Re: Optimal sweep duration for BRIR measurements (Brian FG Katz )

Subject: Re: Optimal sweep duration for BRIR measurements From: Brian FG Katz <brian.katz@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 10:07:21 +0200 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY> This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02B3_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_02B4_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0" ------=_NextPart_001_02B4_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_002_02B5_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0" ------=_NextPart_002_02B5_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would offer another viewpoint.=20 =20 If we look at the processing partly in the FFT domain, the time spent at each frequency bin (some delta F) is longer as the sweep length = increases. This time window can be considered as a temporal average, over which the = SNR increases as the length increases for a given bin. As I mentioned = earlier, the SNR gain of averaging and extended sweep length is identical : SNR = of deconvolved RIR for avg of 3x20sec sweeps =3D 1x60sec sweep.=20 =20 There really isn=92t a paradox here.=20 =20 -Brian FG Katz LIMSI-CNRS =20 De : AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx De la part de Trevor Agus Envoy=E9 : mardi 28 juillet 2015 10:53 =C0 : AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Objet : Re: Optimal sweep duration for BRIR measurements =20 Dear list, There's a conundrum in this discussion that: (1) increasing the duration of the sine-wave sweep increases the signal-to-noise ratio (which seems intuitively true) versus (2) increasing the duration of the sine-wave sweep does not affect the signal-to-noise ratio (as John noted; which is literally true if the "signal" is the sweep, whose level is unaffected by duration). It's a fun paradox, and I don't want to take away from anyone's pleasure = by my stab at a resolution... (Potential spoiler alert.) Is it that the SNR of interest is the impulse-response-to-noise, only = over its relatively short time period? As such, a large amount of the energy = of the noise (in a long sweep) would be outside of the IR's expected time period (after the convolution stage that 'extracts' the IR), but all the energy of the sine sweep (and its reverberation) would be kept within = this time period. So the SNR is constant (if you consider the full duration) = yet increased (if you focus on the time period of the IR). Or is there more = to it? All the best, Trevor Brian FG Katz wrote: Dear John, As others have pointed out, increasing the length of the sweep=20 increases your signal-to-noise ratio. For large room acoustics, we=20 typically use sweeps of 20 to 40 seconds. This of course depends on=20 the size of your room, its reverberation time, and the power of your=20 source. The weaker the source, the longer the sweep. You should=20 basically do a test and see what SNR you get. If you need more, and=20 your measurement chain is at its limit, the only option is longer=20 sweep. Longer sweeps will not help much with impulsive interruptions,=20 while averaging will.With a single sweep, basically that freq-range=20 during the noise is lost. If you are just measuring from the RIR, this=20 may not be an issue, as measurement parameters are often in=20 octave-bands, but this is not true for auralization usage; corrupt=20 data is corrupt data, though I haven=92t gone through a thorough study=20 of this actual case. The sweep should definitely be longer than the RT, for room=20 measurements. Then, don=92t forget that you need to record the sweep=20 length PLUS the RT or more if your SNR is better than 60dB! We have also compared averaging repeated sweeps vs. longer sweeps.=20 Avoiding the recent developments in overlapping sweep processing, this=20 basic repetition approach =91requires=92 the decay of the first sweep to = finish before you launch the second sweep. As such, 3x20 second sweeps=20 take longer than 1 x 60 second sweep, due to the additional pauses. Of=20 course, without repetitions, you have no backup in case something goes=20 wrong, like a door slam or something. So, I tend to use repeated=20 sweeps and take the best 1. We do all our processing in MatLab, and have never had an issue=20 (within the last 20 years) of processing long sweeps in real halls. As you are considering BRIR, and not anechoic HRTFs, you are subject=20 to the same conditions. If you want to convolve the BRIR directly, you=20 will need to ensure that the SNR is sufficiently high that the=20 noise-floor is not audible as a late reverb part of the BRIR. Some=20 noise extension methods exist from older studies on basic auralization=20 and scale model RIR auralizations. I cannot imagine a 2s sweep for=20 BRIR unless you are measuring an office of other room with <1 sec RT.