Audio Engineering Society

Conference
Paper
Presented at the Conference on
Audio for Virtual and Augmented Reality
2016 September 30–October 1, Los Angeles, CA, USA
This conference paper was selected based on a submitted abstract and 750-word precis that have been peer reviewed by at
least two qualified anonymous reviewers. The complete manuscript was not peer reviewed. This conference paper has been
reproduced from the author’s advance manuscript without editing, corrections, or consideration by the Review Board. The
AES takes no responsibility for the contents. This paper is available in the AES E-Library (http://www.aes.org/e-lib), all rights
reserved. Reproduction of this paper, or any portion thereof, is not permitted without direct permission from the Journal of the
Audio Engineering Society.

Adjustment of the Direct-to-Reverberant-Energy-Ratio to

Reach Externalization within a Binaural Synthesis System
Stephan Werner1, Florian Klein1, and Thomas Sporer2
1 Electronic Media Technology Group, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ilmenau, Germany
2 Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Media Technology, Ilmenau, Germany
Correspondence should be addressed to Stephan Werner (stephan.werner@tu-ilmenau.de)

ABSTRACT
The contribution presents an experiment to use the room acoustic parameter Direct-to-Reverberant-Energy-Ratio
(DRR) to solve the room divergence effect in binaural listening via headphones. Perceived externalization of
auditory events is decreased if acoustic divergence between the listening room and the resynthesized room
occurs. The DRR is used to push the synthesis towards the listening room to increase externalization. The
listeners adjust the DRR of the synthesis on the expected DRR of the listening room until congruence between
synthesis and listening room is perceived. The results show that the DRR is a suitable acoustic parameter. The
listeners are able to reliably adjust the DRR of the listening room only by their expectations and no explicit
external reference. A subsequent quality test shows that the congruent DRR conditions have only a minor effect
on the increase of externalization using divergent room conditions.

