Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, J1K 2R1, Canada and CIRMMT, McGill University, Montreal, H3A 1E3, Canada
1.
INTRODUCTION
Gauthier et al.
2.
INVERSE PROBLEM
Gauthier et al.
x3
Impinging wave
x
x2
x3
(m)
, xm ) matches
The inverse problem is posed so that p(
(m)
p( , xm ). From Eq. (1)
x1
(m)
(m)
(l)
(l)
p( , xm ) = ZS( , l , l )
xm
(3)
(m)
(l)
(m)
(l)
(l)
(l)
, xm ) = Z( , xm , l , l )S( , l , l )
p(
(1)
plane wave azimuth and l the l-th plane wave elevation (zero for the 2D case). The matrix Z is the transfer
matrix (dimension: M L) from plane wave amplitudes
to resulting pressures at the microphones. The transfer
matrix is defined by its ml-th element
(m)
(l)
(l)
(l)
Zml ( , xm , l , l ) = e jkl
(l)
kl
(l)
(l)
k sin(l ) cos(l )e2
where
(l)
(m)
xm
(2)
(l)
(l)
(l)
(m)
(4)
(m)
(l)
S( , l , l ) = Z+ p( , xm )
p(
, x) =
Sl ( , l
(l)
(l)
(l)
, l )e jkl
(5)
l=1
Gauthier et al.
Fig. 2: (a) and (b): Real and imaginary parts of the impinging sound field. Microphones are shown as small filled
circles. (c) and (d): Real and imaginary parts of the extrapolated sound field by inverse problem. The isocontour lines
of the resulting local quadratic extrapolation error are shown for 0.1% (white line) and 5% (black line).
repetitive spatial signal along the in-plane axes (x1 , x2 ).
This is not the case for a real sound field impinging
on an array. Finally, the selection of a plane wave set
as a solution basis for the inverse problem is not arbitrary. Indeed, other general orthogonal solutions of the
Helmholtz equation such as cylindrical or spherical harmonics are not bounded at the origin of the coordinates
system which corresponds to the array center [1, 7] . In
that case, the inverse problem based on these other orthogonal solutions of the wave equation is extremely illconditioned and p may even not approach p. This has
been verified by the authors.
An example of sound field extrapolation using the inverse problem approach is shown in Fig. 2 for an URA
of 64 microphones covering a square with a side length
of 0.77 m. The microphone separation distance is 11 cm.
Theoretically, this URA could then measure a sound field
without spatial aliasing up to 1559 Hz. The harmonic
sound field measured at 500 Hz is shown in Fig. 2(a)
and (b). The sound field impinging on the URA is a
plane wave with a propagation angle of 45 deg. The
corresponding extrapolated sound field obtained by the
inverse problem solution is shown in Fig. 2(c) and (d).
The inverse problem included a set of L = 128 plane
waves covering 2 radians. The inverse problem method
clearly performs sound field extrapolation in the measurement plane. The effective extrapolation region covers (defined by a local quadratic error less than 0.1%)
a circular region of roughly 2 m radius which is larger
than the URA. It should be kept in mind that the size of
effective extrapolation region varies with frequency.
2.2.
(6)
where ||...|| denotes the Euclidean norm. This highlights the amplification potential of the condition number. However, even if S becomes very large, the corresponding extrapolated sound field may be able to approach the measured sound field at the sensor array
(m)
(m)
, xm ) p( , xm )). However this solution might
(p(
not provide a convenient sound field extrapolation outside the array region. An example is shown in Fig. 3 for
a case similar to the one shown above with an additional
0.1% of random and spatially incoherent noise. Fig. 3 illustrates that the extrapolated sound field is only valid in
the array region. At first glance, this suggests that inverse
problem method for sound field extrapolation might not
Gauthier et al.
