Category: audio
B&O Tech: What is Sound Design?
#7 in a series of articles about the technology behind Bang & Olufsen loudspeakers
My official job title at Bang & Olufsen is “Tonmeister and Technology Specialist in Sound Design”. The second half of that title is a bit weird – what is a “sound designer” and why would B&O want to have one on staff?
To answer that question, let’s start by talking about how a loudspeaker behaves in a real room. In many respects, a loudspeaker is like a lamp. Turn on a lamp and look at where the light goes. Some of it goes directly on what you want to look at – like the book you’re trying to read, for example. More of the light goes in other directions – it radiates outwards and reflects off of the walls, floor, ceiling, and furniture. And, if your lamp is anything like the one in my living room, then the light that shines directly on your book is not the most important part. In fact, if there was no direct light shining on the book, you would probably still be able to read your book because of the light reflecting towards your book off of everything else in the room.
A loudspeaker is basically the same thing – you have some sound that radiates directly out of the loudspeaker towards the listening position (assuming that the loudspeaker is “aimed” at the listening position) like a laser beam (like the light shining directly on your book – this is called the loudspeaker’s “on-axis magnitude response” or the “frequency response“). In addition to this, you have the sound that radiates outwards in all directions simultaneously like a big ball expanding in all three dimensions (this is called the “power response” of the loudspeaker). There are a couple of things to think about here. The first is that the sound that is coming directly from the loudspeaker to the listening position isn’t necessarily in the direction that the people who built the loudspeaker would call “on-axis” – in fact, more than likely, it’s slightly off-axis. This is okay, since you can think of a loudspeaker’s principal axis of radiation more like the beam from a flashlight than a laser beam (so you have a “listening window” instead of a single spot). The second thing to remember is that, in most listening situations, you are hearing FAR more energy from the loudspeaker’s total power response than you do from the direct sound’s magnitude response. In fact, in a lot of situations, you don’t have any direct sound at all – just power response filling up the room and reflected back to you. (If you’d like to learn more about this concept, read this posting to start off.)
The (rather important) moral of this short story is that the power response is at least as important as the magnitude response – and usually much more important. The problem is that, if you read loudspeaker reviews in magazines, you get the impression that the on-axis magnitude response is the most important thing there is to know about a loudspeaker. This is simply not true – the on-axis response of a loudspeaker is one of the easier things to measure, so that’s what gets measured by most people. It’s very difficult to do a reliable power response measurement, so most people don’t do one. Keep this in mind as you keep reading.
So, what are the steps we take when we tune our loudspeakers during the development process?
Step #1: Measurements
The prototype is put on the crane in the Cube and the linear part of its acoustic response is measured by the acoustical engineer assigned to the project. The output from these measurements consists of four final measurements:
- the on-axis frequency response
- the frequency response of the loudspeaker at a lot of different angles in all directions (not just around the loudspeaker’s “equator” but also above and below it)
- a kind of an average response in a “listening window”
- the power response (made by adding the results of all the measurements done in all directions)
Since we make DSP-based active loudspeakers (unlike passive loudspeakers) the angular direction that is chosen as the “on-axis” location is arbitrary. This is because the final response from each loudspeaker driver and the delays that are used to time-align them are determined by the filtering that we apply in the DSP. I’ll talk about this in a future posting. However, what this means is that “on-axis” is “wherever we decide it to be” – NOT “directly in front of the tweeter” or “directly in front of the loudspeaker”. So, we do a measurement of the frequency response (which is comprised of the magnitude response and the phase response) of the loudspeaker in the absence of any wall reflections at some distance, on a line that has been determined to be the “on-axis” direction.
The power response of a loudspeaker is kind-of-sort-of the sum of its magnitude responses in all directions. This is essentially a measure of the total acoustic energy that a loudspeaker sends into a room in all directions at the same time. So, instead of thinking of a loudspeaker as a laser beam (as in the on-axis response), this considers the loudspeaker as a naked light bulb, sending sound everywhere (which is actually a little closer to the truth).
The listening window is an area that has the on-axis line as its centre. It’s an oval-shaped area that is wider than it is high, that represents an area in front of the loudspeaker where we think that this listeners will typically be located.
