10. Current State and Personal Reflection
At this point, the project has reached a working prototype stage. It is not finished as a full thesis yet, but it is no longer only an idea or a sketch. There is now a real system that can be opened, configured and listened to. The listener can move through a virtual source layout, the system calculates direct-sound behaviour, and REAPER applies the values through the audio chain.
Looking back, the most important progress was not only technical. Of course, I learned a lot about Python, OSC, REAPER routing, mcfx, IEM plug-ins and binaural rendering. But maybe the bigger development was learning how to reduce the project to something I can actually defend. At the beginning, I wanted to work with physical sound superposition in a room. That idea is still important to me, but during the semester I understood that I first needed a controlled reference system.
The current prototype is therefore not trying to be everything. It does not model the full room. It does not include reflections, reverberation, diffraction, occlusion or source directivity. Instead, it focuses on the direct path between each source and the listener. This limitation is not only a weakness; it is also what makes the system understandable. I can explain what is calculated, what is sent to REAPER, and what is heard over headphones.
One useful lesson was that wording matters. If I call the system a room simulation, I create expectations that the prototype cannot fulfil. If I call it a direct-sound auralisation or a controlled reference model, the project becomes more honest. This was something I had to learn through feedback. Some parts of the system were already working, but my explanation was sometimes too broad or too confident. The feedback helped me clean that up.
The project also changed how I think about tools. I started with Pure Data and Max/MSP, but the final direction needed a custom interface and a more flexible calculation layer. PyGame and Python gave me that. REAPER then became the audio engine where the calculated values could be tested in a real plug-in chain. This combination is not always elegant, and sometimes it creates annoying technical problems, but it also gave me a system I understand from the inside.
The next step is to compare this controlled prototype with the physical room. That is where the original idea returns. The CUBE can show what the real room adds: reflections, room response, loudspeaker behaviour, interference and perception. I think this comparison is now the most interesting direction for the thesis. The prototype gives me the clean version; the physical room gives me the complicated version.
For me, the value of this semester is that the project became concrete. I now have a technical baseline, a clearer research direction and a better understanding of the limits. The system is not perfect, but it works, and more importantly, I can explain why it works the way it does. That feels like a good point to continue from next semester.