acoustic divergence between the synthesized and the

1 Introduction
The perception of the quality of a spatial audio
reproduction can be hypothesized as the creation of
quality of experience (QoE) [1]. This process
includes a comparison and judgement between
desired and perceived quality features [2, 3]. This
model can be extended with the assumption that the
multimedia system with its context of use influences
the build-up of QoE [4]. One relevant context
dependent quality parameter is for example the
listening room. Perceived externalization of auditory
events is decreased if divergence occurs, this is
described as room divergence effect [5, 6, 7, 8].
Feedback mechanisms to the audio reproduction
system can be applied to enable an adaptation of the
system, e.g. a binaural synthesis system, on the
context of use to achieve a plausible auditory
illusion for example. The basic idea of the presented
work is to adjust the room acoustic parameter
Direct-to-Reverberant-Energy-Ratio (DRR) to
Werner, Klein, and Sporer
achieve congruence between listening room and the
resynthesized room and to increase externalization.
The DRR is investigated as one possible acoustic
parameter which can be used for adaptation of the
system to reach high QoE. Former studies show that
the adjustment of the DRR can increase the
perceived congruence between synthesized and
listening room [9]. The experiment also shows a
similarity between the values of the inter-quartile
distances (IQDs) and reported just-noticeable
differences (JNDs) for the perception of DRR. It is
conjectured from that work that the adjustment of
the DRR is a valid method to adapt a binaural
synthesis on the context parameter listening room
because of the high inter-rater-reliability visible in
the small IQDs. This contribution repeats the DRR
adjustment with more test persons and evaluate the
effect on perceived externalization of auditory
events.
2 Binaural Synthesis System
The used binaural synthesis system consist of a
headphone system using binaural recordings of
individual and artificial binaural room impulse
responses (BRIRs, using a KEMAR head and torso
simulator) for the selected rooms, sound sources and
positions. A non-dynamic system with no head
tracking is used to avoid that dynamic cues resolve
perceptional ambiguities like front-back confusions
and in-head localization. A customizable binaural
system is used to increase the fidelity of the
simulation compared to real loudspeakers [11]. The
usage of individual BRIRs reduces within-cone and
out-of-cone of confusion errors [10]. Different
rooms have been chosen to include different room
acoustic properties like reverberation and source-
receiver distances. Reverberation encourages the
perception of externalization of an auditory illusion
and the impression of distance [12]. The headphones
are equalized using individual headphone transfer
functions (HPTFs) if individual BRIRs are used.
HPTFs from the head-and-torso simulator are used if
artificial BRIRs are used. In-ear microphones are
used to measure individual BRIRs and HPTFs at the
entrance of the blocked ear canal of each test person
[13]. The microphones are not removed between the
BRIR and HPTF measurements. The inverse of a
HPTF is calculated by a least-square method with
minimum phase inversion [14]. A BK211 extra-aural
headphones [15] which fulfills the requirements for
open headphone is used for playback [13]. The
distortion of the sound incidence from the real
sources in the room to the listener´s ears is
minimized especially for an extra-aural headphone.
This allows a test design with listening to real
AES Conference on Audio for Virtual and Augmented Reality, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
2016 September 30–October 1,
Page 2 of 7
DRR and Externalization in Binaural Synthesis
loudspeakers and to the resynthesis of those
loudspeakers via headphones.
3 Direct-to-Reverberant-Energy-Ratio
The sound waves are emitted in multiple directions
from a sound source depending on frequency and
directivity of the source. The expansion of these
waves is likely to be disturbed by boundary surfaces
of the room. A superposition of sound waves is
measureable and perceivable at the listening point.
Only the amount of sound energy which reaches the
listening point undisturbed is defined as direct
sound. The sound waves reflected on the room
surfaces are called reverberant sound. This sound is
delayed and reaches the listening point via several
paths. In a binaural context we define the direct
sound as sound which reaches the ears up to 1.5 ms
after the undisturbed sound. This time span includes
monaural and binaural cues resulting from reflexions
and diffractions of the outer ear, head, and torso but
not from the room. The reverberant sound is defined
as sound reaching the listening point after the direct
sound. The energy ratio between direct and
reverberant sound is named as DRR. The DRR is
strongly dependent on the distance between source
and receiver. In addition the DRR is a room specific
acoustic parameter for a fixed source to receiver
distance. The DRR can be calculated:
 T h 2 t dt 
  (1)
DRR  10 log o 
  h t dt 
2
 T 
with h(t) as impulse response between two points in