To circumvent this noise sensitivity problem, regularization is introduced. We first recast the problem as an error
minimization task using a quadratic cost function
J = eH e + SH S
(7)
SL1 =
ZH
ZH Z + I
pM1
(8)
LM
in acoustics [18]. Methods for choosing the regularization parameter are, by themselves, a research topic. On
the one hands, while the selection of a small penalization parameter may stabilize the inversion (p may approach p very closely in the microphone array region),
it is again not guaranteed that optimal solution will give
any significant results outside the sensor array. It might
again diverge at large distance from the array. On the
other hands, selecting a large penalization parameter may
strongly stabilize the inversion but also reduce the spatial
resolution of the extrapolated sound field (including the
array region). Examples of sound field extrapolation using inverse problem method with varying regularization
parameter are shown in Fig. 8(a) to (f). Sec. 5 explains
these results.
One way to select the optimal regularization parameter
is based on the evaluation of the L-curve [15] which is
a representation of the quadratic error eH e as function
of the solution quadratic amplitude S(opt)H S(opt) for a
wide range of . However, this selection implies a serious amount of computation time as the problem must
be solved for an entire distribution of . It would be interesting to benefit from a more physical approach that
would simplify the regularization process. In the following section, the typical cylindrical harmonics spectra of
extrapolated sound field with and without noise will provide some hints on how could that be done. Moreover,
this original method will be illustrated.
3.
To analyze typical sound field spectra, cylindrical coordinates [ , r, x3 ] are used. The definition of cylindrical
harmonics (orthogonal functions of the Helmholtz equation expressed in cylindrical coordinates) are recalled
for the 2D case. The sound pressure field of diverging
(1)
(2)
(Pk ) and converging (Pk ) cylindrical harmonics (CH)
are given by multiplication of Hankel and complex exponential functions
Pk (r, , ) = Hk (kr)e jk ,
(9)
Pk (r, , ) = Hk (kr)e jk .
(10)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
Gauthier et al.
(i)
k =
k =
(2)
The terms
, ) and M (k , ) are the complex
CH coefficients, creating a CH spectrum.
M (2) =
(2)
(2)
Hk (kR)P Hk (kR) j cVn
,
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
Hk (kR)Hk (kR) Hk (kR)Hk (kR)
(1)
1
2
Vn (R, k , ) =
1
2
2
0
2
0
p(R, , )e jk d
(14)
vn (R, , )e jk d
(15)
(1)
M (1) (k
M (1) =
P(R, k , ) =
For practical cases, Eq. (11) should not be used for extrapolation since Hankel functions are not bounded at
r = 0 and the summation over k may be numerically
unstable [7]. To circumvent this problem, one must first
transform the CH coefficients in another set of diverging
and converging plane waves amplitudes [7]
(1)
(2)
(l)
Sl ( , l ) =
(l)
(l)
(1/2 ) jk M (1) (k , )e jk l ,
k =
Sl ( , l ) =
(16)
(1/2 ) jk M (2) (k , )e
(l)
jk l
k =
(12)
(17)
The extrapolated sound field is then computed without
numerical difficulty using
(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
(2)
Hk (kR)Hk (kR) Hk (kR)Hk (kR)
(13)
where is the angular frequency [rad/s], k the wavenumber (k = /c) [rad/m], k the circumferential wave in(i)
dex (k = ... 2, 1, 0, 1, ...), Hk is the i-type Hankel
p( , x) =
(1)
(l)
Sl e jkl
(2)
(l)
+ Sl e jkl
(l)
(18)
l=1
Gauthier et al.
without noise. For the case without noise, all the spectra
components are relevant sources of information about the
original sound field. Indeed, even the part of the spectra which belongs to the evanescent-like region brings
information about the original sound field. Therefore,
that information should be conserved except if noise is
present. The spectra for the same impinging plane wave
with additional noise at the original microphone array
(URA shown in Fig. 2) used for sound field extrapolation to the virtual circular sensor array are also shown
in Fig. 5. (For that case, the spectra are obtained using Eqs. (14) and (15) where sound pressure and particle
normal velocity are computed using the inverse problem
extrapolated sound field evaluated at the virtual circular aperture.) Clearly, outside the passband region, the
signal-to-noise ratio is drastically reduced when noise is
present. Once the sound field spectra are used to compute the CH spectra using Eqs. (12) and (13), the noise
outside the passband region can be drastically amplified
by the Hankel functions included in both the numerator
and denominator of Eqs. (12) and (13).
|P(k)|
10
10
10
10
No noise
0.1% noise
0.001% noise
20
20
10
10
20
10
10
20
20
k=kR
10
k=kR
|Vn(k)|
10
10
0
10
k = M/2...,2,1,0,1,...M/2
20
Fig. 5: Magnitude of sound pressure and velocity angular spectra at 500 Hz without noise and with 0.1% of
noise. Additional spectra with noise (103%) are also
shown as dotted lines. The arrows indicate the decrease
of these curves for a decreasing noise level.