In the old days (actually, for all of the active loudspeakers before BeoSound 8), the result of this process would have been two filters. The first would be a correction filter made by the acoustical engineer that made the loudspeaker’s on-axis frequency response flat in its magnitude response. The second would have made the power response smooth (i.e. without too many dips and bumps). Then the loudspeaker would have gone into the listening room, with those two filters as two different options as starting points for the listening-based sound tuning.
Nowadays, we do things a little differently, the measurements that are performed in the listening window (between 10 and 20 measurements in total) are compared and analysed for common aspects in their time responses. In other words, we’re checking to see whether the loudspeaker has natural resonances in it that causes it to “ring” in time (just like a bell rings when you hit it). Ringing is a natural behaviour of a loudspeaker, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing – it means that some frequency (the one that’s ringing) lasts longer than the others when you hit the loudspeaker with a signal (usually it’s ringing at lots of different frequencies). Depending on what frequencies are ringing, the result could be a “muddy”- or a “harsh”-sounding loudspeaker (to name just two of many descriptors meaning “bad”…) If we can see the same ringing in all (or at least most) of the measurements in the listening window, then the DSP engineer working on the project will make a filter for the signal processing that makes the ringing go away – in essence, we make the signal that we’re sending into the loudspeaker ring opposite to the natural ringing of the loudspeaker itself. You can think of it like kicking your legs in the wrong direction when you’re on a swing to make yourself slow down – you’re actively working in the opposite direction of the natural resonance of the system (where you-on-the-swing is “the system”).
In addition to making the resonances go away, we add filters to
- push the low frequency response to go as low as we want it to
- ensure that the loudspeaker drivers (for example, the woofer and the tweeter) meet each other correctly through the crossover and work together instead of against each other. In order to do this correctly, you can’t just build a crossover – you have to incorporate the natural frequency responses of the loudspeaker drivers as part of the total filter design.


At the end of this process, we have a loudspeaker that has a final response that has been corrected so that it measures well inside the listening window. We also have a bunch of measurements that we’ll probably come back to later.

Step #2: Tuning
The prototype with its correction filters are brought into the listening room and we start playing music through it. The first thing to do is just sit and listen using recordings that we know really well (usually, for me, that means starting with “Bird on a Wire” by Jennifer Warnes from Famous Blue Raincoat – I’d guess that I have heard that song, on average, once a day, every day, since about 1990 or so). Pretty soon, some problem will be apparent. Depending on the problem that shows up, we’ll try to fix it by correcting the physical reason for the problem. (This is done by the acoustical engineer working with the mechanical engineers to sort out where the problem occurs and how to fix it.) For example, if a part of the loudspeaker cabinet is vibrating and “singing along” with the loudspeaker, we’ll stiffen the cabinet, either by increasing its thickness, or changing the material it’s made out of, or adding ribs or bulkheads or some combination of those things. Once that problem is fixed, we bring it back into the listening room, find another problem, fix it, listen, complain, fix, listen, complain, fix, rinse, repeat, etc. etc…
Eventually, once all of the problems that we can fix with physical corrections are done, we start the next phase of the tuning. This is where the “design” part of the sound design comes in…
We set up the loudspeaker with its correction filters and its physical improvements in the listening room and start listening to music again. Now, if something sticks out as sounding wrong in the recording, we use an equaliser to correct it. If a note is sticking out that shouldn’t be, then we put in a dip in the equalisation to reduce the problem. If there’s some frequency band that seems to be missing, then we’ll use an equaliser to boost it a little to get it back. Typically, that process takes about 3 to 5 days in the listening room, and at the end, we have something between 20 and 40 extra equalisers in the signal flow. When that’s done, we pack up and go to a different listening room and start the process from scratch again. A couple of days later, we have another 20 – 40 filters. Then we pack up and go to a different room and start again. That process is done in something like 4 or 5 rooms, depending on the loudspeaker that we’re working on. Usually, we try to use rooms that are different from reach other, but also that will be representative of the acoustic behaviours of the rooms that the products will be used in. For example, when we were tuning the BeoPlay A9, one of the “rooms” was outdoors in the acoustical engineer’s back yard. This was because some customers will put their A9 out on the back deck or by the pool – so we used that situation as one of our tuning rooms.