an enclosure and T=1.5 ms to separate direct sound
and room reflections.
Several experiments are conducted in the past to
determine the JND of DRR perception at the 50%-
discrimination point of the psychometric function.
JND values between 2 dB and 20 dB are reported
depending on test design and DRR magnitude. A
minimum of 2 dB JND at 0 dB DRR rising up to 20
dB JND at +/- 20 dB DRR are reported in [16] for
loudspeaker listening. For virtual acoustics JNDs of
5 dB to 6 dB are assessed in [17] and JNDs of 2.4
dB to 8.7 dB are mentioned in [18].
4 Perceptual Evaluation
This section describes the apparatus and the
methodologies of the experiment. The experiment
consists of an adjustment session, a quality rating
session in two rooms with different room acoustic
characteristics, and a preceding pre-test session.
Twenty-two inexperienced (in terms of binaural
perceptional experiments) test persons with a mean
age of 29 years participate in the listening test. A
speech shaped noise signal, a male speech signal
Werner, Klein, and Sporer
(Dutch speaker; no test person speaks Dutch), and a
short part of a saxophone play are used as audio
signals with a duration of four, five, and nine
seconds.
a. Quality Feature of Investigation
The focus of the experiment lies on the quality
feature externalization as one feature to describe the
perception of an auditory event. Externalization
describes the perception of the position of an
auditory event outside or inside the head of the
listener [5, 7, 19]. This feature is a crucial feature to
reach a plausible spatial auditory illusion with
binaural headphone systems. The dichotomous
quality feature externalization is counted as the
index of the ratings on a three-point scale. In
additions to the characteristics “in-head” and
“outside the head” a transition point “outside but
close to the head” is used. This scale is motivated by
the individual mapping to a scale of the percept of
externalization for every test person. Only the scale
point “outside the head” is counted as an
externalized auditory event in further analysis. We
define the perception of an event very close to the
head or ears as in-head-localized or non-
externalized. We suppose that this conservative
approach maps the ratings in a reliable way referred
to the resynthesis of the real loudspeakers with their
positions (and distances) in the room. The goal is to
minimize the confusion between distance perception
and externalization for farer distances (e.g. > 2 m).
An externalization index is calculated as division
between the number of externalized stimuli and all
stimuli in the test.
b. Objects of Investigations
Six discrete sound source positions with a distance
of 2.2 m to the listening point are used within the
experiment. Genelec 1030A loudspeakers are used
as sound sources to measure the BRIRs. The source
directions (0°, 30°, 60°, 180°, 240°, 300° with
counter clock-wise orientation) are chosen to include
a surrounding setup and to include directions with
assumed front-back and cone-of-confusion
localization errors. Former studies reveal a negative
correlation between the amount of localization errors
like front-back and cone-of-confusion errors and the
perceived externalization of an auditory event [20].
The sound sources are resynthesized using
individual BRIRs and HPTFs of the single test
persons for two rooms and source positions.
Additionally, BRIRs and HPTFs of a KEMAR head-
and-torso simulator (45BA) are recorded. Both types
of BRIRs are used to create test stimuli for the
binaural synthesis.
AES Conference on Audio for Virtual and Augmented Reality, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
2016 September 30–October 1,
Page 3 of 7
DRR and Externalization in Binaural Synthesis
Acoustic divergence between the listening room
and the resynthesized room is the main object of
investigation. A listening lab (naming: HL; Rec.
ITU-R BS.1116-1, V=179 m³, RT60=0.3 s) and an
empty seminar room (naming: SR; V=182 m³,
RT60=2.0 s [21]) are used as recording and test
rooms. A playback with convergent and divergent
combinations between the synthesized room and the
listening room are available.
Within the adjustment session (see section 4c.) the
test persons are able to adjust the DRR of the
synthesized scene until perceptional congruence
between the synthesis and the real listening room
appears. The internal reference of the test person is
used as reference for this adjustment. The
adjustment is done in the two rooms with resynthesis
of the two rooms. The adjustment of the DRR of the
synthesis yields to further combinations of listening
and synthesized room. The names for the room
conditions follow the nomenclature “synthesized
room (DRR adjustment on room)_listening room”.
Figure 1 gives an overview about the different room
combinations with the congruence of the DRR
between the DRR adjusted synthesized room and the
listening room.
congruence 
+1
DRR 
0
SR(HL)_SR SR(SR)_HL SR(HL)_HL SR(SR)_SR
HL(SR)_HL HL(HL)_SR HL(SR)_SR HL(HL)_HL
Figure 1. Congruence of the Direct-to-Reverberant-
Energy-Ratio (DRR) between the DRR adjusted
synthesized room and the listening room for the
different room combinations; room name in brackets
indicates the DRR adjustment on this room.
