Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Physics-Informed Direction-Aware Neural Acoustic Fields

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding momentum and continuity loss terms to a neural acoustic field improves interpolation of first-order Ambisonic room impulse responses at unmeasured positions.

desk verdict Clean, narrow extension of DANF with correctly derived FOA momentum and continuity priors; the main open question is whether HARP2's X/Y/Z channels actually match the assumed particle-velocity convention. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06826 v1 pith:T5DJ7QPH submitted 2025-07-09 cs.SD eess.ASeess.SP

Yoshiki Masuyama , François G. Germain , Gordon Wichern , Christopher Ick , Jonathan Le Roux This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDeess.ASeess.SP
keywords physics-informedneuralnetworkfirst-orderAmbisonicsroomimpulseresponseacousticfieldssoundfieldinterpolationparticlevelocitymomentumequationcontinuity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes PI-DANF, a physics-informed extension of the direction-aware neural acoustic field (DANF) for first-order Ambisonic room impulse responses (FOA RIRs). The authors aim to show that two extra training penalties, derived from the linearized momentum equation and the continuity equation, force the four FOA channels (W, X, Y, Z) to respect the physical coupling between sound pressure and particle velocity. In simulated shoebox rooms, the resulting model reconstructs the early 100 ms of FOA RIRs at unmeasured positions with lower normalized mean squared error and higher Pearson correlation than a data-only network and than a network with a wave-equation prior applied only to the W channel. This matters for immersive and binaural audio because FOA RIRs encode direction, so more accurate interpolation could make spatial audio rendering reliable at arbitrary listener positions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the analytical correspondence between the FOA channels and the acoustic field: with the standard SN3D Ambisonic normalization, W equals pressure and (X, Y, Z) encode particle velocity up to the factor $-1/(\rho_0 c_0)$. Feeding this correspondence into the linearized momentum equation and the continuity equation produces the two residuals in Eqs. (11) and (12), the momentum loss and the continuity loss, which tie all four channel outputs together through first-order partial derivatives. The residuals are evaluated at stochastically sampled positions and times by automatic differentiation and combined with the data-fidelity term using adaptively learned weights. The network is a multilayer perceptron with sinusoidal activations and an input-dependent gating mechanism, chosen so that the derivatives needed for the physics terms remain well behaved.

What would settle it

Evaluate the two residuals in Eqs. (11) and (12) on the simulator's ground-truth FOA RIRs at the training positions: if the true recordings do not have near-zero residuals under the assumed sign and scaling, the physics priors are penalizing the data themselves and the reported gains would be artifacts of a mismatched convention.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that FOA RIRs should be treated as a coupled pressure-velocity field rather than four independent outputs. Under SN3D normalization, the W channel is the sound pressure and the (X, Y, Z) channels are related to particle velocity by $\mathbf{u}(r,t) = -\mathbf{v}(r,t)/(\rho_0 c_0)$. Substituting this relation into the linearized momentum and continuity equations yields the two physics-informed residuals, $\nabla \hat{w} - c_0^{-1} \partial_t \hat{\mathbf{v}} = 0$ and $\nabla \cdot \hat{\mathbf{v}} - c_0^{-1} \partial_t \hat{w} = 0$, which are added to the training objective as penalties. Across ten simulated shoebox rooms and two training-set sizes (250 and 500 measured positions), the method consistently attains the best NMSE and Pearson correlation on both the W channel and the averaged (X, Y, Z) channels, outperforming the vanilla DANF and the naive W-channel wave-equation prior.

