tracking sound source

Does any one know good material on tracking single sound source using only
two microphones on a dummy head.I have seen kalman filter tracking for
constant velocity targets etc in case of radar applications  but i dont
know how to use these in case of sound sources.
Thanks

"Sylvia" <sylvia.zakir@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:uLOdnfVcWq6GhQfbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Does any one know good material on tracking single sound source using only
> two microphones on a dummy head.I have seen kalman filter tracking for
> constant velocity targets etc in case of radar applications  but i dont
> know how to use these in case of sound sources.
> Thanks

Unless you know the sound amplitude of the source, you won't be able to get 
range information.  With only two microphones, you can use beamforming or 
interfrometry techniques to detrmine the position of the source as somewhere 
on a cone.  In the 2 dimensional case this reduces to 2 lines that cross the 
line between the sensors at the same point.  If, as is usually the case, the 
source is far from the two microphones compared to the separation of the 
microphones, you will have localized the source to two lines that cross the 
line formed by the microphones at a known angle.  Usually, you assume that 
the source is on one side of the sensor.

With these assumptions, you have a series of angles to the sensor.  Google 
"alpha beta tracker" or "alpha beta gamma tracker" for ways of predicting 
the source's future position.

   Best wishes,
   --Phil Martel 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:19:31 -0400, "Philip Martel"
<pomartel@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Sylvia" <sylvia.zakir@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:uLOdnfVcWq6GhQfbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Does any one know good material on tracking single sound source using only
>> two microphones on a dummy head.I have seen kalman filter tracking for
>> constant velocity targets etc in case of radar applications  but i dont
>> know how to use these in case of sound sources.
>> Thanks
>
>Unless you know the sound amplitude of the source, you won't be able to get 
>range information.  With only two microphones, you can use beamforming or 
>interfrometry techniques to detrmine the position of the source as somewhere 
>on a cone.  In the 2 dimensional case this reduces to 2 lines that cross the 
>line between the sensors at the same point.  If, as is usually the case, the 
>source is far from the two microphones compared to the separation of the 
>microphones, you will have localized the source to two lines that cross the 
>line formed by the microphones at a known angle.  Usually, you assume that 
>the source is on one side of the sensor.
>
>With these assumptions, you have a series of angles to the sensor.  Google 
>"alpha beta tracker" or "alpha beta gamma tracker" for ways of predicting 
>the source's future position.
>
>   Best wishes,
>   --Phil Martel 

Believe it or not, you can get range with a single microphone *with
some qualifying assumptions*.   Basically, if the target is travelling
in a straight line the doppler characteristic can be used to determine
range once the target approaches close to (but even a little before)
the point where it is closest to the microphone.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms
Abineau Communications
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

"Eric Jacobsen" <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:cfmk93t3lkb3de6tsjj24ots2usdnjnp9o@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:19:31 -0400, "Philip Martel"
> <pomartel@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sylvia" <sylvia.zakir@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:uLOdnfVcWq6GhQfbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Does any one know good material on tracking single sound source using 
>>> only
>>> two microphones on a dummy head.I have seen kalman filter tracking for
>>> constant velocity targets etc in case of radar applications  but i dont
>>> know how to use these in case of sound sources.
>>> Thanks
>>
>>Unless you know the sound amplitude of the source, you won't be able to 
>>get
>>range information.  With only two microphones, you can use beamforming or
>>interfrometry techniques to detrmine the position of the source as 
>>somewhere
>>on a cone.  In the 2 dimensional case this reduces to 2 lines that cross 
>>the
>>line between the sensors at the same point.  If, as is usually the case, 
>>the
>>source is far from the two microphones compared to the separation of the
>>microphones, you will have localized the source to two lines that cross 
>>the
>>line formed by the microphones at a known angle.  Usually, you assume that
>>the source is on one side of the sensor.
>>
>>With these assumptions, you have a series of angles to the sensor.  Google
>>"alpha beta tracker" or "alpha beta gamma tracker" for ways of predicting
>>the source's future position.
>>
>>   Best wishes,
>>   --Phil Martel
>
> Believe it or not, you can get range with a single microphone *with
> some qualifying assumptions*.   Basically, if the target is travelling
> in a straight line the doppler characteristic can be used to determine
> range once the target approaches close to (but even a little before)
> the point where it is closest to the microphone.
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Minister of Algorithms
> Abineau Communications
> http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Well, given a fixed frequency sound source (helicopter for exemple) I 
suppose you're right, though I'd have to think about it for a while to 
convince myself that the shape of the doppeler curve before CPA and the 
bearing rate would be enough to determine a unique range.

