left ear) and
therefore, the difference in level will be zero. Without any difference in level, during
playback, the listener will perceive a source directly in front of them. As the source is
moved to the right (left), the level of the signal intended for the right (left) loudspeaker
will be greater, leading to an increase in the level (intensity) difference. When played
back, the listener will perceive a source to the right (left). As previously described, a level
difference Ld between approximately 12 to 16dB (depending on the displacement angle
between the microphone capsules) is required to place the sound source completely to
the right (left). For example, when the sound source is positioned at S2 (the rightmost
position within the acceptance angle), the difference in level between the left and right
microphone signals will reach its maximum, with the level of the signal being fed to the
right loudspeaker being greater and the virtual source will come from the right loudspeaker.
Furthermore, the virtual source will continue to come from the right loudspeaker even if the
level difference is greater than Ld [66], which for example, will occur if the desired position
of the virtual source is at S3 . Two common coincident microphone approaches are known
as the “XY” and “MS” techniques. A brief description of each technique is provided in
the following sections. Finally, regardless of the actual technique used, according to Theile
[139], coincident microphone techniques lack any sense of depth and space as the signals of
each of the two channels lack the interaural correlation available naturally. This problem
can be overcome however using the sphere microphone. This microphone captures the
interaural differences naturally available and produces favorable results with respect to
spatial perspective, localization accuracy and overall quality [139].
XY Coincident Microphone Technique
In this technique, the two microphones must have the same directivity (polar) pattern,
which is usually cardioid or bi-directional (“figure of eight”). The microphone pointing
to the right is used to record the sounds intended for the right (R) loudspeaker while the
microphone pointing to the left records the sounds intended for the left (L) loudspeaker.
Using this technique, a monaural signal Sm can be obtained as follows:
Sm = X + Y
where, X and Y are the left and right microphone channels respectively. When played
back, XY recorded sounds lack the sense of depth and perspective but can allow for clear
sound source localization [66].
Mid and Side (MS) Microphone Technique
In this technique, one microphone (the “M” microphone), having any polar pattern, including omni-directional, cardioid or figure of eight, faces forward, capturing the sound
coming directly in front of the sound event (e.g. orchestra, performance etc.). The other
microphone (the “S” microphone), has a bi-directional polar pattern and faces sideways,
perpendicular to the M microphone in order to capture the sounds coming from the side
of the sound event in addition to a large amount of reverberation.
Once the M and S signals have been recorded, the left (L) and right (R) channel signals
which will be played back to the listener are formed as follows:
L = M +S
R = M −S
The MS technique offers several advantages over the XY stereo recording technique
and is widely used for television sound recording [110]. By varying the ratio of the mid
(M) and side (S) signals, it allows for one to modify the useful acceptance angle without modifying the configuration of the microphones in any way [66]. This is particularly
advantageous in situations were the configuration cannot be physically adjusted, such as
during a live performance or a concert [5]. making it especially usefully in situations were
the microphones. Furthermore, in practise, the MS technique is less error prone over the
XY technique leading to greater recording fidelity [65].
Equivalence Between XY and MS Techniques
Theoretically, the XY and MS techniques can be considered equivalent and a transformation between them can be performed assuming ideal microphone characteristics [65].
However, in practice, microphones are certainly not perfect and do not exhibit ideal directivity patterns (e.g. the real polar pattern differs from the mathematical ideal one) making
the practicality of such a transformation very limited.
Spaced Microphone Techniques
Spaced microphone techniques rely primarily on time panning only in order to position the
sound source anywhere between the two loudspeakers. The simplest spaced microphone
technique is shown in Figure 2.4. Two microphones, typically omni-directional, spaced a
few centimeters apart with a displacement angle of zero degrees, face the sound source.
When the distance between the sound source and each of the microphones is the same
(e.g. position S1 in Figure 2.4), each microphone will record the same sound signal without
any delay. However, as the source moves towards the left or right, the time delay ∆t
will increase, reaching a maximum when the source has moved to its maximum allowable
leftmost or rightmost position. As with the artificial stereo technique described previously,
the maximum time delay is approximately 0.8 to 1.4ms. Furthermore, when the time delay
does reach this amount, as with the coincident microphone technique, the signal will be
output from the left or right loudspeaker, even if the delay is increased further.
The spacing between the two microphones determines the size of the active-arc (acceptance angle). Microphone spacing is limited to between approximately 25 and 50cm
which corresponds to acceptance angles of 80o to 130o respectively [66], however, there are
generally no other rules for spacing the microphones and usually, it is a matter of trying
various distances until one producing favorable results is found [111].
Combining Coincident and Spaced Microphone Techniques
The spaced and coincident stereo recording techniques can be combined to take advantage
of both time delay and intensity differences. In such a situation, the two microphones are
spaced apart by some distance but are also displaced by an angle θ. When the source is
moved towards either loudspeaker, both the time delay and level differences between the
signals of the left and right microphones will increase. Various combination systems have
been developed. For example, as shown in Figure 2.5 the ORTF technique developed by
the Office de Radiodiffusion Television Francaise (hence the acronym ORTF), uses two
Figure 2.4: Spaced stereo microphone techniques rely primarily on time panning only in
order to position the sound source anywhere between the two loudspeakers. Two microphones, typically omni-directional are spaced a few centimeters apart with a displacement
angle of zero degrees, facing the sound source.
cardioid microphones which are separated by a distance of 17cm and a displacement angle
(θ) of 110o . Similarly, the NOS technique employs two cardioid microphones spaced 30cm
apart and displaced by 90o . Further details regarding these techniques as well as other
combination techniques may be found in [38, 66, 110, 111].
Binaural Audio
Given a particular listening environment to be simulated, with the sound source and listener
each at some particular position, binaural audio can be defined as the reproduction of the
acoustic signals that would naturally be present in this particular situation. Ideally, the
reproduced acoustical signals and the acoustical signals present in the natural listening
condition will be identical, such that, when presented to the listener, the listener may
use any of the naturally available cues in order to perceive the sound as emanating from
the desired position. The reproduced acoustical signals can be obtained using binaural
recording techniques or binaural synthesis. Greater detail regarding binaural recording
techniques is provided in the following sections. Binaural synthesis is described in Section
Figure 2.5: Near coincident (ORTF) stereo microphone technique. Two cardioid microphones are separated by a distance of 17cm and displaced by 110o . This technique is able
to capture both time delay and intensity differences between the signals arriving at each
Binaural Recording Techniques
As illustrated in Figure 2.6, in this technique, small microphones are placed typically at the
entrance of the ear canals of a person or an anthropomorphic dummy head to separately
record the sound at the left and right ears as it occurs in the natural environment. Since
the microphones are placed at the entrance of the ear canals, the recorded sound will
include any environmental modifications (e.g. reverberation, air absorption, attenuation
etc.) encountered by the sound on its path to the corresponding ear and HRTF filtering.
Once the sounds have been recorded, playing back the left and right recorded signals
to the left and right ears respectively will reproduce the listening situation in which the
recordings were made, and ideally, lead to the perception of a sound emanating from the
original sound source position. All the audio environmental cues, including reverberation,
air attenuation, source distance etc. and any binaural cues such as ITD and ILD will be
Binaural recordings are capable of producing very realistic results, allowing for a strong
perception of a sound source at some specific location (e.g. of “being there in real life”),
even when using standard audio equipment. However, binaural recordings do have their
share of problems. In particular, the recorded signals are specific to the environmental
setting in which they were made, as well as the source position. Therefore, only this
specific listening situation can be reproduced during playback. Any changes in the position
of the sound source, listener or the environment (e.g. the introduction of new objects
in the path between source and listener) requires a new pair of recordings to be made.
Furthermore, as described further in Section 1.2.2, each person’s pinnae differ, leading to
Figure 2.6: Binaural recording technique. Small microphones are placed in the ear canal of
a “dummy” head (or person) in order to record a sound event in a particular environment.
The recordings will capture any auditory localization cues present such as ITD, ILD, reverberation and HRTF filtering. When the recording is presented to the listener, the listener
will perceive the sound as emanating from the original position and environment in which
the recordings were made.
spectral filtering of the sounds present at each ear specific to each individual. Since the
filtering effects of the “dummy head” will differ from the filtering effects of the listener
during playback, a degradation of the desired effect will result. Finally, for optimal results,
the recorded signals must be played back to a listener’s ears in isolation, ensuring the left
and right signals arrive only to the left and right ears respectively. As a result, the recorded
signals are usually played back over headphones as opposed to loudspeakers, to avoid any
crosstalk. Headphones have their share of problems however (see Section 4.1) and there
may be times where loudspeaker output is desired. Binaural recordings can be presented
over loudspeakers provided some method of crosstalk cancellation is used to remove the
crosstalk signals arising from the fact that a portion of the signal emanating from the
left (right) loudspeaker will reach the right (left) ear (see Section 4.2.1 on crosstalk and
crosstalk cancellation). Given the elimination of this crosstalk and assuming the listener is
placed in the appropriate position (e.g. in the “sweet spot” which is typically symmetrically
between the loudspeakers), binaural recordings heard over loudspeakers can provide good
Surround Sound
As mentioned previously, stereo may involve any number of channels and is certainly
not restricted to two. However, when introduced to home consumers in 1958 only two
channels were actually used. The use of two channels was based solely on the fact that
two channels was all that could physically be placed on phonograph records, the main
recording medium at that time [67]. Surround systems can consist of any number of
loudspeakers “surrounding” a listener [51] in order to provide them a greater sense of
realism, making them feel as if they are in attendance (live) at the music performance
(concert etc.) or when watching a movie, as if they were part of the “action”. Surround
sound systems allow the listener to hear sounds coming from all around them, not only in
front of them as with traditional stereo setups. The majority of people associate surround
sound with “something being added to two-channel stereo”, including the addition of more
loudspeakers. The surround systems described in the following sections do contain more
than two loudspeakers and require that the loudspeakers be physically placed around the
listener in some particular configuration.
Despite the widespread use and popularity of stereo in the home consumer market, various “more than two” channel stereo systems were also being investigated and developed,
especially for the movie theater market. Research conducted by Fletcher’s group at the
Bell Laboratories, involved the use of a large number of microphones and loudspeakers to
record and playback a sound event respectively. One of the earliest systems, the “Wall of
Sound” developed by Fletcher used an array of up to 80 microphones, mounted horizontally across the front of an orchestra [110]. The playback of sound over an equal number of
loudspeakers produced very accurate and pleasing results. Such a large number of microphones resulted in a large sweet spot, providing the listener greater freedom to move about
in the environment [38]. However, the use of such a large number of microphones and
loudspeakers was clearly impractical and so, the number of microphones and loudspeakers
were reduced to three. Three channels allow for greater precision in positioning the virtual
source than when using two channels alone [139]. The use of three channel produces more
favorable results when compared to two-channel stereo and is still in widespread use today
to produce frontal sound in movie theaters [111].
Although favorable results were achieved with the three microphones and loudspeaker
setup, such a method was not very popular amongst recording companies who could not
physically “cut” more than two channels into a vinyl record. Given this two-channel recording restriction, the majority of consumer audio products supported (and still support),
two-channel stereo only, making the use of a third recording channel impractical except
in very restricted situations. The three recorded channels can be transformed into a twochannel stereo compatible signal by mixing the signal recorded with the center microphone
into the signals intended for the left and right loudspeaker [38].
Figure 2.7: Three loudspeaker surround sound system configuration. Obtained by adding
a loudspeaker in between the left and right stereo loudspeakers.
The first public use of a true surround system was by Walt Disney, in his animated
movie Fantasia released in 1940, which combined animated “mini-features” with popular
orchestral music [112] and included as many as eight separate music and effects channels.
Movie theaters at this time did not have the equipment to support eight channels of audio
and as a result, the film was toured throughout the country with its own technical crew
and reproduction system.
Despite the widespread popularity of stereo (two-channel) systems in the home consumer market, two channels were insufficient for move theaters. Given the large width of
movie screens, localization of sound for any viewers which happen to be seated towards
one side of the screen (e.g. away from the center), was very poor [67]. In an attempt to
overcome this limitation, during the 1950s and 1960s several multi-channel cinema audio
systems were experimented with. In one technique, (shown in Figure 2.7), a loudspeaker
(center channel) was added in between the left and right stereo channels, producing a three
channel surround system. The center channel could now be a substitute for the right or left
channel loudspeaker for persons seated towards the left or right side of the movie screen
Several other competing systems were developed as well, including systems with up to
six channels [67]. For example, 70mm movie prints with magnetic audio tracks provided
a total of six channels, five placed across the front of the screen and one channel, the
surround channel, was placed towards the side and rear of the theater. None of these early
multi-channel systems lasted very long for several reasons, including the fact that the early
film audio tracks were of poor quality and very noisy.
The following sections provide greater details regarding several of the more popular
surround sound system formats including Quadraphonics, Ambisonics and several systems
developed Dolby Laboratories, including Dolby Stereo and Dolby Digital.
The Quadraphonic (also known as ‘Quadrisonics”), or “Quad” system was the first “surround system” to be introduced to consumers. The first demonstration of a Quadraphonic
system was by Vanguard records in 1969 and the technology was made publicly available in
the early 1970s. Quad systems were developed to improve the limitations associated with
monaural and stereo recorded sound. Although monaural and stereo systems did provide
the listener with the impression of looking towards a performance (a sound source), they
did not provide the listener with the sense (illusion) of “actually being there”, live, while
the performance was taking place. In order to accomplish this, sounds would have to reach
the listener from any direction in three dimensional space, something clearly monaural and
stereo systems were incapable of achieving. In a stereo setup the listener faces the two
loudspeakers and hears sounds coming from in front of them, or as mentioned, they “look
towards the performance”. The principle behind quad systems was simple: add another
two loudspeakers behind the listener in a traditional stereo setup to allow sounds emanating in the rear to reach the listener as well. Quad systems consist of four loudspeakers,
two in front of the listener, left-front (LF) and right-front (RF) and two in back of the
listener, left-rear (LR) and right-rear (RR). Although no standard was developed for the
actual placement of the loudspeakers, they were typically placed at the four corners of a
listening area, either facing inwards towards the listening area as shown in Figure 2.8a or
as shown in Figure 2.8b, the two rear loudspeakers could face the two front loudspeakers
[35]. In either setup, the angle of separation between each of the loudspeakers is 90o ,
equally dividing the entire 360o space surrounding a listener. Quad systems were intended
to allow for the perception of sound emanating from any direction on the plane in which
the four loudspeakers were placed (all loudspeakers are placed on the same plane). Each
of the loudspeakers received a signal which was previously recorded from a microphone
element, intended to capture sounds emanating from the direction corresponding to the
position of the loudspeakers. The following section provides greater detail regarding the
quad microphone system.
Quadraphonic Microphone
Quadraphonic recordings are made by capturing the sound with four microphone elements,
(typically packaged together in a single housing) and played back over four loudspeakers.
Usually, these microphone housings can be further divided into two units: the upper and
lower capsules. The upper capsule consists of two microphone elements which are used
to capture sound from the left-front (LF) and the right-rear (RR). The two microphone
elements of the lower capsule are used to capture sounds coming from the right-front (RF)
and left-rear (LR). Each of the four elements contains its own separate channel, hence the
(a) Quadraphonic Setup.
(b) Quadraphonic Setup.
Figure 2.8: Quadraphonic loudspeaker configuration. (a) Four loudspeakers at each corner
of the listening area facing inwards towards the listener. (b) The two front loudspeakers
facing the two rear loudspeakers.
requirement of four loudspeakers during playback.
Encoding and Decoding of Quadraphonic Sound
Quadraphonic recordings resulted in four separate channels of audio information, one channel for each microphone and loudspeaker pair. As a result, four channels had to be
transferred from the recording process to the playback process. Although several storage mediums supporting four channels were available, including quad reel-to-reel tape and
eight-track cartridges [112], given the widespread use and success of stereo, the majority of
consumer equipment, including FM radio and vinyl records supported two-channel stereo
only [35]. Since it would be very difficult to convince users to purchase new dedicated quad
equipment, methods were developed to allow the four channels of Quadraphonic recorded
information to utilize the existing two-channel transmission medium. The technique used
to encode four channels of information into two channels, transmit and then decode the two
channels back into four channels for Quadraphonic playback was referred to as matrixing,
and the set of equations to perform the task is referred to as the matrix. By encoding
the four channels of audio information into two channels, quad recordings were “backward
compatible”, allowing them to be played back using standard two-channel record players,
instead of requiring new, dedicated equipment [112]. Quad matrixing was also known as
the “4-2-4” method, denoting the encoding of the four original channels into two channels for storage and transmission and then the decoding back into four channels during
playback. Matrixing is not restricted to four and two channels only however. Matrixing
can involve the encoding and decoding between any number of channels. For example, a
5-2-5 system encodes five original channels into two channels and later reconstructs the five
channels once again. The first 4-2-4 matrix was proposed by Scheiber in 1970 [119, 120].
The encoding and decoding equations comprising the Scheiber matrix are provided in the
following equations:
0.924 × LF + 0.924 × LR + 0.383 × RF − 0.383 × RR
0.924 × RF + 0.924 × RR + 0.383 × LF − 0.383 × LR
0.924 × Lstereo + 0.383 × Rstereo
0.383 × Lstereo + 0.949 × Rstereo
0.924 × Lstereo − 0.383 × Rstereo
0.383 × Lstereo + 0.924 × Rstereo
where Lstereo and Rstereo are the left and right stereo signals respectively. By examining the
equations of the Scheiber matrix, it can be seen that each channel will contain a component
at −3dB from the channels adjacent to it. For example, the right-front channel will contain
a −3dB component from the front-left and rear-right channels. Furthermore, the diagonal
signals between front-right and rear-left and between the front-left and rear-right, will be
The Scheiber matrix was never actually developed into a commercial product, however
it formed the basis for the first commercially available Quadraphonic encoding/decoding
system released in 1972 under the name of SQ for Surround Quadraphonic by CBS. This
was followed by the release of the QS matrix system developed by Sansui Corporation,
which was however incompatible with SQ.
Problems with Quadraphonic Systems
Quadraphonics was never really a “hit” with consumers and lasted for a short time only.