=20 I think there is a fault in your correlation-based analysis for=20 reliability, and there are too many factors to consider in comparing=20 BRIR of different lengths. First, examine your SNR. Regarding distortion of the source, this should be an issue for the=20 processing element (different from burning out you speaker). This is=20 because one of the strengths of the sweep method (when done correctly)=20 is that any harmonic distortion components of a higher frequency that=20 the excitation signal at the time or folded back to BEFORE the direct=20 sound after deconvolution by the excitation signal (as that frequency=20 has yet to be generated). We presented a through work on this feature,=20 extending Farina=92s earlier works, to general conditions: M. R=E9billat, R. Hennequin, E. Corteel, and B. Katz, =93Identification = of=20 cascade of Hammerstein models for the description of nonlinearities in=20 vibrating devices,=94 J. Sound and Vibration, vol. 330, pp. 1018=961038, = 2011, (doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2010.09.012). This method lets you actually extract and analyse the different=20 harmonic distortions (THD etc.) as well as allowing for the modelling=20 of non-linear responses. Cheers, Brian -- Brian FG Katz, Ph.D, HDR Resp. Groupe Audio & Acoustique LIMSI - CNRS Rue John von Neumann Campus Universitaire d'Orsay, B=E2t 508 91405 Orsay cedex France Phone. + 33 (0)1 69 85 80 67 - Fax. + 33 (0)1 69 85 80 88 http://www.limsi.fr <http://www.limsi.fr/> <http://www.limsi.fr/> web_group:=20 http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/ web_theme:=20 http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/thmsonesp/ *De :*AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception=20 [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx *De la part de* Anders Tornvig=20 Christensen *Envoy=E9 :* lundi 27 juillet 2015 09:07 *=C0 :* AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx *Objet :* Re: Optimal sweep duration for BRIR measurements Hello John, The sweep method at a single frequency is an approximation to a=20 steady-state measurement with a pure tone. Longer sweeps give higher=20 signal to noise ratio per sweep because it spends more time per=20 frequency. Short repeated sweeps (but not shorter than the length of the impulse=20 response) are good, if time-varying or sudden noise that doesn't=20 average out is likely to contaminate the measurement. Sweep duration (and "rate" in general) also matters if the system=20 (room in your case) is nonlinear, time-variant, or both, but that's=20 another discussion. Something is wrong with your implementation if the temporal offset of=20 the impulse responses you measure depends on the sweep duration. You=20 should be able to check this by connecting the output of your sound=20 card directly to its input. Also note that wrongly measured or wrongly=20 computed impulse responses may be very reproducible in terms of=20 correlation. Best, Anders PhD student in acoustics Aalborg University, Denmark ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:*AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception=20 [AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx on behalf of John Culling=20 [CullingJ@xxxxxxxx *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 5:25 PM *To:* AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx <mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> <mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> *Subject:* Optimal sweep duration for BRIR measurements Dear all, Basic Q=85 Does anyone have insight into the optimum sweep duration using=20 Farina's method for measuring room impulses responses? More detailed background=85 We are planning to make an extensive series of measurements, and in=20 preparation have been testing the method using different sweep durations. One way to=20 check the method is to correlate the impulses respones from repeated measurements or=20 those generated with different durations. To our surprise short sweeps (1-2 seconds)=20 appear to give more reliable results (repeated sweeps correlate, r>0.98) than longer ones.=20 Comparing sweeps of different durations is a little trickier, because we find a=20 temporal offset that reduces the correlation and can only be partially overcome by using=20 cross-correlation. Nonetheless, it is apparent that durations from 1 second upwards correlate well,=20 while going below one second leads to reliable IRs, but ones that are inaccurate when=20 compared with those from longer sweep durations. Our surprising conclusion is that ~2s should be fine, but Farina=20 refers to an ISO standard that recommends very long sweeps (Farina has an example of 50s) to help=20 overcome noise. This seems an unintuitive rationale to us, since longer sweeps should=20 increase both the signal energy captured and the noise energy, and the method does not=20 involve averaging as far as I understand. Longer durations should help address brief=20 interupting sounds, but I am unsure if that it what was the idea. In the presence of=20 continuous noise, we did not notice any improvement in the IRs produced by longer sweeps. The nascent plan is to take >1 short sweep for each measurement and=20 reject IRs that that don't correlate well with another. Any insights/advice appreciated, John. Prof. John Culling School of Psychology, Cardiff University Tel: +44 (0)29 2087 4556 Yr Athro John Culling Yr Ysgol Seicoleg, Prifysgol Caerdydd Ff=F4n : +44 (0)29 2087 4556 <mailto:brian.katz@xxxxxxxx> Brian FG Katz 27 July 2015 17:46 Dear John, =20 As others have pointed out, increasing the length of the sweep increases your signal-to-noise ratio. For large room acoustics, we typically use sweeps of 20 to 40 seconds. This of course depends on the size of your = room, its reverberation time, and the power of your source. The weaker the = source, the longer the sweep. You should basically do a test and see what SNR = you get. If you need more, and your measurement chain is at its limit, the = only option is longer sweep. Longer sweeps will not help much with impulsive interruptions, while averaging will.With a single sweep, basically that freq-range during the noise is lost. If you are just measuring from the = RIR, this may not be an issue, as measurement parameters are often in octave-bands, but this is not true for auralization usage; corrupt data = is corrupt data, though I haven=92t gone through a thorough study of this = actual case. =20 =20 The sweep should definitely be longer than the RT, for room = measurements. Then, don=92t forget that you need to record the sweep length PLUS the = RT or more if your SNR is better than 60dB! =20 We have also compared averaging repeated sweeps vs. longer sweeps. = Avoiding the recent developments in overlapping sweep processing, this basic repetition approach =91requires=92 the decay of the first sweep to = finish before you launch the second sweep. As such, 3x20 second sweeps take longer = than 1 x 60 second sweep, due to the additional pauses. Of course, without repetitions, you have no backup in case something goes wrong, like a = door slam or something. So, I tend to use repeated sweeps and take the best = 1.=20 =20 We do all our processing in MatLab, and have never had an issue (within = the last 20 years) of processing long sweeps in real halls.=20 =20 As you are considering BRIR, and not anechoic HRTFs, you are subject to = the same conditions. If you want to convolve the BRIR directly, you will = need to ensure that the SNR is sufficiently high that the noise-floor is not = audible as a late reverb part of the BRIR. Some noise extension methods exist = from older studies on basic auralization and scale model RIR auralizations. I cannot imagine a 2s sweep for BRIR unless you are measuring an office of other room with <1 sec RT. I think there is a fault in your correlation-based analysis for reliability, and there are too many = factors to consider in comparing BRIR of different lengths. First, examine your = SNR. =20 Regarding distortion of the source, this should be an issue for the processing element (different from burning out you speaker). This is = because one of the strengths of the sweep method (when done correctly) is that = any harmonic distortion components of a higher frequency that the excitation signal at the time or folded back to BEFORE the direct sound after deconvolution by the excitation signal (as that frequency has yet to be generated). We presented a through work on this feature, extending = Farina=92s earlier works, to general conditions: =20 M. R=E9billat, R. Hennequin, E. Corteel, and B. Katz, =93Identification = of cascade of Hammerstein models for the description of nonlinearities in vibrating devices,=94 J. Sound and Vibration, vol. 330, pp. 1018=961038, = 2011, (doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2010.09.012). =20 This method lets you actually extract and analyse the different harmonic distortions (THD etc.) as well as allowing for the modelling of = non-linear responses. =20 =20 Cheers, Brian=20 -- Brian FG Katz, Ph.D, HDR Resp. Groupe Audio & Acoustique LIMSI - CNRS Rue John von Neumann Campus Universitaire d'Orsay, B=E2t 508 91405 Orsay cedex=20 France Phone. + 33 (0)1 69 85 80 67 - Fax. + 33 (0)1 69 85 80 88 <http://www.limsi.fr/> http://www.limsi.fr web_group: <http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/> = http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/ web_theme: <http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/thmsonesp/> http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/thmsonesp/ =20 De : AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx De la part de Anders Tornvig = Christensen Envoy=E9 : lundi 27 juillet 2015 09:07 =C0 : AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Objet : Re: Optimal sweep duration for BRIR measurements =20 ------=_NextPart_002_02B5_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" = xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=3DGenerator = content=3D"Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body bgcolor=3Dwhite lang=3DFR = link=3D"#0563C1" vlink=3D"#954F72"><div class=3DWordSection1>I would = offer another viewpoint. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>If we look = at the processing partly in the FFT domain, the time spent at each = frequency bin (some delta F) is longer as the sweep length increases. = This time window can be considered as a temporal average, over which the = SNR increases as the length increases for a given bin. As I mentioned = earlier, the SNR gain of averaging and extended sweep length is = identical : SNR of deconvolved RIR for avg of 3x20sec sweeps =3D 1x60sec = sweep. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>There = really isn’t a paradox here. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>-Brian FG = Katz<o:p></o:p>LIMSI-CNRS<o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div = style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm = 0cm 0cm'>De : AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception = [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx De la part de Trevor = Agus Envoy=E9 : mardi 28 juillet 2015 = 10:53 =C0 : = AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Objet : Re: Optimal sweep = duration for BRIR measurements<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Dear = list, There's a conundrum in this discussion that: (1) = increasing the duration of the sine-wave sweep increases the = signal-to-noise ratio (which seems intuitively true) versus (2) = increasing the duration of the sine-wave sweep does not affect the = signal-to-noise ratio (as John noted; which is literally true if the = "signal" is the sweep, whose level is unaffected by = duration). It's a fun paradox, and I don't want to take away from = anyone's pleasure by my stab at a resolution... (Potential spoiler = alert.) Is it that the SNR of interest is the = impulse-response-to-noise, only over its relatively short time period? = As such, a large amount of the energy of the noise (in a long sweep) = would be outside of the IR's expected time period (after the convolution = stage that 'extracts' the IR), but all the energy of the sine sweep (and = its reverberation) would be kept within this time period. So the SNR is = constant (if you consider the full duration) yet increased (if you focus = on the time period of the IR). Or is there more to it? All the = best, Trevor Brian FG Katz wrote: <o:p></o:p> Dear John, As others have pointed out, = increasing the length of the sweep increases your signal-to-noise = ratio. For large room acoustics,  we typically use sweeps of 20 = to 40 seconds. This of course depends on the size of your room, its = reverberation time, and the power of your source. The weaker the = source, the longer the sweep. You should basically do a test and see = what SNR you get. If you need more, and your measurement chain is at = its limit, the only option is longer sweep. Longer sweeps will not = help much with impulsive interruptions, while averaging will.With a = single sweep, basically that freq-range during the noise is lost. If = you are just measuring from the RIR, this may not be an issue, as = measurement parameters are often in octave-bands, but this is not = true for auralization usage; corrupt data is corrupt data, though I = haven’t gone through a thorough study of this actual = case. The sweep should definitely be longer than the RT, for room = measurements. Then, don’t forget that you need to record the = sweep length PLUS the RT or more if your SNR is better than = 60dB! We have also compared averaging repeated sweeps vs. longer = sweeps. Avoiding the recent developments in overlapping sweep = processing, this basic repetition approach ‘requires’ = the decay of the first sweep to finish before you launch the second = sweep. As such, 3x20 second sweeps take longer than 1 x 60 second = sweep, due to the additional pauses. Of course, without repetitions, = you have no backup in case something goes wrong, like a door slam or = something. So, I tend to use repeated sweeps and take the best = 1. We do all our processing in MatLab, and have never had an = issue (within the last 20 years) of processing long sweeps in real = halls. As you are considering BRIR, and not anechoic HRTFs, you = are subject to the same conditions. If you want to convolve the BRIR = directly, you will need to ensure that the SNR is sufficiently high = that the noise-floor is not audible as a late reverb part of the = BRIR. Some noise extension methods exist from older studies on basic = auralization and scale model RIR auralizations. I cannot imagine a = 2s sweep for BRIR unless you are measuring an office of other room = with <1 sec RT. I think there is a fault in your = correlation-based analysis for reliability, and there are too many = factors to consider in comparing BRIR of different lengths. First, = examine your SNR. Regarding distortion of the source, this should = be an issue for the processing element (different from burning out = you speaker). This is because one of the strengths of the sweep = method (when done correctly) is that any harmonic distortion = components of a higher frequency that the excitation signal at the = time or folded back to BEFORE the direct sound after deconvolution = by the excitation signal (as that frequency has yet to be = generated). We presented a through work on this feature, extending = Farina’s earlier works, to general conditions: M. = R=E9billat, R. Hennequin, E. Corteel, and B. Katz, “Identification = of cascade of Hammerstein models for the description of = nonlinearities in vibrating devices,” J. Sound and Vibration, = vol. 330, pp. 1018–1038, 2011, = (doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2010.09.012). This method lets you actually = extract and analyse the different harmonic distortions (THD etc.) as = well as allowing for the modelling of non-linear = responses. Cheers, Brian -- Brian FG Katz, = Ph.D, HDR Resp. Groupe Audio & Acoustique LIMSI - = CNRS Rue John von Neumann Campus Universitaire d'Orsay, B=E2t = 508 91405 Orsay cedex France Phone. + 33 (0)1 69 85 80 = 67 - Fax. + 33 (0)1 69 85 80 88 <a = href=3D"http://www.limsi.fr">http://www.limsi.fr</a> <a = href=3D"http://www.limsi.fr/"><http://www.limsi.fr/></a> = web_group: <a = href=3D"http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/">http://www.limsi.fr/Scienti= fique/aa/</a>     web_theme: <a = href=3D"http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/thmsonesp/">http://www.limsi.