So, now we have 4 or 5 sets of tunings, each with about 30 equalisers in them (give or take…). These tunings are then analysed to see what is common amongst them. You see, if we were to just tune a loudspeaker in a single position in a single room, a big part of the tuning would be there to correct the acoustical behaviour of the room. For example, in our main listening room in Struer, we have a pretty nasty room mode that rings at about 55 Hz. Whenever I tune a loudspeaker in that room, I put in a notch filter at 55 Hz to reduce the audibility of the problem (especially since I start tuning using Bird on a Wire, and it’s in A Major, and 55 Hz is an A). However, if your living room is not the same size as Listening Room 1 in Struer, then your room modes will be at different frequencies, so you should have a notch filter at those frequencies instead of 55 Hz. So, in order to eliminate the individual corrections for the individual rooms that we used for tuning the loudspeaker, we just take the common aspects from each tuning. For example, if the first tuning has a dip at 55 Hz and a boost at 200 Hz, and the second tuning has a dip at 65 Hz and a boost at 200 Hz – we only keep the 200 Hz boost (since the notches at 55 Hz and 65 Hz are probably due to the rooms, not the loudspeaker itself).
Once the common aspects of all those tunings have been extracted, we use those to build an equalisation that is, essentially, the sound design. That equalisation is built into the loudspeaker, and we start getting more people to listen to it in more rooms (for example, we’ll send people home with prototypes that include the sound design tuning to get “real world” testing).

Why do you need Sound Design?
Of course, there are purists amongst you who will ask why it is that we need the sound design process in the first place. The logic goes that if you make a loudspeaker with a razor-flat on-axis frequency response, then you will get a perfect loudspeaker – end of story. Anything that is done afterwards to muck about with that response is just ruining the loudspeaker. Ignoring a lot of details, this would be true if you used your loudspeaker in a room that had no reflections – in other words, if all you hear is the on-axis sound, and all of that energy that goes in all other directions never reflects off of anything else and bounces back at you, then a flat on-axis response would probably be a good idea.
However, think back to where we started. We said that the power response of the loudspeaker is at least as, if not more, important than the on-axis magnitude response. This means that the sound that radiates away from the loudspeaker in directions other than yours is what you hear most of the time. The relationship between the on-axis magnitude response and the power response is determined by the physical shape of the loudspeaker and its components (as well as the frequencies of the crossovers). And, how that balance between the on-axis response and the power response is perceived at the listening position (wherever that might be…) is really unpredictable. So, rather than building a tuning that is based on a prediction, we experience it instead – by playing the loudspeaker in different rooms and different positions and assembling some sort of average behaviour in the real world.
One of the statements I’ve made on Bang & Olufsen marketing materials in the past (like this video, for example) is that, when you sit in your living room and listen to a pair of B&O loudspeakers, you should hear what the mastering engineer (or the mixing engineer, or the recording engineer) heard when he or she did the recording using professional studio monitor loudspeakers in a mastering or recording studio. (Note that this is very different from the philosophy that you should be able to sit in your living room, close your eyes, and be fooled into thinking that the musicians are standing in front of you. In my opinion this is a silly philosophy, akin to believing that you should go to a movie theatre and believe that you’re in the movie instead of watching it. A music recording should be better than real life – not the same as it. And, please – before you write a comment below telling me that I’m wrong, read this first – then this – and then come back and write a comment below telling me that I’m wrong.) However, since your living room is not a mastering studio, it doesn’t make sense for you to use studio monitors. In other words, the goal is that the combination of B&O loudspeakers and your living room should be the same as studio monitors and a recording studio.
So, the moral of the story is that the goal of sound design (at least at Bang & Olufsen…) is to ensure that our loudspeakers in a normal room (whatever that means for a given product) sounds like professional studio monitors in a recording studio. In other words, if we started making studio monitors instead of home loudspeakers, I’d be out of a job, since we wouldn’t need a sound design procedure to “undo” the effect the room has on our loudspeakers…
P.S
One thing that I did not talk about here (mostly just to keep things clear) was the off-axis responses of the loudspeaker, the collection of which comprises its directivity. That discussion will be left for a future posting.
