Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Joint estimation of source azimuth and elevation is sensitive to array geometry, room reflections, observation length, sampling frequency, and preprocessing. This study presents a controlled within-collection comparison of generalized cross-correlation with phase transform (GCC-PHAT), steered response power with phase transform (SRP-PHAT), multiple signal classification (MUSIC), and minimum variance distortionless response (MVDR) using a vertically mounted eight-microphone circular array in an acoustically untreated indoor room. Synchronized measurements were obtained at 220 labeled source coordinates and divided into five non-overlapping temporal excerpts per coordinate, yielding 1,100 multichannel evaluation units. All algorithms used the same recordings, measured microphone coordinates, angular convention, and error definitions. Observation duration, processing sample rate, energy-based active-frame selection, and channel-wise Wiener filtering were varied. Under the best observed within-collection configuration for each implementation, mean Euclidean error in the azimuth-elevation coordinate plane was 0.84° for SRP-PHAT, 0.85° for GCC-PHAT, 1.00° for MUSIC, and 1.18° for MVDR. Error generally decreased with observation duration, with diminishing improvement at longer durations. Preprocessing effects were estimator-dependent. The results provide an implementation-specific accuracy-runtime comparison rather than a universal ranking of the algorithms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bolat et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: