Real problems - reverberant energies and a different corner effect.

The previous post is basically useless - in terms of direct contribution to my research. However, the things I've been going through since the last post has really opened my mind and gave me some invaluable experience in terms of how to react to unexpected results. Basically, I always have to investigate the reasoning behind the results and when making observations or coming to conclusions, I always have to support my points with clear quantitative data.

The energy method, as my professor has proposed, is not working because of one major and one minor problem. Major problem is - when the talker is close to a reverberant wall, the magnitude of the reverberant signals get comparable to the original signals at distant microphones and the squared compensation of the signal received messes up the energy values. We get peaks at different locations.

The minor problem is when looking directly at the corners (especially at distant locations to the corners) the microphones that are slightly off from the corners get pretty much the same frequencies and since they are closer to the talker the magnitudes are slightly larger. The squared compensation doesnt help making the energys at the corners make bigger so we basically get no peaks with in 5 degree error but get almost all the peaks with in 20 degree error.

I'll be attacking the major problem first of all. To do this last week I have used some parts of the code of the simulator my professor has developed to get simulated HMA files seperately for direct and the reverberant speech given a cleen speech file. This week I'll start by

1) testing using the direct speech HMA files if the energy method works without any reverberations for different types of speech (the different types of speech is a completely different area that i'll hope to talk about sometime later.)

2) using the reverberant speech HMA files to observe the reverberant energies in different position and orientations.

That's it for now.