3.1.
Gauthier et al.
CH spectra at 500 Hz
10
(2)
|Hk |
|H(2)|
|M(1)| (noise)
|M(2)| (noise)
|M(1)|
500
|M(2)|
20
|H(2)/Den|
k=14
20
10
0
10
k=M/2...,2,1,0,1,...M/2
20
|H(2)/Den|
k=kR
250
20
k =kR
|1/Den|
k =14
10
k=kR
10
10
250
k=kR
500
10
0
10
k =M/2,...,1,0,1,...M/2
20
Gauthier et al.
Fig. 8: Comparisons of the extrapolated sound fields by the inverse regularized problem and CH filtering with virtual
arrays with 0.1% noise at the URA. (a) and (b): Inverse problem with = 1e 9. (c) and (d): Inverse problem with
= 1e 7. (e) and (f): Inverse problem with = 1e 5. (g) and (h): Virtual array and a cut-off at k = 9. (i) and (j):
Virtual array and a cut-off at k = 7. (k) and (l): Virtual array and a cut-off at k = 5.
volves two additional transforms. Finally, the inverse
problem method directly outputs a set of plane waves as
a sound field descriptor. This is also a great advantage,
beside its simplicity, of sound field extrapolation method
based on regularized inverse problem.
6.
CONCLUSION
Gauthier et al.
Future research could be done to evaluate the performance of the inverse problem method for the 3D cases,
i.e. 3D sound field measured using a 2D array or a 2D
array with variations in the vertical direction. A more
in-depth study of inverse problem properties for sound
field extrapolation should be done. Recent works by the
authors in that direction is devoted to a new promising
regularization method for the inverse problem, this will
be the topic of a future paper.
Once sound field extrapolation is achieved, it is possible
to move to the next step: characterization of the sound
field or sound environment for subsequent reproduction.
Beside the definition and uses of classical targets, many
other types of target could come from a multidisciplinary
description of the sound environment that must be spatially reproduced.
7.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
REFERENCES
[1] E.G. Williams, Fourier Acoustics Sound Radiation and Nearfield Acoustical Holography, Academic Press, 1999.
[2] H. Teutsch, Modal Array Signal Processing: Principles and Application of Wavefield Decomposition,
Springer, 2007.
[3] A.J. Berkhout, D. de vries and P. Vogel, Acoustic control by wave field synthesis, Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 93 (1993), no. 5,
27642778.
[4] P.-A. Gauthier and A. Berry, Adaptive wave field
synthesis with independent radiation mode control for active sound field reproduction: Theory,
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119
(2006), no. 5, 27212737.
[5] J. Daniel, R. Nicol and S. Moreau, Further Investigations of High Order Ambisonics and Wavefield
Synthesis for Holophonic Sound Imaging, Convention paper 5788, presented at the AES 114th
[13] M. Poletti, A unified theory of horizontal holographic sound systems, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 48 (2000), no. 12, 11551182.
[14] P.A. Nelson and S.H. Yoon, Estimation of acoustics source strength by inverse method: Part I, conditioning of the inverse problem, Journal of Sound
and Vibration 233 (2000), no. 4, 643668.
[15] P.C. Hansen, Rank-Deficient and Discrete Ill-Posed
Problems, SIAM, 1998.
[16] P.A. Nelson and S.J. Elliot, Active Control of
Sound, Academic Press, 1992.
[17] S. Elliott, Signal Processing for Active Control,
Academic Press, 2001.
[18] S.H. Yoon and P.A. Nelson, Estimation of acoustics source strength by inverse method: Part II, experimental investigation of methods for choosing
regularization parameters Journal of Sound and Vibration, 233 (2000), no. 4, 669705.