Adaptive wave field synthesis for active sound field reproduction

:
Experimental results
Philippe-Aubert Gauthier

and Alain Berry
Groupe d’Acoustique de l’Université de Sherbrooke, Université de Sherbrooke, 2500 boul. de l’Université,
Sherbrooke, Québec J1K 2R1, Canada
͑Received 31 May 2007; revised 28 January 2008; accepted 28 January 2008͒
Sound field reproduction has applications in music reproduction, spatial audio, sound environment
reproduction, and experimental acoustics. Sound field reproduction can be used to artificially
reproduce the spatial character of natural hearing. The 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. The room response thus reduces the
quality of the physical sound field reproduction by WFS. In recent research papers, adaptive wave
field synthesis ͑AWFS͒ was defined as a potential solution to compensate for these quality
reductions from which WFS objective performance suffers. In this paper, AWFS is experimentally
investigated as an active sound field reproduction system with a limited number of reproduction
error sensors to compensate for the response of the listening environment. Two digital signal
processing algorithms for AWFS are used for comparison purposes, one of which is based on
independent radiation mode control. AWFS performed propagating sound field reproduction better
than WFS in three tested reproduction spaces ͑hemianechoic chamber, standard laboratory space,
and reverberation chamber͒. © 2008 Acoustical Society of America. ͓DOI: 10.1121/1.2875844͔
PACS number͑s͒: 43.38.Md, 43.60.Tj, 43.50.Ki ͓AJZ͔ Pages: 1991–2002
I. INTRODUCTION
With the constantly evolving digital signal processing
and the relatively recent advent of multichannel audio, spa-
tial audio has gained more attention in the past decades from
researchers and practitioners for applications such as high-
fidelity sound reproduction, music reproduction, virtual real-
ity display, interactive multisensory environments, auraliza-
tion, and sound installations ͑Camurri and Ferrentino, 1999;
Epain et al., 2004; AES Staff Writer, 2005; Woszczyk et al.,
2005; Keller et al., 2006; Blesser and Salter, 2007͒. The in-
terest in immersion and convincing multisensory environ-
ments is not new ͑Grau, 2003͒ and various techniques for
spatial audio have been introduced in the past ͑Kendall,
1995; Verheijen, 1997; Poletti, 2000; Rumsey, 2001; Davis,
2003͒.
Within spatial sound, sound field reproduction methods
attempt to reproduce physical stimulus ͑wave field͒, thereby
avoiding any perceptual considerations in the implementa-
tion. Sound field reproduction was investigated by research-
ers in the past decades ͑Berkhout et al., 1993; Nelson et al.,
1997; Verheijen, 1997; Poletti, 2000; Choi and Kim, 2004;
Epain et al., 2004; Takane and Sone, 2004; Keller et al.,
2006͒. One of the most active and recent related matters is
room compensation ͑Spors et al., 2003; Gauthier et al.,
2005a; Betlehem and Abhayapala, 2005; Spors et al., 2005;
Fuster et al., 2005; Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒, which is es-
sential for sound field reproduction in a real reproduction
space on the basis of objective, physically measurable, per-
formances. This is especially true when acoustical treatment
of the reproduction space is not possible, like for sound field
reproduction in vehicle mock-ups where the visual reproduc-
tion of the original space is important.
This paper deals with the problem of sound pressure
field reproduction using adaptive digital signal processing
applied to adaptive wave field synthesis ͑AWFS͒ ͓originally
introduced by Gauthier et al. ͑2005b͔͒. More specifically it
validates by experiments the AWFS concept.
The concepts and results shown in this paper are not
limited to audio applications. Indeed, sound field reproduc-
tion may also be applied to experimental acoustics ͑Veit and
Sander, 1987; Bravo and Elliott, 2004͒, psychoacoustics
͑Epain et al., 2004; Keller et al., 2006͒, and sound environ-
ment reproduction or even used as a vibroacoustics design
tool. These are promising applications of sound field repro-
duction.
This paper is divided in four parts. In Sec. I, sound field
reproduction, WFS, and AWFS are described. The complete
experimental procedures and setups are described in Sec. II.
Results of experiments with AWFS are then reported in Sec.
III for three different reproduction spaces. Section IV dis-
cusses the results and exposes our conclusions.
A. Sound field reproduction
The main objective of sound field reproduction can be
generally stated as the aim to recreate a given acoustical
property of the sound field, such as sound pressure, sound
intensity ͑Choi and Kim, 2004; Merimaa and Pulkki, 2005͒,
spatial diffuseness ͑Merimaa and Pulkki, 2005͒, etc., over an
extended region of space. This can be achieved using a re-
production system including electroacoustical sources and
receivers, signal processing, and the desired physical target

Electronic mail: philippeគaubertគgauthier@hotmail.com
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123 ͑4͒, April 2008 © 2008 Acoustical Society of America 1991 0001-4966/2008/123͑4͒/1991/12/$23.00
description. In several of these cases, use of adaptive filtering
implies the minimization of a cost function which is repre-
sentative of this reproduction objective ͑Gauthier et al.,
2005a; Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒. Adaptive signal process-
ing for spatial sound reproduction has been considered in
various forms by researchers ͑Asano and Swanson, 1995;
Takane et al., 1999; Radlović et al., 2000; Santillań, 2001;
Epain et al., 2004; Choi and Kim, 2004; Gauthier et al.,
2005b; Spors et al., 2005; Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒.
B. Wave field synthesis
WFS research started with the theoretical propositions
by Berkhout ͑Berkhout et al., 1993; Verheijen, 1997; Start et
al., 1999͒. From the simple source formulation of the
Kirchhoff–Helmholtz integral theorem ͑Williams, 1999͒,
WFS operators are designed to “link” a given simple virtual
source ͑typically creating spherical or plane wave in an hori-
zontal plane, the listening plane͒, fed by a monophonic sig-
nal, to a loudspeaker array which reproduces the acoustic
field of the virtual source ͑that is the target, or virtual, sound
field͒. A schematic and simplified representation of the prob-
lem is shown in Fig. 1. The problem is usually limited to
reproduction in the horizontal plane with a finite number of
discrete reproduction sources using appropriate simplifica-
tions of the integral formulation ͑Verheijen, 1997͒. WFS
studies have investigated: spatial aliasing ͑de Vries et al.,
1994; Start et al., 1995; Spors and Rabenstein, 2006; Corteel,
2006a͒, objective performance, room effect, ͑Klehs and
Sporer, 2003; Sporer and Klehs, 2004͒, acoustic room com-
pensation ͑Spors et al., 2003, 2005; Fuster et al., 2005͒, WFS
equalization ͑Corteel, 2006b͒, and more.
On one hand, the benefit of current WFS prototypes is
their effectiveness in transmitting a spatial impression ͑in
terms of sound localization͒ over a broad area surrounded by
loudspeakers. On the other hand, WFS drawbacks are related
to the definition of the synthesis operators: The reproduction
room response or electroacoustical system limits ͑Corteel,
2006b͒ are not considered in the definition of WFS. The
typical WFS system is consequently based on an open-loop
architecture assuming a free field as the reproduction space.
