Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Legally Download-able Binaural recordings links
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Legally Download-able Binaural recordings links - Page 13

post #181 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by loud n clear View Post

I listened to your other files there dw. With the vertical music box one does it start directly overhead, arc down to left ear, horizonally traverse to the right, then arc back to the top?

 

Thanks!

 

The music box was moved by hand roughly in a circle, as in the notes. http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/sounds/169373/

In a way it is reassuring that you hear the same faults as others..

http://www.freesound.org/forum/production-techniques-music-gear-tips-and-tricks/13651/?page=3#post

 

It does not do down very well and tends to move forwards instead.. Try lying down on your back and see if it is any better. With me it then goes past my feet. The down direction was improved in later versions, and with some shoulders, but  I have not repeated that test yet. It works better for me with some headphones, and worse with others. I use cheap hd219 headphones mainly now. I think they were used for the recent DTS Headphone-X demos, from the look of them, which is why I got them.

post #182 of 236

Another binaural recording to add to the list.

http://www.headphone.com/rightbetweenyourears/?p=2823
 

post #183 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwareing View Post

Another binaural recording to add to the list.

http://www.headphone.com/rightbetweenyourears/?p=2823
 

Very nice work...and very listenable. Thanks so much for having posted it - nice to see the KU 100 shown as well.

 

I'm going to post the link to the article / show on the Immersifi Recording Services FB page later on; it's truly deserving of the attention (I'm all about promoting binaural, whether it's one of my recordings or those of another Engineer).

post #184 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by immersifi View Post

Very nice work...and very listenable. Thanks so much for having posted it - nice to see the KU 100 shown as well.

 

I'm going to post the link to the article / show on the Immersifi Recording Services FB page later on; it's truly deserving of the attention (I'm all about promoting binaural, whether it's one of my recordings or those of another Engineer).

 

I liked the sound enough to have played it four times so far. I do believe the KU 100 is very seriously  'broken' for 3d sound localization though.

I really must get a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People...

post #185 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwareing View Post

 

I liked the sound enough to have played it four times so far. I do believe the KU 100 is very seriously  'broken' for 3d sound localization though.

I really must get a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence People...

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one (about the KU 100 being 'broken').

 

I have used at least four different mannequin heads in my day job(s) over the past 20 years - some costing as much as $25k, and there are (to be fair) differences in localization that can occur among head variants. Most of this comes down to the type of equalization that each mannequin head employs (and to some extent, the presence / absence of a torso). Some mannequin heads have switchable equalization to free field, but this is really only best suited for lab use and to make the mannequin head's pressure response mimic that of a typical free-field lab microphone (i.e. B&K type 4189). Free-field equalization (assumes that the source is directly in front of the mannequin, approx 2m away, anechoic conditions) can be used in certain head variants, and this really affects the timbre when recording / acquiring data in non-anechoic conditions. Clearly, very, very few recordings (for entertainment) are made in such boundary conditions, and this is logical as the absence of natural reverb would make for some pretty 'dry' music.

 

Conversely, diffuse field equalization is also technically incorrect (which is what the KU 100 is equalized to) for any acquisitions that take place in anything other than a wholly diffuse field (i.e. a reverb chamber suitable for use according to the guidelines outlines in ASTM C-423 or its ISO equivalent). However, for recording, if I had to choose between free and diffuse field equalization (and I had no options to alter the EQ), I would choose diffuse simply because it's closer to the situation / boundary conditions in which one would record music, and further away from the free field equalization curve (which would make recordings overly bright due to the HF lift in the correction).

 

Again, in my opinion, neitehr the free or diffuse field is technically 'correct', save for using the mannequin explicitly in those boundary conditions (those sound-fields). What makes the greatest sense to me is that the equalization be venue-specific, and it's been my experience that one can get quite close to this when done as a post process via signal processing (convolution). In essence, this allows you to alter the default equalization curve (a correction if you will) to flat in-situ response. What I have found, subjectively, is that when one compares the diffuse field equalized recording to the corrected one, the latter tends to sound more natural - but this is a function of how close the conditions in which one records are to a truly diffuse field; the closer the environment is to diffuse, the less import the in-situ correction seems to have if starting with a diffuse-field equalized system.

