Significance of height loudspeaker positioning for perceived immersive sound field reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, new multichannel audio formats incorporating height loudspeakers have caught researchers' attention due to their ability to reproduce an immersive sound field. This study investigated the influence of the height loudspeaker positions and their signals on individually perceived sound quality. The authors generated nine-channel sound sources by convolving two anechoic musical pieces with nine selected room impulse responses measured in different distances and heights. In the listening test two layers of loudspeakers were used: the horizontal layer, following the standard ITU-R BS 775 five-channel loudspeaker configuration and the height layer (with elevation of 30°) with a total of twelve loudspeakers, located at ±30, ±50, ±70, ±90, ±110, and ±130 degrees. Four height signals were reproduced through eight different configurations of four height loudspeakers. Twelve listeners participated in the experiment, wherein they were asked to compare the randomly presented eight configurations and rank them based on their individually perceived sound quality. The experimental results indicate that despite the perceptual differences related to the room impulse responses, the perceived overall quality is significantly influenced by the positioning of the four height loudspeakers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".