This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis with independent radiation mode

**control for active sound ﬁeld reproduction: Theory
**

a)

Philippe-Aubert Gauthier

b͒

and Alain Berry

Groupe d’Acoustique de l’Université de Sherbrooke, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 boul. de l’Université,

Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada J1K 2R1

͑Received 11 July 2005; revised 16 February 2006; accepted 19 February 2006͒

Sound ﬁeld reproduction ﬁnds applications in music or audio reproduction and experimental

acoustics. For audio applications, sound ﬁeld reproduction can be used to artiﬁcially reproduce the

spatial character of natural hearing. The general objective is then to reproduce a sound ﬁeld in a real

reproduction environment. Wave ﬁeld synthesis ͑WFS͒ is a known open-loop technology which

assumes that the reproduction environment is anechoic. For classical WFS, the room response thus

reduces the quality of the physical sound ﬁeld reproduction. In this paper, adaptive wave ﬁeld

synthesis ͑AWFS͒ is analytically investigated as an adaptive sound ﬁeld reproduction system

combining WFS and active control with a limited number of reproduction error sensors to

compensate the response of the listening environment. The primary point of this paper is the

deﬁnition of AWFS. Therefore, the fundamental behavior of AWFS is illustrated by analytical

considerations and simple free-ﬁeld simulation results. As demonstrated, AWFS is fundamentally

related to WFS and “Ambisonics.” The paper introduces independent adaptive control of sound ﬁeld

reproduction on the basis of radiation modes, via the singular value decomposition of the transfer

impedance matrix. Possible practical independent control of radiation modes for AWFS is

discussed. © 2006 Acoustical Society of America. ͓DOI: 10.1121/1.2186514͔

PACS number͑s͒: 43.38.Md, 43.60.Tj, 43.50.Ki ͓NX͔ Pages: 2721–2737

I. INTRODUCTION

Sound ﬁeld reproduction ﬁnds applications in music or

audio reproduction ͑multisensory immersion for teaching,

concerts, etc. ͑Woszczyk et al., 2005͒, and experimental

acoustics and psychoacoustics. For audio applications, sound

ﬁeld reproduction can be used to artiﬁcially reproduce the

spatial character of natural hearing. Such a challenge has

always fascinated both inventors and sound artists ͑Poulin,

1957; Malham and Myatt, 1995; Davis, 2003; AES Staff

Writer, 2005͒. The general objective is to reproduce a sound

ﬁeld in a real reproduction environment. ͓See AES Staff

Writer ͑2005͒ for a review of spatial and multichannel au-

dio.͔

Wave ﬁeld synthesis ͑WFS͒ is an open-loop sound ﬁeld

reproduction technology which assumes that the reproduc-

tion environment is anechoic ͑Berkhout, 1988, 1993; Ver-

heijen, 1997͒. For objective sound ﬁeld reproduction, classi-

cal WFS thus does not perform well in a real reproduction

space ͑Gauthier et al., 2005b͒. Typical physical inaccuracies

are caused by the room resonant response at low frequencies

along with reﬂections and reverberation at higher frequen-

cies. Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis ͑AWFS͒ is investigated

as a potential solution for room compensation with a limited

number of acoustic sensors. The primary point of this paper

is the theoretical analysis of AWFS. Therefore, the funda-

mental behavior of AWFS is illustrated by analytical consid-

erations and simple free-ﬁeld simulations. Other research has

been devoted to in-room sound ﬁeld reproduction or local

sound reproduction using various approaches often derived

from adaptive control ͑Kirkeby and Nelson, 1993; Nelson,

1994; Asano and Swanson, 1995; Uto and Hamada, 1995;

Kirkeby et al., 1996; Garas, 1999; Ise, 1999; Santillań, 2001;

Corteel et al., 2002; Nelson, 2002; Spors et al., 2003; Epain

et al., 2004; Gauthier et al., 2005a; Schobben and Aarts,

2005; Spors et al., 2005; Fuster et al., 2005͒.

This paper theoretically introduces AWFS which is a

combination of optimal control and open-loop wave ﬁeld

synthesis designed for active sound ﬁeld reproduction. The

adaptive nature of AWFS comes from the use of reproduc-

tion error sensors that observe the system performance and

adapt the input of the reproduction sources. What differenti-

ates AWFS from classical active control is that the regular-

ization is not included as a quadratic effort-penalty term in

the cost function, but as a quadratic departure penalty from

the WFS solution.

Although AWFS can be applied to any source and sensor

conﬁguration, numerical results are presented here for a

small, central and compact sensor array that provides WFS

compensation without occupying the reproduction space

with a large and impractical sensor array. As discussed in

previous reports ͑Gauthier et al., 2005a͒, such a reduced sen-

sor array is used as a practical compromise. However, the

use of a limited number of reproduction sensors results in

interesting properties of AWFS.

A compact sensor array is investigated here as a practi-

cal alternative to larger or circular sensors arrays that have

a͒

Portions of this work were presented in “Wave ﬁeld synthesis, adaptive

wave ﬁeld synthesis and ambisonics using decentralized transformed con-

trol: Potential applications to sound ﬁeld reproduction and active noise

control,” 150th ASA meeting, Minneapolis MN, October 2005.

b͒

Electronic mail: philippe_aubert_gauthier@hotmail.com

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119 ͑5͒, May 2006 © 2006 Acoustical Society of America 2721 0001-4966/2006/119͑5͒/2721/17/$22.50

been previously proposed. They were suggested for applica-

tions such as sound ﬁeld recording ͑Hulsebos et al., 2003;

Poletti, 2005͒. WFS room compensation ͑Spors et al., 2003,

2005͒; and active sound ﬁeld reproduction ͑Betlehem and

Abhayapala, 2005͒.

As introduced by Spors et al. ͑2003; 2005͒, one ap-

proach to active compensation in WFS is to work in a trans-

formed domain which can potentially uncouple the problem.

In the present paper, it is shown that AWFS can be achieved

in a transformed domain based on the source modes and

pressure modes derived from the singular value decomposi-

tion ͑SVD͒ of the source-sensor transfer impedance matrix.

SVD has found various applications in acoustics ͑Nelson,

2001; Nelson and Kahana, 2001; Nelson, 2002; Williams et

al., 2003; Bai and Kwuen-Yieng, 2005͒.

Recently, Bai and Elliott ͑2004͒ used a plant transfer

matrix SVD to deﬁne an uncoupled adaptive system. This

was motivated by the need to accelerate the convergence of

standard LMS adaptive multichannel algorithms and the re-

sults are illustrated in the context of binaural sound ﬁeld

reproduction with cross-talk cancelation. The authors used

two complementary methods: ͑1͒ prewhitening of the refer-

ence and ͑2͒ plant uncoupling via SVD of the transfer im-

pedance matrix in the frequency domain and time-domain

realization of the resulting uncoupled multichannel system.

This proved to accelerate the LMS convergence rate at the

cost of a processing delay.

Section II of the paper presents the radiation, WFS and

AWFS models. Section III introduces a ﬁrst interpretation of

the AWFS mechanism. Numerical simulations are introduced

in Sec. IV. Section V expands the theoretical behavior of

AWFS on the basis of the SVD of the transfer impedance

matrix including room effects. Section VI speciﬁcally shows

the link between AWFS and closed-loop “Ambisonics.”

Practical considerations for independent radiation mode con-

trol are discussed in Sec. VII.

II. RADIATION, WFS AND CONTROL MODELS FOR

AWFS

Let an active sound ﬁeld reproduction system be repre-

sented by L monopole reproduction sources located at

͕x

1

͑l͒

¯x

L

͑l͒

͖ and M sound pressure sensors located at

͕x

1

͑m͒

¯x

M

͑m͒

͖ where x are position vectors expressed in rect-

angular coordinates ͑see Fig. 1 for an explanatory sketch͒. In

the frequency domain, the sound pressure ﬁeld radiated by

the reproduction sources is deﬁned as follows at radial fre-

quency ͓rad/ s͔

p

͑rep͒

͑͒ = Z͑͒q͑͒, ͑1͒

where p

͑rep͒

͑͒ is a M coefficients column vector compris-

ing the reproduced complex sound pressures ͓Pa͔ at sensor

locations, Z͑͒ is a MϫL transfer impedance matrix and

q͑͒ ͓m

3

/ s͔ is the L coefficients reproduction source

strength column vector. The frequency dependance may

be omitted. All components in Eq. ͑1͒ are complex. For

practical reasons, it is assumed that MϽL since a conve-

nient system should not introduce a large number of sen-

sors in the reproduction space. For free-field radiation, the

transfer impedance matrix coefficients are defined by the

free-field Green’s function G͑x͉ x

l

͑l͒

͒ ͑Pierce, 1991; Nelson

and Elliott, 1992͒

Z

ml

= − jG͑x

m

͑m͒

͉x

l

͑l͒

͒ ͑2͒

with

G͑x͉x

l

͑l͒

͒ =

e

jk͉x−x

l

͑l͒

͉

4͉x − x

l

͑l͒

͉

, ͑3͒

where x ͓m͔ is the field point, x

l

͑l͒

͓m͔ the l source position,

k=/ c ͓rad/ m͔ the wave number ͑with sound speed c

=331 m/ s͒ and ͓kg/ m

3

͔ the air density ͑=1.18 kg/ m

3

͒.

The time convention is e

−jt

͓p͑x, t͒ =p͑x, ͒e

−jt

͔. Without

loss of generality, the following analytical developments

can also be applied to Green’s functions defined for semi-

infinite or finite spaces. Free-field Green’s functions are

used here to illustrate general results of the fundamental

AWFS behavior, through simple simulations. With these

simulations, our primary objective is to clarify and illus-

trate the theoretical properties of AWFS.

