English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In order to make full use of their potential to replace experiments in real rooms, auralizations must be as realistic as possible. Recently, it has been shown that for speech, head-tracked binaural auralizations based on  measured  binaural room impulse responses (BRIRs) can be so realistic, that they become indistinguishable (or nearly so) from the real room [1, 2]. In the present contribution, perceptual comparisons between the auralized and the real room are reported for auralizations based both on  measured  and  simulated  BRIRs. In the experiment, subjects sitting in the real room rated the agreement between the real and the auralized room with respect to a number of attributes. The results indicate that for most attributes, the agreement between the auralized and the real room can be very convincing (better than 7.5 on a nine-point scale). This was not only observed for auralizations based on measured BRIRs, but also for those based on simulated BRIRs. In the scenario considered here, the use of individual head-related impulse responses (HRIRs) does not seem to offer any benefit over using HRIRs from a head-and-torso-simulator.

acta acustica

Toward realistic binaural auralizations – perceptual comparison between measurement and simulation-based auralizations and the real room for a classroom scenario