Active room compensation or system equalization for WFS
is an active research topic for objective sound field reproduc-
tion in real room ͑Elliott and Nelson, 1989; Asano and
Swanson, 1995; Bouchard and Quednau, 2000; Santillań
2001; Spors et al., 2003; Gauthier et al., 2005b; Spors et al.,
2005; Fuster et al., 2005; Corteel, 2006b͒.
To lighten the present paper, which focuses on experi-
mental results, the readers are referred to Verheijen ͑1997͒
for a more detailed review of WFS. A complete description
of WFS adapted to the specific problem of AWFS was pub-
lished by Gauthier and Berry ͑2006͒.
C. Adaptive wave field synthesis and independent
radiation mode control
In a recent paper ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒, AWFS was
suggested as a practical compromise between WFS and ac-
tive room compensation that usually requires a large amount
of sensors. AWFS is based on a cost function to be mini-
mized. Although implemented here in a specific configura-
tion, the AWFS concept described by this cost function can
readily be applied to any configuration. The cost function is
a quadratic function of: ͑1͒ the reproduction errors and ͑2͒
the adaptive filters departure from the WFS solution ͓ex-
pressed as a set of finite impulse response ͑FIR͒ filter coef-
ficients͔. The penalization of the departure from the WFS
filters is what makes AWFS original in comparison with
other research done on sound field reproduction using active
noise control techniques. The interest of such an approach
stems from a simple observation: The direct sound field re-
produced by WFS approaches the virtual sound field
͑Gauthier and Berry, 2007͒ and then allows for proper sound
localization ͓on the basis of precedence effect ͑Blauert,
1999͔͒. Accordingly, WFS can be taken as a starting point or
an a priori solution for the adaptive algorithm which will
minimize the reproduction errors caused by the room re-
sponse. Moreover, the weighted penalization of any depar-
ture from the WFS solution may prevent the degradation of
sound localization since it limits the contribution of the sec-
ondary sources which are normally not activated by the WFS
solution, given the fact that the WFS solution already con-
tains spatial information that cannot be completely measured
using a limited number of error microphones. For example,
when using more reproduction sources than error sensors, the
WFS solution contributes to the proper reconstruction of the
direct sound field outside the control region defined by the
error sensor locations ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒. Finally,
this penalization, which is controlled by a set of penalization
parameters, can be used to control the balance between a
purely WFS solution and a “closed-loop realization of Am-
bisonics sound field reproduction” ͑Gauthier and Berry,
2006͒.
This specific definition of a cost function for a multi-
channel adaptive system leads to a simple modification of the
leaky filtered-reference least-mean-square ͑FXLMS͒ algo-
rithm ͑Elliott, 2001͒. The modification is the inclusion of the
WFS solution in the adaptation rule. Here, we will refer to
modified FXLMS for AWFS when this algorithm is used.
Via the singular value decomposition ͑SVD͒ of the plant
matrix ͓frequency response functions ͑FRFs͒ between repro-
FIG. 1. Term convention for WFS definition. The virtual source is located in
x
0
. 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.
1992 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis
duction sources and error sensors͔ involved in AWFS, it was
shown that the underlying AWFS mechanism is the indepen-
dent control of radiation modes ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒
using plant decoupling. It is also related to the Principal-
Components LMS ͑PC-LMS͒ algorithm ͑Cabell and Fuller,
1999͒. This suggested a practical implementation of AWFS
signal processing which had already been textually described
by Gauthier and Berry ͑2006͒. ͓This reference on signal pro-
cessing for AWFS should suffice for the purpose of this pa-
per, see also Gauthier and Berry ͑2008͔͒. In the case of
AWFS based on independent radiation mode control, a set of
analysis filters is used to transform the sound pressure in the
SVD basis and a set of synthesis filters is used to create the
loudspeaker signals from the SVD basis. In this transformed
domain a set of single-channel independent adaptive filters
operate to control each radiation mode individually. This re-
duces the computational burden and allows for a fine tuning
of the convergence properties of the algorithm ͑i.e., indepen-
dent fine tuning of the radiation modes convergence proper-
ties͒. Adaptive sound reproduction using plant decoupling
via SVD was already proposed by Bai and Elliott ͑2004͒ via
simulations for cross-talk cancellation. The main differences
between Bai’s work and the present paper are ͑1͒ the experi-
mental application to sound field reproduction, ͑2͒ further
considerations for the proper construction of the synthesis
and analysis filters from a signal processing perspective, and
͑3͒ the inclusion of an a priori solution ͑the WFS solution͒.
The inclusion of the WFS solution in the cost function
͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒ significantly changes the algo-
rithm since the WFS solution must be projected on the SVD
basis ͑radiation mode synthesis filters and nullspace synthe-
sis filters͒. The proper construction of the synthesis and
analysis filters is also what make this paper on AWFS origi-
nal. Moreover, this construction of the synthesis and analysis
filters had proven to be of critical importance for the efficient
projection of the WFS solution on the SVD basis. However,
such detailed considerations for signal processing are beyond
the scope of this paper.
In this paper, the performance of AWFS based on modi-
fied FXLMS and independent radiation mode control algo-
rithms is derived from experiments with a real AWFS system
in three different acoustical situations. This paper therefore
validates the AWFS concepts, previously investigated in
theory ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒. See Elliott ͑2001͒ for a
general review on adaptive filtering for active noise control
and sound field reproduction.
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL
A. Experimental setups
The tested system includes 24 reproduction sources and
4 reproduction error sensors. The complete system is shown
in Fig. 2. The reproduction sources create a 2-m-diam circu-
lar array in the horizontal plane. Sources are separated by
26 cm, thus giving an approximate minimal spatial aliasing
frequency of 634 Hz ͑␭/ 2=26 cm, where ␭ is the acoustical
wavelength͒ ͑Spors and Rabenstein, 2006͒. This minimal
spatial aliasing frequency gives the frequency range of focus
for the experiments. Above the spatial aliasing frequency, the
sound field reconstruction is impossible over the reproduc-
tion region. The error microphones form a cross, in the same
horizontal plane as the reproduction sources, and their sepa-
ration distance along x
1
and x
2
axes is 17.5 cm. Sources and
sensors stand 1.22 m above the floor.
The loudspeakers are studio monitors ͑amplified two-
way cabinets͒. The error sensors are 1/ 4 in. electret micro-
phones. For the off-line broadband AWFS implementation,
the loudspeakers and the microphones are connected to a
signal conditioner and a computer using a sound card ͑24
analog inputs and 24 analog outputs͒. In this setup, the
AWFS signal processing operates off-line. The setup is sche-
matically shown in Fig. 3͑a͒. For the second setup involving
harmonic target wave fields, the loudspeakers and micro-
phones are connected to reconstruction and antialiasing fil-
ters ͑440 Hz low-pass, eighth order, Butterworth͒, respec-
tively, before being connected to a digital signal processing
station used for on-line harmonic AWFS. The station is built
around a Texas Instrument TMS320C40 floating point digital
12
11
13
10
14
9
15
8
16
... 8
7
17
x
2
6
18
5
19
1 ...