Load-bearing premise

The whole improvement rests on the assumption that the X, Y, and Z channels of the simulated FOA recordings are exactly proportional to the three components of particle velocity, with the W channel as pressure, including the sign and scale convention in Eq. (7); the paper takes this mapping from a cited reference rather than verifying it against the simulator's output.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A physics-informed objective for FOA RIRs should couple all four channels through the momentum and continuity residuals instead of regularizing only the pressure-like W channel.
  • Because the wave equation follows from the momentum and continuity equations, PI-DANF is a natural extension of existing wave-equation PINNs and keeps their grid-less query capability.
  • With as few as 250 measured positions, the early part of FOA RIRs can be interpolated at unmeasured locations with lower error, and the gains appear in reflected energy that a W-only prior misses.
  • The reported NMSE and Pearson-correlation improvements are tied, by the metric reference the paper uses, to listening quality and perceptual localization, so the gains are likely audible in binaural rendering.
  • Each model is trained from scratch per room and can then be queried at arbitrary positions, so no dense measurement grid is needed at deployment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's own comparisons, the two priors may be acting partly as a spatial regularizer; an ablation with only one loss at a time would reveal whether momentum or continuity carries most of the gain.
  • The assumed sign and scaling relation between (X, Y, Z) channels and particle velocity is taken from a citation; an implicit implication is that any other FOA encoder or normalization would need a consistency check before these losses are applied.
  • Because the conservation laws hold in the late field as well, a testable extension is whether the same losses improve interpolation of full-length FOA RIRs rather than only the first 100 ms.
  • The pressure-velocity view suggests scaling the construction to higher-order Ambisonics by deriving analogous derivative constraints for each spherical-harmonic order, although the current losses are first-order only.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PI-DANF, a physics-informed extension of the direction-aware neural acoustic field (DANF) for first-order Ambisonic (FOA) room impulse responses. Starting from the linearized momentum equation and the continuity equation, the authors derive two additional losses, Eqs. (11) and (12), that couple the predicted W channel to the (X, Y, Z) channels through spatial and temporal derivatives. The key physical input is the standard FOA relation in Eqs. (7)-(8), where W is pressure and the vector of first-order channels is proportional to particle velocity. The training objective in Eq. (17) combines data fidelity with these two physics priors using adaptive weights. Experiments on 10 simulated shoebox rooms from HARP2, with 250 or 500 measured training positions, compare vanilla DANF, a wave-equation prior applied only to the W channel, and the proposed method. The paper reports NMSE and Pearson correlation and claims that PI-DANF performs best because of the FOA-specific priors.

Significance. If the results hold, the contribution is a simple and well-motivated extension of PINNs from scalar pressure fields to first-order Ambisonic fields, giving two cheap PDE residuals that couple all four FOA channels. The algebraic derivation of Eqs. (11)-(12) from Eqs. (1)-(2) and (7) is correct, and the method is easy to reimplement. The experimental comparison covers 10 rooms, two training-set sizes, and two strong baselines. I see no circularity problem: the priors are standard PDEs rather than quantities fitted to the target, and the HARP2 ground truth is generated from the same wave-propagation physics. However, the quantitative support for the central claim is moderate: the evaluation is simulation-only, there is one training run per condition, no statistical significance tests are reported, and the mapping from FOA channels to particle velocity in Eq. (7) is assumed rather than verified against the simulator.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The relation u(r,t) = -v(r,t)/(rho0 c0) is load-bearing for both proposed priors in Eqs. (11) and (12), but it is taken as given from [31] and is never checked against the actual data generator HARP2. Different Ambisonic conventions differ in the scaling of the first-order channels relative to W (for example, some SN3D formulations introduce a sqrt(3) factor, and FuMa uses different gains), and different image-source directivity implementations can differ in sign. If the simulator's FOA output is not exactly Eq. (7), the physics priors are not zero at the ground truth they are intended to regularize, and the reported gain over the naive W-only prior could be an artifact of regularization strength rather than evidence that the FOA-specific physics prior is correct. Please add a direct numerical verification: simulate a known plane-wave or single-image-source scenario in HARP2 and confirm that w = p and v = -rho0 c0 u, or explicitly state and implement the exact normalization and sign convention of HARP2's FOA output.
  2. [Section 4.2, Figures 4 and 5] The headline claim that PI-DANF "consistently performed best" is supported only by boxplots over 10 rooms, with a single random room-source configuration and a single training run per condition. There are no confidence intervals, standard deviations over random seeds, or paired significance tests. The differences between the proposed method and the naive W-only prior appear modest in the figures, and without significance testing the reader cannot rule out that the differences are within random variation. Please report per-room paired differences with bootstrap confidence intervals or a paired test, and ideally repeat training with several seeds.
  3. [Sections 4.1-4.2] The comparison against the "Naive" baseline does not isolate the channel-coupling property of the proposed priors. Because the wave-equation prior is applied only to the W channel, the improvement of PI-DANF could stem simply from regularizing the otherwise-unconstrained (X, Y, Z) channels rather than from the cross-channel momentum/continuity structure. A fair baseline is to apply the wave-equation prior separately to each of the four channels (or to all channels) with the same training budget. If the proposed method still outperforms this baseline, the claim that the FOA-specific coupled priors are the source of the gain would be on much firmer ground. An ablation that removes Lmomentum or Lcontinuity individually would also clarify the contribution of each prior.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (17)] The adaptive weighting in Eq. (17) is initialized from epsilon_data = 1.0 and epsilon_prior = 0.1, and the authors do not examine sensitivity to these initial values or to the number of Latin-hypercube samples used for the priors. Since the central comparison is between methods that use different physics losses, a brief sensitivity study or at least a statement that the results are stable over a range of initialization values would help rule out tuning artifacts.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2] The sentence saying that W matches sound pressure and the later statement that under SN3D w is equivalent to p should be reconciled with the exact scaling of the first-order channels; please state explicitly whether the (X, Y, Z) channels include any normalization gain relative to W.
  2. [Section 4.1] The manuscript should specify the version of HARP2 and the exact settings used to generate FOA RIRs, including the Ambisonic normalization, so that the experiments are reproducible.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (17)] The time range T used in the physics priors is not explicitly defined relative to the 100 ms window of the RIRs; please state that T corresponds to the same early-time window and clarify how automatic differentiation treats the discrete time samples.
  4. [Figure 3] The colorbar label is given as "x10^2" without units; adding pressure units and using a common color scale across rows for each time step would make the visual comparison easier to interpret.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the physics priors are standard PDE constraints, not fitted to the evaluation targets.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the central claim. PI-DANF's two priors (Eqs. 11 and 12) are obtained by substituting the network outputs into the linearized momentum equation (Eq. 1) and the continuity equation (Eq. 2), using the standard SN3D FOA relation u(r,t) = -v(r,t)/(rho0 c0) (Eq. 7), which is cited to the external reference [31] rather than to the authors' own work. These PDE constraints are evaluated at stochastic collocation points in the domain, not on the measured RIRs that define the data-fidelity term, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The comparison against vanilla DANF and the W-channel-only wave-equation prior is an empirical benchmark on held-out HARP2 positions; the fact that HARP2 generates RIRs from wave-propagation physics makes the priors consistent with the data but does not make the evaluation circular. The only self-citation ([39], DANF) is used to define the baseline architecture and is reproduced by training in this paper, so it is not load-bearing. Any concern about HARP2's exact FOA normalization or sign convention is a correctness and robustness risk, not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to the evaluation target; the adaptive epsilon weights are trainable hyperparameters. The claim rests on standard PDEs, the Ambisonics-velocity relation from the cited literature, and consistency of the simulator with the physics.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Sound pressure p and particle velocity u satisfy linearized momentum and continuity equations in the source-free target region.
    Section 2.1 Eqs. (1)-(2), assumed as standard linear acoustics for room impulse responses.
  • domain assumption The FOA channels map to pressure and velocity via w = p and u = -v/(rho0 c0) under SN3D normalization.
    Section 2.2 Eqs. (7)-(8), cited to [31]; sign and normalization are not independently verified, and both priors rest on this mapping.
  • domain assumption HARP2 simulated FOA RIRs are physically consistent with these PDEs.
    Section 4.1, required for the physics priors to act as correct constraints; not validated on real measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-Informed Direction-Aware Neural Acoustic Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T5DJ7QPH

@misc{pith2026250706826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-Informed Direction-Aware Neural Acoustic Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T5DJ7QPH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06826}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a physics-informed neural network (PINN) for modeling first-order Ambisonic (FOA) room impulse responses (RIRs). PINNs have demonstrated promising performance in sound field interpolation by combining the powerful modeling capability of neural networks and the physical principles of sound propagation. In room acoustics, PINNs have typically been trained to represent the sound pressure measured by omnidirectional microphones where the wave equation or its frequency-domain counterpart, i.e., the Helmholtz equation, is leveraged. Meanwhile, FOA RIRs additionally provide spatial characteristics and are useful for immersive audio generation with a wide range of applications. In this paper, we extend the PINN framework to model FOA RIRs. We derive two physics-informed priors for FOA RIRs based on the correspondence between the particle velocity and the (X, Y, Z)-channels of FOA. These priors associate the predicted W-channel and other channels through their partial derivatives and impose the physically feasible relationship on the four channels. Our experiments confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method compared with a neural network without the physics-informed prior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Since the wave equation is derived by combining these PDEs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Implicit neural representation with physics-informed neural networks for the reconstruction of the early part of room impulse responses

