The Murmurator:
A Flocking Simulation-Driven Multi-Channel Software
Instrument for Collaborative Improvisation
Eli Stine
University of Virginia
elistine@virginia.edu
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the Murmurator, a flocking simula-
tion-driven software instrument created for use by multiple
computer improvisers diffusing sound over a multi-chan-
nel speaker configuration. Building upon previous pro-
jects that use natural system models to control sound pa-
rameters, the authors focus on the potentials of this para-
digm for collaborative improvisation, allowing for per-
formers to improvise both with each other and to adapt to
performer-controllable levels of autonomy in the Mur-
murator. Further, the Murmurator’s facilitation of a dy-
namic relationship between musical materials and spatial-
ization (for example, having the resonance parameter of a
filter applied to a sound being dependent on its location in
space or velocity) is foregrounded as a design paradigm.
The Murmurator’s collaborative genesis, relationship to
improvisational and multi-channel acousmatic perfor-
mance practices, software details, and ongoing develop-
ment are discussed.
1. INTRODUCTION
The history of performed electroacoustic spatialization can
be traced back to 1951 with the development and use of
the potentiomètre d'espace by Pierre Schaeffer and Pierre
Henry at the Radiodiffusion-Télévision Française [1].
Since then, as more and more systems and spaces dedi-
cated to multi-channel sound diffusion of acousmatic mu-
sic become available (non-standard multi-loudspeaker sys-
tems such as the BEAST or Acousmonium or high density
loudspeaker arrays such as the Espace de Projection or The
Cube, for example [2]), so do tools (often software tools)
designed to control the projection of sound in space, offer-
ing more and more methods, algorithmic processes, and
interfaces for dynamic control of spatialization.
Each of these systems privileges different performance
contexts, technologies, and musical aesthetics, ranging in
performativity, generalizability, and extra-musical rela-
tionships. Examples include Richard Garrett’s Audio
Spray Gun [3], Robert Normandeau’s Octogris [4], Scott
Wilson et al.’s BEASTmulch [5], Jan Schacher’s ICST
Ambisonics Tools [6], GRM’s spat~ [7], Ico Bukvic’s D4
[8], and Natasha Barrett’s Cheddar [9]. For an in-depth
comparison see Perez-Lopez [10] and/or Marshall et al. [1]
Kevin Davis
University of Virginia
kwd8ce@virginia.edu
The Murmurator exists as a result of a shared interest be-
tween the authors in extending this set of tools to include
systems that are designed for collaborative improvisation
in multi-channel loudspeaker contexts (a class of spatiali-
zation systems that Perez-Lopez finds scarce in his 2015
research [10]) and, further, to investigate ways in which
the interactivity and liveness of spatialization being max-
imized in many of these systems can be extended to other
musical dimensions, in other words, “un-fixing” the musi-
cal materials that many of these systems take as immutable
in the same way that spatialization is “un-fixed”, and sub-
sequently handling the resultant cognitive load that such
an all-encompassing real-time musical control paradigm
presents [1].
2. MOTIVATION AND GOALS
Keeping these shared interests in mind, the authors di-
rected their research with two primary goals:
Goal 1: To investigate the potentialities of adaptive per-
formance and improvisation in a multi-channel, multi-per-
former acousmatic context;
Goal 2: To position real-time control of sound diffusion
and integration between spatialization and other musical
dimensions as a focal point of software instrument design
Goal 1 stems from both authors’ improvisational back-
ground, their dissatisfaction with available methodologies
to perform and improvise in multi-channel contexts, and
the belief that real-time collaborative experimentation is
exceedingly important to multi-channel sound diffusion
practice. Practically speaking, being able to perform on as
many different speaker configurations as possible was of
interest to the authors, so a flexible, multi-purpose tech-
nique for spatialization not wedded to a particular speaker
configuration was sought.
Goal 2 seeks tools to engage with immersive electroacous-
tic space that differ from 1) traditionally diffused acous-
matic music performance and 2) discrete multi-channel
fixed media playback. Instead, the authors were interested
in a multi-channel performance software that not only po-
sitions sound diffusion as a performative action but also
one that deeply affects the musical materials that are being
performed with, in other words, a system that facilitates an
integration between spatialization and other musical di-
mensions.
The cognitive load of such a complex musical system may
be mitigated through a number of different methods [1].
First, the multiplexing of parameters, effectively tethering
the control of multiple parameters to a single (or several)
parameter(s), effectively reduces the input space. Second,
supervised stochastic processes may be applied to param-
eters, allowing for overall qualities of the dynamics of the
input to be defined but not precisely managed over time, a
quality that can be advantageous in an improvisatory set-
ting. Third, algorithms may be deployed that automatically
control parameters, the meta-parameters of which are then
supervised by the performer. The relegated control of an
instrument that deploys these methods suggests a perfor-
mance paradigm that allows for processes to be set into
motion and tweaked (in the frequency, timbral, and/or spa-
tial domains) rather than having a one-to-one relationship
between activating gesture and spatio-sonic utterance.
Summing this up, through research of these goals the au-
thors came to the following solutions, outlined in more de-
tail in the next section:
Solution to Goal 1: Take advantage of real-time algorith-
mic and/or probabilistic processes to mitigate the cogni-
tive load required to manage the many different extra-spa-
tial musical parameters of interest, and harness the flexi-
bility and speaker independence of ambisonics;
Solution to Goal 2: In tandem with goal 1, use performer-
tweakable computer models to control sound diffusion,
and, further, use parameters of these models to affect other
musical dimensions, allowing for a given spatialization to
alter the musical materials that are being spatialized in
real-time.
3. DESIGN
As a function of these solutions, the authors decided on
creating a software instrument that combined the follow-
ing components:
3.1 Probabilisitic Sampling
Probabilistic sampling is a system previously used by Stine
which allows for stochastic meta-control of sample selec-
tion. Rather than sequencing a corpus of samples over time
the probabilistic distribution of the samples is controlled
by the user, relinquishing exact timing in exchange for the
ability to shape the likelihood of a sample’s sonic occur-
rence. This system facilitates the use of real-world sound
rather than direct digital synthesis (an interest of both au-
thors), but also allows for efficient high level textural and
gestural control. The stochastic nature of this system also
enables the injection of significant unpredictability, requir-
ing the performer(s) to adapt to a given realization of their
chosen distribution.
3.2 Granular Synthesis
Granular synthesis (GS) is a highly developed sound syn-
thesis technique first described by Dennis Gabor, formal-
ized by Iannis Xenakis, and implemented on computers by
Curtis Roads and Barry Truax, among others [12]. An in-
troduction to GS may be found in [13]. For our purposes
the wide number of input parameters, high level of control
over textural and timbral dimensions of sound, and ability
to work with recorded sound made GS desirable. The gran-
ular synthesis engine in the Murmurator mixes multiple
audio files chosen by the probabilistic sampling method
outlined in 3.1 into a set of grain streams, each of which is
assigned a position in space by the natural system model
described in the next section.
3.3 Spatialization by Altering Parameters of a Natural
System Model
Rather than controlling sound diffusion directly the au-
thors wanted to relegate that element of control to the
changing parameters of a computer model of a system, a
system whose meta-parameters could then be performed
directly. Models researched by the authors included cellu-
lar automata, Lindenmeyer systems, ecosystem models,
molecular simulations, crowd behavior, and flocking sim-
ulations.
The authors chose a simple flocking algorithm developed
by Craig Reynolds titled Boids, which simulates the ways
in which flocks of birds self-organize using three simple,
locally-controlled behaviors (Figure 1.) [14]. Boids was
chosen as system model because of its simplicity to imple-
ment, large but intuitive input dimensions, and direct map-
ping to physical space. In the Murmurator each agent in
the Boids system corresponds to a stream of grains in the
GS system, allowing for dynamic, non-random spatializa-
tion of the GS output.