4
20
3
21
2
22
1
23
24
2
m
x
1
Sources
Error sensors
Monitoring sensors
Sources: 24
Sensors: 4
FIG. 2. Schematic AWFS setup made of 24 reproduction sources, 4 repro-
duction error sensors, and 8 monitoring sensors. ͑᭝͒ Typical virtual source
position.
FIG. 3. Schematic representation of the AWFS instrumentations, ͑a͒ Broad-
band and ͑b͒ harmonic.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis 1993
signal processor. The setup is shown in Fig. 3͑b͒. The experi-
mental methods differ for these two setups. The system is
pictured in Fig. 4.
B. Methods of experiments
Two types of reproduction methods and experiments are
reported. As for the first type, the AWFS algorithms operate
off-line. In this case, the experimental procedure is: ͑1͒ iden-
tification of the plant impulse responses ͑from all reproduc-
tion sources to all error sensors͒. Sweep-sine identification
was used to cover from 0 to 600 Hz. The number of coeffi-
cients varies according to the reproduction environment. ͑2͒
Off-line running, by simulation, of the AWFS algorithms tex-
tually described by Gauthier and Berry ͑2006͒. ͑3͒ Render-
ing, with the real electroacoustical system, of the AWFS so-
lution after convergence of the control filters. ͑4͒
Measurement of the reproduced sound fields. The reproduced
sound field measurements are based on reproduced impulse
responses ͓from the reference signal to the eight monitor
microphones ͑see Fig. 2͔͒. Broadband AWFS results shown
in Sec. III include measurements of the reproduced sound
fields using swept sines.
As for the second type of reproduction methods and ex-
periments, the objective is to evaluate the performance of
AWFS with an on-line adaptation system. To reach this goal,
several practical trade-offs are included to reduce the com-
putational burden so that on-line adaptation can be per-
formed using the available hardware. In the case of harmonic
sound field reproduction, all the AWFS filters ͑including
adaptive filters, target operators, synthesis, and analysis fil-
ters͒ are implemented using two-coefficient FIR filters. The
algorithm then approaches the PC-LMS algorithm ͑Cabell
and Fuller, 1999͒ with a supplementary penalization term
and an a priori solution. In this very specific situation, the
computational load is drastically reduced and on-line adap-
tation is possible using the algorithms as textually described
by Gauthier and Berry ͑2006͒.
For both types of AWFS realization, the convergence
coefficients used in the adaptive algorithms are set near the
maximum values, which guaranteed stability and conver-
gence of the adaptation.
III. AWFS EXPERIMENTS
A. Acoustical characteristics of the reproduction
rooms
The three reproduction environments were selected to
cover a large spectrum of reverberation properties. These en-
vironments are: ͑1͒ a hemianechoic chamber, ͑2͒ a standard
laboratory space, and ͑3͒ a reverberation chamber.
The hemianechoic chamber ͑Fig. 4͒ has a volume of
125 m
3
͑6.55ϫ6.25ϫ3.05 m͒ with a floor surface of 41 m
2
.
A typical frequency response function ͑FRF͒ ͑transfer func-
tion between a reproduction source and an error microphone͒
is shown in Fig. 5. In this situation, the FRFs are smooth and
the dip around 310 Hz is created by the destructive interfer-
ence with the floor reflection at this frequency. In the hemi-
anechoic chamber, the error sensor signals are mostly domi-
nated by the direct sound field of the reproduction sources.
The volume of the standard laboratory space is 469 m
3
͑8.23ϫ14.02ϫ4.06 m͒ with a floor surface of 115 m
2
. The
typical FRF shown in Fig. 5 is more complex and shows
various dips. The reverberation radius ͑the distance from the
source at which the sound pressure level of the direct sound
field is equal to the sound pressure level of the diffuse sound
field͒ was estimated to be more than 1.4 m with broadband
noise ͑audio bandwidth͒. The approximation of the rever-
beration radius is derived from the spatial sound pressure
level decay curve from an omnidirectional loudspeaker array.
The mean curve was estimated from four measurement lines
in the horizontal plane ͑1.22 m above the floor͒ randomly
selected in the room. From the mean curve, the sound source
power level is computed from the measured direct sound
field using a curve fitting with a theoretical free-field decay
curve. The homogeneous reverberation level is evaluated
from the last part of the decay curve. The approximation of
the reverberation radius is then derived from the crossing of
this homogeneous level and the theoretical free-field decay
curve for the approximated sound source power level. Given
a reverberation radius of more than 1.4 m in this laboratory
space, the error sensors ͑at 1 m of the reproduction sources͒
are exposed to the direct sound field of the reproduction
source and the field reflected by the room walls with a well-
balanced proportion ͑in comparison with the hemianechoic
space͒.
FIG. 4. Experimental AWFS setup in the hemianechoic chamber.
0 50 95 160 220 310 400 440 500
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Freq. [Hz]
G
a
i
n
(
d
B
r
e
f
.
1
)
Hemi-anechoic chamber
Reverberant chamber
Arbitrary laboratory space
FIG. 5. Typical identified FRFs ͑from a reproduction source to an error
microphone͒ in the hemianechoic chamber, standard laboratory space, and
reverberation chamber.
1994 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis
The volume of the reverberation chamber is 142 m
3
with a floor surface of 46.5 m
2
͑7.5ϫ6.2ϫ3.05 m͒. Several
sheets of damping material were placed in corners of the
room to reduce the excessively long reverberation time. The
typical FRF shown in Fig. 5 has gains that vary strongly with
frequency and the transitions from frequency to frequency
are very sharp. The reverberation radius was estimated to be
between 0.45 and 0.51 m for broadband signal. Therefore, in
this highly reverberant space, the error sensors are mostly
exposed to the diffuse sound field of the reproduction
sources. This is an hostile environment both for WFS and
AWFS.
B. Hemianechoic space
1. Broadband AWFS
The broadband off-line demonstration of AWFS is inter-
esting because it validates the complete AWFS concept, as
described in previous papers ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒. The
broadband nature of the off-line system places a general
point of view on the results.
In a preliminary stage, the system FRFs are identified
using swept sines with an average over 200 realizations. The
resulting impulse responses include 256 coefficients. The
sampling rate is 1200 Hz for all the broadband experiments.
Using the identified plant, the modified FXLMS algorithm
can readily be applied ͑Elliott, 2001; Gauthier and Berry,
2006͒.
