A STUDY INTO THE PERCEPTION OF ENVELOPMENT IN

ELECTROACOUSTIC MUSIC
Sarah Adair, Michael Alcorn, Chris Corrigan

School of Music and Sonic Arts,
Queens University, Belfast

ABSTRACT
The majority of research into spatial impression is
focused on work in the area of concert hall acoustics.
Such work explores two separate elements, namely
apparent source width (ASW) and listener
envelopment (LEV). Research in spatial impression
within electracoustic music has described electroacoustic
music as having an expandedspatial palette that has
the ability to create complex interactions between
spatial hearing and other domains of perception and
cognition (Kendall 2007). Taking this increased spatial
complexity into consideration, this paper outlines an
experiment which required individual participants to find
the point of perceived envelopment within contrasting
excerpts of electroacoustic music. The results of the
experiment are presented and discussed in this paper.
We conclude that, while envelopment in this music
genre is principally different to concert hall acoustics, a
comparable perception of envelopment was achieved by
the participants.
1. INTRODUCTION
Listener envelopment (LEV) has been discussed
extensively in the domain of concert hall acoustics.
Marshall and Barron [2] differentiate between early
lateral reflections that cause the source broadening
associated with apparent source width (ASW), and LEV
caused by late reverberant sound from the side resulting
in the feeling of immersion. Research by Morimoto
and Maekawa (1989; cited in Morimoto et al, 2001) [3]
describes LEV as the degree of fullness of sound
images around the listener, whilst Wakuda et al [4]
define it as the listeners sensation when the
surrounding space is filled with sound images other than
a sound image composing ASW (Wakuda, 2003).
Recent research (Morimoto [3]) has focused on
reflections from above and behind the listener.
The sense of envelopment is a phrase that people
often use when analysing an electroacoustic work.
However as pointed out by Rumsey [5], in the domain of
multi-channel reproduced sound, envelopment in the
sense of concert hall LEV does not necessarily apply. In
reproduced sound, envelopment can be described as
either environmental or ensemble. Rumsey points
out that
subjects often use the term envelopment
when they are surrounded by a number of dry
sources in surround sound reproductionthis
sensation is almost certainly not a property of
late reflected sound, as the sources in question
can be dry and direct, so it cannot be considered
to be LEV in the traditional sense. (Rumsey,
2002)
In this study the listener is surrounded by a number of
sources that do not necessarily contain late reverberant
energy, therefore we refer to envelopment in the sense of
ensemble envelopment.
2. METHOD
In concert hall acoustics the frequency content and the
amplitude and angle of reflections have been shown to
have an impact on the perception of envelopment. The
sense of envelopment is a subjective response that may
be informed by issues of context and location within the
space. This study focuses on understanding the responses
of a number of participants in relation to envelopment
specifically within electroacoustic music. A simple
experiment was devised to measure how subjects
controlled the relative loudspeaker reproduction levels in
a multi-channel loudspeaker configuration to achieve a
sense of envelopment. Such a study might reveal
significant results if similar levels would be chosen by
each participant and if their decisions would be
influenced by the spectral and gestural characteristics of
the musical examples.
2.1. Experiment Space and Equipment
The experiment was carried out using a subset of the 40-
loudspeaker system at the Sonic Arts Research Centre
(SARC), Queens University Belfast. Using a variation
of Harrisons main eight arrangement [6], subjects
controlled the ground floor speaker levels using pots on
a Killamix Mini USB MIDI controller. These pots are
infinitely variable preventing participants from making
visual judgments about reproduction levels. See figure 1
for a diagram of the speaker layout. Midi data from the
controller was used to adjust the output levels of the
sound files via a Max/MSP patch. Before the
experiment began the loudspeakers were calibrated to
reproduce identical levels at the listening position
(70dBSPL, 0.5dB) from a continuous white noise
source. All of the available acoustic wall panels in the
Sonic Lab were employed resulting in a reverberation
time of approximately 0.4 seconds at 1kHz. All
participants were positioned in the same location during
the experiment.