= fr/Scientifique/aa/thmsonesp/</a> *De :*AUDITORY - Research in = Auditory Perception [<a = href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx<= /a>] *De la part de* Anders Tornvig Christensen *Envoy=E9 :* = lundi 27 juillet 2015 09:07 *=C0 :* <a = href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a> = *Objet :* Re: Optimal sweep duration for BRIR measurements Hello = John, The sweep method at a single frequency is an approximation = to a steady-state measurement with a pure tone. Longer sweeps give = higher signal to noise ratio per sweep because it spends more time = per frequency. Short repeated sweeps (but not shorter than = the length of the impulse response) are good, if time-varying or = sudden noise that doesn't average out is likely to contaminate the = measurement. Sweep duration (and "rate" in general) = also matters if the system (room in your case) is nonlinear, = time-variant, or both, but that's another = discussion. Something is wrong with your implementation if the = temporal offset of the impulse responses you measure depends on the = sweep duration. You should be able to check this by connecting the = output of your sound card directly to its input. Also note that = wrongly measured or wrongly computed impulse responses may be very = reproducible in terms of = correlation. Best, Anders PhD student in = acoustics Aalborg University, = Denmark ----------------------------------------------------------= -------------- *From:*AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception = [<a = href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a>] = on behalf of John Culling [<a = href=3D"mailto:CullingJ@xxxxxxxx">CullingJ@xxxxxxxx</a>] *Se= nt:* Friday, July 24, 2015 5:25 PM *To:* <a = href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a> <a = href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx"><mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= .CA></a> *Subject:* Optimal sweep duration for BRIR = measurements Dear all, Basic Q… Does anyone = have insight into the optimum sweep duration using Farina's = method for measuring room impulses responses? More = detailed background… We are planning to make an extensive = series of measurements, and in preparation have been testing = the method using different sweep durations. One way to check the = method is to correlate the impulses respones from repeated = measurements or those generated with different durations. To = our surprise short sweeps (1-2 seconds) appear to give = more reliable results (repeated sweeps correlate, r>0.98) than = longer ones. Comparing sweeps of different durations is a = little trickier, because we find a temporal offset that = reduces the correlation and can only be partially overcome by = using cross-correlation. Nonetheless, it is apparent that = durations from 1 second upwards correlate well, while going below = one second leads to reliable IRs, but ones that are inaccurate = when compared with those from longer sweep = durations. Our surprising conclusion is that ~2s should be fine, = but Farina refers to an ISO standard that recommends very = long sweeps (Farina has an example of 50s) to help overcome = noise. This seems an unintuitive rationale to us, since longer = sweeps should increase both the signal energy captured and = the noise energy, and the method does not involve = averaging as far as I understand. Longer durations should help = address brief interupting sounds, but I am unsure if that it = what was the idea. In the presence of continuous noise, we did = not notice any improvement in the IRs produced by longer = sweeps. The nascent plan is to take >1 short sweep for each = measurement and reject IRs that that don't correlate well = with another. Any insights/advice = appreciated, John. Prof. John Culling School of = Psychology, Cardiff University Tel: +44 (0)29 2087 = 4556 Yr Athro John Culling Yr Ysgol Seicoleg, = Prifysgol Caerdydd Ff=F4n : +44 (0)29 2087 4556<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><div = style=3D'margin-left:18.75pt;margin-top:22.5pt;margin-right:18.75pt;margi= n-bottom:7.5pt'><div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #EDEEF0 = 1.0pt;padding:4.