Binaural Assessment of Multichannel Reproduction

  • H. Wierstorf
  • A. RaakeEmail author
  • S. Spors
Part of the Modern Acoustics and Signal Processing book series (MASP)


This chapter outlines the problem of evaluating multichannel reproduction by example of the wave-field synthesis method. This method is known for providing good localization of reproduced source within an extended listening area. The localization performance for a virtual point sources was investigated for various listener positions and loudspeaker-array configurations. Respective results of listening-test were compared with localization predictions by a binaural model. With this model, a localization map can be obtained that covers most listener positions within the synthesis area. With such a localization map, designers of loudspeaker-setups for wave-field synthesis can estimate the localization and localization accuracy to be expected from a given multichannel setup. To enable perception of sound sources at arbitrary positions within the synthesis area of a given wave-field synthesis implementation, input signals to the two ears had to be generated. This was realized by means of dynamic binaural synthesis, a technique that allows for instantaneous switching between different listening scenarios. In a formal pre-test, it was verified that dynamic binaural simulation has no influence on the listeners’ localization performance as compared to natural hearing. Both the test procedure and the modeling results can be taken as a basis for further research regarding the evaluation of multichannel reproduction, an area that is still sparsely covered.


Sound Field Interaural Time Difference Sweet Spot Listening Position Auditory Event 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    A. Berkhout. A holographic approach to acoustic control. J. Audio Eng. Soc., 36:977–995, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Blauert. Spatial Hearing. The MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Blauert and U. Jekosch. Concepts Behind Sound Quality: Some Basic Considerations. In Proc. 32nd Intl. Congr. Expos. Noise, Control, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Born, E. Wolf, A. Bhatia, P. Clemmow, D. Gabor, A. Stokes, A. Taylor, P. Wayman, and W. Wilkock. Principles of Optics. Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. S. Brungart and W. M. Rabinowitz. Auditory localization of nearby sources. Head-related transfer functions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 106:1465–79, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Choisel and F. Wickelmaier. Evaluation of multichannel reproduced sound: Scaling auditory attributes underlying listener preference. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 121:388, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Colton and R. Kress. Integral Equation Methods in Scattering Theory. Wiley, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Dietz, S. D. Ewert, and V. Hohmann. Auditory model based direction estimation of concurrent speakers from binaural signals. Speech Commun., 53:592–605, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. du Moncel. The Telephone at the Paris Opera. Scientific America, pp. 422–23, 1881.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. M. Fazi. Sound Field Reproduction. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. M. Fazi, P. A. Nelson, and R. Potthast. Analogies and differences between three methods for sound field reproduction. In Proc. Ambis. Sym., 2009.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Geier, J. Ahrens, and S. Spors. The SoundScape Renderer: A Unified Spatial Audio Reproduction Framework for Arbitrary Rendering Methods. In Proc. 124th Conv. Audio Eng. Soc., 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Geier, H. Wierstorf, J. Ahrens, I. Wechsung, A. Raake, and S. Spors. Perceptual Evaluation of Focused Sources in Wave Field Synthesis. In Proc. 128th Conv. Audio Eng. Soc., 2010.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Guastavino and B. F. G. Katz. Perceptual evaluation of multi-dimensional spatial audio reproduction. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 116(2):1105, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Huygens. Treatise on Light (English translation by S. P. Thompson). Macmillan & Co, London, 1912.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Kohlrausch, J. Braasch, D. Kolossa, and J. Blauert. An introduction to binaural processing. In J. Blauert, editor, The technology of binaural listening, chapter 1. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York NY, 2013.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Letowski. Sound Quality Assessment: Concepts and Criteria. In Proc. 89th Conv. Audio Eng. Soc., 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Lewald, G. J. Dörrscheidt, and W. H. Ehrenstein. Sound localization with eccentric head position. Behav. Brain Res., 108(2):105–25, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Lindau, J. Estrella, and S. Weinzierl. Individualization of dynamic binaural synthesis by real time manipulation of the ITD. In Proc. 128th Conv. Audio Eng. Soc., 2010.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Y. Litovsky, H. S. Colburn, W. A. Yost, and S. J. Guzman. The precedence effect. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 106:1633–54, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Majdak, B. Laback, M. Goupell, and M. Mihocic. The Accuracy of Localizing Virtual Sound Sources: Effects of Pointing Method and Visual Environment. In Proc. 124th Conv. Audio Eng. Soc., 2008.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. Merchel and S. Groth. Adaptively Adjusting the Stereophonic Sweet Spot to the Listeners Position. J. Audio Eng. Soc., 58:809–817, 2010.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. Rumsey. Spatial Quality Evaluation for Reproduced Sound: Terminology, Meaning, and a Scene-Based Paradigm. J. Audio Eng. Soc., 50:651–666, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    F. Rumsey, S. Zielinski, R. Kassier, and S. Bech. On the relative importance of spatial and timbral fidelities in judgments of degraded multichannel audio quality. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 118:968–976, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. U. Seeber. Untersuchung der auditiven Lokalisation mit einer Lichtzeigermethode. PhD thesis, 2003.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. Søndergaard and P. Majdak. The auditory modeling toolbox. In J. Blauert, editor, The technology of binaural listening, chapter 2. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York NY, 2013.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Spors and J. Ahrens. Spatial Sampling Artifacts of Wave Field Synthesis for the Reproduction of Virtual Point Sources. In Proc. 126th Conv. Audio Eng. Soc., 2009.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    E. Start. Direct Sound Enhancement by Wave Field Synthesis. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, 1997.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Steinberg and W. B. Snow. Symposium on wire transmission of symphonic music and its reproduction in auditory perspective: Physical Factors. AT &T Tech. J., 13:245–258, 1934.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    E. Verheijen. Sound Reproduction by Wave Field Synthesis. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, 1997.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Vogel. Application of Wave Field Synthesis in Room Acoustics. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, 1993.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    H. Wierstorf, M. Geier, A. Raake, and S. Spors. A Free Database of Head-Related Impulse Response Measurements in the Horizontal Plane with Multiple Distances. In Proc. 130th Conv. Audio Eng. Soc., 2011.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    H. Wierstorf, A. Raake, and S. Spors. Localization of a virtual point source within the listening area for Wave Field Synthesis. In Proc. 133rd Conv. Audio Eng. Soc., 2012.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    H. Wierstorf and S. Spors. Sound Field Synthesis Toolbox. In Proc. 132nd Conv. Audio Eng. Soc., 2012.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    H. Wierstorf, S. Spors, and A. Raake. Perception and evaluation of sound fields. In Proc. 59th Open Sem. Acoust., 2012.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    F. L. Wightman and D. J. Kistler. The dominant role of low-frequency interaural time differences in sound localization. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 91(3):1648–61, 1992.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    E. G. Williams. Fourier Acoustics. Academic Press, San Diego, 1999.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    H. Wittek. Perceptual differences between wavefield synthesis and stereophony. PhD thesis, University of Surrey, 2007.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    N. Zacharov and K. Koivuniemi. Audio descriptive analysis & mapping of spatial sound displays. In Proc. 7th Intl. Conf. Audit. Display, pages 95–104, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Assessment of IP-based Applications, Telekom Innovation Laboratories (T-Labs)Technische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Signal Theory and Digital Signal Processing, Institute of Communications EngineeringUniversität RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations