[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The role of threshold in quiet in specific loudness calculation
- To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: The role of threshold in quiet in specific loudness calculation
- From: "Rossi Mark (PA-ATMO/EES21) *" <Mark.Rossi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:10:10 +0200
- Delivery-date: Thu Aug 19 11:49:05 2004
- Reply-to: "Rossi Mark (PA-ATMO/EES21) *" <Mark.Rossi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Thread-index: AcRk/dJXxi4XBOqHSmi//aSb3sQKkgDa70MAAfxBvyAE6opJ8AB97bTw
- Thread-topic: specific loudness calculation: ambiguity of excitation
when calculating the specific loudness the way Zwicker/Fastl recommended and feeding in white noise I don't see any influence of the threshold in quiet, even with the excitation by internal noise floors (which represents basically the threshold in quiet) being part of the formula. When I look at the formula I just see minor influence of this 'internal noise floor'. Mainly when the (real) excitation comes in the order of magnitude of the 'internal noise floor'.
Is there a preprocessing of the input data intended -- like subtracting the threshold in quiet from the input data -- that is meant to represent the head related transfer functions (HRTF)?
If not: at which point the introduction of the HRTF is reasonable?