Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

54

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SPEECH AND AUDIO PROCESSING, VOL. 11, NO. 1, JANUARY 2003

Multichannel Affine and Fast Affine Projection Algorithms for Active Noise Control and Acoustic Equalization Systems

Martin Bouchard, Member, IEEE

Abstract—In the field of adaptive signal processing, it is well known that affine projection algorithms or their low-compu- tational implementations fast affine projection algorithms can produce a good tradeoff between convergence speed and compu- tational complexity. Although these algorithms typically do not provide the same convergence speed as recursive-least-squares algorithms, they can provide a much improved convergence speed compared to stochastic gradient descent algorithms, without the high increase of the computational load or the instability often found in recursive-least-squares algorithms. In this paper, multi- channel affine and fast affine projection algorithms are introduced for active noise control or acoustic equalization. Multichannel fast affine projection algorithms have been previously published for acoustic echo cancellation, but the problem of active noise control or acoustic equalization is a very different one, leading to different structures, as explained in the paper. The computational complexity of the new algorithms is evaluated, and it is shown through simulations that not only can the new algorithms provide the expected tradeoff between convergence performance and com- putational complexity, they can also provide the best convergence performance (even over recursive-least-squares algorithms) when nonideal noisy acoustic plant models are used in the adaptive systems.

Index Terms—Acoustic equalization, active noise control, fast affine projection algorithms, multichannel adaptive filtering, sound reproduction.

I. INTRODUCTION

A CTIVE noise control (ANC) systems [1], [2] work on the principle of destructive interference between an original

“primary” disturbance sound field measured at the location of “error” sensors (typically microphones), and a “secondary” sound field that is generated by control actuators (typically loudspeakers). In ANC systems a common approach is to use adaptive FIR filters, in either feedforward or feedback control configurations. A similar problem is the problem of acoustic equalization or deconvolution [3], [4], where the acoustic re- sponse of a room between actuators and sensors needs to be inverted and compensated. An application of this is transaural audio or multichannel exact sound reproduction systems, where given waveforms have to be reproduced at some sensor loca- tions. Figs. 1 and 2 show block-diagrams of monochannel im-

tions. Figs. 1 and 2 show block-diagrams of monochannel im- Manuscript received October 15, 2001; revised
tions. Figs. 1 and 2 show block-diagrams of monochannel im- Manuscript received October 15, 2001; revised
tions. Figs. 1 and 2 show block-diagrams of monochannel im- Manuscript received October 15, 2001; revised
tions. Figs. 1 and 2 show block-diagrams of monochannel im- Manuscript received October 15, 2001; revised

Manuscript received October 15, 2001; revised August 14, 2002. This work was supported in part by an NSERC grant. The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and approving it for publication was Dr. Peter Vary. The author is with the School of Information Technology and Engi- neering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5 Canada (e-mail:

bouchard@site.uottawa.ca). Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSA.2002.805642

plementations of feedforward active noise control and acoustic equalization, using adaptive FIR filters. The systems in Figs. 1 and 2 are delay-compensated, i.e., the stabilization time on the error signals caused by updates to the adaptive FIR filter coef- ficients has been eliminated by minimizing an alternative error signal, with the same steady state statistics as the original error signal. This has also been called the “modified filtered- ” struc- ture [5], and the use of this structure will be assumed in the rest of this paper. Also, the algorithms to be introduced in this paper are for feedforward adaptive active noise control, although it is a simple task to adapt them to either feedback adaptive active noise control [with internal model control (IMC) structures] or acoustic equalization systems [5]. It is well known that affine projection algorithms or their low-computational implementations fast affine projection algo- rithms can produce a good tradeoff between convergence speed and computational complexity. Although these algorithms typ- ically do not provide the same convergence speed as recursive-