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;display:table'><div><img border=3D0 width=3D25 height=3D25 = id=3D"_x0000_i1025" src=3D"cid:image001.jpg@xxxxxxxx" = name=3Dcompose-unknown-contact.jpg><o:p></o:p></div><div><a = href=3D"mailto:brian.katz@xxxxxxxx">Brian FG = Katz</a><o:p></o:p></div><div>27 July = 2015 17:46<o:p></o:p></div></div></div><div = style=3D'margin-left:18.0pt;margin-right:18.0pt'>Dear = John,<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>As others = have pointed out, increasing the length of the sweep increases your = signal-to-noise ratio. For large room acoustics,  we typically use = sweeps of 20 to 40 seconds. This of course depends on the size of your = room, its reverberation time, and the power of your source. The weaker = the source, the longer the sweep. You should basically do a test and see = what SNR you get. If you need more, and your measurement chain is at its = limit, the only option is longer sweep. Longer sweeps will not help much = with impulsive interruptions, while averaging will.With a single sweep, = basically that freq-range during the noise is lost. If you are just = measuring from the RIR, this may not be an issue, as measurement = parameters are often in octave-bands, but this is not true for = auralization usage; corrupt data is corrupt data, though I haven’t = gone through a thorough study of this actual case. =  <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>The sweep = should definitely be longer than the RT, for room measurements. Then, = don’t forget that you need to record the sweep length PLUS the RT = or more if your SNR is better than 60dB!<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>We have = also compared averaging repeated sweeps vs. longer sweeps. Avoiding the = recent developments in overlapping sweep processing, this basic = repetition approach ‘requires’ the decay of the first sweep = to finish before you launch the second sweep. As such, 3x20 second = sweeps take longer than 1 x 60 second sweep, due to the additional = pauses. Of course, without repetitions, you have no backup in case = something goes wrong, like a door slam or something. So, I tend to use = repeated sweeps and take the best 1. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>We do all = our processing in MatLab, and have never had an issue (within the last = 20 years) of processing long sweeps in real halls. = <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>As you are = considering BRIR, and not anechoic HRTFs, you are subject to the same = conditions. If you want to convolve the BRIR directly, you will need to = ensure that the SNR is sufficiently high that the noise-floor is not = audible as a late reverb part of the BRIR. Some noise extension methods = exist from older studies on basic auralization and scale model RIR = auralizations. I cannot imagine a 2s sweep for BRIR unless you are = measuring an office of other room with <1 sec RT. I think there is a = fault in your correlation-based analysis for reliability, and there are = too many factors to consider in comparing BRIR of different lengths. = First, examine your SNR. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>Regarding = distortion of the source, this should be an issue for the processing = element (different from burning out you speaker). This is because one of = the strengths of the sweep method (when done correctly) is that any = harmonic distortion components of a higher frequency that the excitation = signal at the time or folded back to BEFORE the direct sound after = deconvolution by the excitation signal (as that frequency has yet to be = generated). We presented a through work on this feature, extending = Farina’s earlier works, to general = conditions:<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>M. R=E9billat, R. Hennequin, E. Corteel, and B. = Katz, “Identification of cascade of Hammerstein models for the = description of nonlinearities in vibrating devices,” J. Sound and = Vibration, vol. 330, pp. 1018–1038, 2011, = (doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2010.09.012).<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>This method = lets you actually extract and analyse the different harmonic distortions = (THD etc.) as well as allowing for the modelling of non-linear = responses.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>Cheers,<o:p></o:p>Brian = <o:p></o:p><div>--<o:p></o:p>Brian FG Katz, Ph.D, = HDR<o:p></o:p>Resp. Groupe Audio & = Acoustique<o:p></o:p><![if !vml]><img width=3D89 height=3D46 = src=3D"cid:image002.jpg@xxxxxxxx" align=3Dleft hspace=3D12 = name=3Dimage.jpg v:shapes=3D"_x0000_s1026"><![endif]>LIMSI - CNRS Rue John von = Neumann Campus Universitaire d'Orsay, B=E2t 508 91405 Orsay cedex = <o:p></o:p>France<o:p></o:p>Phone. +  33 (0)1 69 = 85 80 67 - Fax.  +  33 (0)1 69 85 80 88 <a href=3D"http://www.limsi.fr/" = target=3D"_blank">http://www.limsi.fr</a>&nbsp= ;   web_group: <a = href=3D"http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/">http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/</a></spa= n>     = web_theme: <a = href=3D"http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/thmsonesp/">http://www.limsi.fr/Scientifique/aa/thmsonesp/</span= ></a><o:p></o:p></div> <o:p></o:p><div><div = style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm = 0cm 0cm'>De :</s= pan> AUDITORY - = Research in Auditory Perception [<a = href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx<= /a>] De la part de Anders Tornvig = Christensen Envoy=E9 : lundi 27 juillet 2015 = 09:07 =C0 : <a = href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a> = Objet : Re: Optimal sweep duration for BRIR = measurements<o:p></o:p></div></div> <o:p></o:p></div></div></body></html> ------=_NextPart_002_02B5_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0-- ------=_NextPart_001_02B4_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <image001.jpg@xxxxxxxx> /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEARwBHAAD/2wBDAAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQECAQEB AQEBAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgL/2wBDAQEBAQEBAQICAgICAgICAgICAgIC AgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgL/wAARCAAZABkDAREA AhEBAxEB/8QAGAAAAwEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgcICQr/xAA0EAABAwMCAgUKBwAAAAAAAAACAQME BQYRABITIQcUMUF2CBUXIjI2N0JRtVRWkZOV0dL/xAAYAQEAAwEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAAEEAv/E ACQRAAICAAQGAwAAAAAAAAAAAAABAhEDMrHREyExM0FxgfDx/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwDuEt+gW/UL et6oVC3rfqNQqFv0OfPn1GhUqfOmzZtKZlS5UqZMaNwzNwiJVIl7eXLCaZIGwBl3TY8epPx2+jy2 ZNPjvkwc9uhW8j7nCPhvOsQliYIeS7cvCpp8o50qwrC4v3lsNSDbdmTEhvs2tahxpfV3WnmbbozJ Ew/gwdadbYExVRXKEKoSdvJcaOSqxE7/AAiX0gXx+a69/JSf9alIlste0VzaNpeFrcT9KKymotyi aZ0KRCnzacoE7Kjzn4gi2KqUh3jqDHDHv4mRUfruTWlMzlVUKIVNp9GguEJnAh0+IZjyAiisgyRD nu5azS8miKqjOTVkKqS/psG37fo1Fbabeg25b8eZPeFJBBJSjMG5HjMeyihnaauZwe4OGiju13GA cpOwBeN+U8/IkGbsiS8b7ryogmbzhbyc9REROfZhERO5ETShjPtvpGqTUyLErytS4siSwx5x2tRH 4hPOI0DkjZtaJtFxuVEbIUUiyeNujlBUJGbJN6nM/Cyf2Hf60YgjvKA+NPSP4gT7axpcPtr51YWJ nYn9dnAQWl722p4ot37yzqnlfp6FrqbwawG8/9k= ------=_NextPart_001_02B4_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image002.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <image002.jpg@xxxxxxxx> /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wBDAAMCAgICAgMCAgIDAwMDBAYEBAQEBAgGBgUGCQgKCgkI CQkKDA8MCgsOCwkJDRENDg8QEBEQCgwSExIQEw8QEBD/2wBDAQMDAwQDBAgEBAgQCwkLEBAQEBAQ EBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBD/wAARCAAuAFkDAREA AhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQA AAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3 ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWm p6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEA AwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREAAgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSEx BhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYkNOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElK U1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOEhYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3 uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD9UKAC gDM0fXNH1+z/ALR0XV7TUrXc8fn2sySxh0OHG9O9OpBx3Abr+vad4Z0HUPEeuXAgsNKtZLy7l2bt kUab3P5Cs6abAzfh54+8MfFPwZpvj7wZeyXejaxB9os55IXidkP+w4zTcpx6AdPSUpvoAVN6i6AJ +FL2k10AiuLiKzhe4uJNkMKb3c1q5XlYDkPhX8VfBnxk8JR+NvAGpPfaTNPJbCaSB4G82N9jjZIM 1piINRsO52tQhBQAZHrQHkGaE77AfNX/AAT6QJ+ztaqn/Qw67/6cJa9DMYck0vJfqPoe3fEi+k0z 4feJ9TgEfn2ej3lxGHTegdIHccVxYde8hHyJZ/Hb4x3Pwu/Z28C/D3UtC0XxP8VrGR7rW59NSS3t fs8Qkk2W8f7v95XsVqFNSlJ7Lp8k/wBR9CT45eJf2v8A9n2y8N6lJ8dvDvi1PFetW/huOG+8LR2n 2We5P7ufMcnITHSqwtPD17+7sGxpfGTUf2wv2d/h7dfGPWPj14e8X2OhyW8mpaJP4WjtI545LiOP ZHJF+8/5aVzU1QqvlSsBH8ev2kfHOh/E3SfCMHxb0L4ReG7/AMMW+t2ut6poX9pf2jcSSfPbo/8A q4/LGK6qODpSjdq7u/63X9MbPbvg/wDtAfCr4oafb+E/D3xe8PeMfEtlp6HUTaDynunRB5lwkB5C F+w4FcFXCSpS5nGyFYyf2MPFeseN/gDovijXzaf2heXuopI1raJBGRFeSxx/u4+PuIKyxy5NBHvF cqAKAOI+LTXdv4A1S507eZ7cR3A2df3bh/6V4+fV62FwvPRXqd+VuKxKrPqdD4f1W113R7XU7R90 N1Cjqfw612ZbVp1cLGvTd7oxxtKWDxLgz5l8JfAn9qn4LJqHhX4M/Eb4f3fhCTUri/sbfxHptx9r tPPlMjpvt+JOXODXv1cVTr2c1qc92d34c8NftSa3Y+J9A+LviD4dz6bq2hXdhZf2BaXcc8d3ImxJ JPN48vmTp7VyuUE04hc4zw3+yh430e4/Z7ubjxLor/8ACobS4g1XZ5n+lPJEI82/yf8AoeK6K2OU 1Jd/8kgO7/aa+CGv/GzSfBeneH9Y06xfw74t0/X5/tokPmW9uTvjj8v+M5+lThMWqN/P/gg3c1f2 oPhNrfxx+CPiP4YeHdRsbHUdYW3EE96JPIj8u4jk+fy+T/q6wwtdU58zEcz8QPA/7SF0+i6B8Orz 4UT6Bp2k29vInifTLue5+2RjY8kYj+Ty8bP1ro9vGLcle7fcbZzHw8/Zx+LrfGnQvi98VtZ+H1v/ AMIvY3lpptj4P0mS1897iPZIZ5JP6V0VMdGVN00t++v6jR6Z+zP8J9Z+CPwh0z4d+INSsb29sLu8 neey3+WRPcSSLjfz/wAtK8zFT9tK6JPWayAKAKOo6fBqNnLp9wm+K4jMbj2rGajeVOrqpFUp+xSi uh418P8AxLJ8L/Es/wAOfFcojsJZ9+l3T/cUP0izXwmVYmpkGYyyetrGeqf4n1+YYJZjgFmEN1o0 e51+gK3Q+OegU3Ll3AKhxcgCjkaAKEuXYAou2AVUroApwd0AUAFADSRjNCSpqzIqKzucn4/+Hui+ PdO+z30Wy4j5gnT78Zrxsxy36+7rR9z08Dj3h3Z/D1R5pYar8VfhTiw1HTJvEWjR/wCrki+/HH7v XzNLDZzw++aT9rE+jxc8mzWK+rLlkddYfHLwjqEaLcWesWk//PJ7CRyP++Aa9vCZ/h8YuXFwcH8z xamRYmF3SkrHo8FxHNClxH9yRN9fRqzWh47TTsySmIKACgAoAKACgAoAaMAY7UfGipLmDAC+1HwI xlHlGEo6fMmRTg+dXFSqODsisdLsCRKLOAN6+WK5cRDD01zTgmbVZ4irpzl6uhbaC2CmAUAFABQA UAFABQB//9k= ------=_NextPart_001_02B4_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0-- ------=_NextPart_000_02B3_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIL2DCCA20w ggJVoAMCAQICAQAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwLDELMAkGA1UEBhMCRlIxDTALBgNVBAoTBENOUlMx DjAMBgNVBAMTBUNOUlMyMB4XDTA5MDEyMTA4NTExM1oXDTI5MDEyMTA4NTExM1owLDELMAkGA1UE BhMCRlIxDTALBgNVBAoTBENOUlMxDjAMBgNVBAMTBUNOUlMyMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAuLp3q1edEiUZFUSKI1XaYw0GbVnrwQSgF3kS8yeCSOqNvjzLNjV4GwTVKQO1 aUgp+6ena8Tc0ikQ8+JOlaUArUl1whzrIjjNmQh/8vEkqvEqTQxss6Iidiv7d7ZgPD2IV6nrrxal kGFRgP/DfLmug70lXaA9lLlsNpzITT1j3yfOxA1ktUIlkTYVnJNLIRk09ikTQc4Pu5LvlqxvVDrz wCsEGdH+vNzu8eFOQ47mE9wn2rsAcl2zfy4wmGjGPQUsAgdKEjbN2r7PDGsKTBoK69sB8uGcrELE klxXJrbW9dSKvWscDDMaLu2mhIQ2Jsyk7/4k+Rtfri1ZA1AuDwhx9QIDAQABo4GZMIGWMA8GA1Ud EwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wHQYDVR0OBBYEFFCXtg33rDMXr/EdRjxrO/8AoOXlMFQGA1UdIwRNMEuAFFCX