On 15 Jul, 22:28, "Philip Martel" <pomar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Eric Jacobsen" <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote in message
>
> news:cfmk93t3lkb3de6tsjj24ots2usdnjnp9o@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:19:31 -0400, "Philip Martel"
> > <pomar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>"Sylvia" <sylvia.za...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:uLOdnfVcWq6GhQfbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>> Does any one know good material on tracking single sound source using
> >>> only
> >>> two microphones on a dummy head.I have seen kalman filter tracking for
> >>> constant velocity targets etc in case of radar applications  but i dont
> >>> know how to use these in case of sound sources.
> >>> Thanks
>
> >>Unless you know the sound amplitude of the source, you won't be able to
> >>get
> >>range information.  With only two microphones, you can use beamforming or
> >>interfrometry techniques to detrmine the position of the source as
> >>somewhere
> >>on a cone.  In the 2 dimensional case this reduces to 2 lines that cross
> >>the
> >>line between the sensors at the same point.  If, as is usually the case,
> >>the
> >>source is far from the two microphones compared to the separation of the
> >>microphones, you will have localized the source to two lines that cross
> >>the
> >>line formed by the microphones at a known angle.  Usually, you assume that
> >>the source is on one side of the sensor.
>
> >>With these assumptions, you have a series of angles to the sensor.  Google
> >>"alpha beta tracker" or "alpha beta gamma tracker" for ways of predicting
> >>the source's future position.
>
> >>   Best wishes,
> >>   --Phil Martel
>
> > Believe it or not, you can get range with a single microphone *with
> > some qualifying assumptions*.   Basically, if the target is travelling
> > in a straight line the doppler characteristic can be used to determine
> > range once the target approaches close to (but even a little before)
> > the point where it is closest to the microphone.
>
> > Eric Jacobsen
> > Minister of Algorithms
> > Abineau Communications
> >http://www.ericjacobsen.org
>
> Well, given a fixed frequency sound source (helicopter for exemple) I
> suppose you're right, though I'd have to think about it for a while to
> convince myself that the shape of the doppeler curve before CPA and the
> bearing rate would be enough to determine a unique range

You can't fix the range that way, only get a time for the CPA.
You'll need at least two mics to geat a bearing to CPA.

In order to fix a range with only one mic, you will need
*knowledge* of the type of helicopter. If you *know* the
make and model of the helicopter, you also *know* certain
key characteristics in the sound signature, and can use
those to estimate the speed and range based on the Doppler
characteristics. Provided, of course, that the pilot plays
your game and flies at constant speed in a straight line.

Once you do no longer *know* the characteristics, but have
to *estimate* them, with all the uncertainty that follows,
all bets are off what ranges and speed are concerned -- again,
with only one mic involved. If you have an array where you
can track bearings, things become somewhat easier.

Rune

On Jul 15, 5:50 am, "Sylvia" <sylvia.za...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does any one know good material on tracking single sound source using only
> two microphones on a dummy head.I have seen kalman filter tracking for
> constant velocity targets etc in case of radar applications  but i dont
> know how to use these in case of sound sources.
> Thanks

Sylvia

Is 'dummy head' a necessary part of the problem statement? If your
question is about modeling the human head then look for HRTF: head
related transfer function.

If your question is about tracking sound sources with two sensors,
there are a number of possibilities.