2.2. Participants
Thirteen people participated, one female and twelve
males. The majority were in their late teens and 20s. All
participants were students from SARC and all were
familiar with electroacoustic music.

Figure 1. Speaker layout

2.3. Music Samples
Four excerpts of music of between 1.30 - 2.30 minutes in
length were used, each with unique spectral and/or
gestural characteristics. The excerpts chosen were as
follows: Pentes by Denis Smalley, chosen as it contains
very continuous sounds of a granular nature; Cobra by
Wayne Siegel, chosen for its use of a recognizable
instrumental sound; Portrait dun Visiteur by Christian
Calon, chosen for its use of environmental sounds in the
form of ocean waves; and Minuit by Christian Calon,
chosen as it contains a high level of stereo interplay in
comparison to the other excerpts.
2.4. Experiment Procedure
The excerpts were replayed from the Front loudspeaker
pair at a fixed reproduction level: a subjective
comfortable listening level was selected, which
equalled a midi value of 105, giving the participants
scope to set the controllable loudspeakers (wide, side
and rear) to a higher level if required. According to
information from Cycling 74 regarding the gain!
object, steps of 10 equal a level difference of
approximately 6dB. In the patch used for this
experiment a value of 105 equates to a level of between
0 and +6dB. The aim of this study however was to
establish a degree a correlation using midi values, not
their equivalent signal levels. Prior to the experiment the
participants were provided with a description of the term
'envelopment', as defined in 1: they were then given the
opportunity to listen to the excerpts before any data was
recorded. Four participants chose to do this. The
excerpts were presented in the order listed in 2.3 and the
controllable loudspeaker levels were reset to the 0 midi
value between each excerpt. At the end of the fourth
excerpt the participants were asked to repeat the
experiment, following which comments were gathered.
3. RESULTS
Following the completion of the experiment, the data
was analysed in terms of the responses to each excerpt,
the response to each pair of loudspeakers and the
responses by each individual participant. This analysis
was accomplished through the creation of a number of
data sets. The data set for excerpt information consisted
of 13x2x3 results; that for speaker pair information
consisted of 13x2x4 results; and that for participant
information consisted of 2x3x4 results. The results were
plotted in graphs and histograms, and statistical
processes such as Standard Deviation, using the
STDEVP function in Excel, were applied in order to
refine the results. Through these processes a number of
conclusions have been made and are outlined in detail
below.
3.1. Results by excerpt
Despite the presence of a number of random results,
there was definite correlation present in the graphs of the
Siegel and two Calon excerpts, with the Siegel excerpt
showing the strongest clustering of data. Carrying out
statistical procedures we observed preference towards a
specific range of levels, which we have called the
envelopment range. In both Calon excerpts and the
Siegel excerpt this range was roughly between 90 and
120, with reference to midi values. Figure 2 presents
data from the Siegel extract. Pentes by Smalley however
appeared to show very little correlation. There was
clustering in places, between 80 and 100; however
correlation was weak and the majority of results
appeared to be widely distributed across the entire range
of values available to the participants.

Figure 2. Distribution of results for the Siegel excerpt.
3.2. Results by speaker pair
Inspecting each loudspeaker pair, we observed strong
correlations in the side and rear speaker results. The
majority of results in the side speakers fell within 90 and
110 and within 90 and 120 in the rear speakers. The


