mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On The Relevance Of The Differences Between HRTF Measurement Setups For Machine Learning

arXiv 2212.04283 ↗First posted 8 Dec 2022eess.AS cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As spatial audio is enjoying a surge in popularity, data-driven machine learning techniques that have been proven successful in other domains are increasingly used to process head-related transfer function measurements. However, these techniques require much data, whereas the existing datasets are ranging from tens to the low hundreds of datapoints. It therefore becomes attractive to combine multiple of these datasets, although they are measured under different conditions. In this paper, we first establish the common ground between a number of datasets, then we investigate potential pitfalls of mixing datasets. We perform a simple experiment to test the relevance of the remaining differences between datasets when applying machine learning techniques. Finally, we pinpoint the most relevant differences.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Dec 2022.

Builds on

3 of 33 references.

References · 3

  1. 2020Variational Autoencoders for Learning Nonlinear Dynamics of Physical Systemscited by 50
  2. 2020HRTF Individualization: A Surveycited by 3
  3. 2020A Wide Dataset of Ear Shapes and Pinna-Related Transfer Functions Generated by Random Ear Drawingscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.