 

The B&K 4100 can be switched to free or diffuse field EQ, but nothing in-between. The variants from Head Acoustics feature free, diffuse, ID (independent of direction) and a 'user' EQ (assuming you have the software to 'talk' to the DSP box). ID tends to be a pretty good 'go-to' equalization, because it only accounts for the ear canal resonance and so seems to me to be a good approach as it negates the effect of the pinna, shoulders, and torso (taking into account only the effects of the ear canal and the cavum (and possibly the cymba - I don't recall right now) .

 

In all other (commercial) mannequin heads (Cortex, KEMAR (now GRAS), B&K 4100, and Neumann) there is (at least not that I know of) no user-defined EQ, but again, the EQ can become whatever you like as a post process (iwthin the limits of DSP).

 

However, what I have seen, over and over (for the past 20 years now working in product sound quality) is the importance of context and the visual cortex in terms of imaging - especially when running juried listening tests. I think I mentioned it elsewhere in the thread how when people evaluate binaural playback seated where the recordings were made, the localization becomes much more believable and 'natural'...but that same recording taken out of context sounds different. I think this is a primary factor in imaging, and EQ is an almost-secondary factor (again, there's no rule here, because one has to consider boundary conditions relative the EQ with which one starts).

 

I base these comments on my own experience using binaural for juried playback in juried studies, but also on similar observations made by those who use the methodology for evaluating performace of in-car OEM audio systems - they usually run their juried tests in a vehicle interior (listener sits in the vehicle using headphoens) as this often yields much more reliable data about the subjective elements of the sound system. That is, when they play the same sounds to jurors outside of the automotive interior, many users report the exact same recording as soundling less 'real' than when they hear the exact same recording (played back at the same (and 1:1) loudness) played back in the vehicle interior. Given that there's no change to the recording, or to the playback boundary conditions (because the jurors wear headphones), it seems pretty well established that context and visual references play a very big role in localization. Mind you, this happens pretty much independent of mannequin type (using similar equalizations).

post #186 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by immersifi View Post

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one (about the KU 100 being 'broken').

 

I trhink you would have to disagee. If HRTF data and the reproduction of dummy head recordings over headphones is broken then all the 'science' done using such things only applies to things that are similarly broken.

 

You recently cited a paper (on Gearslutz)

http://www.acoustics.org/press/165th/1pPPb24_Kolarik.html

As it stands the conclusions are completely worthless, as no details of the experimental method is given.

It does however say:

".We presented a man speaking a sentence from virtual distances"

VIRTUAL! Why not use a real man and actual distances, and avoid studying broken things and crackpot theories of distance perceptoion?

post #187 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwareing View Post

I trhink you would have to disagee. If HRTF data and the reproduction of dummy head recordings over headphones is broken then all the 'science' done using such things only applies to things that are similarly broken.

 

You recently cited a paper (on Gearslutz)

http://www.acoustics.org/press/165th/1pPPb24_Kolarik.html

As it stands the conclusions are completely worthless, as no details of the experimental method is given.

It does however say:

".We presented a man speaking a sentence from virtual distances"

VIRTUAL! Why not use a real man and actual distances, and avoid studying broken things and crackpot theories of distance perceptoion?

Hmmm...well, I'm not the only person (or who works for an organization / in an industry) that relies on binaural methodology for perceptual research and or entertainment. Every playback approach is at best an approximation of reality, but to date, no other alternative format has shown itself to be as compact (i.e. no significant support hardware required) or yield as realistic an image as has binaural. If you look into the fields of perceptual research (i.e. university-borne research) as well as sound quality (whether consumer appliance, automotive, aviation, spacecraft, military - the list is pretty much endless as evidenced by papers published by Members of the ASA, AES, SAE, and INCE et al) binaural has been the de-facto standard for decades - world-wide. As I have stated elsewhere on the web, binaural is not perfect, but then again, no method out there is. However, to reiterate, I do maintain that it's the closest thing to reality thus far, and as a consequence is the methodology by which the vast majority of percpetual research is conducted.