Figure 1. The three primary behavioral rules that result in
emergent flocking behavior in Craig Reynold’s Boids
The use of Boids in interactive spatial music and with GS
has been researched by a number of different authors. As
part of his research into spatialization via particle systems
David Kim-Boyle employs an implementation of Boids to
control sound spatialization using a custom-made panning
system over a 5.1 channel system [15]. Kim-Boyle also ex-
periments with the relationship between spatial and musi-
cal dimensions by “mapping the movements of particles to
the spatial location of individual bins in a short-time Fou-
rier transform.” Scott Wilson makes use of a three-dimen-
sional flocking system to assist in spatialization of the
BEASTmulch system [5], incorporating ambisonics to al-
low for variable speaker configurations and also including
control of parameters on the fly through SuperCollider
code and an external controller, although not putting em-
phasis on interface, adaptive performance, or improvisa-
tional context [16]. Bates and Furlong employ Boids to
generate spatial data used to create score files in Csound
which are performed by synthesis instruments including
GS [17]. Along with using higher order ambisonics Bates
and Furlong model the Doppler effect, early reflections,
and global reverberation, touching on (at a low, integrated
level) the control over musical materials via spatialization
that the authors of this work are interested in. Schacher et
al. use Boids-like swarm algorithms not only to generate
sound but to produce visuals as well, extending this prac-
tice to the audio-visual domain [18]. Rather than being per-
formed, high level control of the system is managed via a
Finite State Machine which automates large-scale changes
in the system. In the “Future Work” section Schacher et al.
also express interest in relating spatialization to the sonic
output of the system in an intriguing way: by “endowing
agents with the capability to perceive aspects of the acous-
tic output”, thus affecting their own behavior in response
to the sound they produce [18].
As the above examples show, Boids has been used numer-
ous times in spatialization contexts, but the authors were
curious to see how it could be extended to act as the focal
point of an improvisational system, simultaneously reduc-
ing cognitive load of spatialization control and taking ad-
vantage of its emergent properties to enact both autonomy
and multiplexed control [1].
3.4 System for Controlling Granular Synthesizer Pa-
rameters via Model of Natural System
The authors sought a means for having characteristics of
the agents in the Boids model affect their corresponding
grain streams in order to create a deep connection between
spatialization and other musical dimensions. These con-
nections would go beyond integrated psychoacoustically-
driven spatialization effects (e.g. Bates and Furlong’s
modeled Doppler effect [17]) and would allow for expres-
sive control over the granular synthesizer via the model-
controlled spatialization. Such a system requires careful
selection of which model parameters will act as drivers
(agent velocity, acceleration, location, density, etc.) what
sonic dimensions will be affected (speed, amplitude, loca-
tion, duration, or the parameters of DSP effects applied to
the grain streams), and what interface will be created to
control these relationships in an intuitive, expressive way,
while still minimizing the amount of cognitive load on the
user.
3.5 Higher Order Ambisonic Diffusion
Lastly, to allow for highly flexible and controllable object-
based sound diffusion (driven by the locations of the
agents in the Boids simulation) the authors decided to work
with higher order ambisonics rather than other alternatives
(vector-based amplitude panning, wavefield synthesis,
etc.). Portable performativity of the system is increased by
ambisonic’s ability to work with a variety of speaker con-
figurations, dependent on the ambisonic order and the par-
ticulars of the configuration [19].
3.6 Final Design Overview
In summation, the Murmurator is built around a two-di-
mensional bird flocking simulation consisting of a set of
agents under constraints that result in naturalistic emergent
behavior. Each agent corresponds to a stream in a granular
synthesizer that makes use of a probabilistically-controlled
corpus of audio files chosen by the user. The spatialization
of each grain stream is controlled in ambisonic space by
the corresponding agent’s location. The grain streams are
further processed using delay, filtering, and distortion, the
parameters of which are influenced by the spatial charac-
teristics of the agents corresponding to each grain stream.
4. IMPLEMENTATION
The Mumurator is programmed in Max 7, a media graph-
ical programming language developed by Cycling ’74 on
an Apple MacBook Pro (running macOS 10.12.5). The use
of laptops for programming and testing was intentionally
chosen to enforce lightweight design for performance port-
ability. In addition to original code created by the authors
the Murmurator makes use of Jan Schacher’s ambisonic
Max external objects, developed at the ICST at Zurich
University of the Arts [6], and an altered implementation
of Craig Reynold’s Boids flocking simulation (included in
the Javascript examples of the Max distribution; no author
given) [14].
The functionality of the program is divided into four main
modules: global settings and preset control, flock view and
control, effector and group control, and granular synthe-
sizer control. An outline of the functionality of each mod-
ule follows, supplemented with reflections on how the
functionality relates to the author’s goals.
