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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 2002-04, Vol.50 (4), p.249-262 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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&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 |