If your problem can be defined to allow you to determine bearing, such
a operating in a half-plane containing the sensors and using time
delay to determine bearing, there is a considerable literature on
"bearings only trackers". Some of this literature was developed to
support the sonobuoy community where collocated directional and omni
sensors are used to resolve bearing ambiguity. Some of these
algorithms require multiple sensor locations. Look in IEEE
Transactions on AES.

In the special case of a source at a constant frequency traveling in a
straight line at a constant velocity, a single sensor allows
calculation of velocity from the maximum doppler deviation at long
range and range of CPA from the doppler slope at CPA. A second sensor
allows bearing calculation.
Look in Journal of the Acoustic Society of America (JASA) for examples
of acoustically tracking aircraft.

If you are interested in applications for tracking human voice then
the simplifying assumption of a single constant frequency is unlikely
to be satisfied. Indoor applications will also be complicated by
reverberation.

So what are you really looking for?

As always at comp.dsp, a more detailed question increases the chance
of a relevant response.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com

On 16 Jul, 02:28, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Look in Journal of the Acoustic Society of America (JASA) for examples
> of acoustically tracking aircraft.

The key word here is "aircraft." The other scenario where
passive acoustic tracking is relevant is underwater acoustics.
JASA has a history of letting weird underwater stuff through,
so be very careful.

If you find an article which cites the paper

Collins & Kuperman: "Focalization: Environmental focusing
    and source localization", JASA, vol 90, p 1410 - 1422,
    1991.

be very, very careful about how you proceed. The authors
of that paper claim that they are able to find the range
to a source in an "unknown or partially unknown" environment.

It's been some time since I last read that paper, but I
never understood how the techniques worked. The way I
interpreted the article, they had done a computer
simulation to generate "measured" data and then run
a computer program again to find the input parameters
which replicated the "measured" data. There was, as far
as I could tell, no records of blind  -- let alone double
blind -- tests or verifications, so I had no choise but
to assume that the same person who generated the "measured"
data also set up the "inverse" experiment. If that's correct,
the paper is worthless as the "analyst" knows what
results the experiment ought to produce, and so can
stop the computations when the results are "good".
Nevertheless, five years ago it was cited some 80 times
by other articles.

So just be careful. JASA might look impressive but
not everything in there is quite up to expectations.

Rune

On Jul 15, 6:05 pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 16 Jul, 02:28, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > Look in Journal of the Acoustic Society of America (JASA) for examples
> > of acoustically tracking aircraft.
>
> The key word here is "aircraft." The other scenario where
> passive acoustic tracking is relevant is underwater acoustics.
> JASA has a history of letting weird underwater stuff through,
> so be very careful.
>
> If you find an article which cites the paper
>
> Collins & Kuperman: "Focalization: Environmental focusing
>     and source localization", JASA, vol 90, p 1410 - 1422,
>     1991.
>
> be very, very careful about how you proceed. The authors
> of that paper claim that they are able to find the range
> to a source in an "unknown or partially unknown" environment.
>
> It's been some time since I last read that paper, but I
> never understood how the techniques worked. The way I
> interpreted the article, they had done a computer
> simulation to generate "measured" data and then run
> a computer program again to find the input parameters
> which replicated the "measured" data. There was, as far
> as I could tell, no records of blind  -- let alone double
> blind -- tests or verifications, so I had no choise but
> to assume that the same person who generated the "measured"
> data also set up the "inverse" experiment. If that's correct,
> the paper is worthless as the "analyst" knows what
> results the experiment ought to produce, and so can
> stop the computations when the results are "good".
> Nevertheless, five years ago it was cited some 80 times
> by other articles.
>
> So just be careful. JASA might look impressive but
> not everything in there is quite up to expectations.
>
> Rune

When reading any journal (or newsgroup) it is always necessary to
carefully consider claims made and methods followed. I am sorry to
hear that this has lead you to disappointment with an article in JASA.
I have had that happen more than once, too. Since I have never felt
adequately motivated to study all of the intricate details of the
myriad match field processing algorithms that have been proposed, I
have not read and do not intend to read this article in detail. From
the abstract, introduction and conclusions it appears that Collins and
Kuperman have proposed yet another MFP algorithm, listed their
suggested approaches to implementation and claimed that it is feasible
to try the algorithm on real data. They have made no performance
claims. I am sorry this disappoints you. If others have gone on to
actually perform some of the implementations suggested it is only
appropriate for them to cite the source. Have you looked to see if any
the citations are from people who have actually performed the
additional tests you feel are important? Did any of them even work? In
any event, most on comp.dsp are protected from this particular article
by its specialization and with your warning the OP is now safe.