The first Quadraphonic recordings were released in the early 1970s (open reel tape) while
the last encoded recordings were released in 1980. Given the widespread use of stereo equipment, very few consumers rushed out to purchase additional new and expensive equipment
to support Quadraphonics on their existing systems. Furthermore the different record companies and stereo equipment manufacturers each supported different incompatible encoding
and decoding schemes, creating much confusion amongst consumers.
In addition to the non-technical issues described above, there were other serious technical issues associated with Quadraphonic systems which inevitably led to their downfall.
Most importantly, despite the promise of full 360o localization on the azimuthal plane (e.g.
the ability to convey 3D sound), Quadraphonic systems were inaccurate and non-realistic
in presenting a 3D sound source [35]. With respect to matrixing, once encoded, the original
signals can never be completely reconstructed perfectly as information will always be lost
in the process, resulting in undesirable effects [112]. As with any loudspeaker auditory
display, crosstalk (see Section 4.2.1 for greater details regarding crosstalk) also degrades
the performance and effects of the resulting playback sound. In a Quadraphonic setup,
the sweet spot is located equidistant from all four loudspeakers (e.g. in the center of the
listening area) and is rather narrow, as even small head movements by the listener result
in dramatic changes in the desired effect. Despite its shortcomings and lack of interest by
consumers, Quadraphonics paved the way for the surround systems currently available.
Ambisonics is a high resolution surround sound system developed primarily from the work
of British researchers Michael A. Gerzon and Peter Fellgett in the late 1960s and early
1970s, building on Blumlein’s earlier work of stereo recording and playback. Ambisonics
was primarily developed to overcome the major difficulties associated with the Quadraphonic systems available before its introduction. It was created to allow a recorded musical
performance to be played back in a typical living room such that the original sound and environment in which the performance took place would be recreated [42] or in other words, it
was conceived as a system capable of recreating accurate 3D sound from original recordings
[113]. Furthermore, Ambisonics is capable of encoding (and then decoding) sound sources
from any direction in space, including vertically [41]. The following sections provide greater
details regarding both the recording and playback of an Ambisonic system.
Recording Stage
Various Ambisonic microphones can be used to capture the sound field. However, regardless
of the actual microphone used, the principles are the same. The microphone components
are arranged in such a manner such that they simulate a single omni-directional capsule
along with three “figure-of-eight” capsules, where one figure-of-eight capsule is pointing
left-right, the other front-back and the third one up-down. An illustration of a very popular Ambisonic B-Format microphone, the Soundfield, [43] is illustrated in Figure 2.9(a)
(a) Soundfield microphone.
(b) Soundfield directivity pattern.
Figure 2.9: Soundfield microphone (a) and its directivity (polar) pattern (b). Reprinted
from [41].
(Ambisonic B-Format is described below). As shown, four cardioid capsules are arranged
in a tetrahedral array to provide the pattern described above. A graphical illustration of
the polar pattern is provided in Figure 2.9(b).
The Ambisonic recording phase produces a four-channel signal (W, X, Y and Z components), collectively known as “B-Format”. The W component is the monaural signal
arising from the omni-directional capsule, while the X, Y and Z components result from
the three figure of eight capsules. The three figure of eight capsules are used to determine
the direction of the arriving sound while the omni-directional capsule provides an overall
level reference. Mathematically, the four components are encoded as follows:
Lef t + Right + F ront + Back + U p + Down
F ront − Back
Lef t − Right
U p − Down
With the use of the Soundfield microphone, the produced B-Format signal is processed
to provide a flat frequency response for all directions of incidence, a quality not shared
by conventional microphones [113]. In addition to surround sound capability, “B-Format”
allows for the encoding of height information as well, which is usually not included in other
surround sound systems, despite the fact that height information does improve the realism
Playback Stage
The decoding of Ambisonic signals offers considerable flexibility, allowing for any number of loudspeaker configurations, depending on the desired output. A minimum of four
loudspeakers is required to allow for horizontal localization (planar surround), eight loudspeakers can, in addition to planar surround, provide height information as well, thereby
permitting 3D localization (e.g. periphony or full sphere surround), while twelve loudspeakers can be used in a large room such as a movie hall or auditorium. Furthermore,
Ambisonics provides greater freedom with respect to loudspeaker placement for the playback of a soundfield (or sound event). Loudspeakers can be placed in any rectangular
configuration as long as the ratio of length vs. width of the rectangle does not exceed 2 : 1
[41]. The listener simply tells the decoder where the loudspeakers are located. Contrary to
other recording techniques, such as Quadraphonic, the playback loudspeakers certainly do
not have to be configured such that they correspond to the position of the sound sources
during the recording stage. In other words, there is no “one-to-one” mapping between the
recording microphones and the playback loudspeakers such that a playback loudspeaker
will simply output the sound received by its corresponding microphone, leading to a very
small “sweet spot”. As a result, with Ambisonics, the sweet spot is much bigger, allowing
for the “surround effect to be more pronounced and stable” over a wider listening area [42].
Furthermore, it also permits for the adjustment of the sweet spot, allowing the listener’s
position to be taken into account [23].
As described above, each of the four channels of the B-Format signals contain a combination of sum and difference signals, making it impractical for playback over standard
monaural or stereo systems. However, given the widespread availability of such equipment,
the UHJ hierarchy encoding system was developed to allow for the playback of Ambisonics
encoded sounds over the existing monaural and stereo equipment. With respect to encoding, UHJ carries the same information as the B-Format signal however, it offers more
flexibility when it comes to playback, allowing for several configurations depending on the
availability of loudspeakers and equipment. By ignoring the fourth channel, the UHJ decoder allows three loudspeakers to provide a high resolution horizontal surround signal,
while two channels provide “very effective” but less accurate horizontal surround. As with
B-Format, with the availability of four channels, 3D (periphonic) sound can be reproduced.
Finally, the UHJ decoder may be bypassed, allowing a two-channel UHJ signal to be treated
as a standard monaural or stereo signal [42]. The UHJ components are referred to as L,
R, T and Q. The L and R signals are used for stereo playback and are derived from the
W, X and Y components of the B-Format signal. The T component is used to permit the
complete reproduction of the W, X and Y B-Format signals and when four channels are
available, the Q component is mapped to the Z component of the B-Format signal (e.g.
provides height information) [113].
In addition to the benefits associated with Ambisonic encoded sound, as described by
Gardner [51], there are also several drawbacks associated with it. Although the Ambisonic
sweet spot is wider than most other systems, it does have a sweet spot, thereby limiting
its use. Furthermore, there is a distinct timbral artifact as the listeners move their head
near the sweet spot due to the fact that all speakers reproduce the omni-directional component. In addition, even when the original direction to the sound source corresponds to
the direction of one of the playback loudspeakers, rather than have all the sound come
from this one loudspeaker, the sound will be reproduced (erroneously) from more than one
Finally, although Ambisonics may not be the standard surround sound format, according to Elen [42], Ambisonics is “still alive” but has simply taken the “back seat” to Dolby
Surround and is still, presently, being used to create recordings. In addition, thanks to the
scheme developed by Gerzon and Barton [56] Ambisonics can also (in theory) be encoded
onto a DVD audio disk. Of course current DVD players support the Dolby Digital surround
sound format and therefore adding an Ambisonic decoder to a player would raise the price
of the player, something manufacturers are currently not willing to do.
Dolby Stereo
In the early 1970s, Dolby Laboratories introduced “Dolby A” noise reduction in an attempt
to improve the low quality sound in films at the time, thus bringing Dolby into the cinema
industry. In addition to noise reduction, Dolby was looking at other means of improving
the sound quality heard in cinema films. In 1978 Dolby introduced Dolby Stereo (also
referred to as Dolby Surround or Dolby MP) for 35mm films, based on optical sound-track
technology, a technology used to place monaural sound on film since the 1930s. As shown
in Figure 2.10, Dolby Stereo involved the use of four loudspeakers and basically changed
the Quadraphonic rectangular configuration consisting of front-left, front-right, rear-left
and rear-right into a diamond shape where the speakers were now left, center, right and
surround (L, C, R and S respectively) [77].
As previously described in Section 2.6, the three frontal loudspeakers provided good
localization for frontal sounds and for people seated to the left or right of the screen. The
surround channel was used to provide greater overall audio realism (e.g. “surround the
Figure 2.10: Dolby Stereo loudspeaker setup. The original Dolby Stereo format had four
loudspeakers (front-left, center, front-right and surround) arranged in a diamond shape
around the listener.
listener”). Its purpose was to deliver background sounds in order to convey environmental
context such as reverberation and other spatial sound effects [15].
Given that many theaters were equipped for monaural or stereo playback only, they
could not support Dolby stereo. Building on and improving the matrixing techniques
introduced for Quadraphonic systems, Dolby introduced their own encoder/decoder pair
allowing their Dolby Stereo format to be encoded into the traditional two-channel stereo
format and to be played back as stereo or monaural or with suitable equipment available,
decoded back into a four-channel format. The following sections provide greater detail
regarding the recording of Dolby Stereo sound as well as Dolby Stereo matrixing (encoding
and decoding stages).
Dolby Surround Recordings
Quadraphonic and Ambisonic recordings were made using specific microphones capable of
detecting sounds from more than one direction. This is not the only method available
to create surround sound recordings. Surround recordings (such as Dolby Stereo and the
other Dolby methods, described in the following sections), can also be produced by either
recording or creating synthetic versions of (e.g. using a computer) each of the desired
sounds (e.g. dialogue, special effects etc.) independently (possibly at different locations)
and then mixing each of the sounds in a mixing studio (e.g. assigning the sounds to the
Figure 2.11: Dolby Stereo encoding process. The four channels of the Dolby Stereo format are encoded as two-channels to allow compatibility with existing two-channel stereo
equipment. From [36].
Encoding Stage
Encoding of the four-channel Dolby Stereo format into a two-channel stereo format was accomplished using the Dolby MP (Motion Picture) matrix encoder. A graphical illustration
outlining the operation of the encoder is provided in Figure 2.11. The four Dolby Stereo
signals (L, C, R and S) are input and a two-channel stereo signal (or “total signal”) Lt and
Rt is output. The left (L) and right (R) Dolby Stereo signals are fed directly into the left
and right stereo outputs respectively without any modification. The center channel (C) is
divided equally but with a 3dB decrease in level, between the left and right stereo outputs.
Finally, the surround channel signal (S) is also divided equally to the left and right stereo
outputs. However, prior to doing so, the following operations are performed to it:
1. Bandpass filtering to allow frequencies in the range of 100Hz to 7kHz only.
2. Encoding with Dolby B noise reduction.
3. Signal is split into two parts: part one is phase shifted by +90o and added to the Lt
while the other part is phase shifted by −90o and added to Rt .
Since the left and right (L, R) Dolby signals are fed directly to the corresponding stereo
channels and remain completely independent, there is no loss of separation between the
left and right stereo outputs and between the center and surround signals [36].
Once the four-channel Dolby Stereo signal has been encoded, it may be stored, transported or played back on any two-channel supported equipment. However, in order to
take advantage of the four-channel configuration in which the particular sound event was
recorded and intended to be heard, the two-channel encoded stereo signal must be decoded
to retrieve the original four channels of information. The following section describes the
decoding process in greater detail.
Figure 2.12: Dolby Stereo decoding process. Obtaining the original Dolby Stereo signals
form the previously encoded two-channel stereo signals Lt and Rt . Reprinted from [36].
Decoding Stage
The four channels (L, C, R, S) may be recovered from the previously encoded left and right
signals Lt and Rt respectively, by essentially reversing the encoding process. The simplest
form of the decoding process is outlined in Figure 2.12 and is referred to as passive decoding.
The left and right encoded signals (L and R), are assigned (without modification) the left
and right encoded signals (Lt and Rt ) respectively. The encoded signals also contain the
center and surround channels, C and S respectively. The surround signal S is recovered by
taking the difference dt between Lt and Rt and performing the following steps to limit any
crosstalk between the front and rear loudspeakers:
1. Low pass filter the difference signal dt to avoid any aliasing
2. Delay dt by about 15 to 20ms
3. Low pass filter dt with a cut-off frequency of 7kHz
4. Apply Dolby noise reduction to the difference signal
During playback of the decoded signal, in the absence of a center channel (which is the
case with most passive decoder systems [36]), a “virtual source” will be formed between
the left and right loudspeakers and as such, no operations are required to recover the center
Given that the encoded stereo signals are passed unmodified and assigned to the left and
right decoded signals (L and R respectively), they will also contain the encoded surround
signal which is output during playback (e.g. no process is taken to eliminate the surround
signal from L and R or from Lt and Rt prior to assigning them to L and R). However, this
signal will be heard out of phase (e.g. recall during the encoding phase the surround signal
going to the left and right two-channel signals are 180o out of phase) leading to a diffuse
sound [36].
Dolby Pro Logic
Doblby Pro Logic, Dolby’s second generation of surround sound was introduced following
the original Dolby Stereo system. It was created to balance the improvements seen with
respect to the video presentation of home movies, such as increased video resolution and
larger screens. As with Dolby Surround, Pro Logic consists of four channels, left (L),
center (C), right (R) and surround (S) and in fact, uses the identical encoding matrix.
However, Pro Logic differs with respect to the decoding stage only, where it employs
“active decoding” as opposed to passive decoding used in the original Dolby Surround
system which employed a simple difference operation. Active decoding allows Dolby Pro
Logic to maintain a high separation (30dB) between all output channels and not only the
front channels as in the original Dolby surround decoding stage.
Dolby Digital
Dolby Digital, the newest “sound innovation” from Dolby, was first introduced in 1992 with
the film Batman Returns and made its way to home consumers in 1995 on multi-channel
Laser Disc (LD) format. It is based on the Dolby AC-3 method (a method of storing
and transmitting multi-channel audio in a fraction of the space needed for standard audio
signals) and allows for high flexibility with respect to several operating parameters (e.g. bit
rate, number of channels). As with analog Dolby Stereo systems, Dolby Digital includes
three front speakers, the left, center and right channels (L, C, R respectively) however,
rather than a single surround channel, as with Dolby Stereo, Dolby Digital includes one
or more independent surround channels, on each side of the listener in addition to a subwoofer used for the playback of low frequency effects (LFE) (this configuration is known
as 5.1 and is described in greater detail in the following section). The two independent
surround channels allow for “true stereo surround effects” leading to a greater sense of
depth, localization and overall realism [82].
Dolby Digital employs Dolby noise reduction to reduce noise levels when no audio signal
is present. In addition, this format also takes advantage of human listening, in particular
human auditory masking, whereby one sound may be made indistinguishable (non-audible)
in the presence of another sound [92]. According to Dolby [82], “Dolby Digital separates
the frequency spectrum of each channel into narrow frequency bands of different sizes
optimized with respect to the frequency selectivity of human hearing. This allows for
“sharp” filtering of any present noise, ensuring the frequency spectrum of the noise is close
to the frequency spectrum of the signal being coded to take advantage of audio masking,
leading to an overall reduction in noise thereby providing higher quality audio delivery”.
Being a digital format, signals are represented using bits. However, instead of representing each sample of a particular signal with a static number of bits (as done with standard
compact discs), Dolby Digital employs perceptual coding, whereby bits are distributed to
each frequency band as needed, ensuring a proper number of bits are used to code each
signal and the noise is properly masked. Channels with a wider frequency spectrum can
be allocated a greater number of bits. In contrast, the audio coding used for compact
disc (CD) format, requires a fixed number of bits per sample (16 bits), regardless of the
frequency bandwidth. Given the 48kHz sampling rate used in the CD audio coding, the
amount of data produced is too large to transmit and store even the standard two-channel
stereo configuration, let alone multi channel audio with, for example, six channels.
Dolby Digital is the standard multi channel surround sound format used in digital TV
broadcasts in the United States, digital cable and satellite transmissions. Furthermore,
it is the standard audio format for DVD in countries which employ the NTSC television
standard [82]. In addition, Dolby Digital offers great flexibility with respect to decoding,
allowing the signal to be decoded depending on the listener’s preference, budget and listening space [82]. This permits a Dolby encoded soundtrack to be heard on a monaural,
two-channel stereo, four-channel Dolby Surround or Dolby Digital Surround configurations.
Dolby 5.1
To many, the term “5.1” has become synonymous for and is often used to define surround
sound systems [113]. However, 5.1 simply refers to one of the many possible (although the
most widely used and most famous), surround sound system loudspeaker configurations.
It certainly does not define surround sound. The 5.1 configuration consists of six discrete
channels, was defined in 1987 and became commercially available in 1993 by Dolby Laboratories after several studies by film industry groups found a six speaker configuration
produced “satisfying results” in a cinema [67]. The 5.1 configuration (see Figure 2.13) consists of five discrete full bandwidth channels, (hence the 5 in “5.1”), left (L), center (C),
right (R), left surround (LS) and right surround (RS), each capable of conveying signals in
the range of 20Hz to 20kHz and a sixth, low frequency channel drives a sub-woofer in order
Figure 2.13: Dolby Digital surround 5.1 loudspeaker configurations according to the ITU-R
BS 775-1 recommended specification.
to convey low frequency effects (LFE) such as explosions and operates in the frequency
range of approximately 5Hz to 120Hz. Since this LFE channel requires a fraction of the full
range channel bandwidth, it is known as the “.1” channel and, hence, when combined with
the five full range channels, we have 5.1. Placement of the five, full range loudspeakers,
according to the International Telecommunications Union specification (ITU-R BS 775-1)
is illustrated in Figure 2.13. Since humans cannot localize such low frequency sounds, the
sub-woofer may be placed anywhere in the room [84].
Dolby Digital Surround EX
Dolby EX extends Dolby 5.1 by providing an additional surround loudspeaker, placed
directly in back of the listener between the existing left and right surround channels,
as shown in Figure 2.14(a). The rear surround channel is encoded onto the left and
right surround channels as it does not contain its own (discrete) channel. This ensures
backward compatibility with the 5.1 format. The addition of this rear surround channel
provides greater localization over the three surround channels, allowing for better effects,
in both home and cinema settings. This configuration is known as 6.1. Adding yet another
rear surround speaker yields a 7.1 system. As shown in Figure 2.14(b), the additional
two loudspeakers are placed between the two original surround loudspeakers of the 5.1
(a) Dolby Digital 6.1.
(b) Dolby Digital 7.1.