tg33rDMXr/EdRjxrO/8AoOXloTCkLjAsMQswCQYDVQQGEwJGUjENMAsGA1UEChMEQ05SUzEOMAwG A1UEAxMFQ05SUzKCAQAwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQA0MWtAIb+H 9V58oaX1/xjSJOZQvGeYrjsMGMeICK2T0QYJkGr+qBTxkA1rSHDZ0Gd6hZRqn/BpndZ4/9e0/OoI 7c5aCFpTLq/18t47spk5/X2x68xUdAUXEGZfGs429Uvhn5Ox+CuKiBEx/PNqo40d1gpd6vlM1uJC 5jwLLuxiTGkOLCaepo3nN69faiEMRekv80m3G/VfIVIgJAowymK9AYJmTEHyy0L9Yq9EeylpGRWl gUTow958lDNmnhOPUYPPU/gN5668TvqByB8sKWTda2MjnB/H93c64jLqaSH1nTnCd/oGtNIIoZBH DKxRaBwsD32n1qDRVfU+k/SqjRnNMIIDtjCCAp6gAwIBAgIBAzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADAsMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJGUjENMAsGA1UEChMEQ05SUzEOMAwGA1UEAxMFQ05SUzIwHhcNMDkwMTIxMDkwMzUy WhcNMjkwMTIwMDkwMzUyWjA1MQswCQYDVQQGEwJGUjENMAsGA1UEChMEQ05SUzEXMBUGA1UEAxMO Q05SUzItU3RhbmRhcmQwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCcqWRqtAcjGcO+ CAjE4ipd7dQo3v4/oO2SRGsWRzUTN410qfVNg+QFG48IYUzed1vXqf+7ZZ3JrDwP8Yl7kyKgRw9f Br6OeKALeddCZWFyY5JAiltnEPrWJz7Yd00eedtvSxIAUlji2EIFsjM3d+CNbB28+PbylFgl94LZ htlc89guzf1wiQSH7znRKtiSjGkvHFJl+mCPEH/Mj/lcLhTtTIvgnTe40jyUylD9QXre9jzsruy9 XBbdsPBzmXqB/zsz0gCeTYzGWzguM8N2hspyVNst4hD9klBok4Ttd6mJaVGF6+CUo/mXCBGMJPAP uji0LNbXbE5j/rQxn++PplqlAgMBAAGjgdkwgdYwDwYDVR0TAQH/BAUwAwEB/zAdBgNVHQ4EFgQU EePZ0VJHG1mxPBt4Zmv0oYjtClswVAYDVR0jBE0wS4AUUJe2DfesMxev8R1GPGs7/wCg5eWhMKQu MCwxCzAJBgNVBAYTAkZSMQ0wCwYDVQQKEwRDTlJTMQ4wDAYDVQQDEwVDTlJTMoIBADAOBgNVHQ8B Af8EBAMCAQYwPgYDVR0fBDcwNTAzoDGgL4YtaHR0cDovL2NybHMuc2VydmljZXMuY25ycy5mci9D TlJTMi9nZXRkZXIuY3JsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBP6eMX5kwn9RdqUFXq7s9Mqr3uLN12 PlmgLwtoidpD0B4dLGsS+WcTnmUrpITSMc+CoMrvIugQbOnPF3ysrYeFTIrh1XtM5tkOsqHkKZ4g rw8+e7l/JEwy4Ij+etqsFmChda6JnIpmnZS6fqsOICPt98eEXYJIFN7E1LDFTiyH1I0DES821Slv rplnGQyNbVog39GfxsuvVe4LyrFbD+9cdPTzRoljR34szr/IMA0ARvYY5mw/MH6QbhCNHzlJz5Np 68iewmdzr0qL9nxCKN2l3e2vyVUbZD9UvGEmEOuR1en37tD2Cwv6ppDdYPRAnQunnPjOLyE4/qsG v9oNd/pnMIIEqTCCA5GgAwIBAgICdy0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwNTELMAkGA1UEBhMCRlIxDTAL BgNVBAoTBENOUlMxFzAVBgNVBAMTDkNOUlMyLVN0YW5kYXJkMB4XDTEzMTIxNjE0NTgyNVoXDTE1 MTIxNjE0NTgyNVowZzELMAkGA1UEBhMCRlIxDTALBgNVBAoTBENOUlMxEDAOBgNVBAsTB1VQUjMy NTExEzARBgNVBAMTCkJyaWFuIEthdHoxIjAgBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWE2JyaWFuLmthdHpAbGltc2ku ZnIwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDogOd9JNpls4A+x5qzEterjFSY2bGu 0BX2r3dsVhY0DB2cg9ovZmTFR/Ro+QjGPWZHDn6eY3O5HTSMLR/Mh7zVR+o9dD+IGKr5W12HQShD XduRDdZgFOwAX1skYhKZ1C7TdYiShnxl/hAiHY+IXvpHaGJlpIYHjD0+pMJ8y1uTDjuskNHOBC3l XhvMI8hpE+NleJxJLZsmGZwW41IrDnsuhiagv3nOGum4dEY2w2MfJzS8NHuQApY74NseIkrx/wfC 2VnnoWkQoyC0C3qBem90IqVl0Nnu2kvqZKFG1/rJFQHSr76z9el02WGxaC1pP982kUenPd1CT8/5 aYPRH1j5AgMBAAGjggGPMIIBizAMBgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIEsDAOBgNV HQ8BAf8EBAMCBeAwegYJYIZIAYb4QgENBG0Wa0NlcnRpZmljYXQgQ05SUzItU3RhbmRhcmQuIFBv dXIgdG91dGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gc2UgcmVwb3J0ZXIg4CBodHRwOi8vaWdjLnNlcnZpY2VzLmNu cnMuZnIvQ05SUzItU3RhbmRhcmQvMB0GA1UdDgQWBBS0jqVYl1rSaoQ9UONWYrVIZ4tZrTBUBgNV HSMETTBLgBQR49nRUkcbWbE8G3hma/ShiO0KW6EwpC4wLDELMAkGA1UEBhMCRlIxDTALBgNVBAoT BENOUlMxDjAMBgNVBAMTBUNOUlMyggEDMB4GA1UdEQQXMBWBE2JyaWFuLmthdHpAbGltc2kuZnIw RwYDVR0fBEAwPjA8oDqgOIY2aHR0cDovL2NybHMuc2VydmljZXMuY25ycy5mci9DTlJTMi1TdGFu ZGFyZC9nZXRkZXIuY3JsMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCHKbX7H/CDt3W23zz+LXBrb0JX6LGF C6AeCRblVwh2vXj+HE08GCuh6BW+QDk6POnHTg7oWgINtmorqIw0yKO8UGOwsKvBmsbq/Z3qfLti ewnz3AKYoS6PmAHmViXooij9YItH8QKyorpmzw0NLLMdQ5KI4aKj1XNQAQgYvuo9ML4O4gK3vv/K LnIwrT3YjPLloYHMEaCOkfl9HnWrXYMPg9HsUG1gty+JBTHQmYOS9u9QbKZAjyq9j2jSIL+cpU7i U6r3k3sETHOaMwpffTfm2+gpdQ8KO/UCtyY9PAlnJHz71w/6iULRvnLS14SjwOaGA99iT6neEd3j 9gkLWXW6MYIDCzCCAwcCAQEwOzA1MQswCQYDVQQGEwJGUjENMAsGA1UEChMEQ05SUzEXMBUGA1UE AxMOQ05SUzItU3RhbmRhcmQCAnctMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggGlMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG 9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTE1MDczMDA4MDcyMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFI0n3T2C bkWunUoso67oEYeMbqQdMEoGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDE9MDswNTELMAkGA1UEBhMCRlIxDTALBgNVBAoT BENOUlMxFzAVBgNVBAMTDkNOUlMyLVN0YW5kYXJkAgJ3LTBMBgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzE9oDswNTEL MAkGA1UEBhMCRlIxDTALBgNVBAoTBENOUlMxFzAVBgNVBAMTDkNOUlMyLVN0YW5kYXJkAgJ3LTCB qwYJKoZIhvcNAQkPMYGdMIGaMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQBKjALBglghkgBZQMEARYwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcw CwYJYIZIAWUDBAECMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBKDAHBgUrDgMCGjALBglghkgBZQMEAgMwCwYJYIZIAWUDBAICMAsGCWCGSAFlAwQC ATANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQBkNxCHjZpe9V0RhfvrSqAihpTdkZ2vzv6x6hFOhlq9ttxBOAZF FWUn1xgQhx0UkpNW2e0KIgus9dGG9rXMxvHKpyIDccbIdrTe9NSdIntEp6RFmj4cVWOsyT8hWfeb sm2yvfhigsTHGWFJsiXx3Gr9Ttd5XvUk/97tMQESl0ZVK5QlDIBsvoV2uR8P2AjuY9RYujxSOZIk Kp6jwFb4Ec1WnOPnGWScOX7obw1WoEa/ZFzBgrov2YvIIF+hyIGjbbTU2RxfNv0bdYhvuCe00+z+ VEAzI2TD1vBQSkWOiLxNRhr116KtPFJ2IVgJgpOb0m0pPzwfkKIwS81THiB+EAElAAAAAAAA ------=_NextPart_000_02B3_01D0CAAF.8651CDE0--

This message came from the mail archive
/var/www/postings/2015/
maintained by:

DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University