 

As far as the ASA Lay-Paper reference is concerned, I don't know if when I posted it in the gearslutz forum I cited that it was preliminary, and that the formal, fleshed-out paper had not yet been published (and if I didn't that's my mistake), but I did say as much when I posted it in the Perceptual Audio Group on LinkedIn (and I even contacted the authors asking when the published paper will be made public). While the ASA Lay-Paper is incomplete and has holes in it (as I also pointed out), I definitely would not call the works of well-established perceptual signal processing specialists like Hammershoi, Moeller, Hartmann, and Begault 'crackpot theories' as they are pretty heavily rooted in some well-structured research and scientific method. Granted, they were not involved in the Lay-Paper, but they have laid much of the groundwork that is used to conduct such reasearch.

post #188 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by immersifi View Post

Hmmm...well, I'm not the only person (or who works for an organization / in an industry) that relies on binaural methodology for perceptual research and or entertainment. Every playback approach is at best an approximation of reality, but to date, no other alternative format has shown itself to be as compact (i.e. no significant support hardware required) or yield as realistic an image as has binaural. If you look into the fields of perceptual research (i.e. university-borne research) as well as sound quality (whether consumer appliance, automotive, aviation, spacecraft, military - the list is pretty much endless as evidenced by papers published by Members of the ASA, AES, SAE, and INCE et al) binaural has been the de-facto standard for decades - world-wide. As I have stated elsewhere on the web, binaural is not perfect, but then again, no method out there is. However, to reiterate, I do maintain that it's the closest thing to reality thus far, and as a consequence is the methodology by which the vast majority of percpetual research is conducted.

 

As far as the ASA Lay-Paper reference is concerned, I don't know if when I posted it in the gearslutz forum I cited that it was preliminary, and that the formal, fleshed-out paper had not yet been published (and if I didn't that's my mistake), but I did say as much when I posted it in the Perceptual Audio Group on LinkedIn (and I even contacted the authors asking when the published paper will be made public). While the ASA Lay-Paper is incomplete and has holes in it (as I also pointed out), I definitely would not call the works of well-established perceptual signal processing specialists like Hammershoi, Moeller, Hartmann, and Begault 'crackpot theories' as they are pretty heavily rooted in some well-structured research and scientific method. Granted, they were not involved in the Lay-Paper, but they have laid much of the groundwork that is used to conduct such reasearch.

All those people mentioned would use a tape measure to measure distance to a person, and not loudness, given a choice. I did NOT call _their_ work 'crackpot', but basing auditory distance rendering only on direct sound level would be crackpot compared to using a tape measure and a real sound source, but we don't actually know what was done.

 

Since my dummy head is very different, it is likely to be broken in different ways and extent. if you had listened as much as I have, or perhaps even at all, you might find  different properties, and reach different conclusions to those based upon listening to the KU 100 and similar types.

 

Unfortunately audio development is no longer subject to evolutionary pressures based on localization . What succeeds today depends instead on how much money you have to spend on advertising, and whether you can hear the words in the car or on the Iphone

 

Now, in the distant past, if any mutant genes had resulted in human sound localization of today's typical dummy heads and headphones,  they would have been digested by the sabre-toothed tiger, and like-minded critters, in the blink of an evolutionary eye.. IMO..


Edited by dwareing - 6/26/13 at 3:26am
post #189 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwareing View Post

....Since my dummy head is very different, it is likely to be broken in different ways and extent. if you had listened as much as I have, or perhaps even at all, you might find  different properties, and reach different conclusions to those based upon listening to the KU 100 and similar types...

Have you tried approaching typical users (i.e. in research, industry, product sound quality etc) of conventional mannequin heads with your mannequin head? I don't know the first thing about your design, but it seems that if your design yields what you consider to be a more accurate rendering of the event, people would be interested in giving it a try. If it's posted on the web or described in some technical papers, I wouldn't mind reading up on your design.

post #190 of 236

http://blog.digdagga.com/2013/02/3dios-free-space-ears-capture-beck-live.html

This looks like something to look forward to. From the binaural recordings I've heard so far the 3Dio mics have given me the best positional sound with the Phonak iems I have.

 

...Nevermind you needn't wait!

http://www.hello-again.com/beck360/main/beck360.html

 

I'm listening now


Edited by loud n clear - 6/27/13 at 5:28am
post #191 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by immersifi View Post

Have you tried approaching typical users (i.e. in research, industry, product sound quality etc) of conventional mannequin heads with your mannequin head? I don't know the first thing about your design, but it seems that if your design yields what you consider to be a more accurate rendering of the event, people would be interested in giving it a try. If it's posted on the web or described in some technical papers, I wouldn't mind reading up on your design.


Thanks for your interest, and patience.

 

I have no plans to sell, or publish anything. There might be quite a lot of value in burying it thouigh..

It is just a bit of a amateur challenge to fix Everything(tm). It has been about 20yrs effort so far, and I have just retired.