The reproduction goal is deﬁned as a target pressure

ﬁeld produced by a virtual source located at x

o

͓m͔

p

͑im͒

͑x, ͒ = A͑͒

e

jk͉x−x

o

͉

͉x − x

o

͉

, ͑4͒

where k is the wave number and A͑͒ is the virtual source

monopole amplitude, which is set to unity. Such a specific

target wave field is used for simulation purposes. It could be

replaced by any other target field definition ͑plane or direc-

tive fields, for example͒ and the remaining analytical devel-

opments would still be valid. Indeed, a part of the main

points presented in this paper relies on analytical develop-

ments where no assumptions about the nature of p

͑im͒

͑x, ͒

or G͑x͉ x

l

͑l͒

͒ are included. The virtual source position is

arbitrary. A virtual source “in front” of the source array

͑i.e., on the same side as the listening space͒ is often cited

FIG. 1. Symbol convention for the WFS operators deﬁnition. The virtual

source is located in x

o

. The reproduction source l is located in x

l

͑l͒

. x

͑ref͒

describes points which belong to the reference line. x describes any ﬁeld

point and x

m

͑m͒

is the m sensor position. L is the reproduction source line, the

virtual source is on the left of the source line and the reproduction space is

on the right of the source line. All sources and sensors are located in the

x

1

–x

2

plane.

2722 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis

as an interesting practical possibility of sound field repro-

duction. In this paper, virtual sources are always located

“behind” the array ͑with respect to the listening space͒.

A. WFS operators

WFS is an open-loop technology for sound ﬁeld repro-

duction which assumes a free-ﬁeld reproduction space

͑Berkhout, 1993; Verheijen, 1997͒. The WFS operators are

deﬁned from the Kirchhoff-Helmholtz integral theorem.

These operators are then used to drive a reproduction source

array according to the virtual source deﬁnition and to the

reproduction source array geometry. In free-ﬁeld conditions,

using these WFS operators along with the source array

would then approximately reproduce the target ﬁeld pro-

duced by the virtual source. The WFS problem is usually

limited to reproduction in the horizontal plane by means of a

ﬁnite number of discrete sources using appropriate simpliﬁ-

cations of the integral formulation ͑Verheijen, 1997; Nicol

and Emerit, 1999; Spors et al., 2005͒. A monopole array for

WFS would be fed by the normal virtual sound pressure

gradient evaluated along the reproduction source line. This is

obtained using the monopole radiation part of the Kirchhoff-

Helmholtz integral with the stationary phase approximation

͑Junger, 1993; Verheijen, 1997͒. Both the stationary phase

approximation and the source line discretization introduce

reproduction errors. Moreover, usage of a truncated repro-

duction array or piecewise linear array in practical WFS

implementation causes ﬁnite aperture and corner effects

which produce reproduction errors ͑Verheijen, 1997͒. The

above WFS reproduction errors are readily observable in free

ﬁeld but they are masked in rooms by the comparatively

large room effects. ͓This was observed by time- and

frequency-domain numerical simulations in comparison with

objective WFS sound ﬁeld reproduction measurements in a

real studio ͑Gauthier et al., 2005b͒.͔

On the one hand, the inherent free-ﬁeld assumption of

WFS reduces the objective accuracy of the sound ﬁeld repro-

duction in real situations, thus suggesting the need for a

closed-loop compensation ͑Spors et al., 2003; Gauthier et

al., 2005b͒. On the other hand, WFS provides satisfactory

results for sound localization by the human auditory system

since the WFS direct ﬁeld approaches the target ﬁeld

͑Gauthier et al., 2005b͒. ͑It is possible to decompose the

WFS reproduced ﬁeld as the superposition of a direct ﬁeld

and a ﬁeld which is reverberated by the room walls and

furniture surfaces.͒ Direct-ﬁeld reproduction is critical for

accurate subjective localization ͑Blauert, 1999͒. Therefore,

the active compensation introduced by AWFS includes a de-

parture penalty from the WFS operators, thus motivating the

adaptive WFS terminology. The WFS operators are deﬁned

as follows ͑Verheijen, 1997͒:

Q

WFS

͑x

l

͑l͒

, ͒ = − A͑͒jͱ

jk

2

cos ⌿

e

jkr

o

ͱ

r

o

ϫ

ͱ

r

͑ref͒

/͑r

͑ref͒

+ r

o

͒⌬

l

͑5͒

and

q

WFS

͑x

l

͑l͒

, ͒ = −

4Q

WFS

͑x

l

͑l͒

, ͒

j

, ͑6͒

where A͑͒ is the virtual source monopole amplitude, ⌿

͓rad͔ is the angle between the virtual source and the nor-

mal to the reproduction line at the reproduction source

position x

l

͑l͒

, r

o

=ʈx

o

−x

l

͑l͒

ʈ

2

is the distance ͓m͔ between the

virtual source ͑in x

o

͒ and the reproduction source ͑in x

l

͑l͒

͒

and r

͑ref͒

=ʈx

͑ref͒

−x

l

͑l͒

ʈ

2

is the distance ͓m͔ between the re-

production source and the reference line along the line r

o

.

These geometric parameters are illustrated in Fig. 1. In

Eq. ͑5͒, ⌬

l

͓m͔ is the reproduction source separation ͑⌬

l

=ʈx

l

͑l͒

−x

l+1

͑l͒

͒ʈ

2

͒. Equation ͑5͒ expresses the WFS monopole

source amplitude Q

WFS

͑x

l

͑l͒

, ͒ to produce p

͑im͒

͑x, ͒ while

Eq. ͑6͒ transforms WFS monopole amplitudes in source

strength amplitudes q

WFS

͑x

l

͑l͒

, ͒ ͑Pierce, 1991͒.

The stationary phase approximation in WFS also leads

to the deﬁnition of a “reference line” ͑Verheijen, 1997͒ on

which the amplitude of the reproduction error should theo-

retically be zero in comparison with points outside the refer-

ence line, again for free ﬁeld. Indeed, the stationary phase

approximation in WFS implies that the reproduced sound

ﬁeld would be effectively reproduced only on a line in front

of the reproduction source array. For WFS, this line is arbi-

trarily chosen and this corresponds to the WFS reference

line. This line is shown in Fig. 1. In this paper, the reproduc-

tion source line L is deﬁned as a circle, and the reference line

is also deﬁned as a circle, centered on the virtual source

position x

o

and passing through the source array center. The

choice of a given reference line deﬁnition is not relevant to

the AWFS fundamental idea, but it remains an important

choice for the WFS deﬁnition ͑for numerical results repro-

ducibility͒ since the reference line inﬂuences the WFS opera-

tors of Eq. ͑5͒.

For WFS, a reproduction source is active if ͉⌿͉ Ͻ/ 2

radian ͑see Fig. 1 for ⌿ deﬁnition͒. An active source implies

that Q

WFS

͑x

l

͑l͒

, ͒ 0. Other sources, with ͉⌿͉ ജ/ 2, are not

active ͓artiﬁcially forced to Q

WFS

͑x

l

͑l͒

, ͒ =0͔. This highlights

the fact that WFS solution implies that only a part of the

reproduction source array is active for a given virtual source.

A spatial weighting window is also used to progressively

reduce the WFS strength amplitudes. This is applied to the

reproduction sources closer to the end of the active part of

the source WFS array. Such spatial windowing limits the

ﬁnite aperture effects of the reproduction array. Here, the

spatial weighting window is a rectangular window with half

Hanning windows at its ends. The half Harming window

extends over 0.5 m ͑Verheijen, 1997͒.

B. Deﬁnition of AWFS

Using the radiation model of Eqs. ͑1͒–͑3͒ with the target

pressure ﬁeld of Eq. ͑4͒, AWFS ͑adaptive wave ﬁeld synthe-

sis͒ is introduced as an optimal control approach with this

cost function

J

AWFS

= e

H

e + ͑q − q

WFS

͒

H

͑q − q

WFS

͒ ͑7͒

which must be minimized with being a real positive scalar.

Superscript H denotes Hermitian transposition. Equation ͑7͒

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis 2723

introduces the reproduction error vector e=p

͑im͒

−p

͑rep͒

=p

͑im͒

−Zq, where p

͑im͒

is the complex column vector of

the target sound pressure at the M sensor locations, de-

fined by Eq. ͑4͒ with x

m

͑m͒

replacing x. The first term in Eq.

͑7͒ represents the summation of the quadratic reproduc-

tion errors with respect to the target reproduced sound

field, observed at the sensor locations. The second term in

Eq. ͑7͒ is weighted by the regularization parameter and

it represents a quadratic departure penalty of the solution

q with respect to the fixed WFS solution q

WFS

.

J

AWFS

is a quadratic function of q,

J

AWFS

= q

H

͓Z

H

Z + I͔q − q

H

͓Z

H

p

͑im͒

+ q

WFS

͔

− ͓p

͑im͒

H

Z + q

WFS

H

͔q

+ ͓p

͑im͒

H

p

͑im͒

+ q

WFS

H

q

WFS

͔, ͑8͒

where I is the LϫL identity matrix.

Although the reproduction system of Eq. ͑1͒ is under-

determined ͑MϽL͒ ͑Nelson and Elliott, 1992͒, the WFS de-

parture penalty term, weighted by , ensures that there will

be a unique minimum of Eq. ͑7͒. That is, the Hessian matrix

͓͑Z

H

Z+I͔͒ of the quadratic Eq. ͑8͒ is positive deﬁnite pro-

vided that Ͼ0. This optimum source strength vector mini-

mizes the cost function ͑Nelson and Elliott, 1992͒

q

͑opt͒

= ͓Z

H

Z + I͔

−1

͓Z

H

p

͑im͒

+ q

WFS

͔. ͑9͒

When →ϱ the solution reduces to the WFS operators

q

WFS

, when →0 the solution is the optimal control solu-

tion that minimizes the reproduction error in a least-mean-

square ͑LMS͒ sense. These two situations are the limiting

cases of AWFS.

III. INTERPRETATION OF AWFS

Equations ͑7͒ and ͑9͒ lead to insightful observations

about the behavior of AWFS. It ﬁrst should be noted that the

second term of the cost function ͑7͒ includes a standard ef-

fort penalty obtained by q

H

q and a projection term

−2q

WFS

H

q. The ﬁrst term acts like a standard regularization

while the second introduces a contribution of q

WFS

in the

solution.