P.P.S.
There is one aspect of this article that can explain one issue that some people have with B&O loudspeakers. If you take a look at some magazine reviews and some comments from people-who-post-opinions-about-loudspeakers-late-at-night-on-Internet-fora, they’ll say that our loudspeakers are obviously not worth anything, since they do not have a flat on-axis frequency response. Of course, if the only criterion you use to define what makes a loudspeaker “good” is a one-dimensional measurement at a single point in space, then you might be inclined to agree with that opinion.
However, if, like me, you live in three dimensional space in a house that has walls, floors and ceilings – and you have more than one chair and possibly even a friend or two – you might be inclined to think differently…
B&O Tech: What are subwoofers REALLY for?
#6 in a series of articles about the technology behind Bang & Olufsen loudspeakers
The Setup
Back in a previous posting, I said something that could be perceived as interesting… The short version of what I said there was that, if you’re making a DSP-based active loudspeaker (like all of the new loudspeakers in the B&O portfolio), you can essentially make it sound like whatever you want. You do this by adding filters in the digital signal processing (DSP). (Let’s assume for this article that we’re only talking about the on-axis magnitude response of the loudspeaker, and we’re working in an anechoic environment (aka a “free field” situation), since that will keep things simple.) This means that, if I can apply enough boosts and cuts, I can get any magnitude response I want out of the loudspeaker. In other words, I can have a 1″ tweeter that plays with a perfectly flat response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
However, there are some serious restrictions on this statement. As a minor example, if there is a problem with diffraction the only way to change that is to modify the shape of the loudspeaker cabinet (if you don’t know what diffraction is, don’t worry – it will not be mentioned again in this article).
However, there is one GIANT restriction on the statement that we’ll look at this week. This is a question of how loudly you want to play. So let’s look at that.
In order to make sound, a loudspeaker driver has to move in and out – this pushes and pulls the air molecules in front of it, creating small areas of higher pressure and lower pressure (relative to today’s natural barometric pressure) that radiate outwards, away from the driver. Those variations in pressure push and pull your eardrum in and out of your head which, in turn cause stuff to happen in your inner ear which, in turn causes stuff to happen in your brain – but that is all outside the scope of this discussion.
Back to the loudspeaker – it has to move in and out. The louder you want to play (more accurately, the higher the Sound Pressure Level (SPL), the more it has to move in and out. Also, the lower in frequency you want to play, he more it has to move in and out (to keep the same SPL).

The real problem is the second of these, since the rule of thumb is that, every time you go down one octave (in other words, you divide the frequency by 2) you need to quadruple the excursion of the driver (the amount it moves in and out).
Let’s look at an example. The figure below illustrates the excursion required for different sizes of loudspeaker drivers in order to create a sound pressure level of 60 dB SPL (which is not very loud – but is a typical sort of listening level) at 1 m (which is a good approximation for how loud it will be all over your living room due to something called the room’s “critical distance” – we’ll talk about that in the future).
Notice that, for the 15″ woofer, it only has to move 0.08 mm out of the box (and 0.08 mm into the box) to produce a 20 Hz signal at 60 dB SPL. This is not very much movement. By comparison, the 4″ woofer has to move 1.2 mm which is much more than 0.08 mm, but still not much.
To bring this into the real world, this means that a woofer taken out of a BeoLab 3 (which is 4″ in diameter) would have to move 14 times farther than a woofer from a BeoLab 5 (15″ woofer) to produce the same output. This is because the 4″ woofer is smaller than the 15″, so to move the same number of air molecules, we have to move it more. (actually, what we’re really thinking about here is how many litres of air we’re moving, but that might be too much detail…)

Let’s consider the practical implications of this graph. Since a BeoLab 3 woofer can move 1.2 mm in and out (and, of course, a BeoLab 5 woofer can move 0.08 mm). Both loudspeakers are able to produce a 20 Hz tone at 60 dB SPL. Therefore, if we choose to do so, we can make both loudspeakers have a magnitude response that was flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz at this listening level (or quieter).
