The impact of Sensory Evaluation of Sound - past, present and future

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Why is IVP gaining interest • Speed and ease ! • Expert or naïve assessors can be used • Means to test assessor performance are basic, but functional • Latent attributes are derived from the IVP • Consensus is not needed • Its derived later (e.g. via clustering, etc.) • Its fast(er) • Therefore its cheaper • More advanced stats are needed • This requires superior data analysts ☺ • Still a PhD methodology • Its somewhat more consumer oriented (i.e. less expert) • The corporations value this Sensory Evaluation of Sound, Sensometrix 2012, Rennes, France 52
What do we know about analysis tools • There is a time and a place for many tools • PLS – x • PCA • GPA • The power of the tools is excellent • But we would like more ways • (H)MFA • Once again this is NOT easy • Need to know your data • Need to understand the limits of the methods • It could be easier ;-) Sensory Evaluation of Sound, Sensometrix 2012, Rennes, France 53
Page 1 and 2: The Impact of Sensory Evaluation of
Page 3 and 4: Domains of Sound
Page 5 and 6: The audio application • Is a fair
Page 7 and 8: Product sound • Product sound is
Page 9 and 10: Short historical i overview Some ke
Page 11 and 12: And for sound.. • Things started
Page 13 and 14: Reverberation • Understanding the
Page 15 and 16: 1975 - 1995 • More concert hall s
Page 17 and 18: A spa rse timeline of perceptua l e
Page 19 and 20: Summary of early concert hall works
Page 21 and 22: Staffeldt (1974) • Early applicat
Page 23 and 24: Nakayama (1971) • Early MDS based
Page 25 and 26: Gabrielsson (1974) • Analysis of
Page 27 and 28: Toole (1985) • Further analysis o
Page 29 and 30: Letowski (1989) • A good understa
Page 31 and 32: Zacharov (2001) • Adaption of des
Page 33 and 34: Zacharov (2001) - (3) • Preferenc
Page 35 and 36: Mattila (2001) - (2) Nr. Attribute
Page 37 and 38: Lorho (2005-2010) Sensory Evaluatio
Page 39 and 40: Lorho (2005-2010) - (2) Sensory Eva
Page 41 and 42: Lorho (2005-2010) - (4) Parafac 2 s
Page 43 and 44: Lokki (2011) • Latest and most de
Page 45 and 46: Lokki (2011) - (3) Sensory Evaluati
Page 47 and 48: Sensory Evaluation of Sound, Sensom
Page 49 and 50: So what have we learnt 49
Page 51: Observations about CVP • CVP work
Page 55 and 56: Making this easier • Significant
Page 57 and 58: Conclusion • Sensory science has
Page 60 and 61: References (1) 1. W. Sabine, “Rev

The impact of Sensory Evaluation of Sound - past, present and future

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?