Rewriting Eq. ͑9͒ and extracting the q

WFS

contribution,

one ﬁnds

q

͑opt͒

= ͓Z

H

Z + I͔

−1

͓Z

H

e

WFS

͔ + q

WFS

, ͑10͒

where e

WFS

=p

͑im͒

−Zq

WFS

is the reproduction error of WFS

at the sensors. This potentially includes the inherent WFS

approximation errors reviewed in Sec. II A, along with the

room effects.

Equation ͑10͒ illustrates that the optimal solution q

͑opt͒

is the superposition of the optimal correction ͓Z

H

Z

+I͔

−1

͓Z

H

e

WFS

͔ on the ﬁxed WFS solution q

WFS

. The opti-

mal correction matches a standard optimal solution for active

control ͑including effort penalization͒, the difference is that

the target is the WFS reproduction error e

WFS

replacing the

target wave ﬁeld p

͑im͒

. Although the WFS contribution q

WFS

activates only a limited set of sources, the optimal contribu-

tion ͓͑Z

H

Z+I͔

−1

͓Z

H

e

WFS

͔͒ will activate all the reproduc-

tion sources.

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS

Simulation results are reported for a relatively small and

compact hypothetical error sensor array prototype. ͑Such a

prototype is currently under development for practical

AWFS.͒ Simulations are performed in free ﬁeld to illustrate

the fundamental AWFS mechanisms.

The system conﬁguration and the target pressure ﬁeld

p

͑im͒

͑at 220 Hz͒ are shown in Fig. 2. As illustrated, the

system includes 24 sources, four error sensors, and 32 moni-

toring sensors used to quantify the reproduction quality out-

side the control region deﬁned by the error sensor locations.

The error sensors are separated by 0.175 m along x

1

and x

2

.

The source array has a diameter of 2 m and the source sepa-

ration is 0.2611 m. The monitoring sensor array has a diam-

eter of 1 m and the monitoring sensor separation is 0.098 m.

All the arrays are centered around x

1

=x

2

=2 m. The virtual

source is located at x

o

=͓2, 6, 0͔ meters.

Simulation results are globally quantiﬁed by E

LS

E

LS

=

e

H

e

p

͑im͒

H

p

͑im͒

. ͑11͒

E

LS

is the global residual quadratic reproduction error nor-

malized by the summation of the quadratic target pres-

sures at the error sensor locations. E

LS

=0 characterizes

perfect reproduction and E

LS

=1 corresponds to an error as

large as the target field.

E

LS

can also be computed for the M

m

monitoring sensors

using the reproduction errors at the monitoring sensor loca-

tions ͕x

1

͑mon͒

¯x

M

m

͑mon͒

͖. The monitoring sensors are introduced

to monitor the reproduction error outside the error sensor

locations.

Results in terms of E

LS

are shown in Figs. 3 and 4 for

the conﬁguration of Fig. 2 and others. Conﬁguration ͑b͒ cor-

responds to Fig. 2. Conﬁguration ͑a͒ corresponds to a unique

FIG. 2. System conﬁguration in free ﬁeld and real part of the target wave

ﬁeld at 220 Hz. Dashed lines represent zero-pressure contours of the target

pressure ﬁeld p

͑im͒

͑x, w͒. —᭺, the normals to the source line. ⌬, virtual

source x

o

=͓2, 6, 0͔ meters.

2724 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis

sensor located at the center of the source array ͑at x

1

=x

2

=2 m͒. Conﬁguration ͑c͒ is similar to ͑b͒ plus an additional

sensor at the center of the source array. Conﬁguration ͑d͒

includes nine sensors forming two tesseral quadrupoles ͓/ 4

radian apart, the separation distance is the same as in case

͑b͔͒ plus a centered sensor. In Fig. 3, WFS produces slightly

different E

LS

because the error sensor locations change: The

WFS reproduced ﬁeld is the same for the four conﬁgurations.

In each case, the regularization parameter for AWFS was

set to different values to take into account that an increased

number of sensors reduces the importance of the penalization

term in J

AWFS

with a ﬁxed . Case ͑a͒ was simulated with

=50 while the other values were ͑b͒ =200, ͑c͒ =250,

and ͑d͒ =450. Here, the values are not optimally chosen

͓with respect to inverse problem criteria such as the L-curve

͑Hansen, 1998; Nelson, 2001͔͒, they were set to an arbitrary

value multiplied by the number of sensors.

As shown in Fig. 3, E

LS

at the error sensors is larger

with WFS than AWFS. Also, the reproduction quality at the

monitoring sensors with AWFS converges to the WFS results

above approximately 634 Hz ͑Fig. 4͒. This frequency corre-

sponds to the WFS spatial aliasing frequency which is

deﬁned in a ﬁrst approximation by the source separation dis-

tance ͑Verheijen, 1997͒. WFS requires at least two reproduc-

tion sources per wavelength to avoid spatial aliasing.

Reproduced sound ﬁelds at 220 Hz for WFS, AWFS and

reproduction error regularized minimization ͓=50 and

q

WFS

=0 in Eq. ͑9͒, that is optimal sound ﬁeld reproduction

without the WFS a priori solution͔ are shown in Figs. 5–7

for the conﬁguration ͑b͒ shown in Fig. 2. =50 for all these

FIG. 3. E

LS

at the error sensors for various approaches ͑WFS and AWFS͒

and error sensor conﬁgurations ͑shown as dot plots͒. Conﬁguration ͑b͒ cor-

responds to Fig. 2; ͑a͒ corresponds to a unique sensor located at the center of

the source array; ͑c͒ corresponds to conﬁguration ͑b͒ plus an additional

sensor at the center of the source array; ͑d͒ includes nine sensors approach-

ing two tesseral quadrupolelike dispositions ͑45 degrees apart͒ plus a cen-

tered sensor.

FIG. 4. E

LS

at the monitoring sensors for the cases of Fig. 3 ͑the error sensor

conﬁgurations are shown as dot plots͒.

FIG. 5. Reproduced sound ﬁeld at 220 Hz in free ﬁeld WFS ͑real part on

top, imaginary part on bottom͒. Dashed lines show zero-pressure contours of

the target pressure ﬁeld. Local normalized quadratic residual error is repre-

sented as continuous line contour plots. Reproduction sources are replaced

by a thick source line for clarity. ⌬, virtual source.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis 2725

reproduced ﬁelds. The reproduced sound ﬁelds approach the

target wave ﬁeld. On these three ﬁgures, the spatial extent of

effective reproduction is also shown. The size of this region

varies with frequency. The spatial extent of effective repro-

duction is displayed via contour plots of the local quadratic

normalized error ͉͑p

͑im͒

͑x, ͒ −p

͑rep͒

͑x, ͉͒

2

/ ͉p

͑im͒

͑x, ͉͒

2

͒.

Contours are plotted only for the 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, and 1.5

levels. The 0.5 level is suggested as the acceptable reproduc-

tion region limit for comparison purposes ͑Kirkeby and Nel-

son, 1993; Gauthier et al., 2005a͒. AWFS introduces lower

reproduction error than WFS in the source array center and

the effective reproduction region is somewhat larger than the

WFS effective region. AWFS in Fig. 6 also produces a more

extended reproduction area ͑based on the 0.5 error level͒

than when simply minimizing the reproduction error at the

error sensors with a control effort penalty ͑Fig. 7͒.

One of the beneﬁts of AWFS is that it is possible to

adjust the solution between a pure WFS realization ͑using a

large penalization parameter͒ to a simple reproduction error

minimization ͑with →0͒. This is shown in Fig. 8 on the

basis of E

LS

variations as a function of the penalization term

. WFS, AWFS and reproduction error minimization regions

are deﬁned in Fig. 8. The E

LS

values for regularization pa-

rameter =

i

2

͑where

i

are the transfer impedance matrix

singular values͒ are plotted as circles. WFS corresponds to a

large value of and E

LS

does not signiﬁcantly change with

in this region. Reproduction error minimization corresponds

to small values of and E

LS

does not signiﬁcantly change

with in this region. The AWFS region is deﬁned by the

FIG. 6. Reproduced sound ﬁeld at 220 Hz in free ﬁeld by AWFS with

=50 ͑real part on top, imaginary part on bottom͒. Dashed lines show zero-

pressure contours of the target pressure ﬁeld. Local normalized quadratic

residual error is represented as continuous line contour plots. Reproduction

sources have been replaced by a thick source line for clarity. ⌬, virtual

source.

FIG. 7. Reproduced sound ﬁeld in free ﬁeld at 220 Hz by reproduction error

minimization with =50 and q

WFS

=0 ͑real part on top, imaginary part on

bottom͒. Dashed lines show zero-pressure contours of the target pressure

ﬁeld. Local normalized quadratic residual error is represented as continuous

line contour plots. Reproduction sources have been replaced by a thick

source line for clarity. ⌬, virtual source.

2726 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis

transition region between WFS and reproduction error mini-

mization. The points for =

i

2

belong to this transition re-

gion.

For near-coincident error sensor arrays ͑relative to the

wavelength͒ such as shown in Fig. 2, an under-regularized

AWFS ͑→0͒ system can be regarded as a “closed-loop

Ambisonics” reproduction system ͑“Ambisonics” systems

are usually implemented as a open-loop systems, that is

without any feedback or compensation͒, because such sensor

arrays can be used to evaluate the pressure and two perpen-

dicular pressure gradients in the horizontal plane. This rela-

tion between “Ambisonics” reproduction and AWFS is ex-

amined in Sec. VI A.

These simple simulations were used as an exemplary

illustration of a simple AWFS behavior in free ﬁeld. The

more general underlying AWFS behavior, independent of the

reproduction space, is exposed in the following section.