I don't need my name on (any more) papers, or to squander my pension on a broken industry..

It works for one person in the world, perhaps more.. There is enough to be gained from studying the existing recordings alone to keep a research group in publications for years to come, if you know what to look for..

 

I missed the point when I joined that people who listen to _stereo_ on headphones obviously have no interest in imaging, and are looking for something else instead.

 

There is no obvious method to unsubscribe, but i will do my best to stay away.

post #192 of 236
Quote:

Originally Posted by immersifi View Post
 

Have you tried approaching typical users (i.e. in research, industry, product sound quality etc) of conventional mannequin heads with your mannequin head? I don't know the first thing about your design, but it seems that if your design yields what you consider to be a more accurate rendering of the event, people would be interested in giving it a try. If it's posted on the web or described in some technical papers, I wouldn't mind reading up on your design.


I'll leave you with the thoughts of JJ http://www.aes.org/technical/sa/

 

"Binaural does not work, btw, because it does not provide additional cues when you move your head. That's its big failure, that and the fact that it imposes somebody else's HRTF's on you."

 

http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=general&n=88224&highlight=binaural&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fsearchtext%3Dbinaural%26b%3DAND%26topic%3D%26topics_only%3DN%26author%3D%26date1%3D%26date2%3D%26slowmessage%3D%26sort%3Dscore%26sortOrder%3DDESC%26forum%3DALL

 

He is wrong on all three counts BTW.

 

http://www.freesound.org/people/dwareing/

post #193 of 236
post #194 of 236

Modern Classical ("Puszta - Four Gypsy Dances") and Choir Recordings (Basilica di San Vitale, Rome Italy) up on soundcloud...

 

OK, I thought I would update the thread - I really hope that I didn't already post these tracks...'seems I lose track of what I have posted in a given forum and when. However, I did look several pages back, and I didn't see a post from me about these recordings (mentioned at top). Apologies if this is redundant.

 

The first link is for "Puszta", performed by a surprisingly good High School Band here in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. I was lucky enough to have been able to exchange email with the Composer (Jan Van der Roost) about the recordings, and after he auditioned them, he was completely cool with me posting this recording to a non-revenue site. So, post it I did, in both .flac as well as 320 kbps mp3.

 

A note of CAUTION though...the player on soundcloud transcodes every file, regardless of the resolution at which it was posted, down to 128 kbps mp3. Ugh. This is why I have gone back and added the string (for example) "(FLAC version (when downloaded))" or "(320 kbp3 mp3 version (when downloaded))" to the tracks' titles, and I even mention the transcoding bit in the text section, just to try and steer people away from experiencing anything (my recordings or those of others) via soundcloud's player.

 

Thus, to hear them sound their level best (as well as the work of others), be sure to download the tracks and then play those. It kills me that the soundcloud player functions that way, and I suspect the vast majority of people who stream recordings there are not aware of it. I know I wasn't...until I uploaded something, then played it back to hear...and then thought "uh oh...did something go wrong?". After a little FAQ digging I found that no, the site's player does that.

 

Bummer. Heavy sigh.

 

Still, this does not affect the download's fidelity, so if a file piques your interest on soundcloud - ANY audio file - be sure to download it and listen to that - avoid the site's streaming player.

 

So, here's the link to the Jan Van der Roost piece:

 

https://soundcloud.com/immersifi/puszta-four-gypsy-dances

 

and you can find the 320 kbps link to the same piece (but in 320 mp3) in the text describing the recording (at the end).

 

OK, now the choir stuff...

 

https://soundcloud.com/immersifi/sets/ann-arbor-huron-high-school-1

 

The choir stuff is in a 'collection' because I wanted to keep all 13 tracks together.

 

Anyway, I hope you like this stuff...and if you want to see the rest of what's posted there, just go here: https://soundcloud.com/immersifi 

 

Oh, and if you like the choir stuff, I will be posting more similar recordings from the same choirs, but performed in a church on the outskirts of Rome (Lazio, I think) called "Segni". Thos should post in a week or so, also on soundcloud.

 

All the Best,

 

Mark

post #195 of 236
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loud n clear View Post

Just discovered binaural recording due to this thread. Would recommend looking up Jeff Anderson on YouTube also. He has a great one with fireworks and others.

 

That's Jeffrey Anderson at YouTube - find his channel here:

 
 
Terry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Legally Download-able Binaural recordings links