The independent radiation mode control implementation
requires an additional initialization step. Singular value de-
composition of the system plant in the frequency domain is
achieved as textually described by Gauthier and Berry
͑2006͒ for each frequency. This gives the radiation modes
͑source modes, singular values, and pressure modes͒ at each
frequency. Radiation mode reordering and phase optimiza-
tion algorithms are then applied in the frequency domain to
smooth the source and pressure mode phase responses. This
creates a novelty in comparison with Bai’s work with broad-
band plant decoupling ͑Bai and Elliott, 2004͒. Inverse
discrete-time Fourier transform is then applied to obtain the
synthesis filters and analysis filters ͑to move to and from the
SVD basis͒ in the time domain for AWFS based on indepen-
dent radiation mode control. Note that using such synthesis
and analysis filters, the plant is uncoupled but not whitened.
The synthesis filters ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒ for the first
four source modes are shown in Fig. 6. Each group of syn-
thesis filters ͑there are 4 groups of 24 filters͒ produces one of
the source modes at the reproduction source array. The
analysis filters for the four pressure modes are shown in Fig.
7. Each group of analysis filters ͑there are 4 groups of 4
filters͒ transforms the physical acoustical pressures in the
pressure mode basis ͑SVD basis͒. Interestingly, the synthesis
and analysis filters show a sharp concentrated time response:
Time leakage is reduced in comparison with SVD filters pre-
sented by Bai and Elliott ͑2004͒, thanks to the radiation
modes reordering and to the phase optimization algorithms.
Figure 8 shows the reproduced impulse responses ͑from
the virtual source to the monitoring sensor array shown in
Fig. 2͒ for WFS. The transfer function units are 1/ m ͓sound
pressure ͑Pa͒ divided by virtual monopole amplitude
͑Pa m͔͒. The virtual source is a spherical source located at
x
o
=͓0, 4, 0͔ m. Clearly, the direct field of the reproduced
impulse responses approaches the target impulse responses.
After the direct wave front passage, the reflection from the
floor appears and instants later the low frequency echo of the
50 100 150 200 250
-0.2
-0.1
0
A
m
p
.
Source mode #1
50 100 150 200 250
-0.1
0
0.1
A
m
p
.
Source mode #2
50 100 150 200 250
-0.1
0
0.1
A
m
p
.
Source mode #3
1 64 128 192 256
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
A
m
p
.
Source mode #4
Samples
FIG. 6. First synthesis filters ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒ in the time domain
for source modes 1–4 in the hemianechoic chamber. Each plot includes 24
synthesis filters to create the given source mode with 24 reproduction
sources. Each filter includes 256 coefficients.
50 100 150 200 250
-0.2
0
0.2
A
m
p
.
Pressure mode #1
50 100 150 200 250
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
A
m
p
.
Pressure mode #2
50 100 150 200 250
-0.2
0
0.2
A
m
p
.
Pressure mode #3
1 64 128 192 256
-0.2
0
0.2
A
m
p
.
Pressure mode #4
Samples
FIG. 7. Analysis filters ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒ in the time domain for
pressure modes 1–4 in the hemianechoic chamber. Each plot includes 4
analysis filters to catch the pressure mode with 4 pressure sensors. Each
filter includes 256 coefficients.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis 1995
hemianechoic chamber impinges the monitoring array. This
echo is caused by the chamber which is hemianechoic only
above 150 Hz. Moreover, another physical imperfection of
the WFS reproduced sound field appears: The direct wave
front has an undesirable coloration ͑the impulse is spread
over two or three samples, passing from positive to negative
values͒, possibly caused by the loudspeaker response or the
WFS approximations.
The convergence coefficient was set to 0.00001 for the
modified FXLMS algorithm. The convergence coefficient
͑␣
m
͒, for the independent radiation mode control algorithm,
were set to ␣
1
=0.0001, ␣
2
=␣
3
=0.0004, and ␣
4
=0.002 for
the four radiation modes, where the subscript indicates the
radiation mode number. The penalization parameter for the
FXLMS algorithm was set to ␭=20 ͑Gauthier and Berry,
2006͒. The penalization parameters for the AWFS based on
independent radiation mode control were ␭
1
=2, ␭
2
=␭
3
=0.2
and ␭
4
=0.1.
The impulse responses reproduced by AWFS are shown
in Fig. 9͑a͒ by FXLMS and Fig. 9͑b͒ by independent radia-
tion mode control. Clearly, the imperfections of WFS shown
in Fig. 8 are partly corrected by AWFS even outside the error
sensor array ͓note that the two central monitors ͑see Fig. 2͒
correspond to two of the error sensors͔. Both the modified
FXLMS and independent radiation mode control algorithms
reduce these imperfections. The floor reflection is attenuated
and the low frequency echo disappears from the sound field
reproduced by AWFS. Moreover, the direct sound field re-
produced by AWFS is closer to the target wave field than the
sound field reproduced by WFS. Therefore, AWFS compen-
sates for the room effects, for the loudspeaker colorations,
and for some classical WFS approximations which introduce
supplementary physical errors in the reproduced sound field.
According to Fig. 9, the independent radiation mode
control algorithm ͓Fig. 9͑b͔͒ achieves a better sound field
reproduction than the FXLMS algorithm ͓Fig. 9͑a͔͒ at the
farther monitoring sensors. This is visible for the direct
sound field reproduced by independent radiation mode con-
trol, in which case the negative sign excursion of the impulse
responses one or two samples after the direct wave front
passage is drastically reduced for nearly all monitoring sen-
sors. This is due to the ability to fine tune each of the radia-
tion modes with the independent radiation mode controller
realization of AWFS. In the FXLMS case, the higher-order
radiation modes are often far too penalized and their possible
beneficial contribution in the sound field reproduction pro-
cess is greatly diminished. Further explanations are pre-
sented in Sec. III D.
A different representation of the results allows for a gen-
eral comparison between WFS and the two AWFS algo-
rithms in terms of the reproduction error reduction as a func-
tion of space. Figure 10 shows the normalized energies of the
reproduction errors at each of the monitoring microphones.
They are computed from the differences between the virtual
and reproduced impulse responses ͑IRs͒ shown in Figs. 8
and 9 and from others IRs measured for different virtual
source positions. The normalized energies are computed as
the sums of the quadratic error signals ͑differences between
virtual IRs and reproduced IRs in the time domain͒ over the
length of the IRs normalized by the total quadratic sum of
the virtual IR, divided by the number of monitoring micro-
phones. The normalization is thus achieved through division
by the mean virtual IR energy at the monitoring micro-
phones. According to the results shown in Fig. 10, the AWFS
algorithms reduce on average the reproduction errors in com-
parison with WFS by controlling the reproduction errors at
the four error sensors ͑two of which are monitors 4 and 5͒.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
-0.5
0
0.5
I
m
p
.
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
[
1
/
m
]
Time [s]
Direct and target
wave fronts
Floor
reflection
Low frequency
reflection
Monitor no
FIG. 8. Reproduced ͑thick gray lines͒ and virtual ͑thin black lines͒ impulse
responses at the monitoring sensor array ͑shown in Fig. 2͒ for WFS with the
system in the hemianechoic chamber.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
-0.5
0
0.5
Monitor no Time [s]
I
m
p
.