Figure 2.14: Dolby Digital Surround 6.1 and 7.1 loudspeaker configurations. (a) The 6.1
loudspeaker configuration is obtained by adding a loudspeaker in back of the listener,
between the two surround channels of the 5.1 configuration. (b) The 7.1 loudspeaker
configuration is obtained by adding two loudspeakers in back of the listener, between the
two surround channels of the 5.1 configuration.
Digital Theater Systems (DTS) Digital Surround
DTS Digital Surround is a 5.1 channel surround format. It is very similar to Dolby Digital,
consisting of up to five full bandwidth loudspeakers (front left (L), front center (C), front
right (R), surround left (LS) and surround right (RS)) and a sixth low frequency effects
channel (LFE). As with Dolby, it also employs perceptual coding, using the characteristics
of human hearing to reduce noise in order to produce a high quality audio output and
to also reduce the amount of data necessary to both transmit and store 5.1 channels of
The main difference between DTS and Dolby Digital is with respect to the supported
encoding data rates. DTS supports a much higher data rate (1.5Mbit/s), almost four
times the rate of Dolby Digital (448kbit/s). DTS also employs less audio compression than
Dolby Digital. This, along with the higher data rates, leads to, according to many home
theater enthusiasts and industry experts, “superior sound quality and clarity, far greater
than Dolby Digital”. However, DTS is certainly not as popular as Dolby Digital and the
available soundtracks and movie titles supporting this format is actually much smaller than
its counterpart.
The DTS format has also been extended to allow an additional surround channel. DTS
Extended Surround (DTS ES) is a 6.1 format, which is similar to Dolby 6.1, includes
an additional channel for a surround loudspeaker placed directly in back of the listener.
There are two version of DTS Extended Surround. The DTS Extended Surround Matrix
is simply a 5.1 channel format with the rear surround channel being encoded into the left
and right surround channels (e.g. there is no independent rear surround channel). The
other format, DTS Extended Discrete 6.1, allocates an independent (discrete) channel for
the rear surround loudspeaker. This format allows for greater sound localization over the
three surround channels. Finally, a DTS ES soundtrack can be played back on a DTS 5.1
setup (e.g. it is backward compatible). The rear surround is simply ignored by the 5.1
format decoder.
Chapter 3
Simulating Audio in a Virtual
In this chapter, several techniques used to simulate or recreate, the audio localization cues
presented in Section 1.2, to allow for 3D sound in a virtual environment, will be introduced.
The chapter begins with a discussion of modeling of ITD cues using a spherical head model
as well as an anthropomorphic manikin, followed by a description of binaural audio and an
in depth discussion on the techniques available for the measurement of the Head Related
Transfer Functions (HRTFs). Finally, several of the more common methods used to include
reverberation cues and model a room’s acoustics are described.
Modeling the ITD
A model to predict the ITD for a sound source located on the horizontal plane was presented
by Woodworth [156]. This model assumed a spherical head without any external ears and
a sound source at an infinite distance away located on the horizontal plane. Given these
two assumptions, the ITD τdelay , can be calculated as follows:
τdelay = (θ + sin θ)
where, as illustrated in Figure 3.1, θ is the azimuth angle of the sound source, c is the
speed of sound and a is the radius of the sphere representing the head. This formula is
valid for angular frequencies (e.g. frequencies expressed in radians per second), which are
greater than a/c and is actually very close to the exact theoretical solution even when the
source is near the sphere as opposed to an infinite distance away [37]. According to Kuhn
[78] however, this model is applicable for “steady state” high frequency signals and clicks
Figure 3.1: Woodworth’s prediction of the ITD based on a spherical head model. Reprinted
from [1].
Another model for the prediction of ITDs on the azimuthal plane was proposed by Kuhn
[78]. As opposed to Woodworth’s model, this model is based on ITD measurements on an
anthropomorphic manikin comprised of a head and torso and is also frequency dependent.
For low frequencies, the ITD τlow is modeled by the following formula:
τlow =
sin θ
where a is the radius of the head, c is the speed of sound and θ is the azimuth angle of
the sound source. This formula is valid provided 2πaf
<< 1. For higher frequency sounds,
where c >> 1, the ITD τhigh is modeled by the following formula:
τhigh =
sin θ
Very few studies have been conducted to investigate the dependence of elevation on the
ITD. However, the few results available do indicate an inverse relationship between ITD
and elevation whereby as elevation increases, the ITD decreases [68]. A spherical head
model to predict ITD values and also account for elevation was presented by Larcher and
Jot [83]. In this formulation, the ITD τdelay is calculated as:
τdelay = τcontralateral − τipsilateral
(sin−1 (cos φ sin θ) + cos φ sin θ)
τdelay =
where τcontralateral and τipsilateral is the time required for the sound to reach the contralateral and ipsilateral ears respectively, θ and φ are the angles of azimuth and elevation
Duda et. al. [37] present a model for predicting ITDs based on an ellipsoidal model
of the head with offset ears which produces correct variations of ITDs with respect to
both azimuth and elevation. The ellipsoidal model does however require values for five
parameters, measured from the listener’s head.
Although three-dimensional (spatial) sound systems incorporating interaural (ITD and/or
ILD) cues only are fairly simple to model and implement, they generally produce poor results, providing limited sound spatialization capabilities (usually restricting sound source
localization to the horizontal plane). As with human hearing in a natural setting, localization improvements can be made by incorporating HRTFs into the system.
Binaural Synthesis
Rather than recording the signal present at the ears for a particular listening situation as
done with binaural recordings (as described in section 2.5.1), binaural synthesis imitates
the binaural recording process by processing (“convolving”) a monaural sound source with
a pair of left and right ear HRTFs corresponding to the desired position p~, measured
(typically) in an anechoic room.
The measured HRTFs will form the coefficients of a FIR filter. The signal delivered to
the left and right ears can be obtained using a filtering operation whereby the signal delivered to the left and right ears is obtained by filtering (through the process of convolution),
the monaural sound with the coefficients corresponding to the measured left and right ear
HRTF response respectively. When the filtered sounds are presented to the user either
through headphones or loudspeakers, it will give them the impression of a sound source
at the desired position. Measurement of HRTFs and the limitations and problems associated with such a procedure are described in Section 3.3. Convolution is unfortunately an
extremely computationally expensive technique, especially when computed directly using
FIR filters, greatly limiting the performance of any real time 3D audio system. Improvements can be made using block methods which are based on the Fast Fourier Transform
(see [135]). Block methods however introduce a significant amount of delay to the system,
once again limiting their usefulness. An efficient convolution method using a combination
of both direct form and block convolution which does not introduce any delay, has been
developed by Gardner [52]. Given the efficiency of this method, it can be used to allow for
real-time auralization.
HRTF Measurement
It is typically assumed that HRTFs can be modeled as linear time invariant (LTI) systems
[26]. As a result, a common technique used to measure an individual’s left and right ear
HRTF for a sound source at a position p~ relative to the user, is to output a signal s(n)
with known spectrum (e.g. impulse such as a clicking noise, white Gaussian noise), from
a loudspeaker placed at position p~ and measure the resulting impulse response hL and hR
using small probe microphones inserted in the vicinity of the individual’s left and right
ear canals respectively [15]. The responses hL and hR as measured at each ear are in
the time domain. The time domain representation of the HRTF is known as the Head
Related Impulse Response (HRIR) [49]. Applying the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT)
to the time domain impulse responses hL and hR results in the left HL (f, θ, φ, d) and right
HR (f, θ, φ, d) ear HRTF respectively, where, as described in Section 1.2.2, θ and φ are the
azimuth and elevation of the sound source respectively, f is the frequency and d is the
distance to the sound source.
As given above, a particular HRTF is specified by four parameters, azimuth (θ), elevation (φ), frequency (f ) and distance (d). However, as described in Section 1.1.2, distances
greater than approximately 1m (e.g. a far field acoustical model), have a minimal effect on
the measured response [51] and therefore, provided the distance to the source is at least
one meter, distance can be ignored. When the sound source distance is closer than about
one meter however (e.g. the source is in the near field) and the HRTF is dependent on the
distance to the sound source and therefore, source distance cannot be ignored [20].
To minimize the effect of reverberation on the accuracy of the measurement of the impulse response, HRTF measurements are usually obtained in an anechoic chamber. HRTF
measurements can be made in a “normal” reverberant room and therefore the HRTF will
include reverberation effects (e.g. binaural synthesis including reverberation). However,
this will limit the auditory display to simulating that one particular room in which the
response was measured. Furthermore, throughout the HRTF measurement process, the
individual should (ideally) remain motionless as even small head or body movements can
degrade the measured response (e.g. the measured response may no longer correspond to
the desired position). However, since it is difficult to have a human subject stay completely
motionless during the measurements process, as described in Section 3.3.2, an anthropomorphic “dummy head” is usually used instead.
A major problem associated with the measurement of HRTFs is the large variation
between the HRTFs across different subjects, which, according to Carlile [24], results from
a number of factors, including the following:
Variation of Each Person’s Pinnae: The physical make-up of each person’s pinnae differs, leading to differences in the filtering effects and therefore the measured HRTFs.
Differences in the Measurement Procedures: Currently there is no single standard
approach for measuring the HRTFs [15] and as a result, the procedure itself varies
widely. A major concern relates to the position within the outer ear at which the
HRTF should be measured. Although measurements of the response can be recorded
anywhere within the ear canal, one should place the microphone as close as possible
to the eardrum to avoid the reflections of the incoming sound by the eardrum itself
Perturbations of the Soundfield by the Measuring Instruments: The
microphone used to measure the response may itself interfere with the measurement.
Despite the fact that the microphones used are rather small (e.g. less than 5mm in
diameter), they can perturb the soundfield, especially at high frequencies [24].
Variations in the Relative Position of the Head: HRTFs may be very sensitive to
variations in the subject’s head position, where even small head movement during
the measurement procedure can result in a large variation in the HRTF measurements
within one subject.
Another problem with measuring HRTFs is due to the fact that the task of actually
measuring the HRTF is for one particular position only. This process should (ideally)
be repeated for every possible position in three-dimensional space. This is obviously impractical as the task of actually collecting HRTF measurements is both tedious and time
consuming. Furthermore, it would require a great amount of storage, especially when the
number of measurements is large. Rather, for practical considerations, HRTFs are sampled
at a number of discrete positions around the individual. This sampling in turn results in
further problems. Since the HRTFs are collected at discrete positions, there will surely
be positions which contain no corresponding measured HRTF impulse response. Various
techniques have been developed to deal with such non-sampled positions including simply
using the HRTF corresponding to the position closest to the intended (target) position or,
as described in the following section, interpolating between a set of HRTF measurements.
Interpolation of HRTFs
The simplest interpolation technique is linear interpolation whereby the desired HRTF is
obtained by taking a liner average of the neighboring HRTFs. This technique results in
HRTFs which are acoustically different when compared to the actual measured HRTF of
the desired target location [79]. However, according to Wenzel et. al. [154], localization
accuracy is not affected by linear interpolation of nonindividualized HRTFs even with a
large interval separating the sampled HRTF measurements. They believe that despite the
error associated with interpolation of HRTFs, this error is smaller relative to the error
associated with the use of nonindividualized HRTFs as opposed to individualized HRTFs.
Various other interpolation techniques can also be used, such as the more complex
spline interpolation techniques, used in various other fields, including computer graphics
[64]. Regardless the interpolation technique actually used, some method is needed to
handle the fact that it is clearly impractical to measure and store HRTF responses for each
location (direction) in space relative to the listener.
The Use of Non-individualized (“Generic”) HRTFs
The pinnae of each person differ with respect to size, shape and general make-up, leading to
differences in the filtering of the sound source spectrum, particularly at higher frequencies.
The higher frequencies are attenuated by a greater amount when the sound source is to
the rear of listener as opposed to the front of the listener. In the 5kHz to 10kHz frequency
range, the HRTFs of individuals can differ by as much as 28dB [151]. This high frequency
filtering is an important cue to source elevation perception and in resolving front-back
ambiguities [114, 115, 90, 148, 15]. The unique filtering effects performed by each person’s
pinnae results in a differing set of HRTFs, where the differences are large enough to warrant
the use of individualized HRTF measurements in a spatial sound system [24]. Best results
are achieved when an individuals own HRTFs are used [148].
Despite the benefits which may be offered to a listener through the use of individualized HRTFs, the process of collecting a set of an individualized HRTFs is an extremely
difficult, time consuming, tedious and delicate process requiring the use of special equipment and environments, such as an anechoic chamber. Furthermore, although researchers
are actively pursuing methods and techniques to accurately measure and gather HRTF
responses, currently, there is no single scientifically accurate method for doing so [15]. It
is therefore very impractical to use individualized HRTFs and as a result, generalized (or
generic) nonindividualized HRTFs are used instead. Nonindividiualized HRTFs can be obtained using a variety of methods such as measuring the HRTFs of an anthropomorphic
“dummy” head, or of an above average human localizer or averaging the HRTFs measured
from several different individuals (and/or “dummy heads”). However, studies indicate that
these nonindividualized HRTFs reduce localization accuracy, especially with respect to elevation. Wenzel et. al. [149] examined the effect of nonindividualized HRTFs measured
from average listeners where presented to listeners who were “good localizers”. They found
nonindividualized HRTFs resulted in a degradation of the subjects’ ability to determine
the elevation of a sound source. A similar study performed by Begault and Wenzel [14],
in which subjects localized a speech stimuli as opposed to broadband noise, as used in the
previous study, resulted in a decrease in elevation judgments as well [24].
In addition to the filtering effects introduced by the pinnae, HRTFs are also affected
by the head, torso and shoulders of the individual, leading to further degradations when
using nonindividualized HRTFs. Regardless of the method used to obtain the set of nonindividualized HRTFs, the performance of the auditory display will be greatly reduced
when the size of the listener’s head differs greatly from the size of the head used to obtain
the HRTF measurements (dummy head or person) [74].
HRTF Measurements Obtained with an Anthropomorphic Dummy Head
In order to eliminate the possibility of errors in the collected HRTFs due to subject head or
body movements and to overcome the fact that it is a long and tedious process for any human subject participant, rather than using human subjects to collect HRTF measurements,
an anthropomorphic manikin can be used instead. Begault [15] provides a description of
several dummy heads, including the popular and widely used, Knowles Electronics KEMAR (Knowles Electronic Mannequin for Acoustic Research) standard anthropomorphic
dummy head. The KEMAR consists of a head, torso and pinnae (see Figure 3.2), obtained
from human median measurements [22] and contains removable pinnae to allow for the use
of different pinnae models.
HRTF Measurements From an Above Average Localizer
Given the variation of the pinnae filtering effects amongst individuals, it seems intuitive
that there exists variation amongst the localization ability and accuracy amongst individuals. There are people who are “good localizers”, capable of producing accurate azimuth
and elevation localization results while others are “poor localizers”, who demonstrate little
localization ability. It may then seem plausible that non-individualized HRTFs obtained
from good localizers may improve the localization accuracy of average or poor localizers.
Evidence does suggest this is the case. A study by Wenzel et. al. [149] examined whether
HRTFs obtained from a good localizer could improve the localization accuracy of real
sound sources for a poor localizer. The HRTFs of both the good and poor localizers were
measured. When synthesizing the sound source with their own (individualized) HRTFs,
as expected, the good localizers produced accurate localization results while the poor localizers showed poor localization results. Similarly, when presenting the sound source to
Figure 3.2: KEMAR Mannequin. The KEMAR (Knowles Electronic Mannequin for Acoustic Research) is often used to obtain HRTF measurements. Reprinted from [74].
the good localizers using HRTFs obtained from other good localizers, accuracy decreased
only slightly. When presenting the sound source to the good localizers using HRTFs from
a poor localizer, the localization accuracy decreased substantially. However, localization
accuracy was improved for the poor localizers when using HRTFs obtained from good
localizers. Similar results were found in a more comprehensive study also performed by
Wenzel et. al. [148], investigating the two-dimensional localization accuracy of 16 inexperienced localizers using nonindividualized HRTFs obtained from a “good” localizer. For
14 of the 16 subjects, localization accuracy of virtual sources presented over headphones
using the nonindividualized HRTFs was comparable to the localization of a real sound
source presented without headphones and any HRTF processing (e.g. sound source in the
free-field). Furthermore, their results also suggest that the use of nonindividualized HRTF
measurements results primarily in an increase in the front-back confusions.
HRTFs Obtained by Averaging the Response of Several Listeners
In this method, a nonindividualized HRTF dataset is obtained by averaging the Fourier
domain representation of the HRTF measurements of several human and/or anthropomorphic manikin. The motivation behind this method is to remove (through the averaging
process) any distinct spectral features of any one individual’s HRTF response [15]. One
drawback of this technique is that the time consuming, tedious and delicate process of
collecting the HRTF responses must be repeated for every one of the subjects included in
the averaged dataset.
Rather than restricting an auditory display to a single dataset of HRTF measurements,
several datasets, obtained using either of the methods previously described (e.g. averaged,
good localizer or anthropomorphic dummy), can be used and for each user of the display,
a single HRTF dataset is chosen based on some criteria to allow for maximum accuracy.
This is the approach taken by the 3D sound system of Chong et. al. [138], in which sounds
are synthesized using one of several available HRTF datasets, depending on the user. Prior
to using the sound system, a listener test is presented to the user. The test evaluates the
user’s localization performance using each of the six datasets. The dataset resulting in the
highest accuracy is chosen and will be used by the system to synthesize a sound source(s)
for this particular user.
Available HRTF Datasets
Given the difficult and tedious task associated with the measurement of HRTFs, very few
HRTF datasets exist. Furthermore, given the potential expense associated with collecting
a dataset of HRTFs, researchers and companies who take the initiative to actually collect
a set of HRTFs, may be reluctant to share with others. Fortunately however, several
HRTF datasets have been made freely available to the research community. The following
sections provide greater details regarding three such HRTF sets, the dataset from MIT’s
Media Laboratory of Perceptual Computing, measured by Gardner et. al. [55], the CIPIC
HRTF dataset measured by Algazi et. al. [1] and the LISTEN HRTF dataset measured as
part of the Listen project [70].