4.1 Global Settings and Preset Control
Figure 2. Global Settings and Preset Control Module
The Global Settings and Preset Control module allows the
user to specify how many agents the simulation has (sim-
ultaneously controlling the polyphony of the granular syn-
thesizer) and to load in a folder of audio files which act as
source sounds for the granular synthesizer. The probability
of picking a source sound is controlled via a table (center
left of Figure 2) whose members correspond to the audio
file corpus: the higher the slider associated with a sound is
the more likely it is to be granularized (if the slider for a
corresponding sound is all the way down it will not be
heard), implementing the probabilistic sampling described
in 3.1. The speaker setup may also be adjusted here, allow-
ing for toggling between stereo, quadrophonic, or octo-
phonic diffusion with the positions of speakers adjustable
in the ambisonic virtual soundfield.
This module also contains a preset system which allows a be recorded and played back using the automation record-
user to save a snapshot of all current settings of the pro- ing system described in section 4.1.
gram, recall this snapshot, and to linearly interpolate be-
tween different snapshots. In conjunction with the preset 4.3 Effector and Group Control
system each controllable user interface parameter may be
set to its value on snapshot 1 by hovering over it and press-
ing the ‘esc’ key, allowing a performer to quickly reset in-
dividual settings during performance. The windowing en-
velope for the granular synthesizer has its own control
here, along with a simple five band equalizer and limiter
to equalize and limit the master output of the system, re-
spectively.

An automation and audio recording submodule is also in-

cluded. The automation recording system allows the user
to record the performance of several select parameters by
arming them, pressing and holding the space bar, and al-
tering the parameters. They may then play the recorded au-
tomation back and loop it at different rates, effectively en-
abling parameters to “play themselves” and allowing the
performer to focus on other parameters in the mean time.
The audio recording system allows the performer to record
the entire output of the system to disk as a third-order un-
decoded ambisonic audio stream, which may then be de-
coded to any number of speaker configurations (or binau-
ral) post-performance.
4.2 Flock View and Control
Figure 4. Effector and Group Control Module
The Effector and Group Control module gives the user the
ability to control effectors, parameters that alter the influ-
ence of the location and velocity of agents on GS parame-
ters (Figure 4, left), specifically volume, speed, filter mix,
frequency, and resonance, distortion, grain duration, start
location, and rate. For example, a user can control how
much an agent’s velocity affects the speed of its corre-
sponding GS stream, or how much an agent’s distance
from the center (in this ambisonics implementation, equiv-
alently distance from listener) affects the distortion applied
to the corresponding GS stream. Positive and negative cor-
relations can be chosen (by turning an effector’s dial right
and left, respectively), and an intensity dial affects the sum
of influence from velocity and listener distance for each
parameter.

The group control submodule (Figure 4, right) allows for

an entirely different method of control than the flock con-
trol submodule described in 4.2, incorporating built-in
functionality of the ICST ambisonics tools [6]. The agents
are divided into groups according to a set group size and
Figure 3. Flock View and Control Module
then spatial transformations (rotation, Brownian motion,
randomized movement in vertical or horizontal space only,
The Flock View and Control module gives the user visual
and others) are applied to each group of agents separately,
feedback on where the simulated agents are in two-dimen-
allowing for multiple spatialization logics to be in place at
sional space with respect to a unit circle (Figure 3, left),
a single time, supplementing the holistic flocking simula-
the locations of which are used to drive the spatial coordi-
tion spatialization control paradigm.
nates of each of the streams of granular synthesis in the
ambisonic virtual soundfield.
4.4 Granular Synthesizer Control
The flock control section gives the user high level control
The Granular Synthesizer Control module gives the user
over the flock: the ability to translate, scale, and rotate it,
control over all aspects of the polyphonic granular synthe-
along with low level, precise control over the parameters
sizer through controllers designed in concert with the pre-
of the flocking simulation included in this implementation,
vious modules. A compromise is made between global and
specifically separation, alignment, inertia, gravity, sepa-
individual grain control to allow for a balance between re-
ration threshold, coherence, friction, and maximum veloc-
duction of cognitive load and the ability to “zoom in” and
ity. In addition, a two-dimensional XY-slider meta-con-
intimately tweak the settings for individual grain streams.
troller (Figure 3, top right) controls groups of the low-level
The number of sounding grains may be controlled here (the
flocking simulation parameters, facilitating intuitive and
manipulation of which may also be recorded, played back,
expressive control over flocking “spacing” (friction, sepa-
and looped using the recording functionality described in
ration threshold, gravity) and “separation” (separation,
4.1) and stochastic ranges for the grain rate (msec), grain
maximum velocity, coherence) meta-parameters. Lastly,
duration (msec), and grain start location (percentage) may
control of the translate, scale, and rotate parameters may
be manipulated. Because of the probabilistic nature of
picking source sounds (described in 4.1) the grain start lo-
cation is described as percentage of the sound file duration,
and may also be automated using one-dimensional Brown-
ian motion (random walk) and automatic forward and
backward scrub controls.