least-squares algorithms, they can provide a much improved convergence speed compared to stochastic gradient descent al- gorithms, without the high increase of the computational load or the instability often found in recursive-least-squares algo- rithms, especially for multichannel systems [5]–[7]. An adapta- tion of a fast affine projection algorithm for monochannel active noise control has been previously published [8]. The adaptation is not straightforward, as fast affine projection algorithms com- pute auxiliary coefficients instead of the “normal” time-domain coefficients usually computed by adaptive FIR filtering algo- rithms, and the outputs from those “normal” coefficients are re- quired for active noise control or for acoustic equalization. In Section II of this paper, the previous work is modified and ex- tended to introduce multichannel affine and fast affine projec- tion algorithms for active noise control or acoustic equalization. Multichannel fast affine projection algorithms have been previ- ously published for acoustic echo cancellation, but the problem of active noise control or acoustic equalization is a very different one. Indeed active noise control and acoustic equalization are obviously control or inverse problems, while acoustic echo can- cellation is an identification problem (with of course its own ad- ditional constraints such as double-talk, etc.). This leads to dif- ferent structures (such as the filtered- structure of the filtered- LMS [9] instead of the standard adaptive FIR filter structure, or other structures such as adjoint [5], filtered- [9] or inverse

filtered-

[10]), to a different number of dimensions for the

different signals, and obviously to different multichannel algo-

rithms. In Section III, the computational complexity of the new

multichannel algo- rithms. In Section III, the computational complexity of the new 1063-6676/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
multichannel algo- rithms. In Section III, the computational complexity of the new 1063-6676/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
multichannel algo- rithms. In Section III, the computational complexity of the new 1063-6676/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
multichannel algo- rithms. In Section III, the computational complexity of the new 1063-6676/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE
multichannel algo- rithms. In Section III, the computational complexity of the new 1063-6676/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE

1063-6676/03$17.00 © 2003 IEEE

BOUCHARD: MULTICHANNEL AFFINE AND FAST AFFINE PROJECTION ALGORITHMS

55

MULTICHANNEL AFFINE AND FAST AFFINE PROJECTION ALGORITHMS 55 Fig. control. 1. Delay compensated modified-filtered-

Fig.

control.

1.

Delay compensated modified-filtered- structure for active noise

compensated modified-filtered- structure for active noise Fig. 2. Delay compensated modified-filtered- structure

Fig. 2. Delay compensated modified-filtered- structure for acoustic equaliza- tion or exact sound reproduction.

introduced algorithms is evaluated. In Section IV, it is shown through simulations that not only can the new algorithms pro- vide the expected tradeoff between convergence performance and computational complexity, they can also provide the best convergence performance (even over recursive-least-squares al- gorithms) when nonideal noisy acoustic plant models are used in the adaptive systems.

II. MULTICHANNEL AFFINE AND FAST AFFINE PROJECTION

ALGORITHMS FOR ACTIVE NOISE CONTROL

A. Multichannel Affine Projection Algorithm for Active Noise Control

An affine projection algorithm for multichannel active noise control is described in this section. Even though a fast affine projection algorithm for multichannel active noise control with a lower complexity will be developed in the next subsection, it may be useful to use the nonsimplified affine projection version because

• for small affine projection orders the complexity of the affine projection algorithm may be similar to the com- plexity of the fast affine projection algorithm, and its im- plementation is much simpler;

• the affine projection algorithm does not require the use of any sliding window recursive-least-squares algorithm to compute parameters, therefore in some implementations its numerical robustness may be greater than for fast affine projection algorithms.

The mathematical foundation of the affine projection algo- rithm will not be described here since it is available in the liter- ature [11], but an emphasis will be put on how the different sig- nals in multichannel ANC must be structured so that the affine projection algorithm can be used. In particular, the dimensions of the different resulting signals will be emphasized. To describe the multichannel delay-compensated modified filtered- affine projection algorithm (MFXAP), the following notation is de- fined (refer to Fig. 1):

number of reference sensors in an ANC system; number of actuators in an ANC system; number of error sensors in an ANC system; length of the adaptive FIR filters; affine projection order; length of (fixed) FIR filters modeling the plant (transfer functions between the actuators and the error sensors) in an ANC system;the following notation is de- fined (refer to Fig. 1): value at time value at time

value at time value at timethe actuators and the error sensors) in an ANC system; value at time of the primary

value at time of the primary sound field at the th

error sensor; value at time of the th error sensor; estimate of , computed in delay-compensated modified filtered- structures;at time value at time of the primary sound field at the th of the th

computed in delay-compensated modified filtered- structures; of the th reference signal; of the th actuator signal;

of the th reference signal;computed in delay-compensated modified filtered- structures; of the th actuator signal; value at time of the

of themodified filtered- structures; of the th reference signal; th actuator signal; value at time of the

th actuator signal;

of the th reference signal; of the th actuator signal; value at time of the alternative
of the th reference signal; of the th actuator signal; value at time of the alternative
of the th reference signal; of the th actuator signal; value at time of the alternative

value at time of the alternative error signal for the th sensor, computed in delay-compensated modi- fied filtered- structures;of the th reference signal; of the th actuator signal; value at time of the th

in delay-compensated modi- fied filtered- structures; value at time of the th coefficient in the adaptive
in delay-compensated modi- fied filtered- structures; value at time of the th coefficient in the adaptive
in delay-compensated modi- fied filtered- structures; value at time of the th coefficient in the adaptive
in delay-compensated modi- fied filtered- structures; value at time of the th coefficient in the adaptive

value at time of the th coefficient in the adaptive FIR filter linking and ;

the th coefficient in the adaptive FIR filter linking and ; and ; value of the

andthe th coefficient in the adaptive FIR filter linking and ; ; value of the th

;
;

value of the th coefficient in the (fixed) FIR filter

modeling the plant between

value at time of the filtered reference signal, i.e.,

value at time of the filtered reference signal, i.e., the signal obtained by filtering the signal
value at time of the filtered reference signal, i.e., the signal obtained by filtering the signal

the signal obtained by filtering the signal with the plant model filter;

by filtering the signal with the plant model filter; size size size size size size .
size size size size size size . . . . . size . . .
size
size
size
size
size
size
.
.
.
.
.
size
.
.
. size
size

56

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SPEECH AND AUDIO PROCESSING, VOL. 11, NO. 1, JANUARY 2003

size size size size size
size
size
size
size
size

The interlaced notation used for or is not the only possible notation, but it is required in order to make a “block time series” for which it will be possible to develop fast algorithms such as fast recursive-least-squares algorithms for multichannel ANC systems [5]–[7] or the fast affine projection algorithmformultichannelANCsystemstobeintroducedlaterin this section. Using the above notation, the multichannel MFXAP algorithm for active noise control can be described by (1)–(5)

size: size: size:
size:
size:
size:

(1)

(2)

(3)

acoustic equalization were discussed in [8]. These modifications are required because of the computation of “auxiliary” coeffi- cients by fast affine projection algorithms, instead of “normal” coefficients. In this paper, the fast affine projection (FAP) algo- rithm selected for an extension to the problem of multichannel active noise control will use a built-in sliding window recur- sive-least-squares (RLS) algorithm instead of a sliding window fast-RLS or fast-transversal-filter (FTF) algorithm. It is there- fore a multichannel FAP-RLS algorithm [14] for active noise control, using the delay-compensated modified filtered- struc- ture: the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm. The rationale for using the sliding window RLS is that simulation results of multichannel active noise control using fast affine projection algorithms with sliding window fast-RLS or FTF algorithms showed severe nu- merical instability, even with double precision floating point number representation. Also, the selected projection order will be typically 10 or less, therefore the computational gain of using “fast” realizations is not very large in this case. To help with the stability of the sliding window RLS algorithm, the in- verse correlations matrices in (12) and in (15) were forced to be symmetric by computing only the upper triangular part and copying the values to the lower triangular part. In the description of the multichannel fast affine projection algorithm for ANC, the emphasis again will be put on the structure and di- mensions of the different signals. The following additional no- tation is defined for the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm:

no- tation is defined for the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm: value at time of the th auxiliary coefficient
no- tation is defined for the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm: value at time of the th auxiliary coefficient
no- tation is defined for the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm: value at time of the th auxiliary coefficient
no- tation is defined for the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm: value at time of the th auxiliary coefficient
no- tation is defined for the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm: value at time of the th auxiliary coefficient
no- tation is defined for the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm: value at time of the th auxiliary coefficient

value at time of the th auxiliary coefficient in the adaptive FIR filter linking and . These auxiliary coefficients are the coefficients computed by the fast affine projection algorithm. They are different from the coeffi- cients, and extra equations are required in active noise control systems to compute and