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
[
1
/
m
]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.3
-0.5
0
0.5
Monitor no Time [s]
I
m
p
.
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
[
1
/
m
]
(a)
(b)
FIG. 9. Reproduced ͑thick gray lines͒ and virtual ͑thin black lines͒ impulse
responses at the monitoring sensor array ͑shown in Fig. 2͒ for AWFS ͓͑a͒
FXLMS algorithm with a penalization parameter set to 20 and ͑b͒ indepen-
dent radiation mode control͔ with the system in the hemianechoic chamber.
1996 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis
AWFS based on independent radiation mode control effec-
tively provides a larger reproduction region since the higher-
order modes are included in the controller in that case. Note
that the size of the effective control region is also blurred by
this type of representation which includes all the frequencies.
AWFS by modified FXLMS provides a significant reproduc-
tion error reduction at the two central monitoring micro-
phones, but the reproduction errors are not more important
for the other monitoring microphones. AWFS performs better
than WFS for all the reported virtual source positions.
2. Harmonic AWFS and radiation modes at 220 Hz
Harmonic AWFS results in the hemianechoic space, not
reported in this paper for the sake of brevity, were in agree-
ment with the broadband results described in Sec. III B.2. To
support previous propositions ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒
concerning the shapes of the radiation modes, Fig. 11 pre-
sents the four pressure modes at the error sensor array.
Clearly, these pressure modes correspond to finite approxi-
mations of pressure, pressure gradients, and crossed second-
order spatial derivative. Accordingly, the interpretation of
AWFS based on independent radiation mode control ͑or in-
dependent control of pressure, pressure gradients, and
crossed second-order spatial derivative͒ originally presented
by Gauthier and Berry ͑2006͒ is supported by this experi-
ment. This also explains why, in the broadband experiments,
the size of the control region is larger for the AWFS algo-
rithm based on independent radiation mode control which
allows the higher-order radiation modes to converge. More
detailed harmonic AWFS experiments are reported in Sec.
III C.
C. Laboratory space and reverberation chamber
The following summarizes the results obtained for the
laboratory space and the reverberation chamber. As these two
reproduction environments enhance the room effect on WFS,
only parts of the results are shown to support the effective-
ness of AWFS to compensate for the room effect.
1. Broadband AWFS
Since the rooms’ IRs were longer than for the hemi-
anechoic space, the identified IRs and control filters were
selected to have 512 coefficients for the laboratory space and
1024 for the reverberation chamber with an average over 200
realizations. The resulting synthesis and analysis filters are
shown in Figs. 12 and 13 for the laboratory space. Once
again, a phase optimization algorithm is applied in the fre-
quency domain to smooth the source and pressure modes’
phase responses before inverse discrete-time Fourier trans-
form. Moreover, a bandpass filter ͑fourth-order Butterworth,
60–540 Hz͒ is applied to all synthesis and analysis filters to
reduce DC components that tend to appear in long SVD
filters. Clearly the responses of the synthesis and analysis
filters are longer than for the hemianechoic room. These fil-
ters are again concentrated impulses and show a reduced
time leakage, thanks to the phase optimization and radiation
modes’ reordering algorithms which avoid any abrupt phase
or gain transitions in the frequency domain before inverse
discrete-time Fourier transform.
Measured impulse responses reproduced by classical
WFS are shown in Fig. 14 for the laboratory space and in
Fig. 15 for the reverberation chamber. The difference be-
-0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6
10
-1
10
0
Normalized energies of the errors
-0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6
10
-1
10
0
-0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6
10
-1
10
0
-0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6
10
-1
10
0
x
1
[m]
Position #1
Position #2
Position #3
Position #4
FIG. 10. Normalized energies of the error signals at each monitoring micro-
phone for four virtual source positions in the hemianechoic chamber. Posi-
tion 1: x
o
=͓0, 4, 0͔ m, position 2: x
o
=͓−4, 0, 0͔ m, position 3: x
0
=͓0, 1.5, 0͔ m, and position 4: x
0
=͓−1.19, −0.91, 0͔ m. ͑ᮀ͒ WFS errors;
͑᭺͒ errors of AWFS by FXLMS; and ͑ϫ͒ errors of AWFS by independent
radiation mode control.
Pressure mode 1 Pressure mode 2
Pressure mode 3 Pressure mode 4
FIG. 11. Measured pressure modes at 220 Hz in the hemianechoic chamber.
͑…͒ Sensor position; ͑᭺͒ positive real part; ͑ ͒ negative real part; ͑ϩ͒
positive imaginary part; and ͑ϫ͒ negative imaginary part. Symbol diameter
illustrates the magnitude of the corresponding value. ͑---͒: Corresponding
computed free-field directivity.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis 1997
tween the WFS reproduced sound field and the virtual sound
field at the monitor sensor array is increased when compared
with WFS in the hemianechoic room.
AWFS was tested to reduce the reproduction errors at
the four error microphones. The convergence coefficient was
set to 0.000002, and the penalization parameter was set to 30
for AWFS by FXLMS in laboratory space. The individual
convergence coefficients were set to ␣
1
=0.0000075, ␣
2
=␣
3
=0.00003, and ␣
4
=0.00015, and the penalization parameters
were set to ␭
1
=2, ␭
2
=␭
3
=0.2, and ␭
4
=0.1 for AWFS by
independent radiation mode control in the laboratory. The
convergence coefficient was set to 0.0000005, and the penal-
ization parameter was set to 0 for AWFS by FXLMS in the
reverberation chamber. The individual convergence coeffi-
cients were ␣
1
=0.0000125, ␣
2
=␣
3
=0.00005, and ␣
4
=0.00025, and the penalization parameters were set to ␭
m
=0 for AWFS by independent radiation mode control in the
reverberation chamber. Although the penalization parameters
are set to zero in the reverberation chamber, the WFS solu-
tion still contributes to the AWFS solution because the adap-
tive filters are initialized with the WFS solution. The conver-
gence coefficients are smaller than for the hemianechoic case
because the size of the control filters is increased.
The reproduced impulse responses by AWFS are shown
in Figs. 16 and 17 ͓Figs. 16͑a͒ and 17͑a͒ for AWFS by FX-
LMS and Figs. 16͑b͒ and 17͑b͒ for AWFS by independent
radiation mode control͔. The imperfections of WFS shown in
Figs. 14 and 15 are partly corrected by AWFS even outside
the error sensor array. Both the modified FXLMS and inde-
pendent radiation mode control algorithms reduce these im-
perfections for the two reproduction spaces. Remarkably, the
100 200 300 400 500
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
A
m
p
.
Source mode #1
100 200 300 400 500
-0.05
0
0.05
A
m
p
.
Source mode #2
100 200 300 400 500
-0.04
0
0.04
A
m
p
.
