Beamforming Regularization, Scaling Matrices, and Inverse Problems for Sound Field Extrapolation and Characterization: Part II – Experiments

Gauthier PA, Chambatte É, Camier C, Pasco Y, Berry A. Beamforming Regularization, Scaling Matrices, and Inverse Problems for Sound Field Extrapolation and Characterization: Part II – Experiments. J Audio Eng Soc. 2014;62(4):207-219. doi:10.17743/jaes.2014.0017

@article{Gauthier2014_17133,
  author = {Gauthier, Philippe-Aubert and Chambatte, Éric and Camier, Cédric and Pasco, Yann and Berry, Alain},
  title = {{Beamforming Regularization, Scaling Matrices, and Inverse Problems for Sound Field Extrapolation and Characterization: Part II – Experiments}},
  journal = {Journal of the Audio Engineering Society},
  volume = {62},
  number = {4},
  pages = {207--219},
  year = {2014},
  month = apr,
  publisher = {Audio Engineering Society},
  doi = {10.17743/jaes.2014.0017},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2014.0017}
}

TY  - JOUR
TI  - Beamforming Regularization, Scaling Matrices, and Inverse Problems for Sound Field Extrapolation and Characterization: Part II – Experiments
AU  - Gauthier, Philippe-Aubert
AU  - Chambatte, Éric
AU  - Camier, Cédric
AU  - Pasco, Yann
AU  - Berry, Alain
T2  - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society
J2  - J. Audio Eng. Soc.
VL  - 62
IS  - 4
SP  - 207
EP  - 219
PY  - 2014
DA  - 2014/04/06
DO  - 10.17743/jaes.2014.0017
UR  - https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2014.0017
PB  - Audio Engineering Society
LA  - en
AB  - Part I of this paper in last month’s Journal (pp. 77–98) described the theory of sound field extrapolation (SFE) and sound field characterization (SFC) for predicting the sound field using microphone arrays. This paper describes experimental results when the SFE method was tested in more realistic situations with real sound fields and microphones, including unknown measurement noise and imprecision and difference between microphones. Environments also included both a hemi-anechoic room and a reverberation chamber. The SFC method was first evaluated by means of a comparison between various fields and the scalar metrics for three archetypical sound fields: source in nearly free field, low-frequency standing wave in reverberation chamber, and diffuse sound in reverberation chamber. Although the SFC and classification methods correctly identified the sound fields, the distinction between a standing wave at 54.5 Hz and the diffuse sound field at 600 Hz were the most difficult.
ER  -