Figure 5. Granular Synthesizer Control
The volume and speed of each grain stream may be con-
trolled, with the speed also controlled globally in equal
temperament using a keyboard interface (Figure 5., cen-
ter). The filter frequency of each grain stream may also be
adjusted, along with the wet-dry mix, resonance, and
choice of band or low pass filters. In order to enhance the
perceived density of the granular synthesizer, the delay
system for each grain stream consists of two delay lines
which stochastically change their delay length at a stochas-
tically chosen rate and crossfade back and forth between
one another to avoid any clicks or other sonic disturbances.
The global delay wet-dry mix and feedback parameters
may be adjusted, along with stochastic ranges for the delay
length (msecs) and delay change rate (msecs). Lastly, dis-
tortion applied to each grain stream (a waveshaping func-
tion that emulates an overdriven tube-based circuit) may
be controlled globally, user manipulation of which may
also be recorded, played back at different rates, and looped
(as described in 4.1).
4.5 Performance Evaluation
The Murmurator was premiered November 9th, 2017 at
The Bridge Progressive Arts Initiative in Charlottesville,
Virginia over an octophonic sound system (QSC K8s) with
each performer outputting eight channels of sound. The
audience (approximately 80 people) surrounded the per-
formers and were invited to both view what the performers
were doing and also move through the space during the
performance.
Figure 6. Premiere Performance by Authors
While rehearsing for the performance the authors collabo-
ratively curated complementary banks of sounds. A rough
form for the piece was then structured via the preset system
using these chosen sound banks. Performance involved
immediate or slow transitions to and from each preset with
the performative path navigated between each section
adapting improvisationally. The authors found that im-
provisation with the Murmurator often involved either fo-
cusing solely on controlling one of the software’s modules
or listening and intuitively tweaking individual settings in
all of the modules.
In attendance at the premiere performance of the Mur-
murator were a number of students from University of Vir-
ginia’s Spring 2017 Technosonics course, a large, under-
graduate non-major course introducing the history, theory,
and practice of electronic music and sound art. As part of
that course, students were asked to write descriptive con-
cert reports, and 27 students wrote on the premiere perfor-
mance of the Murmurator. Across the concert reports three
descriptions were shared by a number of students:
1. The novelty of moving around during the per-
formance (8 students)
2. The perceived improvisational nature of the
work (7 students)
3. The novelty of being able to see the performer’s
tools (6 students)
These comments speak to the success of the transparent,
improvised multi-channel performance environment facil-
itated by the Murmurator. The Murmurator is already un-
dergoing changes as a function of this performance and
performances at NIME, ICMC, and CubeFest 2018, with
the most prominent of these outlined in the next section.
 5. CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT
5.1 Physical Performance Interface
The Murmurator in its current form is controlled by track-
pad and keyboard. Additionally, the software interface (in-
cluding all parametric control) could be embodied physi-
cally via control surfaces or gestural controllers, allowing
for easier synchronous control of multiple parameters than
is currently possible.
5.2 Expansion to Three Dimensions
Expanding the world of the flocking simulation to three
dimensions would allow for the Murmurator to be per-
formed in multi-height multi-channel loudspeaker sys-
tems. This expansion requires alterations to the currently
used implementation of Reynold’s Boids code and to the
ambisonic encoding of the agents.
5.3 Inclusion of Other Natural System Models
Rather than limiting the spatialization control to a single
system model (Boids), many other simulations and models
could be included in the software, each of which would
have different input controls, spatial dynamics, and musi-
cal potentials. Models explored by the authors include the
aforementioned cellular automata and Lindenmeyer sys-
tems, along with more novel simulations such as water-
fowl habitat models and RNA binding simulations.