are required in active noise control systems to compute and from instead of [see size: (6)–(9)].
are required in active noise control systems to compute and from instead of [see size: (6)–(9)].
are required in active noise control systems to compute and from instead of [see size: (6)–(9)].
are required in active noise control systems to compute and from instead of [see size: (6)–(9)].
are required in active noise control systems to compute and from instead of [see size: (6)–(9)].
from instead of [see size: (6)–(9)]. (4) inverse correlation matrices used by size: the sliding
from
instead of
[see
size:
(6)–(9)].
(4)
inverse correlation matrices used by
size:
the sliding window RLS algorithm. is ini-
tialized as an identity matrix multiplied by the
scalar , where is a regularization factor to
be adjusted.
the first
columns from the
(5)
matrix.
correlation vector of size associated
with the th actuator, initialized with zero values.
correlation matrix of size , initial-

where is a normalized convergence gain , and is a regularization factor that may be used to help with eventual numerical instability. It should be noted that the performance of the MFXAP algorithm is sensitive to the value of this regulariza- tion factor , so it should be tuned carefully (tradeoff between slow convergence and numerical instability). Also, for a proper initialization of the MFXAP algorithm, at the first iteration of the algorithm it was found that better performance was obtained if the first components (upper components) of in (4) and (5) were nonzero [some other components of will also be nonzero].

nonzero [some other components of will also be nonzero]. ized with zero values. vector of size
nonzero [some other components of will also be nonzero]. ized with zero values. vector of size

ized with zero values.

vector of size the th actuator in the signal error vector. . the first columns
vector of size
the
th actuator in the signal
error vector.
.
the first
columns of
.
the last columns of
.
the last
rows of
.

sparsely filled with the

columns of . the last rows of . sparsely filled with the values of . The

values of . The rows to be filled with the

values are the same rows associated with

be filled with the values are the same rows associated with B. Multichannel Fast Affine Projection

B. Multichannel Fast Affine Projection Algorithm for Active Noise Control

Derivations of the original fast affine projection algorithm can be found in [12], [13], and the modifications required in order to adapt the algorithm to the problem of active noise control or

size size
size
size

BOUCHARD: MULTICHANNEL AFFINE AND FAST AFFINE PROJECTION ALGORITHMS

57

The MFXFAP-RLS algorithm is then described by (2), (3) and

(6)–(18)

The performance of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm is sensitive to the value of the regularization factor , so it should be tuned carefully (again, tradeoff between slow convergence and numerical instability). Also, for a proper initialization of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm, at the first iteration of the algorithm only the first components of in (6), (8), (10), (11), (13), and (14) should be nonzero, all the other components should be zero. This requirement is caused by the sliding window RLS algorithm which does not have a forgetting factor.

RLS algorithm which does not have a forgetting factor. I I I . C O M
RLS algorithm which does not have a forgetting factor. I I I . C O M
RLS algorithm which does not have a forgetting factor. I I I . C O M
RLS algorithm which does not have a forgetting factor. I I I . C O M

III. COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY OF THE ALGORITHMS

Table I lists the computational complexity of the two algo- rithms introduced in Section II, estimated by the number of multiplies for one iteration of the algorithms. Matrix inversions were assumed to be performed with standard LU decomposi- tion: multiplies, where is the size of a square ma-

size: size:
size:
size:

(6)

(7)

size: (8) size: trix. In Table II, the number of multiplies required by the two
size:
(8)
size:
trix. In Table II, the number of multiplies required by the two al-
gorithms of Section II is compared to other previously published
multichannnel adaptive FIR filtering algorithms for active noise
control or acoustic equalization, based on least-mean-squares
(LMS) or recursive-least-squares algorithms [5]–[7]. Two cases
are considered in Table II: a monochannel system with ,
(9)
, , , and a multichannel system
with
,
,
,
,
. It can be
found from Table II that except for the multichannel modified
size:
filtered- LMS algorithm, the algorithm with the lowest com-
size: size:
size:
size:

(10)

(11)

(12)

size:
size:
size: size: size:
size:
size:
size:

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

putational load is the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm introduced in Section II (for a projection order ). This is true even though the MFXFAP-RLS of Section II uses a sliding window RLS algorithm, and not a sliding window fast-RLS or FTF al- gorithm. Since the MFXFAP-RLS can also provide a good im- provement of the convergence speed over the multichannel mod- ified filtered- LMS algorithm (as the simulations of the next section will show), the MFXFAP-RLS is therefore an attrac- tive algorithm for practical real-time implementations. Table II also shows that the computational load of the MFXAP algo- rithm is significantly higher: typically between the fast recur- sive-least-squares algorithms and the recursive-least-squares al- gorithms. But the use of the MFXAP may still be a good solu- tion for low projection orders , or for systems where the other algorithms show numerical instability.

where the other algorithms show numerical instability. I V . S I M U L A
where the other algorithms show numerical instability. I V . S I M U L A
where the other algorithms show numerical instability. I V . S I M U L A

IV. SIMULATION OF THE MULTICHANNEL ANC ALGORITHMS

In order to compare the convergence of the MFXAP and MFXFAP-RLS algorithms with other algorithms for mul- tichannel ANC, ANC simulations were performed using Matlab™ with acoustic transfer functions experimentally measured in a duct. The algorithms that were implemented for comparison with the algorithms of Section II are the multichannel modified filtered- LMS and RLS algorithms [5]. The RLS algorithm was modified to force the symmetry of the inverted correlation matrix, since this greatly helps the numer- ical stability of the algorithm [6], [7]. The simulated system had the dimensions , and . This is to reflect the well known principle that an additional actuator can greatly help to find a causal solution for an acoustic control system or

that an additional actuator can greatly help to find a causal solution for an acoustic control
that an additional actuator can greatly help to find a causal solution for an acoustic control
that an additional actuator can greatly help to find a causal solution for an acoustic control
size: size:
size:
size:

58

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SPEECH AND AUDIO PROCESSING, VOL. 11, NO. 1, JANUARY 2003

TABLE

I

COMPUTATIONAL LOAD OF THE MFXAP AND MFXFAP-RLS ALGORITHMS, ESTIMATED BY THE NUMBER OF MULTIPLIES FOR ONE ITERATION OF THE ALGORITHMS

OF M ULTIPLIES FOR O NE I TERATION OF THE A LGORITHMS TABLE II C OMPARISON

TABLE

II

COMPARISON OF THE COMPUTATIONAL LOAD OF THE MFXAP AND MFXFAP-RLS ALGORITHMS WITH OTHER MULTICHANNEL DELAY-COMPENSATED MODIFIED FILTERED- ALGORITHMS FOR ANC

OMPENSATED M ODIFIED F ILTERED - A LGORITHMS FOR ANC an inverse acoustic system (MINT algorithm

an inverse acoustic system (MINT algorithm [15]). However a system with , and is typically underdeter- mined, therefore the global correlation matrix to be recurrently inverted by the modified filtered- RLS algorithm is singular, and in order to avoid instability some noise (1%) was added to the signals used to compute this inverted correlation matrix. The impulse responses used for the multichannel acoustic plant had 64 samples each ( ), while the adaptive filters had 150 coefficients ( ). The forgetting factor coefficient in the recursive-least-squares algorithm was set to . The step size and the regularization factor used by some algorithms were adjusted by trial and error, and the values producing the fastest convergence speed were selected. For all the affine projection algorithms a step size close to unity was used, even under noisy plant model conditions. Figs. 3 and 4 show the performance of the MFXAP and MFXFAP-RLS algorithms for different affine projection orders, from to . In these figures the convergence is defined as the ratio of the sum of the error signals power over the sum of primary field (i.e., the disturbance signals) power. As can be seen from these figures, in both cases a projection order of is sufficient to get a significantly improved convergence performance over a projection order of (the case is a normalized stochastic gradient descent algo- rithm [11]). Except for (which is an unrealistic high value), the performance of the MFXAP and MFXFAP-RLS algorithms is similar. Fig. 5 compares the performance of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm for projection order with the multichannel modified filtered- LMS and RLS algorithms. As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS

As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:
As expected, the convergence performance of the MFXFAP-RLS Fig. 3. projection orders. From top to bottom:

Fig. 3.

projection orders. From top to bottom:

Convergence curves of the MFXAP algorithm, for different affine

and

,

,

.

of the MFXAP algorithm, for different affine and , , . Fig. 4. Convergence curves of

Fig. 4. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm, for different affine projection orders. From top to bottom: , , and .

algorithm is found between the convergence performance of the LMS-based algorithm and the RLS-based algorithm. The

BOUCHARD: MULTICHANNEL AFFINE AND FAST AFFINE PROJECTION ALGORITHMS

59

MULTICHANNEL AFFINE AND FAST AFFINE PROJECTION ALGORITHMS 59 Fig. 5. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm

Fig. 5. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm and multichannel delay-compensated modified filtered- LMS and RLS algorithms, for ideal plant models. From top to bottom: LMS, FAP-RLS, RLS.

ideal plant models. From top to bottom: LMS, FAP-RLS, RLS. Fig. 6. Convergence curves of the

Fig. 6. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm and multichannel delay-compensated modified filtered- LMS and RLS algorithms, for 20 dB SNR plant models. From top to bottom: LMS, FAP-RLS, RLS.

convergence speed gain of the MFXFAP-RLS over the multi- channel modified filtered- LMS is considerable, and since the computational load of the MFXFAP-RLS with is of the same order (although higher) than the LMS-based algorithm, the use of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm is an interesting option for practical implementations. This is particularly true since the multichannel recursive-least-squares algorithms for ANC listed in Table II either have a much higher computational load, or have serious numerical instability problems [5]–[7]. With the regularization factor , the MFXFAP-RLS did not show any numerical instability in the simulations. Simulations with noisy acoustic plant models (“ model” in Figs. 1 and 2) were then performed to compare the robustness of the different algorithms to plant models inaccuracy. So far ideal plant models had been assumed. The noise added to the ideal plant models was added on a frequency by frequency basis, where a random complex value with a magnitude of 20 or 10 dB less that the original magnitude was added to each frequency in the frequency response. Fig. 6 first shows the performance when plant models with a 20 dB SNR were used. In this case the per- formance of all algorithms was similar to the case when ideal plant models were used (Fig. 5), except for the initial conver- gence of the RLS algorithm which become slower. However, when 10 dB SNR models were used, the multichannel modified

RLS required a much smaller step size in order to

filtered-

converge, which greatly slowed down its convergence speed. In this case the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm greatly outperformed the

this case the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm greatly outperformed the Fig. 7. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm
this case the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm greatly outperformed the Fig. 7. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm
this case the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm greatly outperformed the Fig. 7. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm
this case the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm greatly outperformed the Fig. 7. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm
this case the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm greatly outperformed the Fig. 7. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm
this case the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm greatly outperformed the Fig. 7. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm
this case the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm greatly outperformed the Fig. 7. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm

Fig. 7. Convergence curves of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm and multichannel delay-compensated modified filtered- LMS and RLS algorithms, for 10 dB SNR plant models. From top to bottom: RLS, LMS, FAP-RLS.

multichannel modified filtered- RLS, on top of also having a much lower computational load. This is shown in Fig. 7. Since in practice it may not always be possible to have plant models that are very accurate (due to time-variance of the plant or a slow on-line identification process), the fact that the MFXFAP-RLS seems more robust to plant model noise (at least for the acoustic system considered here) is another reason to consider this algo- rithm for practical implementations. Results similar to Figs. 5–7 were found when the MFXAP algorithm was used instead of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm.

algorithm was used instead of the MFXFAP-RLS algorithm. V. C ONCLUSION In this paper, multichannel affine

V. CONCLUSION

In this paper, multichannel affine projection and fast affine projection algorithms were introduced for active noise control or acoustic equalization systems using adaptive FIR filters. It was shown through simulations that the proposed algorithms can provide a great increase of convergence speed over a multi- channel least-mean-squares algorithm, while the increase of the computational load introduced by the new MFXFAP-RLS algo- rithm may be acceptable for many applications. The new algo- rithms were found to be numerically robust. In the realistic case of noisy plant models, it was found that the proposed algorithms could even outperform more expensive recursive-least-squares algorithms. Therefore they seem to be an interesting option for practical multichannel ANC or acoustic equalization systems.