V. AWFS AND SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION

OF Z

The singular value decomposition of the transfer imped-

ance matrix is ͑Golub and van Loan, 1996͒

Z = U

MϫM

⌺

MϫL

V

LϫL

H

, ͑12͒

where subscripts indicate matrix dimensions. U is the matrix

whose columns are the left singular vectors u

i

of Z, V is the

matrix whose columns are the right singular vectors v

i

of Z

and ⌺ is the rectangular matrix of Z real positive singular

values

i

⌺ =

΄

1

0 ¯ 0

0

2

0 ¯ 0

0 ¯ 0

M

¯ 0

΅

MϫL

, ͑13͒

where

i

Ͼ

i+1

. The rank r of Z ͑rഛMϽL͒ is equal to the

number of nonzero singular values. In Eq. ͑13͒ it was as-

sumed that r=M for convenience.

The matrices U and V are unitary matrices ͑U

H

U

=UU

H

=V

H

V=VV

H

=I͒ since the left and right singular vec-

tors are orthonormal vectors. SVD has well-known proper-

ties ͑Golub and van Loan, 1996; Hansen, 1998͒. Examples of

SVD in acoustics are described by Nelson ͑2001͒; Williams

et al. ͑2003͒; Bai and co-workers ͑2004; 2005͒. The span of

the left singular vectors u

i

constitutes the range of the matrix

Z and the span of the last L−r right singular vectors v

i

is the

null space of Z ͑Zv

i

=0 for i Ͼr and i ഛL͒ ͑Lancaster, 1985;

Golub and van Loan, 1996͒ In order to explicitly relate left

and right singular vectors to physical parameters, right sin-

gular vectors v

i

and left singular vectors u

i

will hereafter be,

respectively, identiﬁed as “source modes” and “pressure

modes.” Each source and pressure modes pair with the cor-

responding singular value is here deﬁned as a “radiation

mode.” This AWFS-speciﬁc terminology is different from the

terminology introduced by Photiadis ͑1990͒ and from the

more common deﬁnition of a radiation mode being a source

distribution which radiates sound power independently from

the other radiation modes.

Equations ͑1͒ and ͑12͒ result in this transformed radia-

tion equation

p ˜

͑rep͒

= ⌺q ˜ ͑14͒

with the transformed source strengths q ˜ and acoustic pres-

sures p ˜,

p ˜

͑im͒

= U

H

p

͑im͒

, p ˜

͑rep͒

= U

H

p

͑rep͒

, q ˜ = V

H

q. ͑15͒

Since ⌺ is a pseudodiagonal rectangular matrix ͑the elements

are nonzero only on the main diagonal͒, the radiation prob-

lem of Eq. ͑14͒ is a set of independent acoustical radiation

between source modes v

i

and pressure modes u

i

.

A. Nature of the under-determined set of equations

Zq=p

„im…

In Sec. II B we treated the equation Zq=p

͑im͒

as a qua-

dratic minimization. We now discuss the under-determined

set of equations Zq=p

͑im͒

. Since there are more unknown

variables than equations ͑LϾM͒, the set of equations Zq

=p

͑im͒

cannot be solved in this form: there exists an inﬁnite

set of source strength values that will produce p

͑im͒

. Such

under-determination is expressed as the contribution of left

singular vectors in the solution

q =

͚

i=1

r

p ˜

i

͑im͒

i

v

i

+

͚

i=r+1

L

␣

i

v

i

, ͑16͒

where ␣

i

represents arbitrary coefficients which, with the

vector basis of the null space of Z, define the under-

determined nature of Zq=p

͑im͒

. Inserting ͑16͒ in Zq will

effectively produce p

͑im͒

regardless of ␣

i

. A solution to

such an under-determined problem is to cast it in a new

quadratic minimization form which seeks to reduce the

departure between the solution q and a given solution q

o

.

If this a priori solution ͑Hansen, 1998͒ is simply 0 then the

pseudoinversion can be applied to solve Zq=p

͑im͒

͑Golub

and van Loan, 1996͒. If the a priori solution q

o

is not zero,

a more general rule is obtained: the ␣

i

in Eq. ͑16͒ correspond

to the projection of q

o

on v

i

␣

i

= v

i

H

q

o

" i Ͼr and i ഛL ͑17͒

and the first r contributions of v

i

are determined by the first

term in Eq. ͑16͒. This minimizes the cost function

FIG. 8. E

LS

at the error sensors ͑thick line͒ and at the monitoring sensors

͑thin line͒ and ͉͑q

͑opt͒

͉ ͒ =

ͱ

q

͑opt͒H

q

͑opt͒

͑dashed line͒ at 220 Hz as a function

of the regularization parameter . E

LS

values for =

i

2

are shown as circles.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis 2727

J͑␣

i

͒ =

͚

i=1

r

͑p ˜

i

͑im͒

/

i

− v

i

H

q

o

͒

2

+

͚

i=r+1

L

͑␣

i

− v

i

H

q

o

͒

2

. ͑18͒

In the next section, we proceed to show how the AWFS

solution ͓expressed by Eq. ͑9͔͒ corresponds to a modiﬁed

version of Eqs. ͑16͒ and ͑17͒ where q

WFS

replace q

o

.

B. Independent radiation mode control for AWFS

Taking the AWFS solution of Eq. ͑9͒ and using the SVD

of Z, the AWFS solution can be expanded over the source

modes v

i

, q

͑opt͒

=͚

i=1

L

q ˜

i

v

i

, as follows:

q ˜

i

=

Ά

i

͑

i

2

+

i

͒

p ˜

i

͑im͒

+

i

͑

i

2

+

i

͒

v

i

H

q

WFS

" i ഛr ഛM,

v

i

H

q

WFS

"

i

Ͼ0, " i Ͼr and i ഛL,

0 "

i

= 0, " i Ͼr and i ഛL,

͑19͒

where the independent contributions of v

i

in q

͑opt͒

were in-

dividually regularized with

i

. AWFS thus proceeds to

control each radiation mode independently. The AWFS

solution of Eq. ͑9͒ implicitly assumed an identical regu-

larization parameter for all sources modes,

i

= "i. Note

that Eq. ͑19͒ was slightly modified in comparison to Eq.

͑9͒ for the particular case

i

=0: Eq. ͑19͒ is forced to the

pseudoinverse definition by the addition of the third case

in Eq. ͑19͒ ͑Hansen, 1998͒. The reproduction error is ex-

panded

e =

͚

i=1

M

e ˜

i

u

i

͑20͒

with

e ˜

i

=

i

͑p ˜

i

͑im͒

−

i

v

i

H

q

WFS

͒

͑

i

2

+

i

͒

" i ഛr. ͑21͒

Equation ͑19͒ shows that even if the multichannel sys-

tem must generate the L source inputs in q

͑opt͒

, the total

number of degrees of freedom is in fact r. In the ﬁrst case

͓i ഛrഛM in Eq. ͑19͔͒, the q ˜

i

are a combination of reproduc-

tion error minimization with q

WFS

projection on the corre-

sponding source mode v

i

. This combination is weighted by

i

. When

i

=0, Eq. ͑19͒ provides the same solution as Eqs.

͑16͒ and ͑17͒ for i ഛrഛM. In the second case ͓i Ͼr and i

ഛL in Eq. ͑19͔͒, the corresponding q ˜

i

are solely deﬁned by

the projection of q

WFS

on v

i

if

i

Ͼ0. This shows that even if

such source modes produce no sound pressure at sensor lo-

cations, they contribute to the solution in order to better

match the WFS sound ﬁeld reproduction outside the control

region. These results explain how a part of the WFS opera-

tors is modiﬁed by AWFS and how the other ﬁxed part is

deﬁned by the projection of q

WFS

on the null space vector

basis. Since these observations stem from an analytical de-

velopment and since the SVD exist for any complex matrix

Z, it is possible to extent this interpretation to a any real

situation.

Equation ͑19͒ shows the discontinuity in the solution

q

͑opt͒

as →0, speciﬁcally in the components q ˜

i

correspond-

ing to the null space of Z. This discontinuity in the solution

would not be observable in the reproduced ﬁeld at the error

sensors, because the span of these source modes is the null

space of the transfer impedance matrix. However, anywhere

else such discontinuity would be observable in the repro-

duced sound ﬁeld.

Equations ͑19͒ and ͑21͒ give insights into how each ra-

diation modes are affected by

i

=. Rewriting these equa-

tions for i ഛr in terms of transformed WFS reproduction

error ͑e ˜

iWFS

=u

i

H

p

͑im͒

−

i

v

i

H

q

WFS

=u

i

H

͑p

͑im͒

−Zq

WFS

͒͒, one

ﬁnds

q ˜

i

=

i

͑

i

2

+

i

͒

e ˜

iWFS

+ v

i

H

q

WFS

" i ഛr ͑22͒

and

e ˜

i

=

i

͑

i

2

+

i

͒

e ˜

iWFS

" i ഛr. ͑23͒

When

i

Ӷ

i

2

, the solution q ˜

i

, for the control of the radiation

mode i, is dominated by WFS reproduction error e ˜

iWFS

mini-

mization ͑q ˜

i

−v

i

H

q

WFS

is large and e ˜

i

is small͒. When

i

ӷ

i

2

, the solution q ˜

i

is dominated by WFS departure pen-

alty ͑q ˜

i

−v

i

H

q

WFS

is small and e ˜

i

is large͒. This illustrates

that for a regularization parameter as in Eqs. ͑7͒ and ͑9͒,

the amount of penalization is different for each radiation

mode; some radiation modes can be over-penalized ͑

ജ

i

2

͒ and some others under-penalized ͑ഛ

i

2

͒. This sug-

gests that the behavior of AWFS with a global penaliza-

tion ͑

i

=͒ is a complex contribution of the radiation

modes. This defines the AWFS transition band in Fig. 8.

VI. ANALYSIS OF SIMULATION RESULTS WITH

SVD

The behavior of independent AWFS is illustrated

through numerical results shown in Figs. 9–14 for free-ﬁeld

situations. Our goal is to simply exemplify the analytical

results presented in the preceding section.

Figure 9 shows the ﬁrst four source and pressure modes

for the conﬁguration of Fig. 2 at 220 Hz. There is 24 sources

modes and four pressure modes in this conﬁguration. The

last 20 source modes produce no sound pressure at the sensor

array. Figure 9 shows that the source modes have a single

circumferential harmonic component, and the corresponding

pressure modes provide a multipole expansion of the sound

ﬁeld at the sensor array. Moreover, one notes that the third

source mode has a / 4 radian spatial phase difference with

the second source mode ͑a similar trend is observed for the

corresponding pressure modes͒. The source modes producing

the Z null space are shown in Fig. 10. The null space source

modes are spatially high-pass ﬁltered impulses. This ﬁltering

removes the low-order source mode components from the

spatial impulses.

Figure 11 shows the produced sound ﬁeld for the ﬁrst six

source modes v

i

at 220 Hz. The ﬁrst source mode produces

uniform sound pressure at the sensor array ͓subﬁgure ͑a͔͒.

The next two source modes ͓subﬁgures ͑b͒ and ͑c͔͒ produce

perpendicular pressure gradients. The next source mode

͓subﬁgure ͑d͔͒ produces a tesseral quadrupole ﬁeld compo-

2728 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis

nent. The last two source modes produce no sound pressure

at the sensors ͓subﬁgures ͑e͒ and ͑f͔͒ since the corresponding

source modes belong to the nullspace. These two source

modes are shown on the ﬁrst line in Fig. 10.

Figure 12 shows multipole representations of the pres-

sure modes u

i

at 220 Hz. The corresponding free-ﬁeld direc-

tivities are also shown as polar plots. These directivity pat-

terns were computed with plane wave responses at the

sensors weighted by the complex pressure modes u

i

H

as sen-

sor gains. This ﬁgure illustrates that the i =1 pressure mode

corresponds to sound pressure, the i =2 pressure mode ap-

proximates pressure gradient along x

1

͑dipole sensitivity in

the low frequency limit͒, the i =3 pressure mode gives a pres-

sure gradient along x

2

͑dipole sensitivity in the low fre-

quency limit͒ and the i =4 pressure mode corresponds to a

tesseral quadrupole ﬁnite approximation. Since Eq. ͑19͒ sug-

FIG. 9. Source modes v

i

at 220 Hz on the left-hand side

and corresponding pressure modes u

i

͑for

i

0, that is

i ഛr=M͒ on the right-hand side. Source and sensor

numbers are shown in Fig. 2.

FIG. 10. The null space source modes v

i

at 220 Hz.

Increasing i proceeds from left to right and from top to

bottom.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis 2729

gests independent control of the reproduced pressure modes,

one can conclude, from the pressure mode shapes of Fig. 12,

that AWFS ͓Eqs. ͑7͒ and ͑9͔͒ effectively operates on the

independent control of pressure, pressure gradients and

tesseral quadrupole pressure modes at the sensor array.

Figure 13 shows the source strength vectors for WFS

and AWFS used to produce the sound ﬁelds in Figs. 5 and 6

along with the projections of q

WFS

and q

͑opt͒

on the source

modes v

i

. By comparing the left graphs of Fig. 13, it is clear

that WFS activates only a part of the reproduction sources

while AWFS signiﬁcantly activates nearly all sources. This

illustrates the additive combination of WFS and reproduction

error minimization. As shown in the right graphs of Fig. 13,

AWFS only changes the ﬁrst r=M source mode contribu-

tions q ˜

i

in comparison with WFS, this was shown in Eq. ͑19͒.

This illustrates that the general AWFS minimization ͓Eqs. ͑7͒

and ͑9͔͒ effectively gives the SVD solution of Eq. ͑19͒. Even

if deriving ͑19͒ from ͑9͒ is straightforward using SVD, this

numerical example is used to illustrate this equivalence.

A. AWFS and “Ambisonics”

The next simulations are introduced to draw the link

between AWFS, using a compact centered sensor array as

shown in Fig. 2, and “Ambisonics”.

For the ﬁrst simulation, the regularization parameter

was set to the small value of 1ϫ10

−4

and the WFS solution

q

WFS

was set to 0 in Eq. ͑9͒. A small penalization parameter

is one of the limiting cases of AWFS. This corresponds to

the minimization of the reproduction errors with a small pen-

alty of the control effort. The optimal source strengths q

͑opt͒

at 220 Hz and the corresponding projections on the source

modes v

i

are shown in Fig. 14͑a͒. Figure 14͑a͒ shows that

only the ﬁrst r=M source modes are active, this is consistent

with Eq. ͑19͒ when q

WFS

=0. As explained below, such a type

of source distribution is somewhat related to “Ambisonics”

panning functions.

A short description of “Ambisonics” is introduced here.

A more complete theoretical development is included in the

appendix. “Ambisonics” is an open-loop reproduction tech-

nology from the 1970s introduced by Gerzon ͑Rumsey,

2001͒. In the most simple case, the target wave ﬁeld

p

͑im͒

͑x, ͒ is deﬁned as a plane wave in free ﬁeld

FIG. 11. Sound ﬁeld radiated by the ﬁrst six source modes. Source modes

͑a͒–͑d͒ generate the range of the transfer impedance matrix. Source modes

͑e͒ and ͑f͒ belong to the null space of the transfer impedance matrix. Dashed

lines show zero-pressure contours of the pressure ﬁelds.

FIG. 12. Multipole representations of the ﬁrst M=4 pressure modes and

corresponding free ﬁeld directivity.· sensor position; ᭺, positive real part;

ﬁlled ᭺, negative real part; +, positive imaginary part; ϫ, negative imagi-

nary part. Symbol diameter illustrates the magnitude of the corresponding

value. Dashed lines, free ﬁeld directivity.

2730 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis

p

͑im͒

͑R, , ͒ = A͑͒e

jkR cos͑−͒

, ͑24͒

where space coordinates are now described in terms of cy-

lindrical coordinates ͑R, , z͒, and is the direction of

propagation of the plane wave.

The reproduction system is assumed to be in free ﬁeld

and the reproduction sources ͑uniformly distributed over 2

radians͒ produce a set of plane waves at the origin of the

coordinate system

p

͑rep͒

͑R, ͒ =

͚

l=1

L

A

l

e

jkR cos͑−

l

͒

, ͑25͒

where A

l

is the unknown contribution of the plane reproduc-

tion wave l whose direction of propagation is

l

.

Using Fourier-Bessel series for both the target sound

pressure ﬁeld ͓Eqs. ͑24͒ and ͑A2͔͒ and the reproduced ﬁeld

͓Eqs. ͑25͒ and ͑A8͔͒, it is possible to minimize ͑in an LMS

FIG. 13. Left, complex source strengths for ͑a͒ WFS

͑q

WFS

corresponding to Fig. 5͒ and ͑b͒ AWFS ͑q

͑opt͒

corresponding to Fig. 6͒. Right, complex source mode

contributions q ˜

i

of ͑a͒ WFS and ͑b͒ AWFS solutions

obtained from the orthogonal projection ͑q ˜

i

=v

i

H

q

͑opt͒

or

q ˜

i

=v

i

H

q

WFS

͒ of the source strengths on the source

modes.

FIG. 14. Left, complex source strengths for optimal

control ͑a͒ q

͑opt͒

with =1ϫ10

−4

and q

WFS

=0, ͑b͒ q

͑opt͒

with =1ϫ10

−4

and q

WFS

0. Right, corresponding

source mode contributions q ˜

i

obtained from the or-

thogonal projections ͑q ˜

i

=v

i

H

q

͑opt͒

͒ of the source

strengths on the source modes.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis 2731

sense͒ the reproduction error over each of the coefﬁcient of

the Fourier-Bessel series. This gives a panning function ͑am-

plitude A

l

of plane waves reproduction sources as function of

and

l

͒

A

l

=

A

L

ͫ

1 + 2

͚

n=1

N

cos͑n͑ −

l

͒͒

ͬ

. ͑26͒

This is a circular sinc function of

l

for which the series

truncature order N defines the number and amplitudes of the

side lobes.

From this, one gets a panning function as to how ͑in an

a posteriori operation͒ distribute a given signal to a circular

source array to create, under the free ﬁeld and plane wave

assumptions, the target wave ﬁeld. Since the Fourier-Bessel

coefﬁcients ͓see Eq. ͑A5͔͒ correspond to low-order directiv-

ity patterns of microphones ͑ﬁrst order “Ambisonics,” N=1,

gives three coefﬁcients in the two series: monopole and two

perpendicular dipole patterns͒, it is possible to consider the

limiting case of AWFS with →0 as a “closed-loop Am-

bisonics” realization. The “closed-loop” appears since AWFS

would be implemented with real microphones for reproduc-

tion error minimization while “Ambisonics” is a LMS solu-

tion that is implemented as an open-loop system. This is ﬁrst

supported by the pressure modes of Fig. 12 which shows that

AWFS in this case corresponds to independent reproduction

control of pressure, two perpendicular sound pressure gradi-

ents and a tesseral quadrupole approximation of the sound

ﬁeld at the error sensors in the low frequency limit. How-

ever, this connection between “Ambisonics” and AWFS us-

ing compact sensor array is essentially conceptual. This

arises from that AWFS and “Ambisonics” use ͑1͒ different

radiation models ͑spherical waves and plane waves for the

reproduction system, respectively͒ and ͑2͒ different sensing

devices ͑discrete sensor array for AWFS and perfectly coin-

cident directive patterns for “Ambisonics”͒.

The previous remarks show that AWFS ͑while letting

→0 and forcing the WFS solution to zero͒ can be inter-

preted as a closed-loop “Ambisonics” realization. In the next

example, we proceed in explaining how the AWFS realiza-

tion ͑with q

WFS

0 and for the speciﬁc sensor conﬁguration

shown in Fig. 2͒ is an hybrid solution between WFS and a

“closed-loop Ambisonics” realization. This corresponds to

“closed-loop modiﬁed Ambisonics.” The “modiﬁed Am-

bisonics” arises from the superposition of the ﬁltered WFS

solution and the low-order closed-loop “Ambisonics” solu-

tion.

Figure 14͑b͒ corresponds to the limiting case of AWFS

with a vanishing regularization parameter =1ϫ10

−4

and

q

WFS

corresponding to the WFS solution ͓Eqs. ͑5͒ and ͑6͔͒.

For the ﬁrst four source modes contributions ͑q ˜

t

with i

=1, 2, 3, 4͒, the solution with q

WFS

0 is almost identical to

the solution with q

WFS

=0. This was to be expected from Eq.

͑19͒ since when →0, q ˜

i

Ϸp ˜

i

͑im͒

/

i

for i ഛr. The higher-

order source mode ͑rϽi ഛL͒ contributions q ˜

i

are the WFS

projections ͑v

i

H

q

WFS

͒ on v

i

and are independent of . This

appears when comparing the two graphs on the right-hand

side of Fig. 14.

The previous results suggested a conceptual connection

between AWFS in the conﬁguration of Fig. 2 and “Ambison-

ics.” In the next example, the nearly exact correspondence of

AWFS, using Eq. ͑19͒, and the “Ambisonics” panning func-

tion of Eq. ͑26͒ will be shown. For this simulation, the

AWFS radiation model is replaced with a reproduction

source radiation model consistent with the “Ambisonics” for-

malism ͑plane waves as reproduction sources͒. The sensor

array is however kept identical to the one shown in Fig. 2.

Eq. ͑19͒ is also applied in the following conditions: First, the

a priori solution q

WFS

is set to 0. Second, the effort penal-

ization parameter is set to 0. Third, the q ˜

i

components are

only computed for i =1, 2, 3 ͑these ﬁrst three pressure modes

correspond to uniform pressure and two pressure gradients

sensing at the sensor array͒. This would correspond to ﬁrst

order “Ambisonics” using N=1 in Eq. ͑26͒. Fourth, the tar-

get wave ﬁeld is a plane wave ͓see Eq. ͑24͔͒ for which the

direction of propagation corresponds to reproduction source

number 12, see Fig. 2 for the angular plane source distribu-

tions which correspond to the reproduction source angular

positions͒. The corresponding AWFS and “Ambisonics” so-

lutions are shown in Fig. 15. The AWFS and “Ambisonics”

source distributions are almost identical and correspond to a

raised cosine ͓see Eq. ͑26͒ with N=1͔. Despite appearances,

the solutions are not exactly the same. The difference is due

to the AWFS sensor array which can only provide a ﬁnite

approximation to monopole and dipole sensitive patterns.

The AWFS solution of Eq. ͑19͒ matches the “Ambisonics”

solution of Eq. ͑A16͒ when the radiation models are consis-

tent.

In summary, when the regularization parameter is

large, AWFS simply converges towards WFS. When is

small, the ﬁrst ͑i ഛr͒ source modes contributions q ˜

i

approach

a closed-loop “Ambisonics” realization with a small WFS

departure penalty, while all the other source modes ͑which

create the nullspace͒ contributions are determined by the

projection of WFS solution q

WFS

on the corresponding

source modes v

i

. This precisely deﬁnes what was described

earlier as “closed-loop modiﬁed Ambisonics.” Brieﬂy stated,

the limiting cases of AWFS implementation produce ͑1͒ the

WFS solution or ͑2͒ a closed-loop “Ambisonics” solution

superposed to the spatially ﬁltered WFS solution.

FIG. 15. Reproduction source amplitudes for plane wave reproduction with

ﬁrst order “Ambisonics” and truncated modiﬁed AWFS.

2732 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis

B. Including reﬂections and room effects

The preceding paragraphs showed the fundamental the-

oretical mechanisms of AWFS on the basis of analytical de-

velopments and illustrative simulation results in free ﬁeld.

However, AWFS has the potential to compensate for the ef-

fects of the listening space. Although this paper does not

primarily address AWFS in room situation, some details are

introduced to extend the signiﬁcance of the preceding sec-

tions. In room, the compensation is more signiﬁcant since the

free-ﬁeld assumptions of WFS are no longer respected and

the accuracy of the reproduction by WFS is reduced

͑Gauthier et al., 2005b͒.

The main goal of this section is to illustrate that even if

both source modes and singular values are altered by the

presence of boundaries, the pressure modes still provide

pressure and pressure gradients estimates at the error sensors.

Interestingly, this, with Eq. ͑19͒ ͑which is valid for any Z͒,

extends the relation between AWFS and “Ambisonics” to

sound ﬁeld reproduction in rooms: independent control of

pressure, pressure gradients and tesseral quadrupole pressure

modes is achieved by AWFS in the conﬁguration shown in

Fig. 2 even in theoretical non-free-ﬁeld conditions.

Figure 16͑a͒ shows the ﬁrst four source modes at

220 Hz when a rigid wall replaces the x

2

–x

3

plane. The

transfer impedance matrix was computed using the method

of images. The corresponding pressure modes are shown as

multipole representations in Fig. 17. Even if the pressure

modes of Fig. 17 are slightly different to the free-ﬁeld source

modes of Fig. 12, the pressure modes still give ﬁnite differ-

ence approximations of pressure, pressure gradients and

tesseral quadrupole as shown in Fig. 17. Figure 16͑b͒ shows

the ﬁrst source modes when the system is located in a room

for which the transfer impedance is based on a modal model

including 6137 modes ͓the model is fully described by

Gauthier et al. ͑2005a͒, see also Morse and Ingard ͑1968͔͒.

The room is rectangular and its dimensions are 6.05ϫ5.2

ϫ2 m the room corner is located at x

1

=x

2

=x

3

=0. The

source and sensor plane is at x

3

=1.2192 m. The reverbera-

tion time is approximately 0.28 s. The corresponding pres-

sure modes are shown as a multipole representation in Fig.

18. Even though the source modes are distorted in compari-

son with the free ﬁeld or rigid wall situation, the pressure

modes still give ﬁnite difference approximations of pressure,

perpendicular pressure gradients and tesseral quadrupole at

the sensor array as shown in Fig. 18. By comparing Figs. 9

FIG. 16. First four source modes and singular values.

͑a͒ with a rigid plane in x

2

−x

3

. ͑b͒ in a room of 6.05

ϫ5.2ϫ2 m with a reverberation time of approximately

0.28 s.

FIG. 17. Multipole representations of the ﬁrst M=4 pressure modes and

corresponding free ﬁeld directivity for the source modes in Fig. 16͑a͒. ·,

sensor position; ᭺, positive real part; ﬁlled ᭺, negative real part; +, positive

imaginary part; ϫ, negative imaginary part. Symbol diameter illustrates the

magnitude of the corresponding value. Dashed lines, free ﬁeld directivity.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis 2733

and 16͑b͒, one notes that the room singular values are sig-

niﬁcantly higher than the free-ﬁeld and the semi-inﬁnite

space singular values. This demonstrates that for a given

source strength vector q, the sound pressures p

͑rep͒

produced

in a closed volume are larger than in free ﬁeld.

According to these examples, independent control of ra-

diation mode as pressure and higher-order sound pressure

ﬁeld derivatives is still a valid fundamental interpretation of

Eq. ͑19͒ in the presence of a wall or a room. This suggests

that AWFS based on independent radiation mode control as

shown by Eq. ͑19͒ is a promising avenue for practical adap-

tive sound ﬁeld reproduction which should somehow keep a

link with “Ambisonics” and WFS.

VII. IMPLEMENTATION OF AWFS BY INDEPENDENT

FEEDFORWARD CONTROL OF RADIATION

MODES

This section describes a possible implementation of

AWFS based on adaptive signal processing. As noted in Eq.

͑19͒, each source mode contribution in q ˜

i

in q

͑opt͒

is solely

deﬁned by the corresponding p ˜

͑im͒

,

i

,

i

and v

i

H

q

WFS

. It is

possible to exploit this independence of the radiation modes

for practical implementations of AWFS.

In a classical adaptive minimization of Eq. ͑7͒, a cen-

tralized multichannel adaptive algorithm would be imple-

mented ͑Elliott, 2001͒ using a feedforward architecture. This

is illustrated in Fig. 19. Aset of z-transformed adaptive ﬁlters

w͑z͒ are adapted to reduce the quadratic summation of the M

reproduction errors e

M

͑n͒. The discrete ﬁlters w͑z͒ are fed by

a reference signal x͑n͒ and produce the L command signals

y

L

͑n͒ for the L reproduction sources. Here, Z͑z͒ is the only

physical system: All other operations are achieved in a signal

processing domain. This includes Z

ˆ

͑z͒ which is an identiﬁed

approximation of Z͑z͒. The target ﬁeld deﬁnition at the error

sensors is obtained by passing the reference signal x͑n͒

through the target pressure modeler a͑z͒. The WFS solution

departure penalty ͓see Eq. ͑7͔͒ is automatically taken into

account by the LMS adaptation which is based on a discrete

time representation of the AWFS cost function of Eq. ͑7͒.

Using M sensors, this will be a multiple-input-multiple-

output ͑MIMO͒ LϫM system. The computational burden

involved in the block diagram of Fig. 19 becomes prohibitive

as L, M and the adaptive ﬁlters order increase ͑Elliott, 2001;

Bai and Elliott, 2004͒. Moreover, this may slow down the

gradient LMS algorithm convergence as L and M increase

͑Bai and Elliott, 2004͒.