MIT KEMAR HRTF Measurements
This set of “raw”, unprocessed HRTFs were measured using the anthropomorphic dummy
KEMAR. The KEMAR was equipped with two different pinnae models (each of the two ears
had its own model), and as described below, this allowed for the simultaneous measurement
of two HRTF sets, one set for each corresponding pinnae model.
The KEMAR was mounted on an electronically controlled turntable capable of being
rotated 360o and placed in an anechoic chamber, at a distance of 1.4m from the sound
source (a Realistic Optimus Pro 7 loudspeaker). The loudspeaker itself was positioned on an
electronically controlled “boom”, allowing it to be positioned at any elevation relative to the
KEMAR. By placing the loudspeaker at some specific elevation and azimuth with respect
to the KEMAR, the HRTF measurement corresponding to that particular position was
obtained by outputting a sound through the loudspeaker and recording the sound with a
probe microphone in each of the ear canals of the KEMAR. In total, 710 measurements were
sampled, one elevation at a time, by moving the loudspeaker to some particular elevation,
from −40o to 90o (in 10o increments) and rotating the KEMAR a total of 360o , in equal
Elevation Total Measurements
Azimuth Increment
Table 3.1: Resolution of the KEMAR HRTF measurements. Each row lists the number of
azimuth samples obtained at the corresponding elevation.
increments for each elevation. The increment size was chosen to “maintain approximately
5o great-circle increments” [55]. Table 3.1 illustrates the azimuth increments for each
elevation. The impulse response measured at each ear contains a total of 16, 383 samples,
sampled at a rate of 44, 100Hz. and stored as 16-bit integers (type “short”).
Although for each HRTF measurement the measured response was 16, 383 samples long,
not all samples are included in the dataset. Rather, each response has been reduced to
512 samples. Since sound does not travel instantaneously, it does take (a small) amount
of time for the sound to travel from the speaker to the ear. Also, there is an additional
delay of 50 samples introduced by the measurement system. As a result, the first 200
samples were discarded to account for this (e.g. assuming a speed of 345m/s for sound
waves traveling through air, the time in number of samples to reach the ear is 344m/s
= 180
samples). Similarly, the last 15, 671 samples have been discarded to avoid corruption of
the measurement with respect to reverberation caused by reflection of the sound waves
with other objects in the anechoic chamber, including the KEMAR itself, the boom and
the turntable. A sample of the magnitude (in dB) and phase of two HRTF measurements
are illustrated in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. In particular, the response for the sound source at
elevation 0o and azimuth 0o is shown in Figure 3.3, while the response for the sound source
positioned at elevation 40o and azimuth 90o is illustrated in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.3: MIT KEMAR HRTF measurement for the sound source positioned at 0o elevation and 0o azimuth. Magnitude, in dB (top) and phase (bottom).
Figure 3.4: MIT KEMAR HRTF measurement for the sound source positioned at 40o
elevation and 90o azimuth. Magnitude, in dBs (top) and phase (bottom).
In addition to the complex interactions between the sound waves and the KEMAR
(pinnae, torso etc.) the impulse response contains the response of the measurement system
as well (speaker, amplifiers, environment etc.) and may produce poor results when used in
a spatial display. However, as described in Section 3.3.4, the HRTFs may be equalized to
compensate for these unwanted effects.
As mentioned, the KEMAR was fitted with a different pinnae model for each ear and
the impulse response was measured simultaneously at each ear. Given identical pinnae, the
HRTF measurements would have been symmetrical and rather than sampling the entire
360o azimuth, sampling 180o of the azimuth plane would suffice, as the left ear response for
a sound source at an azimuth of θ would be 360o − θ. Given the entire 360o sampling used
to construct this HRTF dataset, this symmetry property cannot be exploited. Rather, the
HRTF measurements for each azimuth must be obtained from the same pinnae. This can be
accomplished in a similar manner, by choosing the left ear response for a sound source at an
azimuth of θ, to be 360o −θ (the right ear response is the response at θ). Furthermore, since
the measurements were obtained using a single pinna, there is no ITD between the left and
right ear responses. If required, ITD cues must be added by the system. Details regarding
how to actually access a desired HRTF response from the dataset (e.g. file/directory names
etc.) may be found in [55].
Finally, in addition to the HRTF measurements, the responses of the measurement
system (e.g. loudspeaker, microphones, electronics equipment and headphones) are also included separately and as described in Section 3.3.4, can be used to “equalize” each HRTF
measurement (e.g. remove the measurement system response from the HRTF measurement).
The CIPIC HRTF Database
The publicly available CIPIC HRTF database [1] consists of 45 individual HRTF datasets
obtained from 43 different human subjects (27 men and 16 women) and a KEMAR mannequin (with two different pinnae models). For each subject, a total of 1, 250 measurements
were taken at each ear, 25 different azimuths and 50 different elevations. For this dataset,
an “interaural-polar coordinate” system was used as opposed to the “vertical coordinate
system” introduced in Section 1.1.3. As shown in Figures 3.5a,b, in the interaural polar
coordinate system the origin is defined at the center of the head between the ears. As with
the single and double polar coordinate systems, sound source locations are given by specifying azimuth and elevation angles (θ and φ respectively) in addition to range r. However,
in this coordinate system, azimuth measures the angle between the vertical median plane
and a vector to the sound source while elevation measures the angle from the horizontal
plane to a plane through the source and the x axis (the interaural axis) [1]. In this dataset,
azimuth angles were at −80o , −65o , −55o , from −45o to 45o in increments of 5o , 55o , 65o
Figure 3.5: Interaural polar coordinate system used to obtain the CIPIC HRTF measurements. Reprinted from [1].
and 80o to +80o . Elevation ranged from −45o to +230.625o , equally sampled in 6.625o increments. Each of the measurements contains 200 samples, sampled at a rate of 44, 100kHz.
In addition, the measurements were also equalized to account for the measurement system
as well as the microphone and loudspeaker used in the measurement phase (see Section
3.3.4 for more details regarding the equalization of HRTFs).
The microphone was placed just outside the ear canal entrance and as such, the response of the ear canal is not included. Finally, included with the database are detailed
anthropomorphic measurements (e.g. head width, head height, shoulder width etc.) for
each subject.
The LISTEN HRTF Database
This publicly available dataset consists of the HRTF measurements of 49 human subjects
and was made available towards the end of 2002 by Ircam (Institute de Recherche et Coordination Acoustique/Musique) and AKG Acoustics (manufacturer of studio microphones and
broadcast equipment), as part of the LISTEN project [40, 39]. The database is periodically
updated with the addition of HRTF measurements from new subjects.
The measurements were made in an anechoic chamber. A graphical illustration of the
anechoic chamber and the equipment set-up is available in Figure 3.6. The subject was
seated on a “common office chair” which was itself mounted on a computer controlled
turntable, capable of rotating 360o (see Figure 3.6(b)). A single loudspeaker (TANNOY
System 600 driven by a YAMAHA amplifier), mounted on U-shaped crane, was used to
output the impulsive sound (see Figure 3.6(a)). The elevation of the loudspeaker was set
by adjusting (via computer) the elevation of the crane. For each loudspeaker elevation, the
(a) Loudspeaker, crane, subject.
(b) Actual set-up.
Figure 3.6: LISTEN HRTF measurement set-up. The loudspeaker is mounted to a computer controlled crane. (a) The elevation of the crane is then adjusted to the desired
elevation and for each elevation, the subject is rotated to appropriate azimuth and the
measurement is taken. (b) Actual photograph of the set-up. Reprinted from [70].
chair was rotated to the appropriate azimuth angle and a pair (left and right ear) HRTF
measurements were made. As with the MIT KEMAR dataset previously described, the
number of azimuth settings varied depending on the elevation. Table 3.2 summarizes the
azimuth increments for each elevation.
In total, for each subject, the HRTF measurements of 187 discrete locations were made.
The response was measured using a pair of very small (e.g. 2.54mm diameter with a height
of 2.54mm) blocked-meatus microphones (Knowles FG3329). The microphones were held
firmly in place with silicon putty. Blocked-meatus microphones are meant to be inserted
into the ear canal and although they do not capture any ear canal resonance, according
to, Brown and Duda, it is generally believed that they capture the direction dependent
components of the HRTF [17].
For each subject, the “raw”, non-equalized data as well as the equalized data, both
in MicrosoftT M WAV and MatlabT M formats, are available. Non-equalized measurements
consist of the entire HRTF measurement, a total of 8192 samples (e.g. 0.186s duration) and
include the response of the measurement system and equipment (see Section 3.3.4). The
equalized dataset was obtained by removing a portion of the start/end of the measurement
to avoid any propagation delays through windowing and equalizing the measurement using
diffuse field equalization (see Section 3.3.4). The equalized measurements are 512 samples long (e.g. 0.012s duration). Included with the dataset is an “information database”
which provides information related to the subject, the measurement environment and the
measurement system and equipment (e.g. subject’s age and hair style, the dimensions of
Elevation Total Measurements
Azimuth Increment
Table 3.2: Resolution of the LISTEN HRTF measurements. Each row lists the number of
azimuth samples obtained at the corresponding elevation.
the anechoic room the measurements took place, the distance between the subject and the
loudspeaker etc.). Finally, in the future, anthropomorphic data for each subject will also
be made available.
Equalization of the HRTF Impulse Response
In addition to containing the actual impulse response hactual [n] due to the head, pinnae,
torso and shoulders, the measured HRTFs hmeasured [n], include the impulse response m[n]
due to the loudspeaker, headphones and electronic measurement system [51]. Mathematically,
hmeasured [n] = hactual [n] ∗ m[n] or
Hmeasured (ejω ) = Hactual (ejω ) × M (ejω )
where X(ejω ) is the Discrete Fourier transform of the finite signal x[n] and “∗” denotes
convolution. For a spatial auditory system incorporating HRTFs, it is hactual [n] which is
desired and not a response which has been modified in any way, including the introduction
of m[n], as such modifications will negatively affect the performance of the system. Various
equalization methods have been developed in order to compensate for (remove) the response
of the measurement and playback systems. These methods typically involve “filtering” the
HRTF measurements with the inverse of a filter Hf ilter (ejω ) which includes the un-wanted
components, including the measurement system response. In the frequency domain, the
filtering can be performed by multiplying each HRTF response Hmeasured (ejω ) by the inverse
of Hf ilter (ejω ):
Hactual (ejω ) = Hmeasured (ejω ) ×
Hf ilter (ejω )
Below is a summary of three methods which can be used to obtain the filter Hf ilter (ejω )
Measurement Equalization: HRTFs are equalized with respect to the response of the
measurement system, which is obtained by measuring the response at the position
corresponding to the center of the head without the head present. The response
should be measured using the same microphone and equipment which were used
to obtain the actual HRTF measurements. Since an HRTF measurement ideally
represents the interaction between a sound and the head torso and pinnae, measuring
the response without the head (real person or “dummy” head) present should provide
the response of the measurement equipment, including the loudspeaker, amplifiers,
A/D cards and microphone (i.e. m[n] as described above) which is present in all
measurements of the dataset.
Free-Field Equalization: The HRTFs are equalized with respect to one of the measured HRTFs. Since the measured HRTF contains the response of the measurement
system, when equalizing with respect to one measurement, the unwanted measurement response will be removed while the directional components will (ideally) remain
Diffuse-Field Equalization: Equalize each of the HRTFs with respect to the diffuse field
average. The diffuse field average, HDF (ejω ) is obtained by averaging the power of
the HRTFs measured at all locations. Mathematically, the magnitude of the diffuse
field average response is obtained as follows (phase is ignored) [51]:
u1 X
|Hi (ejω )|2
Hf ilter (e ) = |HDF (e )| =
N i=1
where, N is the total number of HRTFs measured and Hi (ejω ) is the HRTF measured
at location i. Since the diffuse field signal is an average of all the measured HRTFs,
it will contain components common to all the HRTFs, including the response of the
measurement system. When equalizing a measured HRTF with this average (e.g. by
multiplying the HRTF by the inverse of HDF ), all “common” components will be
eliminated, leaving only the (desired) directional components which are specific to
the position of interest.
Adding Reverberation and Modeling of Room Acoustics
Given the benefits reverberation has to offer (e.g. the direct to reverberant ratio can be
used as an absolute cue to distance estimation and adding a spatial feeling to sound),
incorporating reverberation into a virtual auditory display seems obvious. Indeed, adding
reverberation to an auditory display can be advantageous for several reasons. For example, it will improve distance estimation accuracy and create a more realistic sounding
environment [127], Furthermore, as described by Begault [15], without reverberation, the
auditory display can only output sounds as in an anechoic environment, thereby lacking
any realism. In addition, as described in Section 4.1, reverberation will also allow for the
externalization of a sound source presented over headphones. Despite the benefits reverberation offers however, it also has its share of drawbacks. Most importantly, as previously
described, the reflections reaching a listener will vary depending on the geometry of the
room, the material composition of the walls, ceiling and floor, objects present in the room
and the listeners position in the room. However, exactly imitating these complex interactions of the reflected waves, especially with systems in which any of the room parameters
may be updated in real time, is extremely computationally intensive, making the simulation of a “true” realistic reverberant environment impossible, with the computers and DSP
technology currently available [127].
Two basic techniques are available to enable the inclusion of reverberation in a virtual
auditory display. With auralization techniques, the desired listening environment is recreated by determining the reflection patterns of any sound waves in the environment, using
either physical or mathematical modeling. Rather than relying on such models, reverberation can also be added using artificial techniques. These techniques are not necessarily
concerned with recreating the exact reflections of any sound waves in the environment.
Rather, they “artificially” recreate reverberation by simply presenting the listener with
delayed and attenuated versions of a sound source, where the delays and attenuation factors do not necessarily reflect the physical properties of the environment being simulated.
These factors are chosen by “trial and error”, adjusting these settings until a desirable
effect is achieved [33]. Greater details regarding artificial reverberation techniques can be
found in [33, 122, 121, 72, 53]. The following section will examine auralization techniques
in greater details.
According to Kleiner et. al. [76], auralization is defined as “the process of rendering audible,
by physical or mathematical modeling, the soundfield of a source in space, in such a way
as to simulate the binaural listening experience at a given position in the modeled space”.
The goal of auralization is to recreate a particular listening environment by determining
the reflection patterns of sound waves emanated from a sound source(s) as they propagate
through the environment. This is accomplished by computing the binauaral room impulse
response (BRIR).
In a manner similar to the measurement of HRTFs, the response of a “real” room
can be measured. This is accomplished by outputting a sound with known characteristics
through a loudspeaker positioned somewhere in the room and measuring the response with
a microphone positioned elsewhere in the room. The microphone captures the direct sound
emitted by the source as well as any reflections (both early and late) which may arise, or
in other words, it can capture the room acoustics for that particular sound source and listener (microphone) configuration. The measured response is known as the Binaural Room
Impulse Response (BRIR), and captures the reflection properties, sound attenuation and
absorption properties of a particular room configuration. As with HRTF measurements,
the BRIR can then be used to filter a monaural sound source (e.g. using convolution in the
time domain or multiplication in the frequency domain) and when this processed sound
is presented to the listener, the original acoustic environment is reproduced. Figure 3.7
provides a graphical illustration of an actual impulse response measured in a “standard
classroom” [125]. This process is for one specific room configuration with the sound source
and listener at some particular position and as a result, only this particular configuration
can be re-created. Changes in the position of the sound source, listener, objects in the
room or room configuration (e.g. introduction of new objects in the room), will potentially
result in a change of reflection patterns reaching the listener and therefore, the BRIR may
no longer be valid. As with HRTF measurements, the BRIR can be sampled at various
locations of the room and during any changes in the virtual environment simulation, some
form of look-up and interpolation can be used to determine the appropriate BRIR.
Once the BRIR has been obtained, it is then used to filter a monaural sound and this
filtered sound is presented to the listener. As with HRTFs, this filtering is accomplished
using convolution in the time domain or multiplication in the frequency domain.
The BRIR for a particular environment can be obtained using either acoustic scale
modeling or computer modeling. In the acoustic scale modeling technique, three dimensional
Figure 3.7: Binaural room impulse response measured in a “standard classroom”. Right
ear with a sound source positioned at 45o azimuth, 0o elevation and at a distance of 1m.
Taken from [125].
scaled down actual material models of a particular environment are built and used to
examine the acoustical properties of the real environment and ultimately measure the
BRIR. These methods allow for the correct inclusion of all the room effects, including
scattering and diffraction of the sound waves as they encounter surfaces in the environment
rather than relying on mathematical approximations as done with the computer modeling
techniques [76]. Measurement of the BRIR can also be made using a dummy head or a
human listener. The measured BRIR in this case will include the HRTF response as well.
This is in fact the process used to measure binaural recordings (see Section 2.5.1), which
themselves are a form of BRIRs.
With computer modeling techniques, the BRIR is predicted (modeled) using some form
of mathematical model and a computer. This technique can be divided into two categories,
wave-based modeling and ray-based modeling [118]1 .
With wave-based methods, the objective is to solve the wave equation (also known
as the Helmholtz equation) in order to completely recreate a particular soundfield. An
analytical solution to the wave equation however is rarely feasible [118], thereby limiting its
use. Wave-based methods using Numerical approximation, such as finite element methods
Actually, Savioja [118] includes a third category called statistical modeling. However, described in
[118], statistical modeling is primarily applied to “predict noise levels in coupled systems in which sound
transmission by structures is an important factor” and hence not suitable for auralization.
(FEM), boundary element methods (BEM) and finite difference time domain methods
(FDTD) can however be used [118].
In ray-based modeling, the propagation paths taken by the sound waves as they travel
from the sound source to the receiver (listener), are found by following “rays” emitted by
the source. While traveling in the environment, these rays may interact with any number
of surfaces in the environment (e.g. reflected when they encounter a wall). As they travel
and interact with objects in the environment, certain physical effects, such as absorption
of the sound by the medium (air), decrease in the wave’s intensity and absorption of
the wave by the surface it interacts with, may be accounted for. Finally, the BRIR is
obtained by “collecting” the rays actually reaching the receiver. The ray-based methods
are not completely valid as they completely ignore the wavelength of sound waves as well
as any phenomena associated with it (e.g. diffraction) [80]. For example, the wavelength
of very low frequency sounds can be large, and can actually “bend” around certain objects
whose dimension happens to be smaller than the wavelength of the sound wave. These
methods are therefore valid only when dealing with sound wavelengths which are smaller
than the dimensions of the objects in the environment but larger than the roughness of
these objects [68]. Furthermore, as described by Kleiner et. al. [76], these methods can
be rather complicated for all but very simple, theoretically ideal cases. Greater details
regarding each of these methods are provided in the following sections.