Let’s turn up the volume knob. We’ll go up to 80 dB SPL which is a bit loud, but certainly not enough to get the party going… Now we need to move the 15″ woofer 0.8 mm (still not very much…) and the 4″ woofer 11.6 mm to produce 20 Hz at 80 dB SPL. Of course, the BeoLab 5 woofer can easily move 0.8 mm, but 11.6 mm is too far to go for the BeoLab 3 woofer. So, if we didn’t have ABL to protect things from moving too far, we would not be able to tune the BeoLab 3 to be flat down to 20 Hz – we would have to “roll off” the low frequencies so that 20 Hz was not as loud as the frequencies above 20 Hz in order to prevent it from causing the woofer to move to far when you turn up the volume. (For example, we could tune it to be flat down to 40 Hz instead of all the way to 20 Hz.)

Let’s go further, just to make things really obvious. We’ll turn up the volume to 110 dB SPL (which is very loud). Now, to get a 20 Hz tone out at this level, the 15″ driver will have to move 2.6 cm and the BeoLab 3 woofer would have to move 36.6 cm (which is silly). So, here it is obvious that, if we want to build the BeoLab 3 to play 110 dB SPL, we will have to use ABL or limit its low frequency content (or use some balance of those two things – a little ABL and a little higher low-frequency limit).

Let’s look at this in another, more intuitive way. If we wanted a BeoLab 3 woofer to play as loudly as a BeoLab 5 woofer can play, at its peak excursion in and out of the cabinet, it would look like the figure below.

The Implications
So, what does this mean? Well, it means two things:
- for normal listening levels, we can use our DSP to make our loudspeakers have as much bass as we choose
- however, this means that we need ABL to reduce the bass at higher listening levels
But, what happens if you want to buy BeoLab 3’s (or another “small” loudspeaker in the B&O portfolio), but you don’t want to lose bass output at high listening levels? Well, you have two choices:
- buy bigger loudspeakers
- buy a “subwoofer”
“What’s a subwoofer?” I hear you cry. Well, let’s be honest to start. In theory, a subwoofer is a loudspeaker that should play frequencies that are below the limits of the woofer. (In a system with passive loudspeakers, this would actually be true.) However, in a DSP-based, fully-active loudspeaker system, a subwoofer has a slightly different role. In the case of a Bang & Olufsen system, a subwoofer behaves more like a woofer with more ability to play loudly than the main loudspeakers.
For example, if you have a pair of small loudspeakers (let’s say, the built-in loudspeakers in a BeoVision 11, for example) and you add an external subwoofer (say, a BeoLab 19), and you’re listening at normal listening levels, then (all other things being equal) turning the subwoofer on and off should not produce a noticeable change in the bass level. In fact, if you turn on the subwoofer and hear a difference, it means that the subwoofer is too loud.
However, if you turn up the volume, you will get to a point where the “small” loudspeakers cannot produce enough output at low frequencies, so the ABL starts turning down the bass to protect the loudspeakers from distorting. Now, since the subwoofer can play louder at low frequencies, you will notice the difference.
Of course, this assumes that you’re using something called “bass management” which is an algorithm that removes the bass from the signals sent to your small loudspeakers and re-directs it to the more capable subwoofer. So, in the example above, where I was suggesting that you were turning your subwoofer on and off, I should have been more specific, since turning your subwoofer on implies that you’ve removed bass from the small loudspeakers at the same time.
This has a secondary implication. This means that, if you have a two different types of main loudspeakers (i.e. BeoLab 5 in as your front Left / Right pair and BeoLab 12 and your surround Left / Right pair) then we can do the same “trick”. So, the bass management system should “know” that the 5’s have more capability to play low frequencies louder than the 12’s and automatically direct the bass from the surround channels to the BeoLab 5’s in the front (therefore making the BeoLab 5’s the front loudspeakers and the subwoofers). And, if we were REALLY smart, the “brain” at the centre of the system would know the bass capabilities of all loudspeakers that are attached to it and be able to make intelligent decisions about who should get the bass. This is exactly what is happening in the BeoVision 11, BeoPlay V1 and BeoSystem 4. When you enter your Speaker Types (the model numbers of the loudspeakers in your configuration), the software inside the television automatically decides whether the bass should be redirected from a given loudspeaker in the configuration to another loudspeaker, based on the maximum outputs of those loudspeakers at low frequencies. (This entire lookup table is shown in the Technical Sound Guide available here – a small section of the table is shown below.)

