Emerging Technologies for

Real-Time Diffusion Performance

Bridget Johnson abstract

W ith the ascendance of the

field of new interfaces for musi-
cal expression, a new phase of

F
sound diffusion has emerged.
Rapid development is taking
place across the field, with a
or over half a century, the performance para- were dispersed. This began with re- focus on gestural interaction
search into the psychoacoustics of and the development of custom
digm of sound diffusion has centered on the performer us-
performance interfaces. This
ing a mixing desk as a controller. While much development human hearing, leading to more ac- article discusses how compos-
has taken place regarding studio spatialization techniques curate pan-pot laws for stereo pan- ers and performers embracing
and rendering algorithms, until recently the performance ning [3], and were furthered again technology have broadened the
interface for diffusion has seen little change. A recent trend in the 1990s with developments in boundaries of spatial perfor-
mance. A particular focus is
in diffusion performance is the application of new musical vector-base amplitude panning [4],
placed on performance inter-
interfaces. wave field synthesis and higher- faces built by the author that
order ambisonics. The new tech- afford the artist more control
nologies encouraged new spatial over performative gestures.
History aesthetics, allowing composers to These new works serve as
examples of the burgeoning
In 1951, Pierre Schaefer and Pierre Henry presented the poten- conceive spatialization through a field of diffusion performance
tiomètre d’espace, a diffusion system with which they performed focus on the creation of holophonic interface design.
precomposed electroacoustic music by dynamically spatializ- sound fields and phantom sources.
ing sounds through a tetrahedral speaker array. The two artists Tools for the control of spatial-
built an interface of potentiometers to control the gain of each ization algorithms found their way
speaker and, thus, the spatial field [1]. The diffusion concert into digital audio workstations, allowing the composer to
is a tradition that remains active throughout the world. Over drag a virtual representation of a sound object and place it
the last 70 years, diffusion has mostly been performed on a within a speaker array. The amplitude mapping of faders was
desk of faders in a manner similar to that of the potentiomètre counterintuitive for pantophonic motion (i.e. circular spatial
d’espace. After the initial quadraphonically based systems, many trajectories): Most spatial user interfaces became graphical.
institutes began to develop larger speaker orchestras, notable In spite of this, the mixing desk continued to be the user in-
examples of which include the GRM (Groupe de Recherches terface for diffusion performance. With composers thinking
Musicales) Acousmonium, BEAST (Birmingham Electro- and acting one way in the studio and another in the concert
Acoustic Sound Theatre), the Gmebaphone and later the hall, the paradigm was ripe for disruption. In the studio, com-
ZKM Klangdom. The large scale of such systems meant new posers have as much time as needed to place sounds precisely
ways for controlling and calculating the spatialization needed where desired and to trace out specific trajectories with the
to be devised. mouse onscreen. In performance, the luxury of time is dimin-
Through the 1980s and 1990s, these traveling speaker or- ished, and gestural relationships become more relevant. The
chestras continued to diversify. They began to include more holophonic sound field and its effect on a composer’s way of
speakers, requiring sophisticated routing systems. However, thought emphasized the need for a new performance inter-
the user interface that drove these systems remained largely face, as the ergonomics of the mixing desk often hinder the
unchanged, with systems continuing to use a mixing desk as potential trajectories available to the performer. This problem
the main form of user interaction. This lack of change is un-
derstandable given the diffusion performance practices in Fig. 1. The tactile.space diffusion interface running on the multi-
vogue at the time [2]. The diffuser’s actions focused on the touch table Bricktable. (© Bridget Johnson. Photo © Jason Wright.)
overall perception of the piece in the environment rather than
the placement of a sound object in a discrete location. The
audience’s perception of the spatial field was a function of its
position in the hall. These concerts tended to take place in a
traditional configuration: the diffuser was positioned in the
sweet spot, with the audience seated behind or in front of the
desk and with little to no view of the diffuser.
As spatialization algorithms became more sophisticated,
composers were able to think about where they wanted to place
their sounds within the space, rather than merely the way they

Bridget Johnson (researcher, student), New Zealand School of Music, Victoria

University of Wellington, Gate 7, Kelburn Parade, Wellington, New Zealand.
Email: <johnsonbridget.d@gmail.com>.

Supplemental materials such as audio files related to this article are available
at <https://vimeo.com/98397876>.