Image Source Method
The image source method [2] is used to determine the path followed by low order specular
reflections (e.g. a reflection in which the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence)
[64]. A virtual sound source “copy” Si of the original source S is created at a position
obtained by mirroring the original sound source over each polygon surface of a room [47].
Reflections up to any order can produced by recursively repeating this procedure. A
graphical illustration of the image source method is illustrated in Figure 3.8. For example,
referring to Figure 3.8, after creating the first virtual sound source S1 by mirroring the
original source, a second order reflection can be created by treating S1 as an “original”
source and then mirroring it to create another virtual source S2 and so on. For each
virtual source, a “visibility” check is made to determine whether the virtual source is
“visible” to the listener (the visibility check may be complex depending on the room being
simulated). If the source is “visible” to the listener, it can be adjusted to account for
the 1/s2d reduction of intensity of a propagating sound, absorption of the wave energy by
the medium of propagation (e.g. air etc.) and added to the spatialization algorithm being
used (e.g. it may be HRTF processed etc.). This of course will require maintaining and
possibly updating information related to each virtual source, such as source distance and
the position (elevation and azimuth) relative to the listener.
Figure 3.8: Image source method to determine low order specular reflections. The bold
outlined rectangle represents the actual room with the listener and sound source. First
order reflections are created by mirroring the sound source once (labeled with a “1”).
Multiple order reflections are created by mirroring the first order reflections (labeled with
a 2) and so on. . . .
Changes in the environment (room) which may occur due to a variety of reasons,
including movement of the original source or listener or the introduction of any objects/obstructions in the environment (room) may require the re-computation of all image
sources as their visibility relative to the listener may change (e.g. one or more image sources
which were previously visible may now become occluded and vice versa). If the listener or
sound source are only rotated, then the visibility will not change and only azimuth and
elevation angles may potentially need to be updated.
Although the image source method can find all specular reflections up to a certain order,
it does have its shortcomings. Most importantly, as described by Funkhouser et. al. [47], it
can only model specular reflections and its computational complexity is exponential with
respect to the order of reflections (e.g. O(nr ) virtual sources are created for a room with
n surfaces with r reflections [47]). Given the potentially complex visibility checks which
must be performed, the number of image sources which can be calculated is dependent on
the processing power available.
Figure 3.9: Ray tracing to determine the reflection paths of the sound waves traveling from
the sound source to the listener.
Ray Tracing
As with the image source method, the ray tracing methods find the paths between a
sound source S and the listener. However, rather than mirroring the source, as shown
in Figure 3.9, “rays” are emitted from the source in all directions and followed through
the environment until some pre-defined number of them reach the listener. On their path
from the sound source to the listener, the rays may encounter any number of surfaces (e.g.
walls) or obstacles/obstructions. At this point, the rays are reflected once again (specular
reflections are typically assumed, although diffuse reflection, diffraction and refraction can
also be modeled). As with the image source method, the intensity of each reflection is
reduced following the 1/s2d rule (or some variant of it), absorption of the wave energy by
the medium of propagation (e.g. air), and the object it encounters.
As mentioned, rays are emitted from the source in all directions. In practise however,
this is rarely the case. Having rays emitted from the source in all directions is clearly
impractical computationally as it will lead to a large number of reflections which must
be followed. Rather, a subset of rays is emitted instead. Various methods can be used
to choose this subset, including Monte Carlo techniques which choose the paths followed
by the rays randomly [47]. Ray tracing methods are well known and are widely used in
computer graphics applications to render scenes. The ray tracing method has its share of
advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include simplicity and manageable computational complexity, which increases sub-linearly with respect to the number of surfaces in
the environment [47]. With respect to disadvantages however, given that a subset of the
actual paths from the source to the listener are actually followed, certain paths may be
missed altogether. Greater details regarding ray tracing and its variants can be found in
[64, 46]
Distance Simulation
This section will examine the reproduction of the sound source distance cues presented in
Chapter 1, along with any potential problems associated with their reproduction. The distance cues include intensity (loudness), reverberation (ratio of direct-to-reverberant sound
levels reaching the listener), sound source spectral content and binaural cues. Since loudness and reverberation are the two most prominent distance cues and the simulation of
reverberation was discussed in Section 3.4, emphasis will be placed on the simulation of
Loudness as a Distance Cue
Intensity (sound level), is an exocentric (relative) distance cue. We don’t necessarily need to
know the distance to the original (reference) sound source position to make use of this cue.
This cue is rather simple to implement in a 3D sound system (e.g. simply scale the output
presented to the loudspeakers/headphones by the inverse squared source distance) and is
certainly intuitive. However, the inverse square reduction in intensity assumes a spherical
head without any pinnae and an anechoic environment. Since our head is not a perfect
sphere and our world is (generally) not anechoic, the inverse square law is not completely
accurate. Although there is definitely an inverse squared relationship between sound source
distance and sound intensity reaching the listener, there are other factors that influence
the intensity of a sound reaching a listener in a “real world environment” and hence affect
the 1/s2d loss model. Given these considerations, in a virtual environment, it may not
necessarily suffice to simply use the inverse relationship between source distance and sound
intensity described by Equation 1.11, as it may lead to errors. Speigle and Loomis [131]
demonstrated that incorrect distance perception may lead to changes in appearance even
when the correct directional information (e.g. azimuth and elevation of the source) is
available. For example, referring to Figure 3.10 [86], consider a sound source at a distance
dactual from a listener (observer). Assume now that the perceived distance to the sound
source dperceived is less than the actual distance. If the observer starts moving forwards,
they may perceive the sound source as moving away from them. Similarly, if the perceived
distance is greater than the actual distance, as the listener walks towards the source, they
may perceive the source as moving towards them.
Although the inverse square law relates the intensity of sound waves to source distance, we perceive intensity as loudness [15, 157]. According to Moore [92], “loudness is
defined as that attribute of auditory sensation in terms of which sounds can be ordered on
a scale extending from quiet to loud”. It is a quantity of auditory sensation corresponding
most closely to the physical measure of sound [101]. Loudness is a subjective measure and
Figure 3.10: Potential problems arising from incorrect sound source distance estimation.
Incorrect source distance judgments may lead to erroneous perception of a moving sound
source when the listener is moving forward. Reprinted from [86].
therefore cannot be measured directly. In addition, it may not always be an accurate representation of intensity [92] as the loudness of pure tone sounds is frequency and bandwidth
dependent [45, 108, 93].
Various studies examining loudness have been performed in order to understand and
determine the relationship between loudness and intensity. The following sections provide
greater details regarding the findings of these studies and the implications they may pose
for a 3D sound system employing loudness cues to convey distance information.
Loudness Studies
“Loudness matching” experiments, where the listeners adjust the intensity of a pure tone
so that it sounds as loud as a reference pure tone, can be used to create equal loudness
contours [45, 108], describing the dependence of the loudness of pure tones. The measure
of loudness level for a tone of any frequency tf , is given in phons, and describes the sound
level (in dB SPL), required for a 1000Hz reference tone tref to sound equally as loud. The
equal loudness contours for loudness levels of 10 to 110 phons, as measured by Robinson
and Dadson [108] are illustrated in Figure 3.11. As shown, generally, the lower frequency
tones (e.g. below 1000Hz) are not as loud as the higher frequency tones, especially for
Figure 3.11: Robinson and Dadson free-field equal loudness contours. Reprinted from
smaller phon levels. For example, consider the 10 phone curve in Figure 3.11. As shown,
the intensity of a 100Hz tone must be increased by about 40dB in order to sound as equally
loud as a 1000Hz tone. Also included with the equal loudness contours is the MAF curve,
which describes the minimum audible threshold (e.g. below this level, the tone cannot be
heard). As shown, the contours for all phon levels are similar in shape to the MAF however,
as the phon level is increased, the curves become less steep.
The equal loudness contours illustrate the relationship between frequency and loudness
of pure tones. However, there is no single equation which can describe the function between
them [92]. The function has been approximated in various applications. For example, as
described in [92], sound level meters provide an approximate measure of the intensity
of complex sounds and have been designed to account for the equal loudness contours.
These meters contain weighting networks, which provide a weight to the intensity of each
component frequency according to the equal loudness contours. At low sound levels, the
intensity of the higher frequency components contribute more to the overall sound level.
As a result, a smaller weight is assigned to the intensity of the lower frequency components.
In addition to loudness matching experiments, magnitude estimation (a number is assigned to sounds of different intensities) and magnitude production (a listener is given a
number and must then adjust the intensity of a sound so that it matches the number),
studies have given way to the development of “loudness scales” [92]. According to Stevens
[133, 134], the loudness of a pure tone can be given according as follows:
Lt = kIt0.33
where It is the intensity of the pure tone, k is a constant which depends on the listener and
on the units used, and Lt is loudness, measured in sones. In the sone scale (introduced by
Stevens), one sone is defined as the loudness of a 1000Hz tone at 40dB SPL (sound pressure
level) and loudness levels are given relative to it. For example, a sound with a loudness
of two sones is twice as loud as the 1000Hz tone at 40dB. In this scale, a doubling of the
source distance will result in a loudness decrease of 10dB as opposed to 6dB predicted by
the inverse square law.
Finally, although loudness can be used as an effective cue to source distance estimation,
when used alone, there is evidence suggesting the perceived distance is under estimated and
may be insufficient (see [157]). Greater details regarding how the other distance cues (e.g.
reverberation, absorption of the sound by the medium) affect source distance estimation
and how they affect the 1/s2d inverse square relationship between source distance and
intensity (loudness), are described in the following sections.
Reverberation as a Distance Cue
Reverberation can used to provide absolute source distance estimation independent of
overall sound source intensity [126, 24], due to the variation of the direct-to-reverberant
sound energy level as a function of source distance [30, 143, 126, 28, 15, 98, 18]. In
particular, as the source distance is increased, the ratio between the direct-to-reverberant
Lratio =
will decrease. Referring to the definitions presented in Section 1.2.3, when the direct
distance to the sound source ddirect , is less than the reverberant distance (e.g. ddirect <
dreverb ) the intensity (the perceptual equivalent of intensity is loudness), of the direct sound
will be greater than that of the reverberant sound (e.g. Ldirect > Lreverb ⇒ Lratio > 1). In
contrast, when the reverberant distance is greater than the direct source distance (dreverb >
ddirect ) the intensity of the reverberant sound will dominate (e.g. Lreverb > Ldirect ⇒ Lratio <
1). As described in Section 3.4, several methods are available to allow for the incorporation
of reverberation cues into a 3D sound system. With an accurate reverberation model in
place, the ratio direct-to-reverberation levels should be accounted for.
Although the effects of reverberation on source distance, have been known for some
time [107, 132] according to Carlile [24], von Bekesy [143] was the first to demonstrate the
affect of the ratio of direct-to-reverberant levels on the perception of source distance. However, in contrast to many other more recent studies, von Bekesy did not believe the ratio
of direct-to-reverberant intensity levels represented a true perception in source distance,
but rather, source distance was determined by other cues. He based this belief on the fact
that in a “free space” (e.g. very large room or large open space) or in an anechoic environment, “the sensation of distance is even more distinct and of much greater extensiveness
than elsewhere” [143]. Many studies performed after this have however demonstrated the
effectiveness of reverberation (and in particular, the ratio between direct-to-reverberant
intensity levels) as a cue to absolute source distance. Mershon has performed various studies examining the effect of the direct-to-reverberant ratio in source distance estimation
[89, 88, 87]. These studies provide evidence that distance judgments are more accurate in
the presence of reverberation than in an anechoic environment and as previously described,
that the ratio of direct-to-revereberant intensity is a cue to absolute source distance judgment.
Reverberation may be altered drastically with small changes to the objects in the
environment themselves, changes in their positions, changes to the medium the sound is
propagating in (typically air) or with the introduction of new objects in the environment.
Although in general, the ratio between direct and reverberant sound decrease/increase
as the source distance is increased/decreased, this may not necessarily always be true.
Furthermore, although evidence indicates that reverberation does provide a cue to absolute
source distance, studies also indicate reverberation can have negative affects as well. In
particular, it leads to a decrease in directional localization accuracy in both real and
virtual environments [15], and although this effect is of small magnitude, it is nevertheless
measurable [127].
Source Spectral Content as a Distance Cue
As sounds travel through air, the sound waves are attenuated due to absorption by the
medium itself, with higher frequencies being attenuated more. This attenuation of the high
frequency components is also a function of source distance, where it manifests itself as an
increasing low pass filter as the source distance is increased [68], providing a relative cue to
source distance judgment whereby sounds with attenuated higher frequency components
sound farther away [30, 158, 18, 147]. This high frequency attenuation cue is of particular
importance for larger distances, greater than 15m and provides little information when the
distance is small [18]. Ingard [69] however states that this attenuation is rather small, with
a three to four dB loss for a 4kHz wave every 100m of propagation. Similarly, Begault
[15] also states that this attenuation cue is rather weak when compared to the other cues
(loudness, familiarity and reverberation). He describes how it may be difficult for a user
of an auditory display to establish any “reference spectra” for this cue given the dynamic
nature of the sound source location and spectra. In addition, in an indoor environment,
the sound spectra reaching the listener’s ear will also be fluctuating due to heating and air
conditioning systems leading to further complications. This view is also shared by Brungart
[18], who believes that although evidence suggests that a simple low pass filtering of a
sound, where the cut-off frequency is inversely proportional to the distance, does increase
the perceived source distance, the usefulness of this cue is limited given the large variation
seen amongst subjects using this cue.
Bass et. al. have provided analytical expressions to predict the absorption of sound in
air as a function of humidity, temperature, frequency and distance [6] which have been
standardized by the ISO [68]. As presented by Bass et. al. and also given in [68], the
attenuation α(f, T, h, pa ) (in dB per meter) of sound waves traveling through air at a
frequency “f ”, temperature “T ” (in Kelvin), ambient sound pressure amplitude “pa ” and
molar concentration of water vapor “h”, can be described as follows:
α(f, T, h, pa ) = 8.686f
1.84 × 10
− 3352.0
−1 12 #
− 52
2 −1
frn +
fro +
where, T0 = 293.15K is the reference air temperature in Kelvins and pr = 101.325kPa is
the reference ambient atmospheric pressure. The quantities fro and frn are the oxygen and
nitrogen relaxation frequencies respectively and are given as follows:
Figure 3.12: Graphical illustration of the absorption of sound in air as a function of frequency for a temperature of 20C with a humidity (e.g. water vapor concentration), of 20%
(h = 0.4615) for several sound source distances (1m, 10m, 20m, 30m, 40m and 50m).
Dashed line represents IIR filter response while continuous line represents them ideal response. Reprinted form [68].
frn =
0.02 + h
24 + 4.04 × 10 h
0.391 + h
−4.170 TT 3 −1
T −2
9 + 280he
The above equations were realized by Huopaniemi using IIR filters. Figure 3.12 (as
it appears in [68]), provides a graphical illustration of the magnitude response of the
absorption of sound in air as a function of frequency (top plot) for a temperature of 20C
with a humidity (e.g. water vapor concentration), of 20% (h = 0.4615) for several sound
source distances (1m, 10m, 20m, 30m, 40m and 50m). The absorption of higher frequency
components is clearly evident and cannot be ignored, especially when considering larger
sound source distances [68].
Binaural Cues
As described in Section 1.2.6, for near field sound sources, the ILD is highly dependent
on source distance. However, as Brungart states [21], it may be unnecessary to include
binaural distance cues in a virtual auditory display given these cues may be insignificant
relative to the other distance cues such as reverberation and loudness. Furthermore, as
expressed by Blauert [16] and described in [15], given the numerous conflicting data in the
literature, the effect of binaural cues on source distance remains an unresolved issue.
Sound Source Familiarity
As previously described, familiarity of the sound source does improve source distance accuracy and localization in general. It therefore seems intuitive that the user is familiar
with the sounds and the environmental context associated with them, which are presented
in a virtual auditory environment [124]. The importance of sound source familiarity and
its effect on a virtual auditory display is best summarized by Begault [15], who states “any
reasonable implementation of distance cues into a 3D sound system will probably require
an assessment of the cognitive associations for a given sound source”. Unfortunately, it
may be difficult to determine exactly which sounds are familiar to each user of the display, as this varies depending on each users prior experience. In addition, it may also be
impractical to allow a user to become familiar with the characteristics of a sound source
through repeated use of the auditory system. This will certainly limits the ability of the
auditory system to process arbitrary input stimulus in real time [18].
Chapter 4
Conveying Sound in a Virtual
In an auditory display the audio output is conveyed to the listener either through loudspeakers or through headphones worn by the listener. Both headphones and loudspeakers
each have their advantages as well as shortcomings and one or the other may produce more
favorable results depending on the application. This chapter examines issues associated
with headphone and loudspeaker displays. In doing so, two loudspeaker based 3D audio
techniques known as transaural audio and amplitude panning will also be described.
Headphone Listening
Many 3D audio systems employing binaural techniques are “headphone based”, conveying
sounds to the users over headphones as opposed to loudspeakers. Headphone based systems
offer several advantages over loudspeaker based systems. In particular, headphones provide
a high level of channel separation thereby minimizing any crosstalk, arising when the signal
intended for the left (or right) ear is also heard by the right (or left) ear. Headphones also
isolate the listener from external sounds and reverberation which may be present in the
environment [51], ensuring the acoustics of the listening room or the listener’s position in
the room, do not affect the listener’s perception [68]. These factors make headphones the
only means of delivering audio in various auditory displays, including displays intended for
aircraft cockpits or multiple users [81], where loudspeakers are impractical and cannot be
Despite the potential benefits headphone based systems offer, they certainly do have
their shortcomings and limitations as well. According to Kyriakakis [81], the four major
drawbacks of headphone based systems are as follows:
Use of Non-individualized HRTFs: The filtering performed by each person’s HRTFs
may differ significantly. However, for practical purposes, the dataset of HRTFs used
in an auditory display is typically not obtained from the individual user but rather a
“generic” set of measurements is used instead. The differences between the individual’s and the generic HRTFs can lead to errors. The problems associated with the
use of non-individualized HRTFs are not unique to headphone based systems and
may also be present when using loudspeaker based (transaural) techniques.