Another approach is illustrated as a block diagram in

Fig. 20. Z͑z͒ is again the only physical system. With this

diagram, we seek to produce a set of M ͑with MഛL͒ inde-

pendent SISO ͑single-input–single-output͒ adaptive systems

w˜

i

͑z͒. Here, each independent adaptive system generates the

signal sent to each source mode v

i

for i ϽrഛM. This type of

independent control using SVD was investigated by Bai and

Elliott ͑2004͒ for cross-talk cancelation but without any a

priori solution like q

WFS

. This independent radiation mode-

control of AWFS is also a modiﬁcation of the principal-

component LMS ͑PC-LMS͒ for active noise control of tonal

disturbance ͑Cabell and Fuller, 1999; Elliott, 2000; Cabell

et al., 2001͒. The PC-LMS is based on SVD, but for AWFS

FIG. 18. Multipole representations of the ﬁrst M=4 pressure modes and

corresponding free ﬁeld directivity for the source modes in Fig. 16͑b͒. ·,

sensor position; ᭺, positive imaginary part; ﬁlled ᭺, negative real part; +,

positive imaginary part; ϫ, negative real part. Symbol diameter illustrates

the magnitude of the corresponding value. Dashed lines, free ﬁeld directiv-

ity.

FIG. 19. Block diagram of a possible AWFS least-mean-square adaptive

digital processing implementation using FXLMS multichannel algorithm.

Subscripts denote signal dimensions.

FIG. 20. Block diagram of a possible AWFS least-mean-square adaptive

digital processing implementation based on independent radiation mode

control. Subscripts denote signal dimensions.

2734 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis

the SVD decoupling must operate over the entire frequency

range of interest ͑Bai and Elliott, 2004͒.

This implementation requires additional MIMO

͑multiple-input–multiple-output͒ synthesis and MIMO analy-

sis ﬁlters,

͑s͒

GЈ͑z͒ and

͑a͒

G͑z͒, respectively, which must be

generated in a priori identiﬁcation stage. In this case, an

identiﬁcation of frequency response functions ͑FRF͒ Z

ˆ

ml

͑͒

between each source l and each sensor m must be achieved.

The SVD of the corresponding transfer matrix for each fre-

quency provides source modes v

i

͑͒ and corresponding pres-

sure modes u

i

͑͒. The inverse Fourier transform of

v

i

͑͒ /

i

͑͒ "i ഛrഛM and u

i

͑͒ generates the

z-transformed discrete-time impulse responses ͑IR͒ matrices

͑s͒

GЈ͑z͒ and

͑a͒

G͑z͒, respectively. The

͑s͒

GЈ͑z͒ matrix gener-

ates the inputs of the individual reproduction sources from

the source mode inputs with a delay of ⌬

SVD

samples ͑Bai

and Elliott, 2004͒. Note that division by

i

͑͒ implies plant

whitening along uncoupling. Conversely, the

͑a͒

G͑z͒ matrix

is used to generate the pressure mode errors from the indi-

vidual sensor errors, again with a delay of ⌬

SVD

samples ͑Bai

and Elliott, 2004͒. The second synthesis ﬁlter matrix

͑s͒

GЉ͑z͒

is created from the null space source modes to produce the

ﬁxed part of the AWFS solution. The delay block ͑Fig. 20͒ of

2⌬

SVD

samples then represents the uncoupled plant model.

This type of realization was more extensively described by

Bai and Elliott ͑2004͒ for cross-talk cancelation. Also, be-

cause of the WFS departure penalty in the AWFS deﬁnition,

an additional set of ﬁxed ﬁlters produce the outputs for the

i Ͼr ͑and i ഛ͒L WFS ﬁxed source mode contributions q ˜

i

.

This a priori solution creates a difference with the work of

Bai and Elliott ͑2004͒.

All the preceding remarks should be subject of further

investigations and experimental veriﬁcations. This is topic of

current research on practical AWFS in a real reproduction

space, that is including a reﬂective environment.

VIII. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES

This paper introduced AWFS in the physical domain for

active sound ﬁeld reproduction. AWFS is based on the mini-

mization of the quadratic reproduction errors with a qua-

dratic departure penalty from the WFS solution. Although

the AWFS practical interest would be for room compensa-

tion, this theoretical paper was mainly concerned with the

fundamental AWFS behavior via general analytical consider-

ations and simple free-ﬁeld simulations.

AWFS can be interpreted as an additive combination of

͑1͒ a ﬁxed WFS solution and ͑2͒ an optimal regularized so-

lution which seeks to minimize the WFS reproduction error.

Contrary to WFS, the AWFS active contribution is spread

over the entire source array.

SVD of the transfer impedance matrix shown that, for

AWFS, independent control operates on each radiation

mode. In the case of a four sensor array, this leads to inde-

pendent control of a multipole expansion of the sound ﬁeld

at the error sensor locations. For a transfer impedance matrix

including either a rigid wall reﬂection or room effects, the

pressure modes still provide ﬁnite difference approximations

of pressure, pressure gradients and tesseral quadrupole as

pressure modes. In real situation, we thus expect that AWFS

control will effectively and independently work on similar

pressure modes at the sensor array since the analytical results

of Sec. V B apply for any transfer impedance matrix Z.

A practical usefulness of AWFS arises from the possibil-

ity to move from WFS to closed-loop modiﬁed “Ambison-

ics.” AWFS converges toward ͑1͒ WFS when the regulariza-

tion parameter is large and ͑2͒ closed-loop modiﬁed

“Ambisonics” when is low. In the latter case, it was shown

that low order source mode contributions approach an “Am-

bisonics” problem and that higher order source mode ͑creat-

ing the null space͒ contributions are imposed by the projec-

tion of the WFS solution on the null space basis of Z.

SVD of the transfer impedance matrix suggests an inde-

pendent radiation mode control implementation of AWFS.

This could be achieved with rഛM independent LMS adap-

tive algorithms which would independently control the

source mode contributions in a real adaptive control applica-

tion. Work is in progress to implement AWFS using the cur-

rently developed AWFS adaptive algorithms for a conﬁgura-

tion like the one shown in Fig. 2. AWFS performance in-

room situation is being therefore investigated from a

practical and signal processing view point.

Most of the analytical developments for AWFS can be

applied to active noise or vibration control. To the authors

knowledge, the use of a priori solution like q

WFS

have not

been used for active control, this could be of potential inter-

est. Eqs. ͑7͒ and ͑16͒ to ͑18͒ are also typically encountered in

inverse problems theory ͑Hansen, 1998͒. Inverse problems

are of importance in acoustics ͑Nelson, 2001; Gérard et al.,

2005͒, where the use of a priori solutions could also be

applied.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by NSERC ͑Natural Sciences

and Engineering Research Council of Canada͒, NATEQ

͑Fond Québecois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Tech-

nologies͒, VRQ ͑Valorisation Recherche Québec͒, and Uni-

versité de Sherbrooke and was conducted within CIRMMT

͑Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and

Technology, McGill University͒. The ﬁrst author ͑P.-A. G.͒

acknowledges Anthony Gérard from Université de Sher-

brooke for interesting discussions.

APPENDIX: “AMBISONICS” REVIEW

The target wave ﬁeld p

͑im͒

͑x, ͒ is deﬁned as a plane

wave in free ﬁeld

p

͑im͒

͑R, , ͒ = A͑͒e

jkR cos͑−͒

͑A1͒

with cylindrical coordinates ͑R, , z͒, and is the direction

of propagation of the plane wave. This target plane wave

field is represented by a Fourier-Bessel series,

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis 2735

p

͑im͒

͑R, , ͒ = A͑͒J

0

͑kR͒

+ 2A͑͒

͚

n=1

ϱ

j

n

J

n

͑kR͒cos͑n͑ − ͒͒, ͑A2͒

where J

n

is the Bessel function of the first kind and order n.

Rewriting Eq. ͑A2͒ gives

p

͑im͒

͑R, ͒ = AJ

0

͑kR͒ + 2A

͚

n=1

ϱ

j

n

J

n

͑kR͒cos͑n͒cos͑n͒

+ 2A

͚

n=1

ϱ

j

n

J

n

͑kR͒sin͑n͒sin͑n͒. ͑A3͒

In practice, this series is truncated and expressed in vector

form

p

͑im͒

͑R, ͒ = Ac

T

h ͑A4͒

with

c

T

=

ͱ

2͓1/

ͱ

2 cos͑͒ sin͑͒ ¯ cos͑n͒

sin͑n͒ ¯ ͔ ͑A5͒

and

h

T

=

ͱ

2͓J

0

͑kR͒/

ͱ

2 j cos͑͒J

1

͑kR͒

j sin͑͒J

1

͑kR͒ ¯ j

n

cos͑n͒J

n

͑kR͒

j

n

sin͑n͒J

n

͑kR͒ ¯ ͔, ͑A6͒

where T denotes real transposition. Equation ͑A6͒ is inde-

pendent of the target wave field definition while Eq. ͑A5͒

includes the target wave field direction . The Fourier-Bessel

coefficients c are proportional to the outputs produced by

harmonic directivity patterns on which the plane target field

would impinge ͓see Eq. ͑A5͔͒. In c, the first coefficient pro-

duces omnidirectional sensing, the second and the third pro-

duce perpendicular dipole patterns and this continues with

higher order circumferential harmonics.

The reproduction system is assumed to be in free ﬁeld

and the reproduction sources ͑uniformly distributed over 2

radians͒ produce a set of plane waves at the origin of the

coordinate system

p

͑rep͒

͑R, ͒ =

͚

l=1

L

A

l

e

jkR cos͑−

l

͒

, ͑A7͒

where A

l

is the unknown contribution of the plane reproduc-

tion wave l whose direction of propagation is

l

. The repro-

duced field is also expressed as truncated Fourier-Bessel se-

ries

p

͑rep͒

͑R, ͒ =

͚

l=1

L

A

l

c

l

T

h = A

T

C

T

h ͑A8͒

with

A

T

= ͓A

1

¯ A

L

͔, ͑A9͒

C = ͓c

1

¯ c

L

͔ ͑A10͒

c

l

=

ͱ

2͓1/

ͱ

2 cos͑

l

͒ sin͑

l

͒ ¯ cos͑n

l

͒

sin͑n

l

͒ ¯ ͔

T

. ͑A11͒

The ﬁnal step is the minimization of the sum of the

quadratic reproduction error ͉͑Ac

T

−A

T

C

T

͒h͉

2

, that is the re-

produced wave ﬁeld Fourier-Bessel coefﬁcients A

T

C

T

must

approach, in a least-mean-square ͑LMS͒ sense, the target

wave ﬁeld Fourier-Bessel coefﬁcients Ac

T

. The minimization

problem can readily be solved using the generalized pseudo-

inverse ͑Golub and van Loan, 1996͒ denoted by

†

A = AC

†

c ͑A12͒

with

C

†

= V

c

⌺

c

+

U

c

H

, ͑A13͒

where the SVD of the matrix C is U

c

⌺

c

V

c

H

and

͓⌺

c

+

͔

T

=

΄

1/

1

c

0 ¯ 0

0

1/

2

c

0 ¯ 0

0 ¯ 0

1/

N

c

¯ 0

΅

NϫL

,

͑A14͒

where it was assumed that NഛL.

1

c

, . . . ,

N

c

are the singu-

lar values of C. When all the “Ambisonics” reproduction

sources are uniformly distributed over 2 radians, Eq. ͑A12͒

becomes

A = A

C

T

L

c ͑A15͒

and this gives the following panning function ͑amplitude A

l

of plane waves reproduction sources as function of and

l

͒:

A

l

=

A

L

ͫ

1 + 2

͚

n=1

N

cos͑n͑ −

l

͒͒

ͬ

. ͑A16͒

This corresponds to circular sinc function of

l

.

AES Staff Writer ͑2005͒. “Multichannel audio systems and techniques,” J.

Audio Eng. Soc. 53, 329–335.

Asano, F., and Swanson, D. C. ͑1995͒. “Sound equalization in enclosures

using modal reconstruction,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98, 2062–2069.

Bai, M. R., and Elliott, S. J. ͑2004͒. “Preconditioning multichannel adaptive

ﬁltering algorithms using EVD- and SVD-based signal prewhitening and

system decoupling,” J. Sound Vib. 270, 639–655.

Bai, M. R., and Kwuen-Yieng, O. ͑2005͒. “Head-related transfer function

͑HRTF͒ synthesis based on a three-dimensional array model and singular

valued composition,” J. Sound Vib. 281, 1093–1115.

Berkhout, A. J. ͑1988͒. “A holographic approach to acoustic control,” J.

Audio Eng. Soc. 36, 977–995.

Berkhout, A. J., de Vries, D., and Vogel, P. ͑1993͒. “Acoustic control by

wave ﬁeld synthesis,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 2764–2778.

Betlehem, T., and Abhayapala, T. D. ͑2005͒. “Theory and design of sound

ﬁeld reproduction in reverberant rooms,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 2100–

2111.

Blauert, J. ͑1999͒. Spatial Hearing, The Psychophysics of Human Sound

Localization ͑MIT Press, Cambridge͒.

Cabell, R. H., and Fuller, C. R. ͑1999͒. “A principal component algorithm

for feedforward active noise and vibration control,” J. Sound Vib. 227,

159–181.

Cabell, R. H., Palumbo, D., and Vipperman, J. ͑2001͒. “A principal compo-

nent feedforward algorithm for active noise control: Flight test results,”

2736 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis

IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 9, 76–83.

Corteel, E., Horbach, U., and Pellegrini, R. S. ͑2002͒. “Multichannel inverse

ﬁltering of multiexciter distributed mode loudspeakers for wave ﬁeld syn-

thesis,” Proceedings of the 112th AES Convention, convention paper 5611.

Davis, M. F. ͑2003͒. “History of spatial coding,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 51,

554–569.

Elliott, S. J. ͑2000͒. “Optimal controllers and adaptive controllers for mul-

tichannel feedforward control of stochastic disturbances,” IEEE Trans.

Signal Process. 48, 1053–1060.

Elliott, S. ͑2001͒. Signal Processing for Active Control ͑Academic, London͒.

Epain, N., Friot, E., and Rabau, G. ͑2004͒. “Indoor sonic boom reproduction

using ANC,” Proceedings of Active 2004.

Fuster, L., López, J. J., González, A., and Zuccarello, P. D. ͑2005͒. “Room

compensation using multichannel inverse ﬁlters for waveﬁeld synthesis

systems,” AES 118th Convention, convention paper 6401.

Garas, J. ͑1999͒. Adaptive 3D Sound Systems ͑Technische Universiteit Eind-

hoven, Eindhoven͒.

Gauthier, P.-A., Berry, A., and Woszczyk, W. ͑2005a͒. “Sound-ﬁeld repro-

duction in-room using optimal control techniques: simulations in the fre-

quency domain,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 662–678.

Gauthier, P.-A., Berry, A., and Woszczyk, W. ͑2005b͒. “Évaluation objec-

tive de la synthèse de champs acoustiques et recherches récentes sur la

reproduction de champs acoustiques en salle,” 73e Congrès de l’ACFAS,

Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada.

Gérard, A., Berry, A., and Masson, P. ͑2005͒. “Control of tonal noise from

subsonic fans. Part 1: Reconstruction of aeroacoustic sources from far-

ﬁeld acoustic pressure,” J. Sound Vib. 288, 1049–1075.

Golub, G. H., and van Loan, C. F. ͑1996͒. Matrix Computations ͑John Hop-

kins University Press, Baltimore͒.

Hansen, C. ͑1998͒. Rank-Deﬁcient and Discrete Ill-Posed Problems ͑SIAM,

Philadelphia͒.

Hulsebos, E., Schuurmans, T., de Vries, D., and Boone, R. ͑2003͒. “Circular

microphone array for discrete multichannel audio recording,” Proceedings

of the 114th AES Convention, convention paper 5716.

Ise, S. ͑1999͒. “A principle of sound ﬁeld control based on the Kirchhoff-

Helmholtz integral equation and the theory of inverse system,” Acta

Acust. 85, 78–87.

Junger, M. C., and Felt, D. ͑1993͒. Sound, Structures, and Their Interactions

͑Acoustical Society of America, Woodbury͒.

Kirkeby, O., and Nelson, P. A. ͑1993͒. “Reproduction of plane wave sound

ﬁelds,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94, 2992–3000.

Kirkeby, O., Nelson, P. A., Orduña-Bustamante, F., and Hamada, H. ͑1996͒.

“Local sound ﬁeld reproduction using digital signal processing,” J. Acoust.

Soc. Am. 100, 1584–1593.

Lancaster, P., and Tismenetsky, M. ͑1985͒. The Theory of Matrices ͑Aca-

demic, Orlando͒.

Malham, D. G., and Myatt, A. ͑1995͒. “3-D sound spatialization using am-

bisonic techniques,” Comput. Music J. 19, 58–70.

Morse, P. M., and Ingard, K. U. ͑1968͒. Theoretical Acoustics ͑McGraw-

Hill, New York͒.

Nelson, P. A. ͑1994͒. “Active control of acoustic ﬁelds and the reproduction

of sound,” J. Sound Vib. l77, 447–477.

Nelson, P. A. ͑2001͒. “A review of some inverse problems in acoustics,” Int.

J. Acoust. Vib. 6, 118–134.

Nelson, P. A. ͑2002͒. “Active control for virtual acoustics,” Proceedings of

Active 2002, pp. 67–90.

Nelson, P. A., and Elliott, S. J. ͑1992͒. Active Control of Sound ͑Academic,

London͒.

Nelson, P. A., and Kahana, Y. ͑2001͒. “Spherical harmonics, singular-value

decomposition and the head-related transfer function,” J. Sound Vib. 239,

607–637.

Nicol, R., and Emerit, M. ͑1999͒. “3D-sound reproduction over an extensive

listening area: A hybrid method derived from holophony and ambisonic,”

Proceedings of the AES 16th International Conference, pp. 436–453.

Photiadis, D. M. ͑1990͒. “The relationship of singular value decomposition

to wave-vector ﬁltering in sound radiation problems,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

88, 1152–1159.

Pierce, A. D. ͑1991͒. Acoustics: An introduction to its Physical Principles

and Applications ͑Acoustical Society of America, Woodbury, NY͒.

Poletti, M. A. ͑2005͒. “Effect of noise and transducer variability on the

performance of circular microphone arrays,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 53, 371–

384.

Poulin, J. ͑1957͒. “Son et espace,” La revue musicale. Vers une musique

expérimentale, sous la direction de Pierre Schaeffer, special number 236,

105–114 ͑Paris: Richard-Masse͒.

Rumsey, F. ͑2001͒. Spatial Audio ͑Focal, Oxford͒.

Santillań, A. O. ͑2001͒. “Spatially extended sound equalization in rectangu-

lar rooms,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 1989–1997.

Schobben, D. W. E., and Aarts, R. M. ͑2005͒. “Personalized multi-channel

headphones sound reproduction based on active noise control,” Acust.

Acta Acust. 91, 440–449.

Spors, S., Kuntz, A., and Rabenstein, R. ͑2003͒. “An approach to listening

room compensation with wave ﬁeld synthesis,” Proceedings of the AES

24th International Conference, pp. 70–82.

Spors, S., Renk, M., and Rabenstein, R. ͑2005͒. “Limiting effects of active

room compensation using wave ﬁeld synthesis,” AES 118th Convention,

convention paper 6400.

Uto, S., and Hamada, H. ͑1995͒. “Transform domain adaptive audio equal-

izer for active control of sound ﬁeld,” Proceedings of Active 95.

Verheijen, E. N. G. ͑1997͒. Sound reproduction by wave ﬁeld synthesis,

Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft.

Williams, E. G., Houston, B. H., and Herdic, P. C. ͑2003͒. “Fast Fourier

transform and singular value decomposition formulations for patch near

ﬁeld acoustical holography,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114, 1322–1333.

Woszczyk, W., Cooperstock, J., Roston, J., and Martens, W. ͑2005͒. “Shake,

rattle, and roll: Getting immersed in multisensory, interactive music via

broadband networks.” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 53, 336–344.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 119, No. 5, May 2006 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Adaptive wave ﬁeld synthesis 2737