Table 1 gives an overview of the different room
combinations concerning the convergence or
divergence between the synthesized room and
listening room and the original measured or DRR
adjusted BRIRs. Note that the conditions “SR(SR)”
and “HL(HL)” are the recorded BRIRs from the
respective room.
BRIR Convergence Divergence
Original SR(SR)_SR SR(SR)_HL
HL(HL)_HL HL(HL)_SR
Adjusted SR(HL)_HL SR(HL)_SR
(DRR) HL(SR)_SR HL(SR)_HL
Table 1. Combinations of synthesized room and
listening room concerning convergence or
divergence and original measured or adjusted DRR.
Werner, Klein, and Sporer
c. Test Procedure
The experiment consist of an adjustment session, a
quality rating session in two rooms with different
room acoustic characteristics, and a preceding pre-
test session.
The pre-test session is included in the individual
BRIR recording session for the seminar room (SR).
The motivation for the pre-test is to check the
binaural synthesis system, the loudspeaker system,
and the used anchor signals. Dummy head BRIRs of
the seminar room (SR) are used for binaural
resynthesis of the six source positions. The same
seminar room is used as listening room. Anchor
signals with low spatial quality are created by using
room impulse responses from the single loudspeaker
positions to a microphone with omnidirectional
characteristic at the listening position. The signals
include room information but no spectral cues
resulting from the pinna or head. The different sound
directions are created by a stereo-intensity panning
between a left and a right channel.
The DRR adjustment session gives the test persons
the possibility to adjust the room acoustic parameter
DRR of the synthesized scene until perceptional
congruence between the synthesis and the real
listening room appears. The internal reference of the
test person is used as reference for this adjustment.
A listening to the real loudspeakers in the listening
room is performed in front of this session to support
the build-up of the internal reference [22]. The DRR
is changed by an amplification or damping of the
reverberant part relative to the direct sound of a
measured BRIR. The change of the BRIR is
conducted 3 ms after the direct sound, avoiding
effects on the head-related part. The DRRs are
calculated for 70 steps with 46 damping steps at
normalized amplitude from zero to one, 23
amplification steps at normalized amplitude from
one to 1.3, and the original DRR. Figure 2 shows the
different DRRs for the used two rooms exemplarily
for the 240° direction for the right ear of all test
persons. The full set of the DRR-scaled BRIRs is
also available for download [23].
Figure 2. Adjustable steps of the DRR in dB as
median and 0.25/0.75 quantile from the BRIR
measurements of all test person´s right ear and 240°
source direction; left=listening lab, right=seminar
room; step 47 is the measured BRIR.
AES Conference on Audio for Virtual and Augmented Reality, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
2016 September 30–October 1,
Page 4 of 7
DRR and Externalization in Binaural Synthesis
The DRR step 1 is closely corresponding to an
anechoic condition (DRR > 100 dB). The DRR step
47 is the measured ratio and DRR step 70 is the most
reverberant condition used in the test. The overall
sound pressure level of the playback can be adjusted
by the test person individually.
Within the quality session the test persons have to
rate perceived externalization of the auditory scenes
in both rooms. The presented scenes are the
convergent and divergent room conditions and the
DRR-adjusted room conditions (see table 1). The
test design is a single stimulus test with randomized
order of the test stimuli for each test person. The
rating interface is shown in Fig. 3. The perceived
angle of incidence is rated by choosing the
respective discrete direction on a top-down view.
Externalization is rated by choosing the midpoint,
inner circle, or outer circle on the rating sheet. The
grading and definition of the quality feature
externalization is motivated by Hartmann and
Wittenberg [19]. The following definitions are used
in the test: a) midpoint: “The auditory event is
entirely in my head and very diffuse.” b) inner circle
(in head): “The auditory event is entirely in my head
and easy to locate.”; c) middle circle: “The auditory
event is external but it is next to my ears or head.”;
d) outer circle: “The auditory event is external and
easy to locate.”; e) outer cloud: “The auditory event
is external and very diffuse”. A replay of the actual
stimulus is possible for the test participants in both
experiments.
Figure 3. Graphical user interface (GUI) for ratings
in the listening test.
5 Ratings
The analysis of the ratings includes the DRR
adjustment and the externalization ratings. The also
available localization ratings are not analysed in this
contribution because of clarity reason. Furthermore,
the ratings for the three used audio signals are
combined in the presented analysis. No significant
differences are found for the DRR and
externalization indices (p<.05, Fisher´s exact test for
externalization and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for
DRR).
 Werner, Klein, and Sporer DRR and Externalization in Binaural Synthesis