Ambiguous Cues: Ambiguous situation arising when the sound source is positioned on
the median plane or directly above or below the listener. The interaural cues are
(nearly) zero in such a situation, leading to confusion between a sound source directly
in front or directly behind a listener. The inclusion of individualized HRTF information helps to reduce such ambiguities. Similarly to the use of non-individualized
HRTFs, ambiguous cues may also arise when using loudspeaker based systems.
Comfort Level: Headphones may be uncomfortable to wear and can be cumbersome.
Inside-the-head Localization (IHL): Sounds are not externalized (e.g. appear to be
emanating beyond the listener) but rather, appear as if they are originating from
inside the head.
Ambiguous cues (e.g. front-back reversals and the cone of confusion as introduced in
Section 1.2.1), will arise, regardless of whether the system is headphone or loudspeaker
based, when HRTF cues are not employed. As previously described, ambiguous cues can
be greatly reduced, and hence system performance improved, with the incorporation of
HRTF information. However, errors resulting from the use of non-individualized HRTFs
may offset any improvements.
Greater details regarding the use of HRTFs (including non-individualized HRTFs) and
the ambiguous cues present when relying solely on the duplex theory of sound localization
were provided in Sections 1.2.2 and Section 1.2.1 respectively. The following sections
elaborate further on the problems of comfortability and inside-the-head localization with
respect to headphone based auditory systems.
Headphones and Comfort
In many situations, it may be inconvenient and impractical for the listener to use headphones. The use of headphones may limit a user’s immersion with a virtual environment.
For example, in a six-sided virtual environment such as York University’s IVY [109], the
goal is to totally immerse the user in the virtual world. This is accomplished by surrounding the user with realistic visual imagery projected on the four walls, ceiling and floor and
also providing them with the corresponding spatial auditory cues to accompany the visual
information. However, the physical presence of the headphones over the listener’s ears is a
constant reminder that they are in a virtual environment.
After wearing headphones for an extended period of time, they may become very uncomfortable [81]. Furthermore, small movements of the headphones themselves, while
being worn by the listener (which, may result if the listener repositions them over the
ears), may affect the HRTF considerably [123] as it can change the position of the sound
source relative to the listener.
Inside-the-Head Localization
Inside-the-head localization (IHL) refers to the lack of externalization of a sound source,
resulting in the false impression that the sound is originating from inside the listener’s head
and can only move left and right inside the head along the interaural axis, being biased
towards the rear of the head [74]. This is actually the main drawback associated with
headphone displays and other than this problem, according to Begault [15], headphone
displays are actually superior for conveying 3D audio. Although rare, IHL can also occur
when listening to “external” sound sources in the real world, especially when the sounds
are unfamiliar to the listener or when the sounds are obtained (recorded) in an anechoic
environment [29].
IHL results from various factors including the lack of correct environmental context
(e.g. lack of reverberation and HRTF information). IHL can be greatly reduced, if not
eliminated, by ensuring the sounds delivered to the listener’s ears reproduce the sound
as it would be heard naturally or in other words, providing the listener with a “realistic
spectral profile of the sound at each ear” [123]. Delivering the correct spectral profile of
the sound to the ears is of course a difficult task and ultimately the goal of any 3D audio
display. In any case, it will involve incorporating HRTF information into the auditory
display. Although the externalization of a sound source is difficult to predict precisely, it
does increase as the sound becomes more “natural” and contains localization cues, including
individualized HRTFs, and reverberation cues, which are updated appropriately with any
head movements, as they are in “normal” listening situations [15]. Of course, each of the
cues mentioned above has its share of problems. As described in Section 3.3.2, the inclusion
of individualized HRTFs is usually impractical given the difficult and time consuming task
of measuring the individual’s HRTFs. Although non-individualized or generalized HRTFs
can be used instead, they result in reduced performance and listener localization accuracy.
Similarly, various methods exist to allow the inclusion of reverberation cues. However, as
described in Section 3.4, these methods are certainly far from perfect and have their share
of troubles including the fact that they are computationally expensive. In addition, as
demonstrated in a study performed by Begault [12], although the addition of reverberation
basically eliminated IHL, it resulted in a decrease in user localization accuracy. Finally,
head movements can also aid in the externalization of a sound source [29]. However, as
with the inclusion of HRTFs and reverberation information, this is also a difficult task. It
requires some method of tracking the position (and possibly orientation) of the user’s head
in order to account for any head movements which may require the updating of the sound
source location.
Loudspeaker Displays
In the following sections, the two most common loudspeaker based 3D audio techniques
will be introduced. The first method, transaural audio, allows for the presentation of
binaural audio over loudspeakers as opposed to headphones. Although it overcomes many
of the problems encountered when binaural audio is presented over headphones, as will be
discussed, it also has its share of problems as well. The other technique to be discussed
will be amplitude panning, where the desired spatial audio effect is achieved by scaling the
intensity (amplitude) of up to N loudspeakers by some pre-defined weighting factor.
As with the recording techniques introduced in Chapter 2, the intended effect produced
by each of the techniques described in this section is restricted to a small region of space..
In other words, these techniques also assume a listener sweet spot and deviation from this
region will lead to serious degradations in system performance.
Transaural Audio
The presentation of the left and right binaural audio signals to the corresponding left and
right ear using stereo loudspeakers is known as transaural audio [25].
Transaural audio can overcome some of the limitations inherent with headphone based
binaural audio, such as IHL. However, transaural audio has its share of problems as well.
Most importantly, the crosstalk signal arriving at each ear from the opposite loudspeaker
must be removed. Consider the two-channel stereo loudspeaker set-up illustrated in Figure
4.1, where the listener is symmetrically placed between the left and right loudspeakers. In
a virtual auditory display, the signal emitted from the left and right loudspeakers must be
delivered to the left and right ear respectively only. However, as illustrated, this is certainly
Figure 4.1: Crosstalk Defined. When using loudspeakers as opposed to headphones to convey sound to a user of a 3D sound system, in addition to the desired left loudspeaker signal
HLL reaching the left ear eL , a delayed and attenuated portion of the right loudspeaker
signal HRL will also reach the left ear. A similar situation occurs with the signal reaching
the right ear eR , where in addition to the desired signal HRR from the right loudspeaker,
a delayed and attenuated portion of the left loudspeaker HLR will also reach the right ear.
not the case. In a typical two loudspeaker (stereo) scenario, the signal received at the left
and right ears (eL and eR respectively), is a linear combination of the signal output by the
left and right loudspeakers, including any filtering effects introduced by the loudspeakers
and the environment (e.g. the speaker frequency response, absorption of sound by the
medium and head response) [51]. Ideally, the signal emitted by the left (right) loudspeaker
should reach the left (right) ear only, in isolation. However, in addition to the desired
signal coming from the left and right loudspeakers HLL and HRR respectively, a delayed
and attenuated portion of the left loudspeaker signal HLR will reach the right ear while a
delayed and attenuated portion of the right loudspeaker signal HRL will reach the left ear.
This delayed signal reaching the left (right) ear from the right (left) loudspeakers is known
as crosstalk and can greatly affect the “spectral balance” and interaural differences (ITD
and ILD) [15], thereby limiting the effectiveness of a loudspeaker based system. Crosstalk
should therefore be minimized or, ideally eliminated. The unwanted crosstalk signals can
be removed using a technique known as crosstalk cancellation. Greater details regarding
crosstalk cancellation are provided in the following section.
Crosstalk Cancellation
Crosstalk cancellation was first proposed by Bauer in 1961 [11] in order to allow for the
delivery of binaural audio (see Section 2.5) using a pair of loudspeakers. Two years later,
the first crosstalk canceller was actually implemented by Atal and Schroeder [4] in order to
allow binaural recordings made in concert halls to be played back over loudspeakers [68].
Essentially, the basic idea behind the Atal and Schroeder crosstalk canceller involves adding
a delayed and inverted version of the crosstalk signal to the opposite loudspeaker output. A
delayed and inverted version of the crosstalk signal going from the right loudspeaker to the
left ear HRL would be added to the left loudspeaker output, while a delayed and inverted
version of the crosstalk signal going from the left loudspeaker to the right ear HLR would be
added to the right loudspeaker output. Given that the inverted signals are 1800 out of phase
and delayed, theoretically, if the delay is chosen such that it equals the amount of time
it takes for the crosstalk signal to reach the opposite ear, the crosstalk will be completely
cancelled [15]. A frequency domain, matrix solution to the crosstalk cancellation method
as proposed by Atal and Schroeder following the notation of Mouchtaris [95] is provided
below. This solution assumes the listener is symmetrically positioned between the two
loudspeakers (e.g. the listener and the two loudspeakers form an equilateral triangle) and
a spherical head model without any external ears.
With a typical headphone based binaural audio system, in order to spatialize a sound
to some particular location, the signal received at the left and right ears (eL and eR respectively), is obtained by processing (e.g. convolution in the time domain and multiplication in
the frequency domain) a monaural sound with the measured HRTF of the left and right ear
corresponding to the desired synthesis location (e.g. position of the virtual sound source),
In matrix notation, the signal presented to the left and right ears is given as follows:
E = Hhrtf S
Hhrtf =
HL 0
0 HR
such that S is the column vector representing the monaural (non-synthesized), sound source
s (prior to filtering with the appropriate HRTF response, s is identical for both ears) Hhrtf is
the matrix containing the left and right ear HRTFs HL and HR respectively, corresponding
to the desired synthesis location, which have been equalized to remove the response of the
measurement system.
When using loudspeakers as opposed to headphones, a similar situation arises, a monaural signal is processed with a pair of HRTFs (HL and HR ) corresponding to desired synthesis
location in order to obtain the binaural signals for the left and right ears. The left and
right processed signals are then delivered to the listener through a pair of corresponding
loudspeakers. However, as previously described, due to crosstalk, the left and right loud96
speaker signals are not delivered exclusively to the left and right ears respectively. Rather,
as shown in Figure 4.1, in addition to the signal from the right (left) loudspeaker reaching the right (left), a delayed and attenuated version of the left (right) loudspeaker signal
will be delivered to the right (left) ear (e.g. crosstalk). In matrix notation, this can be
represented a follows:
E = Htf Hhrtf S
Htf =
is the 2 × 2 “acoustic transfer matrix” representing the transfer function from the loudspeakers to the two ears. The terms HLL and HRR are known as the ipsilateral terms and
describe the transfer function from the left and right loudspeakers to the left and right ears
respectively. HLR and HRL are known as the contralateral terms and describe the transfer
function from the left and right loudspeakers to the right and left ears respectively (in
other words, HLR and HRL are the crosstalk signals).
The desired output for a transaural system does not include any crosstalk but is rather
the delivery of the left and right binaural (HRTF processed) signals to the corresponding
ears. This can be accomplished by eliminating the acoustic transfer functions described
by matrix Htf using the “crosstalk canceller” C. Matrix C is essentially the inverse of Htf
(e.g. C = Htf
), leading to the following:
−1 HL 0
0 HR
The inverse matrix C can be computed as:
is the determinant of the matrix Htf . Of course, C −1 is undefined when the determinant
is equal to zero (e.g. matrix Htf is singular) and therefore, in such a situation, the inverse
matrix cannot be calculated.
In order to realize the crosstalk canceller as described in Equation 4.4, four transfer
functions (HLL , HRR , HLR and HRL ), must be obtained. However, when originally introduced, for simplicity, the listener’s position was assumed to be symmetrical between the
two loudspeakers (e.g. such that the listener and the two loudspeakers form an equilateral
triangle) and furthermore, that the listener’s head was also a perfect sphere. These two
assumptions ensure the ipsilateral transfer functions for both the left and right loudspeakers are identical (e.g. transfer function from the left loudspeaker to the left ear is the same
as the transfer function from the right loudspeaker to the right ear) and for simplicity,
denoted by Hi . Furthermore, the two assumptions further result in identical contralateral
transfer functions for the left and right loudspeakers (e.g. the transfer function from the left
loudspeaker to the right ear is the same as the transfer function from the right loudspeaker
to the left ear), which are denoted by Hc . With this simplification, Equation 4.4 described
above can be re-stated as:
Hi Hc
Hc Hi
Hi Hc
Hc Hi
−1 HL 0
0 HR
where the inverse matrix now becomes:
Hi Hi − Hcc Hc
Hi −Hc
−Hc Hi
After substituting Equation 4.8 into Equation 4.7, the following expression is obtained:
Hi Hc
Hc Hi
Hi Hi − Hc Hc
Hi −Hc
−Hc Hi
HL 0
0 HR
By further manipulating Equation 4.9, and making the assumption that the contralateral signals contain less power than the ipsilateral signals due to the shadowing effect of
the head (a valid assumption as verified by [95]), the left and right ear filters FL and FR
respectively can be obtained as follows [95]:
Figure 4.2: Atal and Schroeder crosstalk canceller, where D = HLL HRR − HLR HRL .
FL =
Hi Hi
FR =
Hi Hi
These two filters contain the desired HRTF response corresponding to the synthesis
location as well as the necessary crosstalk cancellation components. By processing the
monaural signal with these filters and delivering the resulting signals to the appropriate
loudspeaker, the desired binaural audio effect described in Equation 4.1 will be obtained.
A graphical illustration to the Atal and Schroeder crosstalk canceller is shown in Figure
Finally, the crosstalk canceller solution as presented assumes a single listener. Crosstalk
cancellation however can also be applied in a multi-listener scenario. Bauck and Cooper
[9] provide a set of equations for a multi-listener crosstalk canceller in which N “program
signals” are used to create M loudspeaker signals which in turn result in L ear signals.
They also present solutions to these equations using algebraic methods.
Problems Associated with Crosstalk Cancellation
In theory, crosstalk cancellation completely removes the unwanted signals thereby allowing
the desired binaural signals to be delivered to the corresponding ears. In practise however,
this is not the case. Given the use of HRTFs in the crosstalk canceller, its effectiveness
is limited by the variability in head size and shape of the human head and pinnae [54].
In addition, it has a small sweet spot and in order to function properly, the listener must
remain stationary (e.g. no head movements) in the sweet spot [128] as movements as
small as 74 - 100mm completely destroys the desired effect [95]. When the listener moves
more than this allowable amount, the HRTFs used by the crosstalk canceller may be
incorrect and the time required for the crosstalk signals to reach the contralateral ears
and the attenuation factor may also change. As with headphone based systems, this
problem can be overcome (or greatly reduced) by tracking the listener’s head. Gardner
[51] developed a system utilizing a magnetic tracker to dynamically obtain the position of
the listeners head in order to produce a much more realistic and greater range 3D auditory
display using loudspeakers. Given the dynamic updates of head movements, this system
offers improved localization over existing, non-tracked loudspeaker displays as it allows for
dynamic localization cues. Kyriakakis and Holman [95] also describe a loudspeaker based
3D audio display which allows for dynamic crosstalk cancellation. However, rather than
using a magnetic tracker, they utilize a camera-based tracking system to track the listeners
head and thereby eliminate the need of any tether required by the magnetic tracker.
Finally, the topic of crosstalk cancellation is far more complex than presented here.
This section simply provided the motivation and basic theory behind crosstalk cancellation.
Greater details can be found in [31, 51, 49, 9].
Amplitude Panning
The difference in intensity between the sound reaching both ears forms the basis of the
interaural level difference (ILD) cue and can be used by humans to localize a sound source.
In the amplitude panning technique, the amplitude (intensity or output level) of the signal
being delivered to each loudspeaker1 is adjusted in some manner to simulate the directional
properties of the ILD. In other words, by adjusting the amplitude of the signal applied to
each loudspeaker through the use of a gain factor, the listener can perceive a phantom
image (virtual source) emanating from some direction dependent on the gain factors [105].
Mathematically, amplitude panning can be described as:
bi (t) = gi (t)sm (t),
i = 1, . . . , N
where bi (t) is the signal output by loudspeaker i at time t, sm (t) is the “un-processed”
sound applied to each of the loudspeakers at time t, gi is the gain factor applied to the
signal delivered to loudspeaker i, and finally, N is the total number of loudspeakers being
Various amplitude panning techniques exist which allow for a wide variety of loudspeaker configurations including both two and three dimensional configurations. Regardless
of the technique used however, the general idea remains the same: compute the appropriate
Headphones can also be used when the number of loudspeakers is two.
Figure 4.3: Stereo amplitude panning configuration.
gain factors to create the impression of a virtual sound source at a specific position relative to the listener. Greater details regarding several of the panning techniques available
for both two and three dimensional loudspeaker configurations are provided in the following sections, beginning with two-channel amplitude (stereo) panning, the most popular
panning technique.
Two Dimensional Amplitude Panning
The typical two-channel (stereo) configuration is illustrated in Figure 4.3. The listener
is placed symmetrically (in the horizontal plane) equidistant between the left and right
loudspeakers, displaced by an angle of θo between each one (usually θo = 30o ). A sound
sm (t) is applied to each of the loudspeakers. By scaling the amplitude of the signal applied
to the left and right loudspeakers by the appropriate gain factors (gl and gr respectively),
the virtual sound source can be positioned anywhere on the “active arc” (a semi circle
between the two loudspeakers with radius equal to the distance between the listener and
each of the loudspeakers [102]).
Several methods can be used to actually calculate the gain factors gl and gr . The most
common technique is the stereophonic law of sines, demonstrated first by Blumlein and
given by Bauer [10] as follows:
gl − gr
sin φ
sin θo
gl + gr
where, referring to Figure 4.3, φ is the azimuth (horizontal) angle between the listener and
virtual sound source and θo is the angle between the listener and each of the loudspeakers.
Although the “stereophonic law of sines” can be used to place a sound source between
the two loudspeakers, it has its limitations. It is valid for low frequency signals (e.g. below
500Hz) only, and when the listener is facing directly forward [105]. To account for head
movements which may arise as the listener is tracking the virtual source, the tangent law
introduced by Bennett [102], and given in Equation 4.13, may be used instead:
gl − gr
tan φ
tan θo
gl + gr
Equations 4.12 and 4.13 can be manipulated in order to determine the left and right gain
values by assuming a constant virtual sound power level C > 0. This can be accomplished
by ensuring the following:
gl2 + gr2 = C
Since the loudness level of the source can be a potential cue to source distance, keeping
the virtual source power level constant ensures the perceived distance to the virtual source
remains constant while it is being panned from one loudspeaker to the other along the
active arc.