There is one small thing that I haven’t mentioned, but some sticklers-for-detail will want that I do so… The reason you can get away with doing this whole bass-redirection-trick is that, in a normal listening room, we humans are worse at localising where low frequencies are coming from than we are for higher frequencies. This inability on our part can therefore be exploited by moving the bass to a different loudspeaker. However, there are some people who say that this inability is over-estimated (in other words, some people say that we’re better at locating subwoofers than most people think we are) however, that debate can probably be addressed by discussing the size of the room and how low a frequency is “low” – and those are just excruciating minutiae (at least, within the limits of this article…)
B&O Tech: TrueImage Upmixing
#5 in a series of articles about the technology behind Bang & Olufsen loudspeakers
The the BeoSystem 4, the BeoVision 11, and the BeoPlay V1 all use Bang & Olufsen’s “TrueImage” algorithm – but what is TrueImage and why did we choose to use it instead of a commercial standard from someone else?
The Source: How many channels are coming in?
The first question we have to address is that of how many channels your source has. There are many standards these days for audio – particularly if we’re talking about audio that accompanies video.
1 channel – mono: If you’re watching the evening news, you’re probably getting a single audio channel which is basically a feed from the new anchor’s microphone. This might also be the case if you’re listening to a podcast – maybe…
2 channels – stereo: Technically, “stereo” doesn’t automatically imply only two channels – although most people mean “two channels” when they say “stereo”. (I am equally guilty of this behaviour.) There is a plethora of materials recorded in 2-channel stereo, going as far back as the 1940’s! Lots of television channels are broadcast in 2 channels (I remember a time when, if you wanted to hear a TV broadcast in stereo, you had to tune your FM stereo for the audio being simultaneously broadcast on the radio…). Almost all music is distributed in 2-channel stereo. Actually – almost everything except for movies and video games has two channels of audio. In case you aren’t already aware,
- there are two channels because you have two ears – one channel is for the left, and the other is for the right
- stereo was originally patented by Alan Blumlein in the 1930’s
- Blumlein originally patented stereo for sound “especially when associated with picture effects as in talking motion pictures” – it wasn’t originally for sitting and just listening to music – no snobbery!
- Just because there are two channels of audio doesn’t necessarily mean that those two channels are different. As I type this, my two kids are watching a television show that is in mono, but broadcast as a 2-channel signal. All that means is that the two audio channels are identical. Most people call this “dual mono”.
4 channels: For a while, there was a system available from Dolby called “Dolby Stereo” in cinemas, but “Dolby Surround” in home systems. These two were essentially the same thing. This worked by encoding (sort of…) 4 channels of audio (Left Front, Centre Front, Right Front, and Surround) into a 2-channel stream (like on a video tape or an optical film). When you played back the 2-channel signal, it could be “decoded” into the original four channels. This system wasn’t perfect because of the encoding system. So, if a signal was in the centre channel, it was also showing up (albeit a little quieter) in the Left and Right Front channels. The same was true of the Surround signal – it also bled into the Left and Right Front channels. However, it was better than nothing, so it saw a wide distribution. In fact, it’s still possible to buy DVD’s like this one that are encoded in the original Dolby Surround format.
5.1 channels – surround sound (aka multichannel audio): Most movies released in the past few years on DVD have been mixed and distributed in 5.1 Surround Sound – but what, exactly does “5.1” mean? Well, the “5” part means that there are five main audio channels. these are the Left Front, Centre Front, Right Front, Left Surround and Right Surround channels. Whether or not you use 5 loudspeakers to reproduce these channels is up to you. For example, if you are using a BeoVision 11’s internal loudspeakers as the centre channel, then you are sending the Centre Front signal to two internal loudspeakers – just like the “dual mono” case I talked about above. Some people have really big home theatres, so they need more than one loudspeaker for each of the two surround channels – just like in a real movie theatre.