wide speakers had the weakest correlation, with results
widely spread across all choices of speaker level.
As expected, when observing data for speaker pairs
within each excerpt we saw similar correlations. The
strongest correlation was present in the rear and side
speakers respectively. With the exception of the Siegel
excerpt the wide speakers showed the least correlation.
Throughout the results for the Smalley and two Calon
extracts we did see preference towards levels between 70
and 100. Despite this it is reasonable to say that many of
the results were incomparable and spread across the
entire range available. As stated however, the Siegel
excerpt displayed a strong degree of correlation. With a
few exceptions low in the level scale, all results were
contained in the categories above 70, with the majority
of results contained in the category labelled 90 to 99.
3.3. Results by participant
Analysis of the differences between the first and second
attempt of every participant revealed that 58% of second
attempt results were within 10% of their first result.
When extended to within 20%, this increased to 78%.
Examining the participants in detail, we observed
various similarities across all pieces. Four of the
participants matched 100% of their second attempts
within 20% of the first attempt, with a fifth participant
achieving 91%. In comparison, one person matched
25% of their second attempts within 20% of the first
attempt, with two further participants achieving 58%.
Both of these participants did however perform well in
the Siegel excerpt. Inspecting the average percentage
changes for each piece within the context of speaker
pairs, we observed that the largest changes in both
groups were in response to the wide speakers. Looking
at the overall response to each excerpt, the second Calon
and Siegel excerpts had the lowest percentage change
results. Supporting earlier trends, the Smalley excerpt
had the highest overall average percentage change.
The degree of variety in the responses was also
observed when comparing average difference results.
For the first group the average difference over all
excerpts and speaker pairs was 26, whilst for the second
group it was 77. Inspecting the participants of these
groups in detail, we detected individual and general
trends. For instance, despite participant number four
performing well in terms of percentage change, many
of his/her results were of a very high level and outside
the envelopment range. With some exceptions many
results belonging to the first group fell within a small
range over all excerpts, attempts and speakers and within
the envelopment range. The side and rear speaker
results were relatively constant within a small scale
whilst the wide speakers produced the most changeable
results.
With a few exceptions the results of the second group
covered a broad range of values and appeared random.
In the case of participant number eleven there were large
differences between attempts and little similarity
between excerpts. There appeared to be few similarities
in the wide and side speaker pairs in particular.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Observations
Participants adopted various approaches to finding the
envelopment level. In many cases turning their head and
closing their eyes aided concentration on each speaker
pair. Many felt that the rear and side speakers were the
most important for envelopment so adjusted these levels
first. Frequency was an important factor for some;
however, one person commented that decisions were
made based on high frequency content, whilst low
frequency content had a greater impact on another.
4.2. Listening skills and aural awareness
The experiment was repeated to establish the degree of
correlation between first and second attempts from each
participant. To avoid the perception that the first attempt
was a practice, participants were not told that the test
would be repeated. As the excerpts were played in
sequence before their repetition, it was deemed unlikely
that participants would be able to simply replicate
identical responses within each excerpt. This indicates
that we can trust the integrity of the second attempt
results in this respect.
Two approaches were taken by the participants to
adjust the loudspeaker levels. The first approach
involved a simple, systematic method of altering each
loudspeaker pair in turn whilst listening carefully before
fine-tuning their choice. In the case of participant
thirteen, a process of adjusting the controls to find the
envelopment range limits before choosing a position in
the middle of the range was followed. The second
approach appeared to involve quick decisions and little
thought, as was evident in the results of participant
eleven.
Observations on the methods used to determine the
point of envelopment and the level differences between
each attempt highlight the listening skills and aural
awareness of the individuals. In the majority of cases
those who took time to listen seemed to produce similar
results in both attempts.
4.3. Correlations between the results and excerpts
Following the experiment, some participants commented
on their difficulties with particular excerpts. Some
found that excerpts containing substantial dynamic
change and stereo interplay were distracting and difficult
to judge, whilst others stated that this made it easier. For
example, one person commented that the more
pronounced notes of the Siegel excerpt were easier than
the long sustained sounds in the Smalley excerpt.
However in one case it was commented that the Siegel
excerpt was difficult in terms of the rear speakers. This
may be due to the fact that the excerpt consisted of the
sound of a real instrument and in a traditional concert
hall setting the piano would not normally be located
behind the audience.
As previously stated, the Smalley excerpt showed the
least correlation. This may be because it was the first