When the direction of the virtual sound source coincides with one of the loudspeakers
(e.g. φ = θo ), the sound will emanate from that particular loudspeaker only, producing
accurate and correct results. Finally, although this law does produce accurate results
when the virtual source is positioned at either of the loudspeakers (e.g. φ = θo ) or in the
center, directly in front of the listener (e.g. φ = 0o ), it is not as accurate as when placing
the virtual source between the center and either of the loudspeakers [59].
The two-channel stereo configuration can be extended to allow for the placement of one
or more additional loudspeakers on the horizontal plane (the plane in which the two-channel
stereo loudspeakers are placed) as done with the Dolby Stereo and Quadraphonics systems
(see Sections 2.6.3 and 2.6.1 respectively). Amplitude panning can also be extended to
account for the additional N loudspeakers, as done in the popular pair-wise amplitude
panning technique introduced by Chowning [27] which can produce sound sources in all
azimuth directions given the use of a sufficient number of loudspeakers. In this technique,
despite the availability of N channels (loudspeakers), sound is applied to two loudspeakers only, in a manner similar to the conventional two-channel stereo panning technique.
Dolby Surround, Quadraphonics and two dimensional Ambisonics are examples of two
dimensional panning techniques using greater than two channels (loudspeakers).
Three Dimensional Panning
The three dimensional panning technique is an extension of the two-channel, two dimensional technique. However, rather than being planar (e.g. on the same plane) as the original
two loudspeakers, the additional loudspeaker(s) is (are) placed on a different plane (e.g.
non-coplanar) with the original two loudspeakers). Furthermore, in this configuration, all
loudspeakers are positioned equidistant from the listener. In a manner similar to pairwise
amplitude panning, sound is applied to a subset (three) of the loudspeakers only. A virtual
sound source can be positioned anywhere on the triangle formed by the three loudspeakers
[102, 104].
Currently, no general trigonometric method of three-dimensional amplitude panning
for an arbitrary three-dimensional loudspeaker setup exists [105] and the calculation of the
gains applied to the loudspeakers is very configuration dependent. However, as with the
two-channel stereo configuration, the intensity (loudness) of the output sound heard by
the listener can be kept at a constant level C by ensuring the following:
g12 + g22 + g32 = C
where gi is the gain applied to loudspeaker i.
Vector Base Amplitude Panning (VBAP)
The vector base amplitude panning technique (VBAP), introduced by Pulkki in 1996 [106]
is an amplitude panning technique that can be used with an arbitrary number of loudspeakers. It supports two and three-dimensional loudspeaker configurations and allows the
loudspeakers to be placed in any position provided they are “nearly” equidistant around
the listener and that the listening room is not very reverberant [102].
VBAP can be applied to both two and three-dimensional loudspeaker configurations,
including the traditional two-channel stereo setup and three channel, three dimensional
setup. A formulation of the two-channel VBAP method as described by Pulkki in [102,
103, 104] and using the same notation, will be presented in the following section.
Two-Dimensional Stereo Vector Base Amplitude Panning
In the stereo VBAP configuration, the two-channel stereo setup defines a two-dimensional
vector base, with two unit length vectors l1 = [l11 l12 ]T and l2 = [l21 l22 ]T , pointing to the
left and right loudspeakers respectively as shown in Figure 4.4.
The unit length vector p = [p1 p2 ]T which points in the direction of the virtual source
can then be given as follows:
Figure 4.4: Vector base amplitude panning with a two-channel stereo configuration.
Reprinted from [102].
p = g1 l1 + g2 l2
where g1 and g2 are the gain factors applied to the left and right loudspeaker respectively.
In matrix form, it can be formulated as pT = gL12 , or in other words,
pT = gL12
l11 l12
l21 l22
Assuming the inverse to matrix L12 exists, the gain factors can be solved for:
l11 l12
l21 l22
Finally, the gain factors can be applied to the corresponding loudspeakers after they have
been scaled with the following scaling factor gscaled
=p 2
g1 + g22
VBAP can also be extended to allow an arbitrary number of loudspeakers in a twodimensional configuration, where once again, the loudspeakers and the listener are on
the same plane. As with the pairwise panning technique previously described, in the
VBAP technique, two of the N loudspeakers are chosen and sound is applied to these two
loudspeakers only. A complete discussion of how the two loudspeakers are actually chosen
is given by Pulkki [102, 103].
Three-Dimensional Stereo Vector Base Amplitude Panning
Consider three non-coplanar loudspeakers equidistant to the listener as illustrated in Figure
4.5. Once again, using Pulkki’s notation, let vector li = [li1 li2 li3 ]T be the unit vector from
the origin (the center of the imaginary sphere on which the loudspeakers are placed) to the
ith loudspeaker and let p = [p1 p2 p3 ]T be the unit vector pointing from the origin to the
direction of the virtual sound source. The vector p can be given as a linear combination of
the three unit vectors li (i = 1, 2, 3) in matrix notation as p = g1 l1 + g2 l2 + g3 l3 where gi
is the gain applied to loudspeaker i. In other words, pT = gL123 where L123 = [l1 l2 l3 ]T or
 
l11 l12 l13
 p2  =  l21 l22 l23  ×  g2 
l31 l32 l33
By rearranging the above equation, vector g can be solved for assuming L−1
123 exists (it does
exist if the vector base defined by L123 defines a three-dimensional space), as g = pT L−1
−1 
l11 l12 l13
 g2  =  l21 l22 l23  ×  p2 
l31 l32 l33
The gain factors may be applied to the corresponding loudspeakers after they have been
scaled using the following scaling factor gscaled :
Figure 4.5: Vector base amplitude panning for a three-dimensional (three channel) configuration. Reprinted from [102].
gscaled = p
g12 + g22 + g32
Finally, as in the two-dimensional case, the three loudspeaker VBAP technique can be
extended to handle N loudspeakers. In this case, the sound will only be presented over
three loudspeakers.
Chapter 5
This document has presented an overview on the field of 3D (spatial) sound as well as
the underlying foundation on which it depends on, the human auditory system. Various
technologies available for the generation of 3D sound were presented, beginning with a
historical description of some of the early techniques which did not necessarily produce
“true” 3D sound. Such technologies include recording techniques such as monaural, stereo,
binaural, Quadraphonic, Ambisonic and surround sound. Recording techniques typically
involve the playback of a previously recorded soundfield. The soundfield is recorded with
a number of microphones (one for monaural, two for stereo and binaural and four with
Quadraphonics and Ambisonics systems), in order to capture any inherent spatial cues.
The recorded sounds are typically conveyed to the listener with an equal number of loudspeakers (e.g. each microphone has a corresponding loudspeaker). Rather than recording
the actual soundfield with a set of microphones at once, surround recordings (such as Dolby
Stereo recordings), can also be produced by either recording or creating synthetic versions
(e.g. using a computer) of, each of the desired sounds (e.g. dialogue, special effects etc.) independently, possibly at different locations and then mixing each of the sounds in a mixing
studio (e.g. assigning the sounds to the channels). Although recording techniques do not
necessarily convey “true” 3D sound, they have, nevertheless, paved the way for the modern,
more perceptually correct systems which aim at simulating the human sound localization
cues present in our everyday environment. The primary human sound localization cues
are interaural time and intensity differences (ITD and ILD respectively), the head related
transfer function (HRTF) and reverberation. ITD and ILD cues involve the differences
in time and intensity between the sound arriving at the left and right ears (e.g. a sound
closer to the left ear will arrive at the left ear first and will also be of greater intensity
due to the shadowing effect of the head). The HRTF describes the position dependent,
complex interaction of a sound wave with the torso, shoulders, head and particularly the
pinna (outer ear) of a listener. Reverberation refers to the collection of the reflections of a
sound wave arising when a sound wave encounters objects in, or the boundaries (e.g. walls,
ceiling and floor) of, some environment. Although ITD and ILD cues are fairly simple to
model and implement, systems which rely on these cues solely are of limited use as they
are incapable of providing 3D sound spatialization. In other words, there are locations
which cannot be simulated using these cues alone or locations which may be ambiguous
to the listener. For example, the listener may not be able to distinguish between a sound
directly in front or directly in back of them (front-back-confusion) using ITD and/or ILD
cues alone. As with the human auditory system, the ability for a user of a 3D sound system
to spatialize a sound source and eliminate ambiguous situations can be achieved with the
incorporation of HRTF cues into the system. Although the inclusion of HRTF cues greatly
improves the spatialization abilities of a 3D sound system, there are various shortcomings
associated with their use. In particular, the HRTF is position dependent (e.g. the HRTF
differs for each position in three-dimensional space), the filtering effects introduced by the
HRTF differs widely amongst individuals and the process of collecting a set of HRTFs is
very tedious, time consuming and requires specialized equipment and environments. Given
these considerations, it is impractical to employ individualized HRTFs for each user of s
3D sound system and despite the errors which may result (e.g. greater rate of front-back
confusions), non-individualized HRTFs, measured from anthropomorphic dummies, very
good localizers or by averaging the HRTFs of many people, are used instead. Furthermore,
since it is clearly impractical to measure the HRTFs for every position, a subset of all
possible positions is sampled instead. Since the space is sampled, there will be positions
in which there is no corresponding HRTF and in order to synthesize a sound to such a location without a corresponding response, some method of interpolation must be employed
and system performance will be negatively affected. The addition of reverberation cues
can greatly improve the performance of a 3D sound system, even when the system employs
HRTF cues. Reverberation is a strong cue to sound source distance estimation, it can
provide environmental information (e.g. size of a room, whether the room is “open” or
contains many objects, composition of objects in the room etc.) and at the very least, can
provide a certain ambience and “warmth” to the simulation. The inclusion of reverberation information is of course not a trivial task, and may be very complicated depending
on the environment being simulated. Various methods are available to model the reflection patterns of a particular environment. Typically, these methods involve measuring or
simulating the response of a particular room and then using this response to filter a sound
source before presenting the sound to the listener. This response can be measured directly
(in a manner similar to HRTFs) or it can be artificially computed using for example, wave
based techniques such as ray tracing and image source methods whereby, the reflection
paths followed by a sound are determined using computer simulation. These techniques
however, make several assumptions (e.g. the objects encountered by the propagating sound
waves are larger than the waves themselves, assume specular reflection etc.) and take a
substantial amount of time to compute, typically limiting their use to static environments
with little listener movement.
Conveying of sound to the users of a 3D audio system (or any other type of audio system
for that matter), is accomplished using either headphones or loudspeakers. Headphones
ensure the listener is isolated from any non-desired external sounds (e.g. noise) and that
the signal intended for the right (left) ear is delivered to the right (left) ear exclusively.
In other words, with a headphone based system, crosstalk, where a portion of the signal
intended for the left (right) is heard by the right (left) ear, is not an issue. Despite the
benefits they may offer, there are several serious drawbacks associated with the use of headphones. Most importantly, sounds conveyed through headphones appear to be emanating
from inside the listeners head (inside-the-head localization) and result in a large number
of front-back confusions. Two loudspeaker based techniques were introduced, transaural
audio and amplitude panning. Transaural audio involves the presentation of left and right
binaural audio signals to the corresponding left and right ear. It typically involves the
use of two loudspeakers however, generalized solutions for N loudspeakers and M listeners
have been proposed. Although transaural audio can overcome many of the shortcomings
associated with headphone based systems (e.g. inside-the-head localization, front-back confusions etc.), before being of practical use, some method of crosstalk cancellation must be
employed to (ideally) eliminate the inherent crosstalk. Amplitude panning techniques involve the manipulation of the amplitude (intensity or output level), of the signal applied
to each loudspeaker in order to simulate the directional properties of the interaural level
difference (ILD) cue. Amplitude panning can be applied to both two and three dimensional
loudspeaker configurations however, typically, a subset of the available loudspeakers are
used at any time depending on the position and orientation of the listener.
Although the 3D sound system currently available can be quite good, they are typically
only capable of providing accurate spatial sound under restricted conditions. In order to
allow for generalized spatial sound in real time, regardless of the listener and environmental
context, various factors must be overcome. The following sections provide greater details
regarding several of the main problems which must be overcome to allow for such a true
generalized 3D sound system.
Open Problems
To be completed
Future Research Directions
To be completed
[1] V. R. Algazi, R. O. Duda, D. M. Thompson, and C. Avendano. The CIPIC HRTF database.
In 2001 IEEE ASSP Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Acoustics, pages
111–123, New Paltz, NY. USA, October 2001.
[2] J. B. Allen and D. A. Berkley. Image method for efficiently simulating small-room acoustics.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 65(4):943–950, April 1979.
[3] D. B. Anderson and M. A. Casey. The sound dimension. IEEE Spectrum, pages 46–50,
March 1997.
[4] B. S. Atal and M. R. Schroeder. Apparent sound source translator. U.S. Patent 3, 236, 949,
February 23 1963.
[5] B. Bartlett and J. bartlett. Stereo Microphone techniques. Focal Press, 1 edition, 1991.
[6] H. E. Bass, H. J. Bauer, and L. B. Evans. Atmospheric absorption of sound: analytical
expressions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 52(3):821–825, 1972.
[7] D. W. Bateau. Listening with the naked ear. In S. J. Freedman, editor, Neuropsychology
of Spatially Oriented Behavior. Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL. USA, 1968.
[8] D. W. Batteau. The role of the pinna in human sound localization. Proceedings of the
Royal Society, 168:158–180, 1967.
[9] J. Bauck and D. H. Cooper. Generalized transaural stereo. In Proceedings of the 93rd Audio
Engineering Society Conference, San Francisco, CA. USA, 1992. preprint 3401.
[10] B. Bauer. Phasor analysis of some stereophonic phenomena. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 33:1536–1539, November 1961.
[11] B. Bauer. Stereophonic earphones and binaural loudspeakers. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 9:148–151, 1961.
[12] D. R. Begault. Perceptual effects of synthetic reverberation on three-dimensional audio
systems. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 40(11):895–904, 1992.
[13] D. R. Begault. Auditory and non-auditory factors that potentially influence virtual acoustic
imagery. In Proceedings of the Audio Engineering Society 16th International Conference
on Spatial Sound Reproduction, pages 1–14, Rovanciemi, Finland, 1999. Audio Engineering
[14] D. R. Begault and E. M. Wenzel. Headphone localization of speech. Human Factors,
35:361–376, 1993.
[15] R. Begault. 3-D Sound for Virtual Reality and Multimedia. Academic Press Professional,
Cambridge, MA. USA, 1994.
[16] J. Blauert. Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA. USA, 1983.
[17] P. Brown and R. O Duda. A structural model for binaural synthesis. IEEE Transactions
on Speech and Audio processing, 6(5):476–488, September 1998.
[18] D. S. Brungart. Control of perceived distance in virtual audio displays. In Proceedings of
the 20th Annual International Conference of the IEEE in Medicine and Biology Society.,
volume 20, pages 1101–1104, Hong Kong., 1998.
[19] D. S. Brungart and W. M. Rabinowitz. Auditory localization of nearby sources. head related
transfer functions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(3):1465–1479, 1999.
[20] D. S. Brungart and W. R. Rabinowitz. Auditory localization in the near-field. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Auditory Displays, Palo Alto, CA. USA, November 4-6
[21] D. S. Brungart and K. R. Scott. The effects of production and presentation level on the
auditory distance perception of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 8:425–
440, 2001.
[22] M. D. Burkhard and R. M. Sachs. Anthropometric manikin for acoustic research. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 58(1):214–222, 1975.
[23] D. M. Burrston, M. P. Hollier, and M. O. Hawksford. Limitations of dynamically controlling
the listening position in a 3D ambisonic environment. In 102 Audio Engineering Society,
Munich, Germany, March 22-25 1997. Audio Engineering Society. preprint 4460.
[24] S. Carlile. Virtual Auditory Space: Generation and Application. R. G. Landes Company,
Austin, TX. USA, 1996.
[25] M. Casey, W. Gardner, and S. Basu. Vision steered beamforming and transaural rendering
for the artificial life interactive video environment (ALIVE). In Audio Engineering Society
99th Conference, New York, NY. USA, 1996. Audio Engineering Society.
[26] C. I. Cheng and G. H. Wakefield. Introduction to head related transfer functions (HRTFs):
Representation of hrtfs in time, frequency and space. Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, 49(4):231–249, 2001.
[27] J. Chowning. The simulation of moving sound sources. Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, 19(1):2–6, 1971.
[28] J. M. Chowning. Digital sound synthesis, acoustics and perception: A rich intersection. In
Proceedings of the COST G-6 Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFX-00)., Verona,
Italy, December 2000.
[29] M. Cohen and E. Wenzel. The design of multidimensional sound interfaces. In W. Barfield
and T. A. Furness III, editors, Virtual Environments and Advanced Interface Design, chapter 8, pages 291–346. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, NY. USA, 1995.
[30] P. D. Coleman. An analysis of cues to auditory depth perception in free space. Psychological
Bulletin, 60:302–315, 1963.
[31] D. H. Cooper and J.L. Bauck. Prospects of transaural recording. Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, 37:3–19, 1989.
[32] Aureal Corporation. 3D audio primer. Technical report, Aureal Corporation, 1998.
[33] J. Dattorro. Effect design: Part 1: Reverberator and other filters. Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, 45(9):660–684, 1997.
[34] Wells Deutsche. Technical report, Deutsche Wells Radio Training Centre, Cologne Germany,
[35] A. Digenis. The implementation of ambisonics for restoring quadraphonic recordings. BA
(Hons) Recording Arts Undergraduate Thesis, SAE Technology College. Sydney, Australia,
[36] R. Dressler. Pro Logic surround decoder principles of operation. Technical report, Dolby
Laboratories, San Francisco, CA. USA, 1998.
[37] R. O. Duda, C. Avendano, and V. R. Algazi. An adaptable ellipsoidal head model for
the interaural time difference. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing ICASSP’99, pages 965 –968, Phoenix, AZ. USA,
[38] J. M. Eargle. Handbook of Recording Engineering. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
USA, 1996.
