Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility (Bob Masta )


Subject: Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility
From:    Bob Masta  <masta(at)UMICH.EDU>
Date:    Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:27:19 -0500

Dear List: To resolve the Gaussian vs. uniform audibility issue for myself, I conducted a comparison test. I created alternating bursts of each noise type and summed them together. If the levels of each could be adjusted such that I could not detect any alternations, I concluded that there was no audible difference. The bursts consisted of 0.125 second rising and 0.125 second falling phases, with no sustained full-on or full-off phases. The rising phase of one source intersected the falling phase of the other where each was at its -3 dB point. Cos^0.5 (square root) rise/fall shapes insured that the two sources always summed to a constant RMS level. Base levels were set to insure that clipping could not occur on instantaneous peaks. I tested Gaussian white noise with standard deviations of 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.1, compared to uniform white noise. Noise sources were continuous and non-repeating. I found that in all cases except for SD = 0.1 the levels could be adjusted to give the percept of a single continuous source. Since Gaussian noise has much higher peak-to-average ratios than uniform noise, the level adjustments consisted of reductions in the uniform noise level to get a match. For the standard deviations used, the relative reductions were 1.5, 4.5, 10.5, and 21.5 dB, respectively. The SD = 0.1 case was clearly different, as could be told immediately when switched to continuous non-burst operation. Not only was there a conspicuous audible difference, the waveforms showed a conspicuous visible difference as well, which pointed toward the explanation: With low-SD noise, there is a large peak-to-average ratio. The peak values come relatively infrequently, and when they do they create spectral splatters during the relatively short auditory temporal integration time, even though the Gaussian source still has a flat spectrum if averaged long enough. It is the spectral splatters that are making the audible difference. At higher SD the average level is also higher, and the peaks and consequent splatters are more frequent as well, so the splatters are masked as well as integrated. I ran these tests with my DaqGen for Windows (shameless plug), which I modified especially for this purpose by the addition of half-power cosine window steps. Since I was about to release version 1.10 anyway, I included that feature and an application note, along with a sound setup file to duplicate the above tests. You are welcome to download this and try it for yourself. (DaqGen is freeware, so there are no obligations.) To run the test, start DaqGen and hit Load Setup (either in the File menu or the the button near the bottom right of the Generator dialog). Select the GausWhit.GEN setup from the pop-up dialog. You will need to adjust your mixer settings for a comfortable listening level, either from the normal Windows mixer or the dialog that pops up when you hit the Vol button in the Generator dialog. To read more about this, including a recap of the discussion above, open the DaqGen Help system and go to Application Notes in the Contents, then select the topic entitled "GausWhit.GEN Setup File - Comparing Noise Distributions". I'll be glad to answer any questions. Enjoy! Robert Masta dqatech(at)daqarta.com D A Q A R T A Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis Shareware from Interstellar Research www.daqarta.com


This message came from the mail archive
http://www.auditory.org/postings/2004/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University