REFERENCES

[1] S. Elliott, Signal Processing for Active Control. London: Academic,

2001.

[2]

S. M. Kuo and D. R. Morgan, “Active noise control: A tutorial review,”

[3]

Proc. IEEE, vol. 87, pp. 943–973, June 1999. J. Bauck and D. H. Cooper, “Generalized transaural stereo and applica-

[4]

tions,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 44, pp. 683–705, Sept. 1996. P. A. Nelson, F. Orduna-Bustamante, and H. Hamada, “Inverse filter de- sign and equalization zones in multi-channel sound reproduction,” IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process., vol. 3, pp. 1–8, Jan. 1995.

[5] M. Bouchard and S. Quednau, “Multichannel recursive least-squares algorithms and fast-transversal-filter algorithms for active noise con- trol and sound reproduction systems,” IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Pro- cessing, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 606–618, Sept. 2000.

[6]

F. Yu and M. Bouchard, “Recursive least-squares algorithms with good

[7]

numerical stability for multichannel active noise control,” in Proc. ICASSP 2001, vol. 5, Salt Lake City, UT, May 2001, pp. 3221–3224. M. Bouchard, “Numerically stable fast convergence least-squares algo- rithms for multichannel active sound cancellation systems and sound deconvolution systems,” Signal Process., vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 721–736, May 2002.

60

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SPEECH AND AUDIO PROCESSING, VOL. 11, NO. 1, JANUARY 2003

S. C. Douglas, “The fast affine projection algorithm for active noise con-

trol,” in Proc. 29th Asilomar Conf. Sign., Syst., Comp., vol. 2, Pacific Grove, CA, Oct. 1995, pp. 1245–1249. [9] B. Widrow and E. Walach, Adaptive Inverse Control. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996. [10] M. Bouchard and F. Yu, “Inverse structure for active noise control and combined active noise control/sound reproduction systems,” IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Processing, vol. 9, pp. 141–151, Feb. 2001. [11] K. Ozeki and T. Umeda, “An adaptive filtering algorithm using an

[8]

orthogonal projection to an affine subspace and its properties,” Elec. Comm. Japan, vol. J67-A, pp. 126–132, Feb. 1984.

[12]

S. L. Gay and S. Tavathia, “The fast affine projection algorithm,” in Proc.

[13]

ICASSP 1995, vol. 5, Detroit, MI, May 1995, pp. 3023–3026. M. Tanaka, Y. Kaneda, S. Makino, and J. Kojima, “Fast projection algo- rithm and its step size control,” in Proc. ICASSP 1995, vol. 2, Detroit, MI, May 1995, pp. 945–948.

[14] M. Ghanassi and B. Champagne, Acoustic Signal Processing for

Telecommunication, S. L. Gay and J. Benesty, Eds. Norwell, MA:

Kluwer, 2000, pp. 47–60. M. Miyoshi and Y. Kaneda, “Inverse filtering of room acoustics,” IEEE

Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Processing, vol. 36, pp. 145–152, Feb.

[15]

1988.

Signal Processing , vol. 36, pp. 145–152, Feb. [15] 1988. Martin Bouchard (M’96) received the B.Eng.,

Martin Bouchard (M’96) received the B.Eng., M.App.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engi- neering from Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada, in 1993, 1995, and 1997, respectively. He worked in an instrumentation group at Bechtel- Lavalin in 1991, for the construction of the Lauralco alumine plant, and at CAE Electronics in 1992–1993, for the development of a visual system in a flight simulator. From 1993 to 1997, he worked as a Re- search Engineer at Sherbrooke University, where he was responsible for the real-time implementation of DSP-based adaptive digital controllers. From 1995 to 1997, he also worked at SoftDb Active Noise Control Systems that he co-founded. In January 1998, he joined the School of Information Technology and Engineering (SITE) at the University of Ottawa, initially as an Assistant Professor and later as an Asso- ciate Professor (2002). He has conducted consulting activities with Lumic Elec- tronics, Ottawa, ON, Canada, and with the Communications Research Center (CRC), Ottawa. His current research interests are signal processing applied to telecommunications, speech/audio processing and acoustics. Dr. Bouchard is a member of the Ordre des Ingénieurs du Québec and the Audio Engineering Society.