That leaves us with the “.1” which is the short-hand way of saying that there is an extra audio channel in the signal called an “LFE” channel (it stands for “Low Frequency Effects” or “Low Frequency Enhancement” depending on who you ask…) The reason we say it is only 0.1 of a channel is because it usually contains about one tenth of the frequency range of the other channels.
It’s important to note here that 5.1 channel systems are not like the Dolby Stereo system I talked about above. 5.1-channel systems are always “discrete” (and not necessarily “discreet”) meaning that if audio is supposed to be in one channel, it doesn’t bleed to adjacent channels. In other words, something in the Left Front channel is only in the Left Front channel and nowhere else.
It’s also important to note that the “LFE channel” and the “subwoofer channel” are not necessarily the same thing – so you should be careful not to say “LFE” if you mean “subwoofer” and vice versa.
It is also important to note that, if you are listening to a music-only 5.1 recording, you should turn off the LFE channel. Multichannel music recordings are almost always recorded, mixed, and mastered in 5.0 channels – no LFE. However, the business people that run the record labels don’t want to hear complaints from customers that are worried that their subwoofer isn’t working with their new disc, so they tell the mastering engineer to bleed a little bass to the LFE channel just to stop people from complaining. Since the only people who want something on the LFE channel are people with degrees in law, marketing, and business (and have no experience whatsoever with music or recording), there is absolutely no good reason to listen to it. This is why there is a menu item on the BeoVision 11 and BeoPlay V1 that says “LFE Input – On/Off” – it allows you to shut down the LFE channel input if you’re listening to a multichannel music recording.
It is also interesting, but less important to note here that not all audio formats are stuck with the low-frequency limit on the range of the LFE channel – in other words, in some systems (like SACD, DVD-Audio, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS HD-Master Audio, for example) the LFE channel can be used for more than just low frequencies, which brings us to…
6.0 channels – surround sound (aka multichannel audio): There are a small number of recordings, almost all of them music recordings on SACD (like this one), that are ostensibly in 5.1, but are actually in 6.0. This is because the recording engineer knew that:
- you shouldn’t use the LFE channel for music recordings
- the LFE channel in the distribution format (in this example, an SACD) has a full frequency range
So, in these cases, the LFE channel was used for capturing a sixth full-range audio channel instead of just a low-frequency channel. Typically, that sixth channel was used for height information, so the “correct” way to hear the recording is to send that audio channel to a loudspeaker above the listening position, preferably in or near the ceiling. This is why there is a menu item on the BeoVision 11 and BeoPlay V1 that says “LFE Input To Ceiling – On/Off”. It takes the LFE audio input channel and re-labels it a Ceiling channel so that it is re-routed to the appropriate loudspeaker. Of course, if you don’t route this audio channel properly, you probably just get a little something coming out of your subwoofer, and nobody is going to complain about that, as anyone with a degree in law, marketing, or business will tell you.
6.1 channels – surround sound (aka multichannel audio): There are a small number of movies that were released in systems that sort of combined the 5.1-channel discrete system and the “encoding” (more accurately called “matrixing” but we won’t get into that) system like the one used in the Dolby Stereo system. In these cases, the Left Surround and the Right Surround are used to contain a Centre Surround channel. So, you get a 6-channel system which fixes the problem that some people notice where the two surround channels don’t hang together very well… There is at least one fully discrete 6.1 system which is basically the same, only better.
7.1 channels – surround sound (aka multichannel audio): In the past couple of years, some of the really big-budget movies have been released in 7.1-channel surround sound – this is pretty easy to do because both Blu-ray and HDMI can handle it. This should make everything better, but, sadly, it’s where things start falling apart.
In theory, when we say “7.1 surround”, I know what you mean, and vice versa – and in most (possibly all) cases, that might be true. A “standard” 7.1 loudspeaker configuration is basically the same as the 5-channel configuration with a Left Back and Right Back loudspeaker added. The result is shown in the figure below.