©2014 ISAST   doi:10.1162/LMJ_a_00188 LEONARDO MUSIC  JOURNAL, Vol. 24, pp. 13–15, 2014      13
is well recognized within the field [5–7].
In the last 10 years, a number of research
teams have offered a variety of solutions
to the problem through the design of
new diffusion performance interfaces.
Multi-Touch Solutions
The introduction of the Reactable [8] in
2005 saw the wider electronic music com-
munity embrace the use of multi-touch
surfaces as performance interfaces. The
majority of early applications for such de-
vices focused on synthesis models; it be-
came apparent that such interfaces have
use not only in performance but also for
collaborative installation and as studio
tools. Research teams [9,10] have ex-
plored the development of multi-touch
studio mixing tools, which have included
spatial rendering; however, with the ex-
ception of the SoundScapeRenderer
[11], they have largely been limited to
stereo or quadraphonic speaker systems.
In 2011 I created tactile.space [12] to
run on Bricktable [13] (Fig. 1). While
music performance applications had
been previously built for Bricktable [14],
tactile.space was the first designed for dif-
fusion. tactile.space allows users to input
the number of speakers and audio files
desired as well as other customizable user
settings. Users are then presented with a
graphical user interface (GUI) through
which they can drag visual representa-
tions of each of their sound files (audio
objects) into desired locations, resulting
Fig. 2. The new tactile.motion diffusion performance iPad application. (© Bridget Johnson)
14       Johnson, Emerging Technologies for Real-Time Diffusion Performance
in a real-time spatialization. tactile.space
not only made it easy for artists to per-
form complex spatial trajectories that
are difficult via a mixing desk but also
featured control of spatial spread and dis-
tance encoding. By placing a second fin-
ger inside an audio object, the user is able
to spread the object into an arc to widen
the perceived sound source. The arc’s
position and distance can be adjusted by
moving the circle drawn in the arc’s cen-
ter; the width can be adjusted by moving
either of the two circles at the arc’s edge.
The arc can be spread into a full 360º
circle to completely immerse the audi-
ence [15].
tactile.space has now been ported to
the iPad as tactile.motion. This new GUI
follows the tactile.space visual aesthetic
and has many of the same features and
modularity. tactile.motion (Fig. 2) also in-
troduces new functionality to encourage
the creation of dynamic spatial fields.
Specific intuitive gestures are recognized
by the system and used to trigger autono-
mous spatial behaviors. For example, if
the user moves an audio object in a cir-
cular motion, the system is able to recog-
nize the user’s intention to draw a circle
and will continue the spinning motion
at the velocity drawn by the user. Like-
wise, linear trajectories are recognized
and continued by the system. A double
tap on the audio object stops the motion.
In addition to implementing many new
features, the iPad version has addressed
many of the performance issues that
were experienced with the Bricktable.
Unlike the Bricktable, the iPad has no
setup time and connects to the spatializa-
tion software running on a host PC via a
wireless network. It requires no calibra-
tion and is not affected by stage lighting.
The short setup time, stability and intui-
tive GUI of this new interface affords the
user more time to focus on the spatial
aesthetics and performance.
The Chronus Series
I designed and built the Chronus family
of new diffusion interfaces to explore in-
tuitive diffusion performance with physi-
cal hardware [16]. The series features a
rotary encoder–based design for spatial
positioning in a pantophonic field. The
rotary encoder can be continually rotated
past the point of 360º, allowing the angu-
lar displacement to be directly mapped
to a spatial position. Chronus_1.0 fea-
tures intuitive angular control but limits
expressivity by not including control of
distance or spatial spread.
With hardware enhancements, Chro-
nus_2.0 includes a slide potentiometer
placed on top of the spinning disc, al-
lowing the performer to intuitively con-
trol both a sound object’s angular and
radial positions (Fig. 3). The positions
are read by an Arduino microcontroller
that sends data via serial protocols to be
unpacked in custom-built Max or pro-
cessing patches. The generic nature of
the messages sent by the Chronus_2.0 in-
terface allow for ease of integration into
existing systems: A central goal in the
design of the Chronus series was that it
prove easy for any diffusion artist to adapt
to the new interface without limiting or
affecting their current spatialization sys-
tem. The interface is also designed to be
easily incorporated into a live electronic
musician’s current setup, encouraging
the use of spatialization technology in
systems not previously equipped for such
performance techniques.
Conclusions
The last 10 years have seen rapid devel-
opment in performance interfaces used
for sound diffusion. This development
has been catalyzed by artists’ desire for
heightened control and wider expressiv-
ity and the increasing democratization
of hardware and software developments.
While these new interfaces have their
own limitations and inconsistencies,
they have also pushed the development
of spatial performance. Diffusion con-
certs featuring new interfaces have ex-
hibited a new range of spatial aesthetics:

Fig. 3. The Chronus_2.0 physical user
­interface for spatialization performance.
(© Bridget Johnson)
Performers can focus on the perceived
position and movement of their sounds.
Live spatial performance is also featured
more regularly as part of live electronics
systems, as many of these new interfaces
are easily incorporated into performers’
wider electronic setups.
The new interfaces I have presented
here are representative of the future
direction of the paradigm. They each
exhibit new interactive qualities for the
performer, both with the space and
the audience. I hope that these new
interfaces will further stimulate prog-
ress in the burgeoning field of spatial
performance.
References and Notes
1. N. Barrett, “Trends in Electro-acoustic Music,”
in N. Collins and J. d’Escrivan, eds., The Cambridge
Guide to Electronic Music (New York: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2007).
2. S. Emmerson, “Diffusion Projection: The Grain of
the Loudspeaker,” in S. Emmerson, Living Electronic
Music (Hampshire, U.K.: Ashgate, 2007).
3. D. Griesinger, “Stereo and Surround Panning In
Practice,” Audio Engineering Society Convention
Paper (Munich, 2002).
4. V. Pulkki, “Virtual Source Positioning Using Vector
Base Amplitude Panning,” Journal of the Audio Engi-
neering Society 45, No. 6, 456–466 (1997).
5. B. Truax, “Composition and Diffusion: Space in
Sound in Space,” Organised Sound 3, No. 2, 141–146
(1999).
6. Mooney, “Sound Diffusion Systems for the Live
Performance of Electroacoustic Music,” Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, U.K.,
2005.
7. K. Brown, M. Alcorn and P. Rebelo, “Sound Dif-
fusion Using Hand-Held Light-Emitting Pen Con-
trollers,” Proceedings of International Computer Music
Conference (Barcelona, 2005).
8. S. Jordà et al., “THE REACTABLE,” Proceedings
of New Interfaces for Musical Expression (Vancouver,
2005).
9. J. Carrascal and S. Jordà, “Multitouch Interface for
Audio Mixing,” Proceedings of New Interfaces For Musical
Expression (Oslo, 2011).
10. S. Gelineck, D. Overholt, M. Buchert and
J. Anderson, “Towards an Interface for Music Mixing
Based on Smart Tangibles and Multitouch,” Proceed-
ings of New Interfaces for Musical Expression (Daijon,
Republic of Korea, 2013).
Johnson, Emerging Technologies for Real-Time Diffusion Performance      15
11. K. Bredies, N. A. Mann, J. Ahrens, M. Geier,
S. Spors and M. Nischet, “The Multi-Touch Sound-
scape Renderer,” in Proceedings of the Working Confer-
ence on Advanced Visual Interfaces (New York, 2008).
12. B. Johnson and A. Kapur, “tactile.space: A Multi-
Touch Tool for Live Sound Diffusion,” Proceedings
of Australasian Computer Music Conference (Brisbane,
Australia: 2012).
13. J. Hochenbaum and O. Vallis, “BrickTable: A Mu-
sical Tangible Multi-Touch Interface,” in Proceedings
of Berlin Open Conference 09 (Berlin, 2009).
14. J. Hochenbaum, O. Vallis, D. Diakopoulos,
J. Murphy and A. Kapur, “Designing Expressive Musi-
cal Interfaces for Tabletop Surfaces,” in Proceedings
of New Interfaces for Musical Expression (Sydney, 2010).
15. tactile.space was evaluated by composer-perform-
ers; the results can be found in B. Johnson and
A. Kapur, “Multi-Touch Interfaces for Phantom
Source Positioning in Live Sound Diffusion,” Pro-
ceedings of New Interfaces For Musical Expression, KAIST
(Republic of Korea, 2013).
16. B. Johnson, M. Norris and A. Kapur, “The Devel-
opment of Physical Spatial Controllers,” in Proceed-
ings of New Interfaces for Musical Expression (London,
2014).
Manuscript received 2 January 2014.
Bridget Johnson is a Ph.D. candidate at the
New Zealand School of Music in Wellington,
New Zealand. Her research focuses on the
design and development of new gestural in-
terfaces for increased expressivity in diffusion
performance.
Copyright of Leonardo Music Journal is the property of MIT Press and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.