The ratings from the pre-test show that the real SR in HL HL in HL

40

40
loudspeakers in the seminar room are rated with

30

30
absolute DRR in dB

absolute DRR in dB
externalization indices close to one (see figure 4).

20

20
However, not all loudspeaker test stimuli are rated as

10

10
externalized which is especially visible in the front

0
and back directions. The binaurally resynthesized
loudspeakers using artificial head BRIRs are rated 0° 30° 60° 180°
direction
240° 300° 0° 30° 60° 180°
direction
240° 300°

tendentially with lower externalization indices as the SR in SR HL in SR

40

40
real loudspeakers. Significant differences (p<.05) are

30

30
absolute DRR in dB

absolute DRR in dB
only found for the 0° and 30° directions. The lowest

20

20
indices are also visible for front and back directions.

10

10
The non-binaural anchor signal is rated with

0
externalization indices slightly above 0.2. The pre-
0° 30° 60° 180° 240° 300° 0° 30° 60° 180° 240° 300°
test shows that the used signals and systems are direction direction

valid for the further experiment. Figure 5. Adjusted DRR in dB of the test persons as
boxplots with 95% conf. int. as notch; dashed line
loudspeaker indicates the DRR of the listening room; circles
1.0

binaural
anchor indicates outliers; top: listening lab (HL) as listening
0.8

room, bottom: seminar room (SR) as listening room.

externalization index
0.6

Nevertheless, the analysis of the adjustment show

that the test persons are able to adjust the DRR of
0.4

the divergent and convergent room conditions on the

0.2

DRR of the listening room. The accuracy,

represented in the IQDs, of the adjustment is within
0.0

0° 30° 60° direction 180° 240° 300° the range of the JND of DRR perception (see section
3). The mean IQDs over all directions are: 9.3 dB
Figure 4. Externalization indices from the pre-test for “SR in HL”, 4.0 dB for “HL in HL”, 4.7 dB for
with 95% binominal confidence intervals; “SR in SR”, and 2.9 dB for “HL in SR”.
resynthesis of a seminar room in the same room
using dummy head BRIRs.
b. Externalization rating
Figure 6 and 7 show the ratings of the quality test for
a. DRR Adjustment the different room conditions and adjusted room
Figure 5 shows the adjusted DRR for the resynthesis conditions. The externalizations indices and the 95%
of the seminar room or listening lab in the seminar binominal confidence intervals are shown for the
room or listening lab. A dashed line indicates the different directions. Significances and effect sizes
DRR of the listening room. A coincidence between (odd ratios) are calculated using Fisher´s exact test.
the median of the DRR adjustment and the DRR of The room conditions in question are highlighted
the listening room is visible for the congruent room with respective asterisks and numbers. Figure 6
condition “HL in HL” and “SR in SR”. Higher shows the rating for the more reverberant seminar
DRRs of about 6.8 dB (mean over all directions) are room as listening room while figure 7 shows the
adjusted for the divergent room condition “SR in listening lab.
HL”. The test persons chose a less reverberant
resynthesis of the seminar room than the listening
room. Slightly higher DRRs are also chosen for the
divergent room condition “HL in SR”. This effect
can be explained with the DRR steps available in the
test. Figure 2 shows that the most reverberant
possible DRR (step 70) of the listening lab is
approx. 3 dB higher than the original measured DRR
of the seminar room (step 53 in figure 2 right).

AES Conference on Audio for Virtual and Augmented Reality, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
2016 September 30–October 1,
Page 5 of 7
 Werner, Klein, and Sporer DRR and Externalization in Binaural Synthesis

0° 30°
(significant at p<.001 or at least with p<.11). This
externalization index

externalization index
*** 0.75 *** 0.15
(142.3) (0.8) (max) (1.6)
observation is also conform to the influence of
0.8

0.8
reverberation on externalization. An increase of the
0.4

0.4
amount of reverberation for the resynthesis of the
0.0

0.0
SR(SR)_SR SR(HL)_SR HL(HL)_SR HL(SR)_SR SR(SR)_SR SR(HL)_SR HL(HL)_SR HL(SR)_SR
room condition

60°
room condition

180°
listening lab in the listening lab (“HL(SR)_HL”)
does not significantly (p<.2) increase or decrease the
externalization index

externalization index
*** 0.10 *** 0.13
(max) (1.9) (20.6) (2.2)
0.8

0.8
externalization indices compared to the congruent
condition “HL(HL)_HL”.
0.4

0.4
0.0

0.0
SR(SR)_SR SR(HL)_SR HL(HL)_SR HL(SR)_SR SR(SR)_SR SR(HL)_SR HL(HL)_SR HL(SR)_SR
room condition room condition

240° 300°
6 Conclusion
externalization index

externalization index

*** 0.07 *** 0.22

(19.0) (2.5) (142.0) (1.4)
0.8

0.8

The contribution presents a proposal of a context-

0.4

0.4

dependent adaptive binaural resynthesis system of

real rooms. The acoustic parameter DRR is used to
0.0

0.0

SR(SR)_SR SR(HL)_SR HL(HL)_SR HL(SR)_SR SR(SR)_SR SR(HL)_SR HL(HL)_SR HL(SR)_SR

room condition room condition

adapt the binaural playback of the resynthesized

Figure 6. Externalization indices and 95% bin. conf. scene on the listening room.
intervals for the seminar room (SR) as listening
The adjustment of the DRR shows that the listeners
room; dashed lines guessing range; *** sig.
are reliably able to change the DRR of the
difference p<.001 or the given p-value using Fisher
resynthesis until perceptional congruence between
test; number in brackets effect size as odds ratio.
the synthesis and the listening room occurs. No
A DRR divergence between the resynthesized scene explicit external reference but the expectation
and the listening room (“SR(HL)_SR”) yields to a (internal reference) of the individual listener is used
significant decrease (p<.001) of the externalization for this adjustment.
indices compared to the convergent room condition The analysis of the externalization ratings confirm
and DRR congruent condition “SR(SR)_SR”. This earlier research that the convergent room conditions
observation is in line with literature on the influence are rated with high externalization compared to the
of reverberation on externalization [10, 11]. The divergent room conditions [5, 6, 7, 8]. It is also
DRR congruent but room divergent condition shown that the externalization is tendentially
“HL(SR)_SR” does not yields to a significant increased if the divergent room condition is DRR-
increase of externalization compared to adapted to the listening room compared to the
“HL(HL)_SR”. Only a tendency is visible (with original divergent room condition. This effect is
p>.1) that a DRR congruence yields to an increase of observed with minor effect size and less significance
perceived externalization. (p>.05). It is concluded that the DRR is a valid room
0° 30° acoustic parameter in spatial listening but it has only
a minor influence on the elimination of the room
externalization index

externalization index

*** ***
(7.5) (max)
0.8

0.8

divergence effect. The change of the DRR has no

0.4

0.4

influence on the time structure of the single room

0.0

0.0

reflections and patterns. It is conjectured that the

SR(SR)_HL SR(HL)_HL HL(HL)_HL HL(SR)_HL SR(SR)_HL SR(HL)_HL HL(HL)_HL HL(SR)_HL
room condition room condition

60° 180°
divergence between the expected room and the
externalization index

externalization index

0.10 ***
(5.5) (6.3)
synthesized room depends also on the reflection
0.8

0.8

patterns like it is described in the literature for the

0.4

0.4

Clifton effect [24] and derivatives. Further studies

0.0

0.0

SR(SR)_HL SR(HL)_HL HL(HL)_HL HL(SR)_HL SR(SR)_HL SR(HL)_HL HL(HL)_HL HL(SR)_HL

are proposed to investigate the room divergence

room condition room condition

240° 300°
effect and to adapt the synthesis on the context of
externalization index

externalization index

0.11 ***
(2.6) (9.5)
0.8

0.8

use. Several interpolation methods in time and/or

0.4

0.4

frequency domain are investigated.

0.0

0.0

SR(SR)_HL SR(HL)_HL HL(HL)_HL HL(SR)_HL SR(SR)_HL SR(HL)_HL HL(HL)_HL HL(SR)_HL

room condition room condition

Figure 7. Externalization indices and 95% bin. conf. 7 Acknowledgement

intervals for the listening lab (HL) as listening We thank all test participants for the participation in
room; dashed lines guessing range; *** sig. the tests and interest in research. Furthermore, we
difference p<.001 or the given p-value using Fisher thank the master course Advanced Psychocacoustics
test; number in brackets effect size as odds ratio. at TU Ilmenau. This work is supported by grants of
the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Grant
The DRR congruent but room divergent condition BR 1333/14-1) and by Thüringer Aufbaubank
“SR(HL)_HL” yields to lower externalization (2015FGR0090) and the European Social Fund.
indices compared to the condition “SR(SR)_HL”

AES Conference on Audio for Virtual and Augmented Reality, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
2016 September 30–October 1,
Page 6 of 7
Werner, Klein, and Sporer
References
[1] “Qualinet White Paper on Definitions of
Quality of Experience (2012)”. European
Network on Quality of Experience in
Multimedia Systems and Services (COST
Action IC 1003), Patrick Le Callet, Sebastian
Möller and Andrew Perkis, eds., Lausanne,
Switzerland, Version 1.2, March 2013.
[2] Jekosch, U.: “Voice and Speech Quality
Perception – Assessment and Evaluation”,
Springer Series in Signal and Communication
Technology, Berlin, 2005.
[3] Raake, A.: “Speech Quality of VoIP –
Assessment and Prediction”, John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, 2006.
[4] Werner, S., Klein, F., and Brandenburg, K.:
“Influence of Spatial Complexity and Room
Acoustic Disparity on Perception of Quality
Features using a Binaural Synthesis System”,
in Proc. of 7th International Workshop on
Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX),
Greece, 2015.
[5] Plenge, G.: „[The problem of in-head
lokalization] Über das Problem der Im-Kopf-
Lokalisation“, Acustica 26, Nr. 5, pp. 241–
252, 1972.
[6] Werner, S. and Siegel, A.: “Effects of
binaural auralization via headphones on the
perception of acoustic scenes”, Proc. of 3rd
International Symposium on Auditory and
Audiological Research (ISAAR), pp.215-222,
Denmark, 2011.
[7] Udesen, J., Piechowiak, T., Gran, F.: “Vision
Affects Sound Externalization”, 55th AES
Conf. Spatial Audio, Helsinki, Finland, 2014.
[8] Werner, S., Klein, F., Mayenfels, T., and
Brandenburg, K.: “A Summary on Acoustic
Room Divergence and its Effect on
Externalization of Auditory Events”, in Proc.
of 8th International Conference on Quality of
Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Portugal,
2016.
[9] Werner, S. and Liebetrau, J.: “Adjustment of
Direct-to-Reverberant-Energy-Ratio and the
Just-Noticable-Difference”, 6th International
Workshop on Quality of Multimedia
Experience (QoMEX), Singapore, 2014.
[10] Møller, H., Sørensen, M. F., Jensen, C. B.,
and Hammershøi, D.: “Binaural technique:
Do we need individual recordings?”, J. Audio
Eng. Soc, 44, pp. 451-469, 1996.
[11] Begault, D. R., Wenzel, E. M.: “Direct
comparison of the impact of head tracking,
reverberation, and individualized head-
AES Conference on Audio for Virtual and Augmented Reality, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
2016 September 30–October 1,
Page 7 of 7
DRR and Externalization in Binaural Synthesis
related transfer functions on the spatial
perception of a virtual speech source”, J.
Audio Eng. Soc., 49, pp. 904-916, 2001.
[12] Laws, P.: “ [Auditory distance perception and
the problem of ‘in-head localization’ of
sound images] Entfernungshören und das
Problem der Im-Kopf-Lokalisiertheit von
Hörereignissen”, Acustica, 29, pp. 243-259
(NASA Technical Translation TT-20833),
1973.
[13] Møller, H.: “Fundamentals of Binaural
Technology”, Applied Acoustics, 36, 1992.
[14] Schärer, Z., Lindau, A.: “Evaluation of
equalisation methods for binaural signals,”
126th AES Conv., preprint 7721, 2009.
[15] Erbes, V. et al.: “An extraaural headphone
system for optimized binaural reproduction“,
in proc. of 38. DAGA, Germany, pp. 313-
314, 2012.
[16] Reichard, W., Schmidt, W. (1966) “[The
percievable steps of room impression
listening to music] Die hörbaren Stufen des
Raumeindrucks bei Musik”, Acustica, 17,
pp.175-179.
[17] Zahorik, P. (2002) “Direct-to-reverberant
energy ratio sensitivity”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
112, pp.2110-2117.
[18] Larsen, E. et al. (2008) “On the minimum
audible difference in direct-to-reverberant
energy ratio”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 124, pp.
450-461.
[19] Hartmann, W. M., Wittenberg, A.: “On the
externalization of sound images,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am., 99, pp. 3678-3688, 1996.
[20] Werner, S., Rekitt, M., and Klein, F.:
“Distribution of Quadrant Errors in Auditory
Localization using a Binaural Headphone
system”, in Proc. of 41st annual convention
for acoustics, DAGA, Nürnberg, Germany,
2015.
[21] Akustik Bureau Dresden, “Messbericht ABD
22049-02/15”, report, 2015.
[22] Klein, F., Werner, S., Mayenfels, T.:
“Influences of training on externalization in
binaural synthesis in situations of room
divergence” to be published in Journal of the
Audio Engineering Society, 2016.
[23] Werner, S.: “DRR-scaled Individual BRIRs”,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.61072, 2016.
[24] R. K. Clifton, R. L. Freyman, R. Y. Litovsky
and D. McCall “Listeners’ expectations can
raise or lower echo threshold”, J. Acoust.
Soc. Am., vol. 95, pp. 1525-1533, 1994.