Comparison of Different Impulse Response Measurement Techniques

The impulse response of an acoustical space or transducer is one of its most important characterizations. In order to perform the measurement of their impulse responses, four of the most suitable methods are compared: MLS (maximum-length sequence), IRS (inverse repeated sequence), time-stretched pul...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 2002-04, Vol.50 (4), p.249-262
Hauptverfasser: Stan, Guy-Bart, Embrechts, Jean-Jacques, Archambeau, Dominique
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 262
container_issue 4
container_start_page 249
container_title Journal of the Audio Engineering Society
container_volume 50
creator Stan, Guy-Bart
Embrechts, Jean-Jacques
Archambeau, Dominique
description The impulse response of an acoustical space or transducer is one of its most important characterizations. In order to perform the measurement of their impulse responses, four of the most suitable methods are compared: MLS (maximum-length sequence), IRS (inverse repeated sequence), time-stretched pulses, and SineSweep. These methods have already been described in the literature. Nevertheless, the choice of one of them depending on the measurement conditions is critical. Therefore an extensive comparison has been realized. This comparison was done through the implementation and realization of a complete, fast, reliable, and cheap measurement system. Finally, a conclusion for the use of each method according to the principal measurement conditions is presented. It is shown that in the presence of nonwhite noise, the MLS and IRS techniques seem to be more accurate. On the contrary, in quiet environments the logarithmic SineSweep method seems to be the most appropriate.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>audioengineering_FGG</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_audioengineering_primary_11083</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>11083</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a213t-2ae1dd59e6b109638ec029689d5ab66ad1008534204d2f8b9e6015d8c94ef56a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFzEtLAzEUBeAsFKzV_zAblwN5m6xExlehIkhdlzvJTY10MjHpLPz3jljo6hw4H-eMLJiStpVW0QtyWesXpVwrqRbkrhuHDCXWMTVjaB5iCFgwHZrVkKd9xeYdax7TXF4R6lRw-Bs36D5T_J6wXpHzALO7PuaSfDw9brqXdv32vOru1y1wJg4tB2TeK4u6Z9RqYdBRbrWxXkGvNXhGqVFCcio9D6afIWXKG2clBqVBLMnN_2-G6mAfCiQX6zaXOED52TLJjBTq9uRg8nHEtIsJscS0O1FGjRC_Y6xSYA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Different Impulse Response Measurement Techniques</title><source>AES Electronic Library</source><creator>Stan, Guy-Bart ; Embrechts, Jean-Jacques ; Archambeau, Dominique</creator><creatorcontrib>Stan, Guy-Bart ; Embrechts, Jean-Jacques ; Archambeau, Dominique</creatorcontrib><description>The impulse response of an acoustical space or transducer is one of its most important characterizations. In order to perform the measurement of their impulse responses, four of the most suitable methods are compared: MLS (maximum-length sequence), IRS (inverse repeated sequence), time-stretched pulses, and SineSweep. These methods have already been described in the literature. Nevertheless, the choice of one of them depending on the measurement conditions is critical. Therefore an extensive comparison has been realized. This comparison was done through the implementation and realization of a complete, fast, reliable, and cheap measurement system. Finally, a conclusion for the use of each method according to the principal measurement conditions is presented. It is shown that in the presence of nonwhite noise, the MLS and IRS techniques seem to be more accurate. On the contrary, in quiet environments the logarithmic SineSweep method seems to be the most appropriate.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1549-4950</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0004-7554</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ADIOA3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Audio Engineering Society</publisher><subject>Acoustical measurements and instrumentation ; Acoustics ; Exact sciences and technology ; Fundamental areas of phenomenology (including applications) ; Physics</subject><ispartof>Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 2002-04, Vol.50 (4), p.249-262</ispartof><rights>2002 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,9955</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://aes2.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=11083$$EView_record_in_Audio_Engineering_Society$$FView_record_in_$$GAudio_Engineering_Society</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=14184357$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stan, Guy-Bart</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Embrechts, Jean-Jacques</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Archambeau, Dominique</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Different Impulse Response Measurement Techniques</title><title>Journal of the Audio Engineering Society</title><description>The impulse response of an acoustical space or transducer is one of its most important characterizations. In order to perform the measurement of their impulse responses, four of the most suitable methods are compared: MLS (maximum-length sequence), IRS (inverse repeated sequence), time-stretched pulses, and SineSweep. These methods have already been described in the literature. Nevertheless, the choice of one of them depending on the measurement conditions is critical. Therefore an extensive comparison has been realized. This comparison was done through the implementation and realization of a complete, fast, reliable, and cheap measurement system. Finally, a conclusion for the use of each method according to the principal measurement conditions is presented. It is shown that in the presence of nonwhite noise, the MLS and IRS techniques seem to be more accurate. On the contrary, in quiet environments the logarithmic SineSweep method seems to be the most appropriate.