Table of Figures

Fig. 2.1. The three events in sensation, and the areas of study in their relationships [13].

Fig. 2.2. Model for an auditory experiment (after [14], [13]).

Fig. 2.3. Coordinate system for spatial hearing experiments.

Fig. 2.4. Position of the sound event’s position relative to the center of the head, with reference azimuths labeled.

Fig. 2.5. The cone of confusion results when only IIDs or ITDs are present. Here, lateralization to the person’s left would occur to match the projection of the sound source vector onto the interaural axis.

Fig. 3.1. Two-channel system.

Fig. 3.2. Linear, constant gain panning for two channels: (top) channel gains, (bottom) total power and total gain.

Fig. 3.3. Five-channel system.

Fig. 3.4. Linear, constant gain panning for five channels: (top) channel gains, (bottom) total power and total gain.

Fig. 3.5. Constant power panning for two channels: (top) channel gains, (bottom) total power and total gain.

Fig. 3.6. Constant power panning for five channels: (top) channel gains, (bottom) total power and total gain.

Fig. 3.7. Velocity and energy vector components for two-channel panning laws: (a) linear, constant gain panning, (b) constant power panning.

Fig. 3.8. Linear, constant gain panning for five channels: (top) vector magnitudes, (bottom) vector directions.

Fig. 3.9. Constant power panning for five channels: (top) vector magnitudes, (bottom) vector directions.

Fig. 3.10. Three-channel system.

Fig. 3.11. Gerzon’s optimal panning for three channels: (top) channel gains, (bottom) total power and total gain.

Fig. 3.12. Gerzon’s optimal panning for three channels: vector components.

Fig. 3.13. Hybrid optimal/constant power panning for five channels: (top) channel gains, (bottom) total power and total gain.

Fig. 3.14. Hybrid optimal/constant power panning for five channels: vector components.

Fig. 3.15. Optimal panning for five channels: (top) channel gains, (bottom) total power and total gain.

Fig. 3.16. Optimal panning for five channels: vector components.

Fig. 3.17. Moorer azimuthal harmonic optimized panning for five channels: (top) channel gains, (bottom) total power and total gain.

Fig. 3.18. Moorer azimuthal harmonic optimized panning for five channels: vector components.

Fig. 3.19. Azimuthal spectra for all panning algorithms.

Fig. 4.1. Ninety-degree moving pan regions for sections 3 and 6.

Fig. 4.2. Average music spectrum A(k).

Fig. 4.3. Sections of the approximate cepstrum, c_p(n), for a speech signal.

Fig. 4.4. Cepstrally smoothed average music spectrum, A_smooth(k).

Fig. 4.5. Azimuths of five speaker set-ups: (a) Dolby ProLogic/Digital, (b) the author’s misinterpretation of Dolby’s recommendation Digital, (c) Badger and Davis, (d) Hybrid system used for this experiment.

Fig. 4.6. Overhead view of listening test room with loudspeaker circle superimposed.

Fig. 4.7. Cross-sectional view of listening test room with listener head shown.

Fig. 4.8. Localization for sound source X is changed if one moves from (a) the center listening position to (b) an off-center position.

Fig. 4.9. Ideal localization azimuths for center and off-center seating. Speakers are located 6 ft from the center seat. Off-center listening is 2 ft to the right of center.

Fig. 4.10. Section 1 Results: (a) Constant Power, (b) Moorer, (c) Hybrid, (d) Gerzon Optimal.

Fig. 4.11. Section 2 Results: (a) Constant Power, (b) Moorer, (c) Hybrid, (d) Gerzon Optimal.

Fig. 4.12. Section 3 Results: Scores for (a) speed, (b) distance, (c) width, (d) moving pan regions.

Fig. 4.13. Section 4 Results: (a) Constant Power, (b) Moorer, (c) Hybrid, (d) Gerzon Optimal.

Fig. 4.14. Section 5 Results: (a) Constant Power, (b) Moorer, (c) Hybrid, (d) Gerzon Optimal.

Fig. 4.15. Section 6 Results: Scores for (a) speed, (b) distance, (c) width, (d) moving pan regions.

Fig. 5.1. A simple filter graph.

Fig. 5.2. Surround pan pot plug-in conceptual diagram.

Fig. 5.3. The pan pot plug-in’s graphical user interface.

 Main Page

Jim West, University of Miami, Copyright 1998