    M. Pezzoli, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti, “Implicit neural representation with physics-informed neural networks for the reconstruction of the early part of room impulse responses,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11509, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [28]

    Room impulse response reconstruction with physics-informed deep learning,

    X. Karakonstantis, D. Caviedes-Nozal, A. Richard, and E. Fernandez- Grande, “Room impulse response reconstruction with physics-informed deep learning,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. , vol. 155, no. 2, pp. 1048–1059, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [31]

    Spatial impulse response rendering I: Analysis and synthesis,

    V . Merimaa, Juha; Pulkki, “Spatial impulse response rendering I: Analysis and synthesis,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. , vol. 53, pp. 1115–1127, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [1]

    Kuttruff, Room Acoustics

    H. Kuttruff, Room Acoustics. CRC Press, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [2]

    Virtual reality system with integrated sound field simulation and reproduction,

    T. Lentz, D. Schr ¨oder, M. V orl ¨ander, and I. Assenmacher, “Virtual reality system with integrated sound field simulation and reproduction,” EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. , vol. 2007, pp. 1–19, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [3]

    Sonic interactions in virtual reality: State of the art, current challenges, and future directions,

    S. Serafin, M. Geronazzo, C. Erkut, N. C. Nilsson, and R. Nordahl, “Sonic interactions in virtual reality: State of the art, current challenges, and future directions,” IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 31–43, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [4]

    Speech dereverberation constrained on room impulse response characteristics,

    L. Bahrman, M. Fontaine, J. Le Roux, and G. Richard, “Speech dereverberation constrained on room impulse response characteristics,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2024, pp. 622–626

    work page 2024

  8. [5]

    Kernel ridge regression with constraint of helmholtz equation for sound field interpolation,

    N. Ueno, S. Koyama, and H. Saruwatari, “Kernel ridge regression with constraint of helmholtz equation for sound field interpolation,” in Proc. IWAENC, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [6]

    The use of equivalent source method in computational acoustics,

    S. Lee, “The use of equivalent source method in computational acoustics,” J. Comput. Acoust. , vol. 25, no. 1, p. 1630001, 2017

    2017

  2. [7]

    Spatial extrapolation of early room impulse responses in local area using sparse equivalent sources and image source method,

    I. Tsunokuni, K. Kurokawa, H. Matsuhashi, Y . Ikeda, and N. Osaka, “Spatial extrapolation of early room impulse responses in local area using sparse equivalent sources and image source method,” Appl. Acoust., vol. 179, p. 108027, 2021

    2021

  3. [8]

    Low-rank room impulse response estimation,

    M. J¨almby, F. Elvander, and T. Van Waterschoot, “Low-rank room impulse response estimation,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process. , vol. 31, pp. 957–969, 2023

    2023

  4. [9]

    Optimal transport based impulse response interpolation in the presence of calibration errors,

    D. Sundstr ¨om, F. Elvander, and A. Jakobsson, “Optimal transport based impulse response interpolation in the presence of calibration errors,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 72, pp. 1548–1559, 2024

    2024

  5. [10]

    Room reverberation reconstruction: Interpolation of the early part using compressed sensing,

    R. Mignot, L. Daudet, and F. Ollivier, “Room reverberation reconstruction: Interpolation of the early part using compressed sensing,” IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process. , vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 2301–2312, 2013

    2013

  6. [11]

    Room impulse response interpolation using a sparse spatio- temporal representation of the sound field,

    N. Antonello, E. De Sena, M. Moonen, P. A. Naylor, and T. Van Wa- terschoot, “Room impulse response interpolation using a sparse spatio- temporal representation of the sound field,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1929–1941, 2017

    1929

  7. [12]

    Reconstruction of the sound field in a room using compressive sensing,

    S. A. Verburg and E. Fernandez-Grande, “Reconstruction of the sound field in a room using compressive sensing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. , vol. 143, no. 6, pp. 3770–3779, 2018

    2018

  8. [13]

    Impulse response data augmentation and deep neural networks for blind room acoustic parameter estimation,

    N. J. Bryan, “Impulse response data augmentation and deep neural networks for blind room acoustic parameter estimation,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2020