[39] G. Eckel. Immersive audio-augmented environments - the LISTEN project. In B. Banissi,
F. Khosrowshahi, M. Sarfraz, and A. Ursyn, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Information Visualization (IV2001), Los Alamitos, CA. USA, 2001. IEEE
Computer Society Press.
[40] G. Eckel. The LISTEN vision. In Preconference Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH and Eurographics Campfire on Acoustic Rendering for Virtual Environments, pages 55–58, SnowBird, UT. USA, May 26-29 2001.
[41] R. Elen. Whatever happened to Ambisonics? AudioMedia Magazine, November 1991.
[42] R. Elen. Ambisonics: The surround alternative. In Proceedings Surround 2001, Los Angeles,
CA. USA, December 2001.
[43] K. Farrar. Soundfield microphone. Wireless World, 85:99–102, 1979.
[44] H. G. Fisher and S. J. Freedman. The role of the pinna in auditory localization. Journal
of Auditory research, 8:15–26, 1968.
[45] H. Fletcher and W. A. Munson. Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 5:82–108, 1933.
[46] J. D. Foley, A. van Dam, S. K. Feiner, J. F. Hughes, and R. L. Phillips. Introduction to
Computer Graphics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA. USA, 1994.
[47] T. Funkhouser, I. Carlbom, G. Elko, G. Pingali, M. Sondhi, and J. West. A beam tracing
approach to acoustic modeling for interactive virtual environments. In Siggraph ’98, pages
21–32, Orlando, FL. USA, 1998.
[48] E. A. Gamble. Minor studies from the psychological laboratory of Wellesley College.
Intensity as criterion in estimating the distance in sounds. Psychological Review, 16:416,
[49] J. Garas. Adaptive 3D Sound Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. USA,
[50] M. B. Gardner. Distance estimation of 0o or apparent 0o oriented speech signals in anechoic
space. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 45:47–53, 1969.
[51] W. Gardner. 3-D Audio Using Loudspeakers. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
USA, 1998.
[52] W. G. Gardner. Efficient convolution without input-output delay. In 97th Convention of
the Audio Engineering Society, pages 127–135, San Francisco, CA. USA, November 1994.
[53] W. G. Gardner. Reverberation algorithms. In M. Kahrs and K. Brandenburg, editors, Applications of Digital Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, chapter 2. Kluwer Academic
Publishing, Norwell, MA. USA, 1998.
[54] W. G. Gardner. 3D audio and acoustic environment modeling. Technical report, Wave Arts
Inc., Arlington, MA. USA, March 1999.
[55] W. G. Gardner and K. D. Martin. HRTF measurements of a KEMAR. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 97(6):3907–3908, 1995.
[56] M. A. Gerzon. Compatibility of and conversion between multispeaker systems. In 93rd
Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, October 1992.
[57] P. Giddings. Multi-channel sound reproduction moving into the nineties. Engineering
Harmonics, February 15 1991.
[58] W. Grantham. Spatial hearing and related phenomena. In B. C. J. Moore, editor, Hearing,
Handbook of Perception and Cognition, chapter 9, pages 297–345. Academic Press Inc.,
San Diego, CA. USA, 1995.
[59] D. Griesinger. Stereo and surround panning in practice. In Audio Engineering Society 112th
Convention, pages 1–6, Munich, Germany, May 10-13 2002. Audio Engineering Society.
[60] D. Griffin. Echoes of Bats and Men. Anchor Books Doubleday and Co., Garden City, NY.
USA, 1938.
[61] C. M. Harris. Absorption of sound in air versus humidity and temperature. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 40:148–159, 1966.
[62] W. M. Hartmann. The physical description of signals. In B. C. J. Moore, editor, Hearing,
Handbook of Perception and Cognition, chapter 1, pages 1–40. Academic Press Inc., San
Diego, CA. USA, 1995.
[63] W. M. Hartmann. Listening in a room and the precedence effect. In R. H. Gilkey and T. R.
Anderson, editors, Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real and Virtual Environments, pages
191–810. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. USA, 1997.
[64] D. D. Hearn and M. P. Baker. Computer Graphics C Version. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ. USA, 2 edition, 1997.
[65] M. Hibbing. XY and MS microphone techniques in comparison. Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, 37:823–830, October 1989.
[66] C. Hugonnet and P. Walder. Stereophonic Sound Recording. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.,
West Sussex, England, 1995.
[67] J. Hull. Surround sound past, present and future. Technical report, Dolby Laboratories
Inc., San Francisco, CA. USA, 1999.
[68] J. Huopaniemi. Virtual Acoustics and 3D Sound in Multimedia Signal Processing. PhD
thesis, Department of Electrical and Communications Engineering, Helsinki University of
Technology, Espoo, Finland, November 1999.
[69] U. Ingard. A review of the influence of meteorological conditions on sound propagation.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25:405–411, 1953.
[70] Ircam and AKG Acoustics. LISTEN HRTF Databse, 2002.
[71] Lord Raleigh J. W. Strutt. Our perception of sound direction. Philosophical Magazine,
13:214–232, 1907.
[72] J. M. Jot. An analysis/synthesis approach to real-time artificial reverberation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pages
II.221–II.224, San Francisco, CA. USA, 1992. IEEE Press.
[73] J-M. Jot. Real-time spatial processing of sounds for music, multimedia and interactive
human-computer interfaces. Multimedia Systems, 7:55–69, 1999.
[74] G. Kendall. A 3D sound primer: Directional hearing and stereo reproduction. Computer
music Journal, 19(4):23–46, 1995.
[75] S. M. Khanna and M. R. Stinson. Specification of the acoustical input to the ear at high
frequencies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77:511–589.
[76] M. Kleiner, D. I. Dalenback, and P. Svensson. Auralization - an overview. Journal of the
Audio Engineering Society, 41(11):861–875, 1993.
[77] A. Kraemer. Two speakers are better than 5.1. IEEE Spectrum, pages 71–74, May 2001.
[78] G. F. Kuhn. Model for the interaural time differences in the azimuthal plane. Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America, 62(1):157–167, July 1977.
[79] A. Kulkarni and H. S. Colburn. Evaluation of a linear interpolation scheme for approximating HRTFs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93(4), 1993.
[80] H. Kuttruff. Room Acoustics. Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, NY. USA, 1991.
[81] C. Kyriakakis. Fundamental and technological limitations of immersive displays. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(5):941–951, May 1998.
[82] Dolby Laboratories. Dolby digital - the sound of the future here today. Technical report,
Dolby Laboratories, San Francisco, CA. USA, 1998.
[83] V. Larcher and J. M. Jot. Techniques d’interpolation de filtres audio-numeriques. application a la reproduction spatiale des sons sur ecouteurs. In Proceedings of the 4th congress of
the French Society of Acoustics, Marseille, France, April 1997.
[84] T. Lund. Enhanced localization in 5.1 production. In 109th Audio Engineering Society
Convention, Los Angeles, CA. USA, September 2000. Audio Engineering Society.
[85] MEDLINEplus. Medical encyclopedia, 2002. U.S. National Library of Medicine and the
National Institute of Health.
[86] D. H. Mershon. Phenomenal geometry and the measurement of perceived auditory distance. In R. H. Gilkey and T. R. Anderson, editors, Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real
and Virtual Environments, chapter 13, pages 257–274. Laurence Erlbaum Associates Inc.,
Mahwah, NJ. USA, 1997.
[87] D. H. Mershon, W. L. Ballenger, W. L. Little, P.L. Mcmurtry, and J. L. Buchanan. Effects
of room reflectance and background noise on perceived auditory distance. Perception,
18:403–416, 1989.
[88] D. H. Mershon and J. N. Bowers. Absolute and relative cues for the auditory perception
of egocentric distance. Perception and Psychophysics, 8:311–322, 1979.
[89] D. H. Mershon and L. E. King. Intensity and reverberation as factors in the auditory
perception of egocentric distance. Perception and Psychophysics, 18:409–415, 1975.
[90] J. C. Middlebrooks. Narrow-band sound localization related to external ear acoustics.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92:2607–2624, 1992.
[91] E. Milios, B. Kapralos, A. Kopinska, and S. Stergiopoulos. Sonification of range information
for 3D space perception. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 2001.
[92] B. C. J. Moore. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. Academic Press Limited,
San Diego, CA. USA, 3 edition, 1989.
[93] B. C. J. Moore, B. R. Glassberg, and Thomas Baer. A model for the prediction of thresholds,
loudness and partial loudness. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 45(4):224–239,
[94] R. F. Moore. Elements of Computer Music. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. USA,
[95] A. Mouchtaris, P. Reveliotis, and C. Kyriakakis. Inverse filter design for immersive audio
rendering over loudspeakers. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 2(2):77–87, 2000.
[96] C. Moy. The elements of musical perception. Technical report, Headwize, 2000.
[97] M. Naguib and H. Wiley. Estimating the distance to a sound: Mechanisms and adaptations
for long-range communications. Animal Behavior, 62:825–837, 2001.
[98] S. H. Nielson. Auditory distance perception in different rooms. Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, 41(10):755–770, 1993.
[99] S. R. Oldfield and S. P. A. Parker. Acuity of sound localization: a topography of auditory
space II: Pinna cues absent. Perception, 13:601–617, 1984.
[100] A. V. Oppenheim and R. W. Schafer. Discrete Time Signal Processing. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. USA, 1989.
[101] C. J. Plack and R. P. Carlyon. Loudness perception and intensity coding. In B. C. J.
Moore, editor, Hearing, Handbook of Perception and Cognition, chapter 2, pages 123–160.
Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA. USA, 2 edition, 1995.
[102] V. Pulkki. Virtual sound source positioning using vector base amplitude panning. Journal
of the Audio Engineering Society, 45(6):456–466, 1997.
[103] V. Pulkki. Localization of amplitude-panned virtual sources I: Stereophonic panning. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 49(9):739–751, September 2001.
[104] V. Pulkki. Localization of amplitude-panned virtual sources II: Two- and three-dimensional
panning. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 49(9):753–767, September 2001.
[105] V. Pulkki. Spatial Sound Generation and Perception by Amplitude Panning Techniques.
PhD thesis, Department of Electrical and Communications Engineering, Helsinki University
of Technology, Helsinki, Finland, August 2001.
[106] V. Pulkki, J. Huopaniemi, T. Huotilainen, and M. Karjalainen. DSP approach to multichannel audio. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC’96),
pages 93–96, 1996.
[107] A. V. Rabinovich. The effect of distance in the broadcasting studio. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 7:199–203, 1936.
[108] D. W. Robinson and R. S. Dadson. A re-determination of the equal-loudness relations for
pure tones. British Journal of Applied Physics, 7:166–181, 1956.
[109] M. Robinson, J. Laurence, A. Hogue, J. E. Zacher, A. German, and M. Jenkin. IVY: Basic
design and construction details. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Artifial Reality and Telexistence, Tokyo, Japan, December 4 − 6 2002.
[110] H. Robjohns. Stereo microphone techniques explained - part one. Sound on Sound, February
[111] H. Robjohns. Stereo microphone techniques explained - part one. Sound on Sound, March
[112] H. Robjohns. You are surrounded: Surround sound explained - part 1. Sound on Sound,
August 2001.
[113] H. Robjohns. You are surrounded: Surround sound explained - part 3. Sound on Sound,
October 2001.
[114] S. K. Roffler and R. A. Butler. Factors that influence the localization of in the vertical
plane. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 43:1255–1259, 1968.
[115] S. K. Roffler and R. A. Butler. Localization of tonal stimuli in the vertical plane. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 43:1260–1266, 1968.
[116] L. D. Rosenblum, M. S. Gordon, and L. Jarquin. Echolocation by moving and stationary
listeners. Ecological Psychology, 12(3):181–206, 2000.
[117] T. D. Rossing, R. F. Moore, and P. A. Wheeler. The Science of Sound. Benjamin Cummings,
San Francisco, CA. USA, 2002.
[118] L. Savioja. Modeling Techniques for Virtual Acoustics. PhD thesis, Helsinki University of
Technology, Telecommunications Software and Multimedia Laboratory, Helsinki, Finland,
[119] P. Scheiber. Four channels and compatibility. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
19:267–279, 1971.
[120] P. Scheiber. Multidirectional sound system. U.S. Patent 3,746,792, July 1973.
[121] M. R. Schroeder. Natural sounding artificial reverberation. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 10(3):219–233, 1962.
[122] M. R. Schroeder and B. F. Logan. Colorless artificial reverberation. Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, 9(3):209–214, 1961.
[123] M. N. Semple. Sounds in a virtual world. Nature, 396:723–724, December 1998.
[124] C. W. Sheeline. An Investigation of the Effects of Direct and reverberant Signal Interaction
on Auditory Distance Perception. PhD thesis, Department of Hearing and Speech, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA. USA, 1982.
[125] R. D. Shilling and B Sinn-Cunningham. Virtual auditory displays. In Handbook of Virtual
Environments, pages 65–92. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. USA, 2002.
[126] B. G. Shin-Cunningham. Distance cues for virtual auditory space. In Proceedings of the
First IEEE Pacific-Rim Conference on Multimedia., Sydney, Australia, December 2000.
[127] B. G. Shin-Cunningham. Learning reverberation: Considerations for spatial auditory displays. In Proceedingsof the International Conference on Auditory Displays, pages 126–134,
Atlanta, GA. USA, December 2000.
[128] A. Sibbald. Transaural acoustic crosstalk cancellation. Technical report, Sensaura Ltd.,
Middlesex, UK, 1999.
[129] A. Sibbald. Chaotic waves for 3D audio. Technical report, Sensaura Ltd., Middlesex, UK,
[130] W. H. Slattery and J. C. Middlebrooks. Monaural sound localization: acute versus chronic
unilateral impairment. Hearing Research, 75:38–46, 1984.
[131] J. M. Speigle and J. M. Loomis. Auditory distance perception by translating observers. In
Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Research Frontiers in Virtual Reality, pages 92–95,
New York, NY. USA, 1993.
[132] J. C. Steinberg and W. B. Snow. Physical factors in auditory perspective. Bell Systems
Technical Journal, 13:245–259, 1953.
[133] S.S. Stevens. On the physical law. Psychology Review, 64:153–181, 1957.
[134] S.S. Stevens. Perceived level of noise by mark VII and decibels (E). Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 51:575–601, 1972.
[135] T. G. Stockholm. High speed convolution and correlation. In Proceedings of the American
Federation of Information Processing Societies, pages 229–233, 1966.
[136] R. Streicher and A. Everest. The New Stereo Soundbook. Audio Engineering Associates,
Pasadena, CA. USA, 2 edition, 1998.
[137] M. Supra, M. Cotzin, and K. M. Dallenbach. Facial vision: The perception of obstacles by
the blind. The American Journal of Psychology, 57:133–183, 1944.
[138] C. J. Tan and W.S. Gan. User defined spectral manipulation of hrtf for improved localization
in 3D sound systems. Electronics Letters, 34(25):2387–2389, December 1998.
[139] G. Theile. On the naturalness of two-channel stereo sound. Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, 39(10):761– 767, 1991.
[140] W. R. Thurlow, J. W. Mangels, and P. S. Runge. Head movements during sound localization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 42:489–493, 1967.
[141] H. Tremaine. Audio Cyclopedia. Howard W. Sams and Co., Inc, Indianapolis, IN. USA, 2
edition, 1974.
[142] C. Uy. “Seeing” sounds: Echolocation by blind humans. the Harvard Brain: Harvard’s
Undergraduate Neuroscience Magazine., 1, 1994.
[143] von Bekesy. Experiments in Hearing. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. USA, 1960.
[144] H. Wallach. The role of head movements and vestibular and visual cues in sound localization. Experimental Psychology, 27:339–368, 1940.
[145] H. Wallach, E. B. Newman, and M. R. Rosenzweig. The precedence effect in sound localization. Journal of Psychology, 52:315–336, 1949.
[146] D. B. Ward and G. W. Elko. A new robust system for 3D audio using loudspeakers. In Proceedings 2000 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing,
volume 2, pages II781 –II784. IEEE, 2000.
[147] R. M. Warren. Auditory Perception: A New Analysis and Synthesis. Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY. USA, 1983.
[148] E. M. Wenzel, M. Arruda, D. J. Kistler, and F. L. Wightman. Localization using nonindividualized head-related transfer functions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
94(1):111–123, 1993.
[149] E. M. Wenzel, F. L. Wightman, and D. J. Kistler. Acoustic origins of individual differences
in sound localization behavior. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84(S79), 1988.
[150] J. West. Five-channel panning laws: An analytical and experimental comparison. Master’s
thesis, Faculty of Music Engineering Technology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.
USA, May 1998.
[151] F. L. Wightman and D. J. Kistler. Headphone simulation of free-field listening. I: Stimulus
synthesis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(2), February 1989.
[152] F. L. Wightman and D. J. Kistler. Sound localization. In W. Yost, A. Popper, and R. Fay,
editors, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research: Human Psychophysics, volume 3, pages
155–192. Springer-Verlag Inc., New York NY. USA, 1993.
[153] F. L. Wightman and D. J. Kistler. Factors affecting the relative salience of sound localization
cues. In R. H. Gilkey and T. R. Anderson, editors, Binaural and Spatial Hearing in Real
and Virtual Environments, chapter 1, pages 1–23. Lawrence Elbaum Associates, Mahwah,
NJ. USA, 1997.
[154] F. L. Wightman, D. J. Kistler, and M. Arruda. Perceptual consequences of engineering
compromises in synthesis of virtual auditory objects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 92:2332, 1992.
[155] R. Wolfson and J. M. Pasachoff. Physics with Modern Physics. HarperCollins College
Publishers, New York, NY. USA, 2 edition, 1995.
[156] R. S. Woodworth and G. Schlosberg. Experimental Psychology. Holt, Rinehard and Winston, New York, NY. USA, 1962.
[157] P. Zahorik. Auditory distance perception: A literature review. Phd Preliminary Examination, University of West Maddison, Deptartment of Psychology, August 1996.
[158] P. Zahorik. Assessing auditory distance perception using virtual acoustics. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 111(4):1832–1846, 2002.
[159] D. Zotkin, R.Duraiswami, and L.Davis. Creation of virtual auditory spaces. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 2113–
2116, Orlando, FL. USA, May 2002.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF