Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

BSM-iMagLS: ILD Informed Binaural Signal Matching for Reproduction with Head-Mounted Microphone Arrays

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that adding interaural level difference optimization to binaural signal matching cuts ILD errors from roughly 6–7 dB to 0.74–3.10 dB on head-mounted arrays at a cost of about 1 dB in magnitude accuracy.

desk verdict Solid incremental extension of BSM-MagLS with real ILD gains and a useful listening test, but the abstract overclaims magnitude accuracy under reverberation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18227 v2 pith:RZLVQNPT submitted 2025-01-30 eess.AS cs.SD

Or Berebi , Zamir Ben-Hur , David Lou Alon , Boaz Rafaely This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.AScs.SD
keywords binauralsignalmatchinginterauralleveldifferencemagnitudeleastsquareshead-mountedmicrophonearraysreproductiondeepneuralnetworkoptimizationspatialaudiohead-relatedtransferfunction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Binaural audio for AR and VR headsets is usually captured with only a few microphones mounted on glasses or headbands, and these sparse arrays struggle to reproduce the left–right level differences that the brain uses to localize sound. This paper argues that the errors in those level differences, which run 6–7 dB with current methods, can be cut to between 0.7 and 3.1 dB by adding an interaural level difference (ILD) term to the magnitude-least-squares cost function used in binaural signal matching. The joint cost is minimized by a small per-instance neural network that refines the filter coefficients for each head-related transfer function and array geometry. Simulations across four array types, dozens of HRTFs, head rotations, and reverberant rooms, together with a MUSHRA listening test, support the claim that the ILD gain comes with only a small, roughly 1 dB, increase in magnitude error and better perceived spatial quality. If correct, the method gives wearable devices a signal-independent path to accurate spatial audio without requiring many microphones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dissimilarity measure $D_{\mathrm{iMLS}}$ of Eq. (14), which the paper calls iMagLS. It combines three terms: the standard magnitude-least-squares error for each ear, a first-derivative magnitude term that smooths the magnitude error curve and suppresses audible spectral artifacts, and an ILD error that compares reference and BSM-rendered signals through Gammatone filter bands over the horizontal plane. The ILD term is what forces the left and right ear filters to be optimized jointly rather than independently. The optimization is carried out by a feed-forward MLP that maps an initial coefficient tensor from BSM-MagLS to the refined iMagLS coefficients, using the ADAM optimizer and $D_{\mathrm{iMLS}}$ as the loss, with the network weights discarded after each per-instance solve.

What would settle it

Run BSM-iMagLS on the 4-microphone EasyCom array in a room with $T_{60}=0.6$ s and compare ILD error and LSD to BSM-MagLS: if the ILD error rises above the anechoic value of 3.1 dB by more than a few dB, or if the LSD penalty exceeds the reported ~3 dB to a degree that listeners detect timbre changes, the claim of robust ILD improvement with comparable magnitude accuracy would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that one can jointly optimize magnitude, magnitude derivatives, and interaural level difference in binaural signal matching, and that doing so removes most of the ILD error that plagues few-microphone head-mounted arrays. The proposed BSM-iMagLS minimizes the loss $D_{\mathrm{iMLS}}$ of Eq. (14), which sums the per-ear MagLS magnitude error, a first-derivative magnitude matching term, and an ILD term computed over Gammatone filter bands from 1.5 to 20 kHz, with weights $\lambda=[0.4,10]$. A feed-forward MLP solves this non-convex problem by starting from the BSM-MagLS coefficients and iterating on the loss, so the network is not trained across conditions but is fitted per HRTF and array. Across the 12-microphone circular, 6-microphone semi-circular, 5-microphone glasses, and 4-microphone EasyCom arrays, ILD error falls from roughly 6–7 dB with BSM-MagLS to 0.74–3.10 dB with BSM-iMagLS, while magnitude error worsens by about 1 dB and NMSE stays comparable. A theoretical analysis in Section IV shows that zero ILD error is achievable for a single direction when the array steering matrix has a non-empty null space, but becomes impossible to guarantee when the number of directions exceeds the number of microphones, which is why the method is evaluated as an optimization rather than a closed-form solution.

Load-bearing premise

The single empirically chosen weighting $\lambda=[0.4,10]$ in Eq. (14) is assumed to balance magnitude, derivative, and ILD terms equally well for all array geometries, HRTFs, head rotations, and room conditions; if the optimal balance shifts across settings, the reported ILD-versus-magnitude trade-off may not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wearable AR/VR devices with four to six microphones can render binaural audio whose ILD error approaches the 1 dB just-noticeable difference, improving horizontal localization and externalization.
  • Because the DNN refines coefficients per HRTF and array rather than being trained on a corpus, the method transfers to new head-mounted arrays and head-related transfer functions without retraining.
  • Head-tracked playback, where HRTFs are counter-rotated to keep the scene world-locked, retains most of the ILD benefit, with ILD error remaining near the JND at smaller rotation angles.
  • The cost is a roughly 1 dB increase in magnitude error and, under reverberation, an LSD increase of up to about 3 dB relative to BSM-MagLS, so the method intentionally trades spectral accuracy for spatial cue fidelity.
  • The listening test, conducted under the MUSHRA protocol with 14 participants, shows that BSM-iMagLS is rated closer to the reference than BSM-MagLS on spatial quality and statistically indistinguishable from BSM-MagLS on timbre.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The fixed weight vector $\lambda=[0.4,10]$ is chosen empirically; a sensitivity sweep across arrays and room conditions would reveal whether the ILD-versus-magnitude trade-off is a robust property of the loss or an artifact of the evaluated settings.
  • The Section IV null-space analysis implies that the benefit should grow with microphone count or array conditioning; a controlled sweep of microphone number on a fixed head-mounted geometry could test that prediction directly.
  • The reported three-minute per-instance neural solve is too slow for live head-tracked rendering; amortizing the solver over many HRTFs or replacing it with a fast classical optimizer would be needed for real-time use.
  • The loss optimizes ILD only above 1.5 kHz, leaving interaural time difference and interaural coherence untouched; adding those terms could extend the same joint-optimization approach to low-frequency localization and externalization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BSM-iMagLS, an extension of binaural signal matching (BSM) with magnitude least-squares (MagLS) that adds a Gammatone-band interaural level difference (ILD) loss and a magnitude-derivative loss to the optimization objective (Eq. 14). The objective is minimized per HRTF/array instance by a feed-forward DNN-based solver initialized from BSM-MagLS coefficients (Section III-B/C). The method is evaluated against BSM-LS, BSM-MagLS, and eMagLS on four head-mounted microphone arrays, using the KU100 and HUTUBS HRTF databases, under anechoic conditions, head-rotation compensation, and simulated reverberant rooms, followed by a MUSHRA listening test. The reported anechoic results show ILD errors reduced from roughly 6-7 dB to 0.7-3.1 dB with a modest magnitude-error penalty, and the listening test shows a significant spatial-quality improvement over BSM-MagLS.

Significance. If properly scoped, the work is a useful contribution to signal-independent binaural rendering for small head-mounted arrays: it directly addresses ILD fidelity, which is a known weakness of BSM and Ambisonics-based rendering at high frequencies. The paper is strong on breadth of validation: four array geometries including measured head-mounted arrays, two HRTF databases, head-rotation compensation, reverberant conditions, and a listening test with non-parametric statistical analysis. The DNN-based per-instance optimization is a practical alternative to classical iterative solvers. The main weakness is that the headline claim of 'comparable magnitude accuracy' is not supported under reverberation, and the ILD gain is to a large extent the direct minimization of the same metric used for evaluation, so the contribution should be framed more carefully.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Table IV] The abstract claims that BSM-iMagLS maintains 'comparable magnitude accuracy to state-of-the-art solutions' without restricting this to anechoic conditions. This is contradicted by Table IV: under reverberant BRIRs, BSM-iMagLS LSD errors are substantially higher than BSM-MagLS for three of the four arrays, e.g. 6.75 vs 3.56 dB for the 5-mic glasses array and 6.51 vs 5.08 dB for the 4-mic EasyCom array (medium room). Section V-D4 states that BSM-iMagLS 'remains closely aligned' with BSM-MagLS, but Figure 7 shows only the EasyCom array in the medium room, so it does not substantiate that general statement. The magnitude claim should be scoped to the anechoic/NMSE-type metrics, or the reverberant LSD penalty should be acknowledged in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Section V-B5 / Eq. (14)] The loss weights lambda=[0.4, 10] are chosen empirically 'based on preliminary experiments' with no sensitivity analysis. Because the loss couples magnitude, derivative, and ILD terms, the reported ILD/magnitude trade-off may depend on the array, HRTF, head-rotation angle, and room condition. Table IV shows that under reverberation the magnitude penalty varies strongly across arrays (e.g., about 0.4 dB LSD increase for the 12-mic array but about 3.2 dB for the 5-mic glasses array). Without reporting how the results vary as a function of lambda, or at least a justification for why one setting generalizes, the robustness claim is not fully supported.
  3. [Section III-B and Section V-C] The headline ILD improvement is substantially a fitting outcome: the DNN minimizes exactly the D_ILD metric of Eq. (15), and the same metric (Eq. (15), Section V-C.3) is used to report ILD errors. It is therefore not surprising that Table II shows large ILD reductions relative to methods that do not minimize this objective. The manuscript should state this explicitly and rely more heavily on the listening test and on any metric that is not part of the training loss as independent evidence that the ILD gain transfers to perception. The theoretical analysis in Section IV explains conditions for zero ILD error but does not quantitatively predict the observed 4-6 dB improvements, so it does not resolve this circularity concern.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-C] The sentence 'previous work [10], [10] demonstrated' contains a duplicated citation; one of the bracketed references should be removed or replaced.
  2. [Section IV] The sentence introducing the narrow-band ILD error says 'given by (15)', but the displayed equation is numbered (27); the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Table IV caption] The caption reads 'WITH REVERBERANT BRIRS COMPENSATION', which appears to be a typo; 'conditions' or 'analysis' is likely intended.
  4. [Section V-B5] The DNN is trained for 200 iterations with a single run and no reported variance over initializations or optimizer seeds; given that the method is a per-instance nonlinear solver, a brief note on convergence variability or multiple restarts would strengthen reproducibility.
  5. [Section III-C] The DNN operates with complex-valued weights and activations, but the initialization scheme and the treatment of complex arithmetic in PyTorch are not described; a sentence specifying how complex parameters are initialized and differentiated would help implementation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline ILD improvement is the minimized training objective itself; independent evidence remains in the listening test and magnitude/NMSE behavior.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Eq. (14)-(15) and (19)-(21) in Section III; Section V-C item 3; Section V-B5]
    "DiMLS(pl,r, zl,r) = (DMLS(pl, zl) + DMLS(pr, zr)) + λ1(DdMLS(pl, zl) + DdMLS(pr, zr)) + λ2DILD(pl, pr, zl, zr) ... The ILD dissimilarity, denoted as DILD, is defined as: ... 3) ILD Error: denoted ϵILD(Ω) is computed using Eq. (15) and is evaluated over 361 equally spaced directions on the horizontal plane."

    The DNN solver is optimized per case to minimize DiMLS (Eq. 21: β^ = arg min_β DiMLS(fβ(c), V, h)), which includes λ2DILD with DILD defined by Eq. (15). The paper's headline ILD evidence is the same Eq. (15), evaluated as ϵILD in Section V-C3 and reported in Table II and Fig. 3. Thus the reduction from ~6-7 dB to ~0.7-3.1 dB is the value of the fitted objective at the optimized coefficients, not an independent prediction of ILD fidelity. Section IV's theoretical bounds are not used to predict these numbers. Moreover, Section III-B states 'fβ(.) is not trained to provide a global solution for varying conditions in hl,r and V, but to solve each case individually,' so the HUTUBS results are per-subject fits to the same D_ILD objective, not held-out predictions.

full rationale

The central claimed ILD reduction is substantially by construction: BSM-iMagLS coefficients are fit per HRTF/array by minimizing DiMLS, and the reported ILD error is exactly the DILD term of that loss (Eq. 15 used both as objective and as evaluation metric). This is a textbook fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, so a non-trivial circularity score is warranted. However, the paper is not merely a tautology: it also reports NMSE, magnitude error, reverberant LSD, head-rotation behavior, and a MUSHRA listening test, none of which reduce to the D_ILD objective; the listening-test spatial-quality advantage is genuine independent evidence. The 'comparable magnitude' claim is partly by design too (initialization from BSM-MagLS and inclusion of DMLS in the loss), but the observed small degradation is informative and not definitionally forced. Self-citations [14] and [15] are background rather than load-bearing. Overall score 6 reflects partial circularity in the headline ILD claim while acknowledging substantial independent validation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard array-processing assumptions and on the empirical setting of two loss weights. No new physical entities or conservation laws are introduced; the only new constructs are the loss terms and DNN solver, which are algorithmic rather than ontological.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda1, lambda2 (loss weights) = lambda1=0.4, lambda2=10
    Chosen empirically based on preliminary experiments (Section V-B5); no sensitivity analysis provided.
  • SNR assumed for filter design = 20 dB
    Used in BSM-LS/MagLS/iMagLS coefficient computations and simulations (Section V-B2); robustness to SNR mismatch is not studied.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Far-field, uncorrelated/diffuse source model and spatially white noise
    Invoked in Section II-A/C to derive the closed-form BSM-LS solution; the paper relies on prior evidence that BSM performs well beyond this model.
  • domain assumption High-SNR assumption in ILD analysis
    In Section IV, Eq. (28) disregards noise; the ILD error analysis and feasibility discussion assume negligible noise.
  • domain assumption Signal-independent BSM coefficients generalize to arbitrary sound scenes
    The method designs filters from HRTF and ATF only; the paper inherits this assumption from prior BSM work [10].
  • domain assumption Measured ATFs for glasses arrays are accurate and representative
    The 5-mic glasses ATF and EasyCom ATF were measured on a dummy head and used to evaluate the method; any measurement error propagates into the results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BSM-iMagLS: ILD Informed Binaural Signal Matching for Reproduction with Head-Mounted Microphone Arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZLVQNPT

@misc{pith2026250118227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BSM-iMagLS: ILD Informed Binaural Signal Matching for Reproduction with Head-Mounted Microphone Arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZLVQNPT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18227}
}
read the original abstract

Headphone listening in applications such as augmented and virtual reality (AR and VR) relies on high-quality spatial audio to ensure immersion, making accurate binaural reproduction a critical component. As capture devices, wearable arrays with only a few microphones with irregular arrangement face challenges in achieving a reproduction quality comparable to that of arrays with a large number of microphones. Binaural signal matching (BSM) has recently been presented as a signal-independent approach for generating high-quality binaural signal using only a few microphones, which is further improved using magnitude-least squares (MagLS) optimization at high frequencies. This paper extends BSM with MagLS by introducing interaural level difference (ILD) into the MagLS, integrated into BSM (BSM-iMagLS). Using a deep neural network (DNN)-based solver, BSM-iMagLS achieves joint optimization of magnitude, ILD, and magnitude derivatives, improving spatial fidelity. Performance is validated through theoretical analysis, numerical simulations with diverse HRTFs and head-mounted array geometries, and listening experiments, demonstrating a substantial reduction in ILD errors while maintaining comparable magnitude accuracy to state-of-the-art solutions. The results highlight the potential of BSM-iMagLS to enhance binaural reproduction for wearable and portable devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18227 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Network diagram example with M = 6, NFFT = 385, and tanh (.) used as the activation function. GeMM is an abbreviation of general matrix multiplication. system depends on these cues to identify the position of sound sources [26]. The proposed dissimilarity measure DiMLS is expressed as follows, incorporating the original MagLS dissimilarity measure, and two new measures representing the derivatives of magnitude over … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The three BSM-iMagLS error components of Eq. (14) as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ILD curves (top) and ILD error (bottom) as a function of incident [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NMSE (top) and Normalized Magnitude error (bottom) as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Error analysis for the HUTUBS HRTF data set and the EasyCom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Head rotation compensation analysis, performed on KU100 and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Listening test results. Estimated marginal mean and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    3-D sound for virtual reality and multimedia,

    D. R. Begault and L. J. Trejo, “3-D sound for virtual reality and multimedia,” NASA, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California , p. 132–136, 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Virtual reality for architectural acoustics,

    M. V orl¨ander, D. Schr ¨oder, S. Pelzer, and F. Wefers, “Virtual reality for architectural acoustics,” Journal of Building Performance Simulation , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 15–25, 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    Spatial audio signal processing for binaural reproduction of recorded acoustic scenes– review and challenges,

    B. Rafaely, V . Tourbabin, E. Habets, Z. Ben-Hur, H. Lee, H. Gamper, L. Arbel, L. Birnie, T. Abhayapala, and P. Samarasinghe, “Spatial audio signal processing for binaural reproduction of recorded acoustic scenes– review and challenges,” Acta Acustica, vol. 6, p. 47, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Zotter and M

    F. Zotter and M. Frank, Ambisonics: A practical 3D audio theory for recording, studio production, sound reinforcement, and virtual reality . Springer Nature, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Mpeg-h audio—the new standard for universal spatial/3d audio coding,

    J. Herre, J. Hilpert, A. Kuntz, and J. Plogsties, “Mpeg-h audio—the new standard for universal spatial/3d audio coding,” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 821–830, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Compass: Coding and multidi- rectional parameterization of ambisonic sound scenes,

    A. Politis, S. Tervo, and V . Pulkki, “Compass: Coding and multidi- rectional parameterization of ambisonic sound scenes,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2018, pp. 6802–6806

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Para- metric ambisonic encoding of arbitrary microphone arrays,

    L. McCormack, A. Politis, R. Gonzalez, T. Lokki, and V . Pulkki, “Para- metric ambisonic encoding of arbitrary microphone arrays,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , vol. 30, pp. 2062–2075, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Optimizing higher- order directional audio coding with adaptive mixing and energy match- ing for ambisonic compression and upmixing,

    C. Hold, L. McCormack, A. Politis, and V . Pulkki, “Optimizing higher- order directional audio coding with adaptive mixing and energy match- ing for ambisonic compression and upmixing,” in 2023 IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics (WASPAA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Beamforming- based binaural reproduction by matching of binaural signals,

    L. Madmoni, J. Donley, V . Tourbabin, and B. Rafaely, “Beamforming- based binaural reproduction by matching of binaural signals,” in Audio Engineering Society Conference: 2020 AES International Conference on Audio for Virtual and Augmented Reality . Audio Engineering Society, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    De- sign and analysis of binaural signal matching with arbitrary microphone arrays and listener head rotations,

    L. Madmoni, Z. Ben-Hur, J. Donley, V . Tourbabin, and B. Rafaely, “De- sign and analysis of binaural signal matching with arbitrary microphone arrays and listener head rotations,” EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing , vol. 2025, no. 1, p. 11, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Interaural level difference optimization of binaural ambisonic rendering,

    T. McKenzie, D. T. Murphy, and G. Kearney, “Interaural level difference optimization of binaural ambisonic rendering,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 1226, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Magnitude-corrected and time-aligned interpolation of head-related transfer functions,

    J. M. Arend, C. P ¨orschmann, S. Weinzierl, and F. Brinkmann, “Magnitude-corrected and time-aligned interpolation of head-related transfer functions,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 31, pp. 3783–3799, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Ambisonic encoding of signals from equatorial microphone arrays,

    J. Ahrens, “Ambisonic encoding of signals from equatorial microphone arrays,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00584 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Imagls: Interaural level difference with magnitude least-squares loss for optimized first- order head-related transfer function,

    O. Berebi, Z. Ben-Hur, D. L. Alon, and B. Rafaely, “Imagls: Interaural level difference with magnitude least-squares loss for optimized first- order head-related transfer function,” in10th Convention of the European Acoustics Association, EAA 2023 . European Acoustics Associat...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Feasibility of iMagLS-BSM-ILD informed binaural signal matching with arbitrary microphone arrays,

    O. Berebi, Z. Ben-Hur, D. Alon, and B. Rafaely, “Feasibility of iMagLS-BSM-ILD informed binaural signal matching with arbitrary microphone arrays,” in 2024 18th International Workshop on Acoustic Signal Enhancement (IWAENC) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 429–433

    2024

  8. [16]

    H. L. Van Trees, Optimum array processing: Part IV of detection, estimation, and modulation theory . John Wiley & Sons, 2002

    2002

  9. [17]

    Rafaely, Fundamentals of spherical array processing

    B. Rafaely, Fundamentals of spherical array processing . Springer, 2015, vol. 8

    2015

  10. [18]

    Insights into head-related transfer function: Spatial dimensionality and continuous representation,

    W. Zhang, T. D. Abhayapala, R. A. Kennedy, and R. Duraiswami, “Insights into head-related transfer function: Spatial dimensionality and continuous representation,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 2347–2357, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    Some measurements of interaural time difference thresholds,

    R. Klumpp and H. Eady, “Some measurements of interaural time difference thresholds,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 859–860, 1956

    1956

  12. [20]

    Just noticeable differences in dichotic phase,

    J. Zwislocki and R. Feldman, “Just noticeable differences in dichotic phase,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 860–864, 1956

    1956

  13. [21]

    Human interaural time difference thresholds for sine tones: The high-frequency limit,

    A. Brughera, L. Dunai, and W. M. Hartmann, “Human interaural time difference thresholds for sine tones: The high-frequency limit,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 133, no. 5, pp. 2839– 2855, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Listener weighting of cues for lateral angle: The duplex theory of sound localization revisited,

    E. A. Macpherson and J. C. Middlebrooks, “Listener weighting of cues for lateral angle: The duplex theory of sound localization revisited,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , vol. 111, no. 5, pp. 2219–2236, 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    Convex approximation and optimization with appli- cations in magnitude filter design and radiation pattern synthesis,

    P. W. Kassakian, “Convex approximation and optimization with appli- cations in magnitude filter design and radiation pattern synthesis,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Six-degrees-of-freedom binaural reproduction of head-worn microphone array capture,

    L. Mccormack, N. Meyer-Kahlen, D. L. Alon, Z. Ben-Hur, S. V . A. Gari, and P. Robinson, “Six-degrees-of-freedom binaural reproduction of head-worn microphone array capture,” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 638–649, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    On our perception of sound direction,

    J. W. Strutt, “On our perception of sound direction,” Philosophical Magazine, vol. 13, no. 74, pp. 214–32, 1907

    1907

  18. [26]

    Binaural spatial reproduction,

    B. F. Katz and R. Nicol, “Binaural spatial reproduction,” in Sensory Evaluation of Sound . CRC Press, 2018, pp. 349–388. 14

    2018

  19. [27]

    Xie, Head-related transfer function and virtual auditory display

    B. Xie, Head-related transfer function and virtual auditory display . J. Ross Publishing, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Deep learning: methods and applications,

    L. Deng, D. Yu et al. , “Deep learning: methods and applications,” Foundations and trends® in signal processing, vol. 7, no. 3–4, pp. 197– 387, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    The convergence of a class of double-rank minimization algorithms 1. general considerations,

    C. G. Broyden, “The convergence of a class of double-rank minimization algorithms 1. general considerations,” IMA Journal of Applied Mathe- matics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 76–90, 1970

    1970

  22. [30]

    A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. Kinga, J. B. Adam et al. , “A method for stochastic optimization,” in International conference on learning representations (ICLR) , vol. 5. San Diego, California;, 2015, p. 6

    2015

  23. [31]

    High order spatial audio capture and its binaural head-tracked playback over headphones with hrtf cues,

    L. S. Davis, R. Duraiswami, E. Grassi, N. A. Gumerov, Z. Li, and D. N. Zotkin, “High order spatial audio capture and its binaural head-tracked playback over headphones with hrtf cues,” in Audio Engineering Society Convention 119. Audio Engineering Society, 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    Image method for efficiently simulating small-room acoustics,

    J. B. Allen and D. A. Berkley, “Image method for efficiently simulating small-room acoustics,” JASA, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 943–950, 1979

    1979

  25. [33]

    A spherical far field HRIR/HRTF compilation of the Neumann KU 100,

    B. Bernsch ¨utz, “A spherical far field HRIR/HRTF compilation of the Neumann KU 100,” in Proceedings of the 40th Italian (AIA) annual conference on acoustics and the 39th German annual conference on acoustics (DAGA) conference on acoustics . AIA/DAGA, 2013, p. 29

    2013

  26. [34]

    The hutubs hrtf database,

    F. Brinkmann, M. Dinakaran, R. Pelzer, J. J. Wohlgemuth, F. Seipl, and S. Weinzierl, “The hutubs hrtf database,” DOI, vol. 10, p. 14279, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Easycom: An augmented reality dataset to support algorithms for easy communication in noisy environments,

    J. Donley, V . Tourbabin, J.-S. Lee, M. Broyles, H. Jiang, J. Shen, M. Pantic, V . K. Ithapu, and R. Mehra, “Easycom: An augmented reality dataset to support algorithms for easy communication in noisy environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.04174 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    End-to-end magnitude least squares binaural rendering of spherical microphone array signals,

    T. Deppisch, H. Helmholz, and J. Ahrens, “End-to-end magnitude least squares binaural rendering of spherical microphone array signals,” in 2021 Immersive and 3D Audio: from Architecture to Automotive (I3DA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  29. [37]

    Blind identification of binaural room impulse responses from smart glasses,

    T. Deppisch, N. Meyer-Kahlen, and S. V . A. Gar ´ı, “Blind identification of binaural room impulse responses from smart glasses,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    The dominant role of low-frequency interaural time differences in sound localization,

    F. L. Wightman and D. J. Kistler, “The dominant role of low-frequency interaural time differences in sound localization,” JASA, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 1648–1661, 1992

    1992

  31. [39]

    Toward an improved auditory model for predicting binaural coloration,

    T. McKenzie and F. Brinkmann, “Toward an improved auditory model for predicting binaural coloration,” Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 115–126, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Discrimination of interaural differences of level as a function of frequency,

    W. A. Yost and R. H. Dye Jr, “Discrimination of interaural differences of level as a function of frequency,”JASA, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 1846–1851, 1988

    1988

  33. [41]

    The use of interaural time and level difference cues by bilateral cochlear implant users,

    J. M. Aronoff, Y .-s. Yoon, D. J. Freed, A. J. Vermiglio, I. Pal, and S. D. Soli, “The use of interaural time and level difference cues by bilateral cochlear implant users,” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. EL87–EL92, 2010

    2010

  34. [42]

    Spherical microphone array beam steering using Wigner-D weighting,

    B. Rafaely and M. Kleider, “Spherical microphone array beam steering using Wigner-D weighting,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters , vol. 15, pp. 417–420, 2008

    2008

  35. [43]

    Analysis and design of head-tracked compensation for bilateral ambisonics,

    O. Berebi, Z. Ben-Hur, D. L. Alon, and B. Rafaely, “Analysis and design of head-tracked compensation for bilateral ambisonics,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing , 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Enabling head- tracking for binaural sound reproduction based on bilateral ambisonics,

    O. Berebi, B. Rafaely, Z. Ben-Hur, and D. L. Alon, “Enabling head- tracking for binaural sound reproduction based on bilateral ambisonics,” in 2021 Immersive and 3D Audio: from Architecture to Automotive (I3DA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  37. [45]

    Algorithms to measure audio programme loudness and true- peak audio level,

    B. Series, “Algorithms to measure audio programme loudness and true- peak audio level,” International Telecommunication Union Radiocom- munication Assembly, 2011

    2011

  38. [46]

    Method for the subjective assessment of intermediate quality level of audio systems,

    B. Serie, “Method for the subjective assessment of intermediate quality level of audio systems,” International Telecommunication Union Radio- communication Assembly, 2014

    2014

  39. [47]

    Field, Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics

    A. Field, Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics . Sage publications limited, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    The analysis of repeated measures designs: a review,

    H. Keselman, J. Algina, and R. K. Kowalchuk, “The analysis of repeated measures designs: a review,” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2001

    2001

  41. [49]

    Bsm-imagls: Ild informed binaural signal matching for reproduction with head-mounted microphone arrays - supplemental material,

    O. Berebi, Z. Ben-Hur, D. Lou Alon, and B. Rafaely, “Bsm-imagls: Ild informed binaural signal matching for reproduction with head-mounted microphone arrays - supplemental material,” Apr. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15260730 Or Berebi received the ...

    2025 doi

  42. [2017]

    His research areas include head-related transfer functions, spatial audio capture, binaural reproduction, and headphone equalization for VR and AR application

    in the field of spherical microphone array processing. His research areas include head-related transfer functions, spatial audio capture, binaural reproduction, and headphone equalization for VR and AR application. Boaz Rafaely (SM’01) received the B.Sc. degree (cum laude) in ...

    1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.