</description><subject>Acoustical measurements and instrumentation</subject><subject>Acoustics</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Fundamental areas of phenomenology (including applications)</subject><subject>Physics</subject><issn>1549-4950</issn><issn>0004-7554</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>FGG</sourceid><recordid>eNpFzEtLAzEUBeAsFKzV_zAblwN5m6xExlehIkhdlzvJTY10MjHpLPz3jljo6hw4H-eMLJiStpVW0QtyWesXpVwrqRbkrhuHDCXWMTVjaB5iCFgwHZrVkKd9xeYdax7TXF4R6lRw-Bs36D5T_J6wXpHzALO7PuaSfDw9brqXdv32vOru1y1wJg4tB2TeK4u6Z9RqYdBRbrWxXkGvNXhGqVFCcio9D6afIWXKG2clBqVBLMnN_2-G6mAfCiQX6zaXOED52TLJjBTq9uRg8nHEtIsJscS0O1FGjRC_Y6xSYA</recordid><startdate>20020401</startdate><enddate>20020401</enddate><creator>Stan, Guy-Bart</creator><creator>Embrechts, Jean-Jacques</creator><creator>Archambeau, Dominique</creator><general>Audio Engineering Society</general><scope>FGG</scope><scope>IQODW</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020401</creationdate><title>Comparison of Different Impulse Response Measurement Techniques</title><author>Stan, Guy-Bart ; Embrechts, Jean-Jacques ; Archambeau, Dominique</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a213t-2ae1dd59e6b109638ec029689d5ab66ad1008534204d2f8b9e6015d8c94ef56a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Acoustical measurements and instrumentation</topic><topic>Acoustics</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Fundamental areas of phenomenology (including applications)</topic><topic>Physics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stan, Guy-Bart</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Embrechts, Jean-Jacques</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Archambeau, Dominique</creatorcontrib><collection>AES Electronic Library</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><jtitle>Journal of the Audio Engineering Society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stan, Guy-Bart</au><au>Embrechts, Jean-Jacques</au><au>Archambeau, Dominique</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Different Impulse Response Measurement Techniques</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the Audio Engineering Society</jtitle><date>2002-04-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>249</spage><epage>262</epage><pages>249-262</pages><issn>1549-4950</issn><issn>0004-7554</issn><coden>ADIOA3</coden><abstract>The impulse response of an acoustical space or transducer is one of its most important characterizations. In order to perform the measurement of their impulse responses, four of the most suitable methods are compared: MLS (maximum-length sequence), IRS (inverse repeated sequence), time-stretched pulses, and SineSweep. These methods have already been described in the literature. Nevertheless, the choice of one of them depending on the measurement conditions is critical. Therefore an extensive comparison has been realized. This comparison was done through the implementation and realization of a complete, fast, reliable, and cheap measurement system. Finally, a conclusion for the use of each method according to the principal measurement conditions is presented. It is shown that in the presence of nonwhite noise, the MLS and IRS techniques seem to be more accurate. On the contrary, in quiet environments the logarithmic SineSweep method seems to be the most appropriate.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Audio Engineering Society</pub><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1549-4950
ispartof Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 2002-04, Vol.50 (4), p.249-262
issn 1549-4950
0004-7554
language eng
recordid cdi_audioengineering_primary_11083
source AES Electronic Library
subjects Acoustical measurements and instrumentation
Acoustics
Exact sciences and technology
Fundamental areas of phenomenology (including applications)
Physics
title Comparison of Different Impulse Response Measurement Techniques
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T16%3A10%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-audioengineering_FGG&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Different%20Impulse%20Response%20Measurement%20Techniques&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20Audio%20Engineering%20Society&rft.au=Stan,%20Guy-Bart&rft.date=2002-04-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=249&rft.epage=262&rft.pages=249-262&rft.issn=1549-4950&rft.coden=ADIOA3&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Caudioengineering_FGG%3E11083%3C/audioengineering_FGG%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true