8. Feedback, Corrections and a More Honest Framing
The second presentation and professor feedback were very useful because they exposed weak points in how I was explaining the project. Some parts were technically working, but the wording was not always careful enough. This was especially true around terms like simulation, room model, coordinate convention and perception.
One important correction was the word simulation. It is too strong for the current system. The prototype does not simulate a complete room. It does not include reflections, reverberation, diffraction, occlusion, source directivity or measured room response. A better term is direct-sound auralisation or controlled reference model. That makes the project more honest.
Another correction was the phrase room model. It can sound like the system models the room acoustics. It does not. It calculates source-listener geometry and direct-sound behaviour. So it is better to say Python-based direct-sound calculation script or calculation model, not full room model.
The coordinate drawing also needed correction. The angle mapping used in the system should not be presented as a universal coordinate convention. It is a plug-in angle mapping used to send direction values to the IEM plug-ins. In this mapping, front is 0 degrees, left is positive 90 degrees, right is negative 90 degrees and back is plus or minus 180 degrees. That is fine as an implementation mapping, but it should not be overgeneralised.
Some theoretical claims also had to be removed or softened. For example, distance-dependent HRTF changes and air absorption were not strong enough to present as central elements of the current prototype. Temperature-based sound speed also should not be mentioned casually unless the exact formula and assumptions are shown. These details can easily create questions that distract from the actual working system.
This feedback improved the project. It forced me to separate what is technically implemented from what could become future work. That is uncomfortable sometimes, but it is good for the thesis. The project becomes stronger when its limits are clear.
The current framing is now much better: the system is a working direct-sound auralisation baseline. It is controlled, testable and ready for comparison. It does not pretend to be the real room. Instead, it prepares a clean reference condition so that the real room can later be studied more clearly.