Source mode #3
1 128 256 384 512
-0.1
0
0.1
A
m
p
.
Source mode #4
Samples
FIG. 12. First synthesis filters ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒ in the time do-
main for source modes 1–4 in the laboratory space. Each plot includes 24
synthesis filters to create the given source mode with 24 reproduction
sources. Each filter includes 512 coefficients.
100 200 300 400 500
0
0.2
0.4
A
m
p
.
Pressure mode #1
100 200 300 400 500
-0.2
0
0.2
A
m
p
.
Pressure mode #2
100 200 300 400 500
-0.1
0
0.1
A
m
p
.
Pressure mode #3
1 128 256 384 512
-0.4
0
0.4
A
m
p
.
Pressure mode #4
Samples
FIG. 13. Analysis filters ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒ in the time domain for
pressure modes 1–4 in the laboratory space. Each plot includes 4 analysis
filters to catch the pressure mode with 4 pressure sensors. Each filter in-
cludes 512 coefficients.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
-0.5
0
0.5
Monitor no Time [s]
I
m
p
.
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
[
1
/
m
]
Direct wave front
Floor
reflection
FIG. 14. Reproduced ͑thick gray lines͒ and virtual ͑thin black lines͒ impulse
responses at the monitoring sensor array ͑shown in Fig. 2͒ for WFS with the
system in the laboratory space.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
-0.5
0
0.5
Monitor no Time [s]
I
m
p
.
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
[
1
/
m
]
FIG. 15. Reproduced ͑thick gray lines͒ and virtual ͑thin black lines͒ impulse
responses at the monitoring sensor array ͑shown in Fig. 2͒ for WFS with the
system in the reverberation chamber.
1998 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis
room compensation is achieved over a wide time range.
Again, more than simply reducing the undesirable room ef-
fect in the reproduced sound field, AWFS more closely re-
produces the direct sound field than WFS.
The normalized energies of the errors at each of the
monitor microphones are shown in Fig. 18 for the laboratory
space. The AWFS algorithms reduce on average the repro-
duction errors in comparison with WFS by controlling the
reproduction errors at the four error sensors. AWFS based on
independent radiation mode control gives a larger reproduc-
tion region as the higher-order radiation modes ͑typically
corresponding to higher-order spatial derivatives͒ are in-
cluded in the controller in that case. This again highlights the
benefits of AWFS based on independent radiation mode con-
trol. AWFS performs better than WFS for all the reported
virtual source positions. Similar results were obtained for the
reverberation chamber with different virtual source positions.
2. Harmonic AWFS
The harmonic AWFS results are only reported for the
laboratory space. Consistent results were obtained for the
reverberation chamber. According to the typical FRF shown
in Fig. 5, the following frequencies were selected for on-line
AWFS: 133, 160, 220, 280, 340, and 400 Hz.
Examples of pressure modes are shown for 220 Hz in
Fig. 19. Again the radiation modes approach simple multi-
pole directivity patterns: monopole, two orthogonal dipoles,
and tesseral quadrupole at the sensor array.
The convergence coefficient was set to 0.01 for all fre-
quencies while the penalization parameter was fixed to 1
͑except at 133 and 160 Hz where they were set to 0.0005 and
0.005, respectively͒ for AWFS by the modified FXLMS al-
gorithm. The convergence coefficients and penalization pa-
rameters for the AWFS algorithm based on independent ra-
diation mode control were then adjusted to reach a roughly
similar residual error level ͑at the error sensors͒ than for the
FXLMS algorithm. However, each higher-order radiation
modes were less penalized than for the FXLMS algorithm
͑when possible͒ to increase the performance outside the error
sensor location ͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒. This was
achieved using either ␭
m
=␭ or ␭
m+1
Ͻ␭
m
. The coefficients
are shown in Table I.
The results are summarized in Fig. 20, for a virtual
source in x
o
=͓0, 4, 0͔ m, where the color axis represents the
E
LS
normalized criterion at each of the monitor positions
along x
1
. The criterion E
LS
is the moving average of the
quadratic sum of the reproduction errors normalized by the
quadratic sum of the target signals at the monitor sensors. As
one can note, the WFS performance is reduced in compari-
son with the other algorithms. As for the hemianechoic re-
sults, using the FXLMS algorithm, the error is effectively
reduced near the error sensors. However, as frequency in-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
-0.5
0
0.5
Monitor no Time [s]
I
m
p
.
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
[
1
/
m
]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.46
0.48
0.5
-0.5
0
0.5
Monitor no Time [s]
I
m
p
.
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
[
1
/
m
]
(a)
(b)
FIG. 16. Reproduced ͑thick gray lines͒ and virtual ͑thin black lines͒ impulse
responses at the monitoring sensor array ͑shown in Fig. 2͒ for AWFS ͓͑a͒
FXLMS algorithm with a penalization parameter set to 20 and ͑b͒ indepen-
dent radiation mode control͔ with the system in the laboratory space.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
-0.5
0
0.5
Monitor no Time [s]
I
m
p
.
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
[
1
/
m
]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
-0.5
0
0.5
Monitor no Time [s]
I
m
p
.
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
[
1
/
m
]
(a)
(b)
FIG. 17. Reproduced ͑thick gray lines͒ and virtual ͑thin black lines͒ impulse
responses at the monitoring sensor array ͑shown in Fig. 2͒ for AWFS ͓͑a͒
FXLMS algorithm with ␭=0 and ͑b͒ independent radiation mode control
with ␭
m
=0͔ with the system in the reverberation chamber.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis 1999
creases, this control region is spatially reduced. This is in
accordance with typical active noise control results. AWFS
based on independent radiation mode control advantageously
produces, as shown in Fig. 20, a larger control region since
the higher-order radiation modes ͓which typically imply
higher-order spatial derivatives at the error sensor array ͑see
Fig. 19͔͒ are allowed to converge.
D. Importance of the higher-order radiation modes
The importance of the higher-order radiation modes is
highlighted by a specific set of experiments. The size of the
active sound field reproduction effective region is shown in
Fig. 21 in relation to the acoustic wavelength. In Fig. 21,
several harmonic AWFS results with the WFS solution
forced to zero are presented for a harmonic wave field at
400 Hz in the laboratory space. The WFS solution is forced
to zero to illustrate only the effects of the individual radiation
modes. Clearly, when AWFS based on independent radiation
mode control includes only one radiation mode, the results
correspond to AWFS by FXLMS. When the number of
-0.6 0.3 0 0.3 0.6
10
-1
10
0
Normalized energies of the errors
-0.6 0.3 0 0.3 0.6
10
-1
10
0
-0.6 0.3 0 0.3 0.6
10
-1
10
0
0.3 0 0.3 0.6
10
0
-0.6 0.3 0 0.3 0.6
10
-1
10
0
x
1
[m]
Position #1
Position #2
Position #3
Position #5
FIG. 18. Normalized energies of the error signals at each monitoring micro-
phone for four virtual source positions in the laboratory space. Position 1:
x
o
=͓0, 4, 0͔ m, position 2: x
o
=͓−4, 0, 0͔ m, position 3: x
o
=͓0, 1.5, 0͔ m,
and position 5: x
o
=͓2.8289, −2.8234, 0͔ m. ͑ᮀ͒ WFS errors; ͑᭺͒ errors of
AWFS by FXLMS; and ͑ϫ͒ errors of AWFS by independent radiation mode
control.
Pressure mode 1 Pressure mode 2
Pressure mode 3 Pressure mode 4
FIG. 19. Measured pressure modes at 220 Hz in the laboratory. ͑…͒ Sensor
position; ͑᭺͒ positive real part; ͑ ͒, negative real part; ͑ϩ͒ positive imagi-
nary part; and ͑ϫ͒ negative imaginary part. Symbol diameter illustrates the
magnitude of the corresponding value. ͑---͒ Corresponding computed free-
field directivity.
TABLE I. Convergence coefficients ͑␣
m
͒ and regularization parameters ͑␭
m
͒
for harmonic AWFS based on independent radiation mode control in labo-
ratory space.
Freq. ͑Hz͒ ␣
m

m
133 0.01, 0.1, 0.1, 0.5 0.1, 0.01, 0.01, 0.001
160 0.02, 0.1, 0.1, 0.5 0.1, 0.01, 0.01, 0.001
220 0.02, 0.2, 0.2, 0.5 0.1, 0.01, 0.01, 0.001
280 0.02, 0.1, 0.1, 0.5 0.1, 0.01, 0.01, 0.0005
340 0.02, 0.1, 0.1, 0.5 0.1, 0.01, 0.01, 0.001
400 0.02, 0.1, 0.1, 0.5 0.1, 0.01, 0.01, 0.001
-0.5
0
0.5
133160 220 280 340 400
WFS
x
1
[
m
]
-0.5
0
0.5
133160 220 280 340 400
AWFS by FXLMS
-0.5
0
0.5
133160 220 280 340 400
AWFS by ind. radiation mode control
Freq. [Hz]
x
1
[
m
]
x
1
[
m
]
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
E
LS
FIG. 20. Normalized E
LS
criterion at the monitoring sensors for various
frequencies and harmonic algorithms after convergence in the laboratory.
From top to bottom: WFS, AWFS based on FXLMS and AWFS based on
independent radiation mode control. ͑.͒ Measurement points. ͑———͒ The
0.1 contour lines; ͑---͒ the 0.25 contour lines; and ͑—͒ the 0.5 contour lines.
2000 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis
higher-order modes included in AWFS based on independent
radiation mode control increases, the size of the effective
control region increases from a quarter wavelength to half
the wavelength. This supports the previous observation on
the importance of the higher-order radiation modes to en-
large the effective active sound field reproduction region.
The adaptation coefficients and penalization parameters are
shown in Table I.
IV. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES
This paper investigated the objective performances of
AWFS to compensate for the room effects ͑or any sound
field reproduction errors͒ on WFS in experimental situations.
The basic idea of AWFS is a simple combination of active
noise control principles and classic WFS. Such a combina-
tion is entirely contained in the AWFS general cost function
͑Gauthier and Berry, 2006͒, which consists of minimization
of the reproduction errors ͓typically caused by the room re-
sponse ͑Klehs and Sporer, 2003; Sporer and Klehs, 2004͒ or
the system limitation ͑Corteel, 2006b͔͒ at several points in
space, along with a regularization that penalizes the adaptive
solution departure from the classic WFS solution. This pe-
nalizing is what makes AWFS original in comparison with
other sound field reproduction techniques based on active
sound control and adaptive filtering.
The results presented in this paper show that the AWFS
system successfully achieves active sound field reproduction
in more or less reflective spaces: hemianechoic chamber,
laboratory space, and reverberation chamber. These experi-
ments validate the AWFS concept and demonstrate the physi-
cal possibility of progressive sound field reproduction in re-
flective rooms. For the three rooms, it was shown that AWFS
reduces the reproduction errors with respect to WFS repro-
duction errors in the reproduction region. AWFS based on
independent control provides an extended effective area of
sound field reproduction since each radiation mode conver-
gence is independently adjusted so that higher-order modes
converge in the allowed time. Since these higher-order
modes are of great importance to enlarge the effective repro-
duction region, the possibility to control them independently
is a major advantage of AWFS based on independent radia-
tion mode control in comparison with modified FXLMS,
which does not allow such independent control of each ra-
diation mode convergence.
One of the original contributions of these results is that
they establish, for the first time to the authors’ knowledge,
the validity of the AWFS concept based on independent ra-
diation mode control ͑including SVD broadband filters͒ for
broadband impulse reproduction by the way of controlled
experiments. Bai and Elliott ͑2004͒ already considered SVD
plant decoupling for cross-talk cancellation, but their paper
was limited to theoretical investigations. Moreover, at the
heart of the AWFS concept, is the definition of an a priori
solution ͑WFS͒ which, to the authors’ knowledge, was never
used or experimentally tested within an adaptive signal pro-
cessing or active noise control architecture. This paper on
experimental AWFS supports the practical interest of AWFS.
The reported experiments were performed with a spe-
cific reproduction source and error sensor configuration.
However, AWFS is not limited to a specific configuration.
These experiments with AWFS were performed to evaluate
the method. AWFS could be tested with different configura-
tions or for different practical problems: sound environment
reproduction, mock-up with sound field simulation system,
etc. A typical AWFS extension would, for example, include
more loudspeakers and more error sensors. Indeed, we ex-
pect that a larger effective reproduction region is achievable
with a compact sensor array which would include more sen-
sors, like a dense circular microphone array. Three-
dimensional configurations of either loudspeaker or micro-
phone arrays could also be implemented within the AWFS
framework.
The tested AWFS system and implementation should be
regarded as proto-AWFS. Indeed, before AWFS can be used
for a practical application, several modifications should be
done. For example, to reduce the obstruction of the error
sensors in the listening area, the control filters can be calcu-
lated off-line for the virtual source positions and saved, after
which the error sensors can be removed. An example of ef-
fective bank of compensation filters for WFS direct-sound-
field equalization has been reported by Corteel ͑2006b͒.
Moreover, several adaptive algorithms could be applied to
AWFS, such as frequency-domain adaptation, sparse adapta-
tion, etc. ͑Elliott, 2001͒ to improve the convergence proper-
ties of the algorithm or to reduce the computational burden.
Future research on AWFS should be conducted within a
specific practical application such as sound environment re-
production or sound reproduction in a dedicated listening
room to evaluate the potential of the method in real situa-
tions, possibly using more reproduction sources and more
error sensors. AWFS and the corresponding algorithms
should also be tested and evaluated on the basis of subjective
performance.