    2020

  9. [14]

    Sound field reconstruction in rooms: Inpainting meets super-resolution,

    F. Lluis, P. Martinez-Nuevo, M. Bo Møller, and S. Ewan Shepstone, “Sound field reconstruction in rooms: Inpainting meets super-resolution,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. , vol. 148, no. 2, pp. 649–659, 2020

    2020

  10. [15]

    IR-GAN: Room impulse response generator for far-field speech recognition,

    A. Ratnarajah, Z. Tang, and D. Manocha, “IR-GAN: Room impulse response generator for far-field speech recognition,” in Proc. Interspeech, 2021, pp. 286–290

    2021

  11. [16]

    Deep prior approach for room impulse response reconstruction,

    M. Pezzoli, D. Perini, A. Bernardini, F. Borra, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti, “Deep prior approach for room impulse response reconstruction,” Sens., vol. 22, no. 7, p. 2710, 2022

    2022

  12. [17]

    MESH2IR: Neural acoustic impulse response generator for complex 3d scenes,

    A. Ratnarajah, Z. Tang, R. Aralikatti, and D. Manocha, “MESH2IR: Neural acoustic impulse response generator for complex 3d scenes,” in Proc. ACM Int. Conf. Multimed. , 2022, pp. 924––933

    2022

  13. [18]

    Real acoustic fields: An audio-visual room acoustics dataset and benchmark,

    Z. Chen, I. D. Gebru, C. Richardt, A. Kumar, W. Laney, A. Owens, and A. Richard, “Real acoustic fields: An audio-visual room acoustics dataset and benchmark,” in Proc. CVPR, 2024

    2024

  14. [19]

    Learning neural acoustic fields,

    A. Luo, Y . Du, M. Tarr, J. Tenenbaum, A. Torralba, and C. Gan, “Learning neural acoustic fields,” in Proc. NeurIPS, vol. 35, 2022, pp. 3165–3177

    2022

  15. [20]

    Deep impulse responses: Estimating and parameterizing filters with deep networks,

    A. Richard, P. Dodds, and V . K. Ithapu, “Deep impulse responses: Estimating and parameterizing filters with deep networks,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2022, pp. 3209–3213

    2022

  16. [21]

    INRAS: Implicit neural representa- tion for audio scenes,

    K. Su, M. Chen, and E. Shlizerman, “INRAS: Implicit neural representa- tion for audio scenes,” in Proc. NeurIPS, vol. 35, 2022, pp. 8144–8158

    2022

  17. [22]

    A V-NeRF: Learning neural fields for real-world audio-visual scene synthesis,

    S. Liang, C. Huang, Y . Tian, A. Kumar, and C. Xu, “A V-NeRF: Learning neural fields for real-world audio-visual scene synthesis,” in Proc. NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  18. [23]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,” J. Comput. phys., vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019

    2019

  19. [24]

    Physics-informed machine learning,

    G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, and L. Yang, “Physics-informed machine learning,” Nat. Rev. Phys., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 422–440, 2021

    2021

  20. [25]

    A physics-informed neural network approach for nearfield acoustic holography,

    M. Olivieri, M. Pezzoli, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti, “A physics-informed neural network approach for nearfield acoustic holography,” Sens., vol. 21, no. 23, p. 7834, 2021

    2021

  21. [26]

    Sound field estimation around a rigid sphere with physics-informed neural network,

    X. Chen, F. Ma, A. Bastine, P. Samarasinghe, and H. Sun, “Sound field estimation around a rigid sphere with physics-informed neural network,” in Proc. APSIPA, 2023, pp. 1984–1989

    2023

  22. [29]

    Data-driven physics-informed neural network for sound field estimation in rooms of arbitrary size,

    G. Sato and Y . Ikeda, “Data-driven physics-informed neural network for sound field estimation in rooms of arbitrary size,” in Proc. APSIPA, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Physics-informed machine learning for sound field estimation: Funda- mentals, state of the art, and challenges,

    S. Koyama, J. G. C. Ribeiro, T. Nakamura, N. Ueno, and M. Pezzoli, “Physics-informed machine learning for sound field estimation: Funda- mentals, state of the art, and challenges,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 60–71, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Object-based reverberation for spatial audio,

    P. Coleman, A. Franck, P. J. Jackson, R. J. Hughes, L. Remaggi, and F. Melchior, “Object-based reverberation for spatial audio,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., no. 9731, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Binaural rendering of ambisonic signals by head-related impulse response time alignment and a diffuseness constraint,

    M. Zaunschirm, C. Sch ¨orkhuber, and R. H ¨oldrich, “Binaural rendering of ambisonic signals by head-related impulse response time alignment and a diffuseness constraint,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. , vol. 143, no. 6, pp. 3616–3627, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Periphony: With-height sound reproduction,

    M. A. Gerzon, “Periphony: With-height sound reproduction,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 21, pp. 2–10, 1973

    1973

  27. [35]

    Ambisonics encoding of other audio formats for multiple listening conditions,

    J. Daniel, J.-B. Rault, and J.-D. Polack, “Ambisonics encoding of other audio formats for multiple listening conditions,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. , no. 4795, 1998

    1998

  28. [36]

    Introduction to ambisonics,

    D. Arteaga, “Introduction to ambisonics,” Lecture Notes on “Audio 3D”, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    E. G. Williams, Fourier Acoustics: Sound Radiation and Nearfield Acoustic Holography. Academic Press, 1999

    1999

  30. [38]

    Towards a B-format ambisonic room impulse response generator using conditional generative adversarial network,

    H. Ren, C. Ritz, J. Zhao, X. Zheng, and D. Jang, “Towards a B-format ambisonic room impulse response generator using conditional generative adversarial network,” in Proc. APSIPA, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Direction-aware neural acoustic fields for few-shot interpolation of ambisonic impulse responses,

    C. Ick, G. Wichern, Y . Masuyama, F. G. Germain, and J. Le Roux, “Direction-aware neural acoustic fields for few-shot interpolation of ambisonic impulse responses,” in Interspeech, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    D. T. Blackstock, Fundamentals of physical acoustics . John Wiley & Sons, 2000

    2000

  33. [41]

    MPEG-H audio—the new standard for universal spatial/3d audio coding,

    J. Herre, J. Hilpert, A. Kuntz, and J. Plogsties, “MPEG-H audio—the new standard for universal spatial/3d audio coding,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. , vol. 62, pp. 821–830, 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    Spatial sound encoding including near field effect: Introducing distance coding filters and a viable, new ambisonic format,

    J. Daniel, “Spatial sound encoding including near field effect: Introducing distance coding filters and a viable, new ambisonic format,” in Proc. AES Int. Conf. , 2003

    2003

  35. [43]

    ImmerseDiffusion: A generative spatial audio latent diffusion model,

    M. Heydari, M. Souden, B. Conejo, and J. Atkins, “ImmerseDiffusion: A generative spatial audio latent diffusion model,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Diff- SAGe: End-to-end spatial audio generation using diffusion models,

    S. S. Kushwaha, J. Ma, M. R. P. Thomas, Y . Tian, and A. Bruni, “Diff- SAGe: End-to-end spatial audio generation using diffusion models,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    ViSAGe: Video-to-spatial audio generation,

    J. Kim, H. Yun, and G. Kim, “ViSAGe: Video-to-spatial audio generation,” in Proc. ICLR, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions,

    V . Sitzmann, J. Martel, A. Bergman, D. Lindell, and G. Wetzstein, “Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions,” in Proc. NeurIPS, 2020, pp. 7462–7473

    2020

  39. [47]

    Self-adaptive loss balanced physics-informed neural networks,

    Z. Xiang, W. Peng, X. Liu, and W. Yao, “Self-adaptive loss balanced physics-informed neural networks,” Neurocomput., vol. 496, pp. 11–34, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    HARP: A large-scale higher-order ambisonic room impulse response dataset,

    S. Saini and J. Peissig, “HARP: A large-scale higher-order ambisonic room impulse response dataset,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14207 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Pyroomacoustics: A python package for audio room simulation and array processing algorithms,

    R. Scheibler, E. Bezzam, and I. Dokmanic, “Pyroomacoustics: A python package for audio room simulation and array processing algorithms,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2018, pp. 351–355

    2018

  42. [50]

    Towards an objective quality metric for interpolated directional room impulse responses,

    H. Ren, C. Ritz, J. Zhao, and D. Jang, “Towards an objective quality metric for interpolated directional room impulse responses,” in Proc. ICASSP, 2024, pp. 8205–8209

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.