6. CONCLUSION
The Murmurator builds upon previous projects that make
use of granular synthesis and natural system models in
multi-channel electroacoustic space, but differentiates it-
self by being designed explicitly to be used in a collabora-
tive improvisation setting. This results in a number of sig-
nificant, and musically compelling, changes to the system.
To reduce the cognitive load required to manage both real-
time spatialization of sounds and other musical dimensions
and simultaneously to give it an improvisational “voice”,
distributed, relegated control permeates all levels of the
Murmurator’s design, from its probabilistic sampler to the
emergent properties of the flocking algorithm. Further, a
system to facilitate control of the influence of the spatiali-
zation model on other musical dimensions (effectors) es-
tablishes a deep connection between the way sounds are
spatialized by the system and the processing of the sounds
themselves, effectively integrating the parameters of gran-
ular synthesis and spatialization in live performance.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Natasha Barrett and Eric Lyon for inspir-
ing this work and the Virginia Center for Computer Music
for providing a space and speaker setup for development.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Marshall, Mark T., Joseph Malloch, and Marcelo M.
Wanderley. "Gesture control of sound spatialization for live
musical performance." International Gesture Workshop.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007.
[2] Zvonar, Richard. "A history of spatial music." Montreal:
CEC (1999).
[3] Garrett, Richard. Audio Spray Gun 0.8–the Generation of
Large Sound-Groups and Their Use in Three-Dimensional
Spatialisation. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Publishing,
University of Michigan Library, 2015.
[4] Normandeau, Robert. "Octogris2 et ZirkOSC2: outils
logiciels pour une spatialisation sonore intégrée au travail
de composition." Proc. of Journées d’Informatique
Musicale (JIM), Montréal, Canada (2015).
[5] Wilson, S., J. Harrison, and S. L. Ancona.
"Beastmulch." URL
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/facilities/ea-
studios/research/mulch.aspx
[6] Schacher, Jan C. "Seven years of ICST Ambisonics tools
for maxmsp–a brief report." Proc. of the 2nd International
Symposium on Ambisonics and Spherical Acoustics. 2010.
[7] Carpentier, Thibaut, Markus Noisternig, and Olivier
Warusfel. "Twenty years of Ircam Spat: looking back,
looking forward." 41st International Computer Music
Conference (ICMC). 2015.
[8] Bukvic, Ivica Ico. "D4: an Interactive 3D Audio Rapid
Prototyping and Transportable Rendering Environment
Using High Density Loudspeaker Arrays." (2016).
[9] Barrett, Natasha. "Interactive spatial sonification of
multidimensional data for composition and auditory
display." Computer Music Journal 40.2 (2016): 47-69.
[10] Perez-Lopez, Andres. "3DJ: A supercollider framework for
real-time sound spatialization." Georgia Institute of
Technology, 2015.
[11] Johnson, Bridget. "Emerging Technologies for Real-Time
Diffusion Performance." Leonardo Music Journal, vol. 24,
no. 1, 2014, pp. 13 - 15.
[12] Roads, Curtis. "Automated granular synthesis of
sound." Computer Music Journal 2.2 (1978): 61-62.
[13] Roads, Curtis. “Introduction to Granular
Synthesis.” Computer Music Journal 12.3 (1988): 11–13.
[14] C. Reynolds. Herds, and schools: A distributed behavioral
model. Computer Graphics, 21(4 (SIGGRAPH ’87
Conference Proceedings)):25–34, 1987.
[15] Kim-Boyle, David. "Sound spatialization with particle
systems." Proceedings of the 8th international conference
on digital audio effects (DAFX-05), Madrid, Spain. 2005.
[16] Wilson, Scott. "Spatial swarm granulation." Proceedings of
the 2008 international computer music conference. SARC,
ICMA, 2008.
[17] Bates, Enda, and Dermot Furlong. "Score File Generators
for Boids-Based Granular Synthesis in Csound." Audio
Engineering Society Convention 126. Audio Engineering
Society, 2009.
[18] Schacher, J. C., D. Bisig, and M. Neukom. "Composing
with swarm algorithms—creating interactive audio-visual
pieces using flocking behaviour." Proceedings of the
International Computer Music Conference. Vol. 2011.
2011.
[19] Blauert, Jens, and Rudolf Rabenstein. "Providing surround
sound with loudspeakers: a synopsis of current meth-
ods." Archives of Acoustics 37.1 (2012): 5-18.