Thank you,

Dale B. Dalrymple

There was a recent article (last two or three years) by Yakov Bar Shalom, et 
al in one of the IEE transactions, perhaps the Transactions on Signal 
Processing, which covered 3-D tracking with two sensors.

In article <1184554366.199112.114630@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, dbd 
<dbd@ieee.org> wrote:
>On Jul 15, 6:05 pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> On 16 Jul, 02:28, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Look in Journal of the Acoustic Society of America (JASA) for examples
>> > of acoustically tracking aircraft.
>>
>> The key word here is "aircraft." The other scenario where
>> passive acoustic tracking is relevant is underwater acoustics.
>> JASA has a history of letting weird underwater stuff through,
>> so be very careful.
>>
>> If you find an article which cites the paper
>>
>> Collins & Kuperman: "Focalization: Environmental focusing
>>     and source localization", JASA, vol 90, p 1410 - 1422,
>>     1991.
>>
>> be very, very careful about how you proceed. The authors
>> of that paper claim that they are able to find the range
>> to a source in an "unknown or partially unknown" environment.
>>
>> It's been some time since I last read that paper, but I
>> never understood how the techniques worked. The way I
>> interpreted the article, they had done a computer
>> simulation to generate "measured" data and then run
>> a computer program again to find the input parameters
>> which replicated the "measured" data. There was, as far
>> as I could tell, no records of blind  -- let alone double
>> blind -- tests or verifications, so I had no choise but
>> to assume that the same person who generated the "measured"
>> data also set up the "inverse" experiment. If that's correct,
>> the paper is worthless as the "analyst" knows what
>> results the experiment ought to produce, and so can
>> stop the computations when the results are "good".
>> Nevertheless, five years ago it was cited some 80 times
>> by other articles.
>>
>> So just be careful. JASA might look impressive but
>> not everything in there is quite up to expectations.
>>
>> Rune
>
>When reading any journal (or newsgroup) it is always necessary to
>carefully consider claims made and methods followed. I am sorry to
>hear that this has lead you to disappointment with an article in JASA.
>I have had that happen more than once, too. Since I have never felt
>adequately motivated to study all of the intricate details of the
>myriad match field processing algorithms that have been proposed, I
>have not read and do not intend to read this article in detail. From
>the abstract, introduction and conclusions it appears that Collins and
>Kuperman have proposed yet another MFP algorithm, listed their
>suggested approaches to implementation and claimed that it is feasible
>to try the algorithm on real data. They have made no performance
>claims. I am sorry this disappoints you. If others have gone on to
>actually perform some of the implementations suggested it is only
>appropriate for them to cite the source. Have you looked to see if any
>the citations are from people who have actually performed the
>additional tests you feel are important? Did any of them even work? In
>any event, most on comp.dsp are protected from this particular article
>by its specialization and with your warning the OP is now safe.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Dale B. Dalrymple
>

On Jul 15, 9:22 pm, John_W_Her...@yahoo.com (John Herman) wrote:
> There was a recent article (last two or three years) by Yakov Bar Shalom, et
> al in one of the IEE transactions, perhaps the Transactions on Signal
> Processing, which covered 3-D tracking with two sensors.
>

I suspect you mean Yaakov Bar-Shalom who is a frequent author in IEEE
publications. Most of his tracking work appears in the IEEE
Transactions on AES. He is also a frequent contributer to the IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing and sometimes the Proceedings of the
IEEE. I make a point of updating the spelling because it makes a big
difference on some simple search engines like the ones on the IEEE
Xplore site.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com