-0.5 0 0.5
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
x
1
[m]
E
L
S
(
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
)
AWFS, FXLMS
SVD with first mode only
SVD with modes 1 to 3
SVD with all modes
λ/2 →
λ ≈ 0.8575 m
← λ/4
FIG. 21. Normalized E
LS
criterion at the monitoring sensors for harmonic
algorithms at 400 Hz after convergence in the laboratory space using AWFS
with the WFS solution forced to zero. The wavelength and some corre-
sponding fractions are included.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis 2001
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. This research was conducted in col-
laboration with CIRMMT ͑Center for Interdisciplinary
Research in Music Media and Technology, McGill Univer-
sity͒. The authors acknowledge the contribution of Emman-
uel Corratgé, who contributed to the construction of the har-
monic AWFS system and harmonic experiments.
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 and decoupling,” J. Sound Vib. 270, 639–655.
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, Cambridge͒.
Blesser, B., and Salter, L.-R. ͑2007͒. Spaces Speak, Are You Listening?
Experiencing Aural Architecture ͑MIT, Cambridge͒.
Bouchard, M., and Quednau, S. ͑2000͒. “Multichannel recursive-least-
squares algorithms and fast-transversal-filter algorithms for active noise
control and sound reproduction systems,” IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Pro-
cess. 8, 606–618.
Bravo, T., and Elliott, S. J. ͑2004͒. “Variability of low frequency sound
transmission measurements,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 2986–2997.
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.
Camurri, A., and Ferrentino, P. ͑1999͒. “Interactive environments for music
and multimedia,” Multimedia Syst. 7, 32–47.
Choi, J.-W., and Kim, Y.-H. ͑2004͒. “Manipulation of sound intensity within
a selected region using multiple sources,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 843–
852.
Corteel, E. ͑2006a͒. “On the use of irregurlarly spaced loudspeaker arrays
for wave field synthesis, potential impact on spatial aliasing frequency,”
Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Digital Audio Ef-
fects ͑DAFX͒, Montreal, Canada, Sept. 18–20, 2006.
Corteel, E. ͑2006b͒. “Equalization in an extended area using multichannel
inversion and wave field synthesis,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 54, 1140–1161.
Davis, M. F. ͑2003͒. “History of spatial coding,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 51,
554–569.
de Vries, D., Start, E. W., and Valstar, V. G. ͑1994͒. “The wave field syn-
thesis concept applied to sound reinforcement: Restrictions and solutions,”
AES 96th Convention, Convention Paper 3812, Amsterdam, Feb. 1994.
Elliott, S. ͑2001͒. Signal Processing for Active Control ͑Academic, London͒.
Elliott, S. J., and Nelson, P. A. ͑1989͒. “Multiple-point equalization in room
using adaptive digital filters,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 37, 899–907.
Epain, N., Friot, E., and Rabau, G. ͑2004͒. “Indoor sonic boom reproduction
using ANC,” Proceedings of Active 2004, Williamsburg, USA, Sept. 20–
22, 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, Barcelona,
Spain, May 28-31, 2005.
Gauthier, P.-A., and Berry, A. ͑2006͒. “Adaptive wave field synthesis with
independent radiation mode control for active sound field reproduction:
Theory,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119, 2721–2737.
Gauthier, P.-A., and Berry, A. ͑2007͒. “Objective evaluation of room effects
on wave field synthesis,” Acta. Acust. Acust. 93, 824–836.
Gaunthier, P.-A., and Berry, A. ͑2008͒. “Adaptive wave field synthesis for
broadband active sound field reproduction: Signal processing,” J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 123, 2003–2016.
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. “Wave field synthe-
sis, adaptive wave field synthesis and ambisonics using decentralized
transformed control: Potential applications to sound field reproduction and
active noise control,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 1967.
Grau, O. ͑2003͒. Virtual Art—From Illusion to Immersion ͑MIT, Cam-
bridge͒.
Keller, M., Roure, A., and Marrot, F. ͑2006͒. “Acoustic field reproduction
for psychoacoustic experiments: Application to aircraft interior noise,”
Proceedings of Active 2006, Adelaide, Australia, Sept. 18–20, 2006.
Kendall, G. S. ͑1995͒. “A 3-D sound primer: Directional hearing and stereo
reproduction,” Comput. Music J. 19, 23–46.
Klehs, B., and Sporer, T. ͑2003͒. “Wave field synthesis in the real world. 1.
In the living room,” AES 114th Convention, Convention Paper 5727, Am-
sterdam, March 22–25, 2005.
Merimaa, J., and Pulkki, V. ͑2005͒. “Spatial impulse response rendering. I.
Analysis and synthesis,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 12, 1115–1127.
Nelson, P. S., Kirkeby, O., and Takeuchi, T. ͑1997͒. “Sound fields for the
production of virtual acoustic images,” J. Sound Vib. 204, 386–396.
Poletti, M. A. ͑2000͒. “A unified theory of horizontal holographic sound
systems,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 48, 1155–1182.
Radlović, B. D., Williamson, R. C., and Kennedy, R. A. ͑2000͒. “Equaliza-
tion in an acoustic reveberant environment: Robustness results,” IEEE
Trans. Speech Audio Process. 8, 311–319.
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.
Sporer, T., and Klehs, B. ͑2004͒. “Wave field synthesis in the real world. 2.
In the movie theatre,” AES 116th Convention, Convention Paper 6055,
Berlin, Germany, May 8–11, 2004.
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, Canada, June 26–28, 2003, 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, Barcelona, Spain, May 28–31, 2005.
Spors, S., and Rabenstein, R. ͑2006͒. “Spatial aliasing artifacts produced by
linear and circular-loudspeaker arrays used for wave field synthesis,” AES
120th Convention, Convention Paper.
Start, E. W., de Vries, D., and Berkhout, A. J. ͑1999͒. “Wave field synthesis
operators for bent line arrays in 3D space,” Acust. Acta Acust. 85, 883–
892.
Start, E. W., Valstar, V. G., and de Vries, D. ͑1995͒. “Application of spatial
bandwidth reduction in wave field synthesis,” AES 98th Convention, Con-
vention Paper 3972.
Takane, S., and Sone, T. ͑2004͒. “A new theory for active suppression of
reflected sound waves from the walls based on Kirchhoff-Helmholtz
boundary integral equation,” Acoust. Sci. & Tech. 25, 37–44.
Takane, S., Suzuki, Y., and Sone, T. ͑1999͒. “A new method for global
sound field reproduction based on Kirchhoff’s integral equation,” Acust.
Acta Acust. 85, 250–257.
Veit, I., and Sander, H. ͑1987͒. “Production of spatially limited ͗͗diffuse͘͘
sound field in an anechoic room,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. 35, 138–143.
Verheijen, E. N. G. ͑1997͒. “Sound reproduction by wave field synthesis,”
Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Williams, E. G. ͑1999͒. Fourier Acoustics—Sound Radiation and Nearfield
Acoustical Holography ͑Academic, London͒.
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.
2002 J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 123, No. 4, April 2008 P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry: Experiments with adaptive wave field synthesis

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.