excerpt of the experiment when participants were
perhaps uncertain of what they were doing. Comparing
the first and second attempts however we saw little
change in the results. Further testing would need to be
undertaken to establish if the weak correlation was due
to the excerpt or the test procedure. With reference to
the test procedure, two aspects that could be addressed in
further testing, is randomisation of the excerpt
presentation and the inclusion of a familiarisation
session for all participants.
Examining the results of the two groups, we saw
little difference in the average percentage change
between each piece for the first group, but a broader
range of high results for both the excerpts and
participants for the second group. The results revealed
that participants in this second group had little agreement
on the envelopment range for the Smalley piece in
comparison to the Siegel piece. We could conclude that
the nature of the excerpt had minimal influence on those
people with good listening skills; however, this should
be studied further.
4.4. Correlations between the results and speaker
pairs
The majority of envelopment tests have been conducted
in the context of concert hall acoustics, therefore the
decision was made to have a fixed level source at the
front of the hall. It was also deemed important that
participants had the same point of reference.
The wide speakers showed the weakest correlation
and the rear speakers the strongest. From comments we
discovered that participants found the rear speakers
difficult to hear at times, as they felt the front speakers
were too loud. They felt the wide speakers were
therefore unnecessary. In reality, the controllable
speakers were capable of producing higher levels than
the fixed speakers but few people took advantage of this.
In a concert hall situation, the rear sound would never
equal or be louder than sound from the stage; however,
in this experiment the majority of participants preferred
balanced sound from all directions. These comments
highlight the differences between traditional LEV and
envelopment in reproduced sound.
5. CONCLUSIONS
From this initial study into perceived envelopment in
electroacoustic music, we found strong correlations
amongst the levels of envelopment that participants
chose for each speaker pair and piece. We discovered
that unlike concert hall acoustics, a high level of sound
that does not necessarily consist of late reflections is
required from the rear.
In a recent study by Sazdov [7] an attribute labelled
engulfment
1
was put forth as a unique 3D spatial
attribute. This study, which also took place in SARC,

1
Engulfment is a unique spatial attribute of 3D reproduced sound. It
describes the sensation of being covered over as opposed to simply
being surrounded as defined by envelopment (Sazdov, 2007).
compared envelopment and engulfment using multi-
channel audio including elevated speakers. This study
found that envelopment and engulfment were perceived
as two independent but equally important spatial
attributes. As well as investigating engulfment as a
spatial attribute, future work on the subject of
envelopment would involve establishing the ratio of
reproduced sound levels of the wide, side and rear
loudspeakers relative to the main pair of speakers.
Despite the lack of a standardised diffusion system,
electroacoustic music performance is unique in
comparison to traditional instrumental performance. As
new diffusion systems are implemented and new
dimensions are added, such as the system in SARC that
incorporates speakers above and below an audience, we
may experience new and unique spatial attributes that
should be researched independently from concert hall
acoustics.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to all the students from SARC who gave up
their time to take part and Ms Una Monaghan for her
additional technical assistance when setting up the
experiment.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Kendall, G.S. The artistic play of spatial
organization: spatial attributes, scene analysis and
auditory spatial schemata, ICMC 2007 Proceedings,
Copenhagen
[2] Marshall, A.H., Barron, M. Spatial responsiveness
in concert halls and the origins of spatial impressions,
Applied Acoustics, 62, 2001, 91-108
[3] Morimoto, M., Iida, K., Sakagami, K. The role of
reflections from behind the listener in spatial
impression, Applied Acoustics, 62, 2001, 109-124
[4] Wakuda, A., Furuya, H., Fujimoto, K., Isogai, K.,
Anai, K. Effects of arrival direction of late sound on
listener envelopment, Acoustical Science and
Technology, 24, 4, 2003.
[5] Rumsey, F. Spatial Quality Evaluation for
Reproduced Sound: Terminology, Meaning and a Scene-
Based Paradigm, Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol. 50, No. 9, 2002
[6] Harrison, J. Sound, space, sculpture: some thoughts
on the what, how and why of sound diffusion,
Organised Sound 3(2): 117-27
[7] Sazdov, R., Paine, G., Stevens, K. Perceptual
Investigation into envelopment, spatial clarity, and
engulfment in reproduced multi-channel audio, AES 31
st

International Conference, 2007