The problem is that this is not the only possible version of 7.1. In fact, there are at least seven different variants of 7.1. Including the one above, these are as follows:
- Standard: Centre Front,L and R Front, L and R Surround, L and R Back, LFE
- Front Wide: Centre Front, L and R Front, L and R Front Wide, L and R Surround, LFE
- Front Height: Centre Front, L and R Front, L and R Surround, L and R Front Height, LFE
- Centre Height: Centre Front, L and R Front, L and R Surround, Centre Back, Centre Front Height, LFE
- Centre Overhead: Centre Front, L and R Front, L and R Surround, Centre Back, Ceiling, LFE
- Side Height: Centre Front, L and R Front, L and R Surround, L and R Surround Height, LFE
- Rear Surround: Identical to the Standard configuration but with a slightly different loudspeaker placement (with the surround and back loudspeakers placed closer together).
So, we have a problem. Just because a Blu-ray is encoded in 7.1 doesn’t necessarily mean that the channel allocations or the loudspeaker positions are the same from disc to disc.
More than 7.1 audio channels: To infinity and beyond! Believe it or not, there are some formats and systems that have more than 7.1 audio channels
- 9.1 channels: This format can be found, for example, in Dolby ProLogic IIz-encoded materials
- 10.2 channels: This format is built on the 5.1 standard, and includes 5 more main channels (including two dipole “diffuse radiators”) and an extra LFE channel. It was originally proposed by Tomlinson Holman
- 11.1 channels: This format is seen, for example, in the DTS Neo:X system
- 22.2 channels: This format is an experimental one built, in part, by Kimio Hamasaki at NHK
- Dolby Atmos – which doesn’t really have a set number of channels (although it can handle playback systems with up to 64 loudspeakers) and is only available in theatres
- A monster called Wavefield Synthesis, but that typically needs hundreds of loudspeakers to work reasonably well.
- and others
- and more to come (to quote Madonna’s character from Dick Tracy “More is better than nuthin’ – but nuthin’s better than more!”)
So, let’s assume that anything between 1.0 and 7.1 channels of audio can arrive at the input of our television, since HDMI can currently support up to 8 channels of audio. Let’s now think about the output.
Loudspeakers: How many channels are going out?
Let’s say that you have just had your brand-new BeoVision 12 (with an equally new BeoSystem 4) installed. The BeoVision 12 is equipped with a single loudspeaker channel (although it has 4 loudspeaker drivers built-in – four 2″ midranges and one 3/4″ tweeter, each with its own dedicated ICEpower amplifier). We’ll also assume that you don’t have any external loudspeakers attached – you only have the internal single loudspeaker. This means that, no matter how many audio channels come into the BeoSystem 4 – from a 1.0 mono news program up to a 7.1 Blu-ray – you’ll expect to be able to hear everything you’re supposed to hear. This means that the BeoSystem 4 will usually have to mix more than one channel at its input down to one channel at its output (the BeoVision 12 loudspeaker) – a process called downmixing.
But what about if tomorrow, the truck from the B&O shop shows up and drops off 6 new loudspeakers and a subwoofer. You set up the loudspeakers as your Left and Right Front, Left and Right Surround, Left and Right Back and Subwoofer – all in the correct places like in the drawing above – and you sit down and turn on a CD. Now you have only two audio channels coming into the system, but you probably want to hear something coming out of all of those loudspeakers. This means that we have to do something to get signals to go to more than two loudspeakers – we have to upmix the signal from 2.0 to 7.1. In fact, since most of the things you’ll be listening to and watching will be 1.0 to 5.1 (not many movies are in 7.1 yet) – you’ll probably be upmixing most of the time.
Now let’s take a typical situation – you have a 5.1 loudspeaker system (5 main loudspeakers and a subwoofer) and you have input signals that can range from 1.0 up to 7.1. This means that, sometimes, when you have a 1.0 or a 2.0 input from a TV channel or a CD, you want to upmix to 5.1. Sometimes, when you have a 5.1 input, from a DVD, for example, you want the channels to go straight through unaffected. Sometimes, you’ll watch a Blu-ray in 7.1 and you want to downmix to your 5.1 output. And, of course, you don’t want to have to do anything for this to happen – it should just happen automatically.
And, then, there are the people who go big – they have a loudspeaker on every audio output of the BeoSystem 4 – so they have the BeoVision 12 plus 11 other loudspeakers. So, they’ll probably be upmixing everything all the time.
So, the moral of the story is that, as a manufacturer, we don’t know how many loudspeakers you have. The BeoSystem 4 and BeoVision 11 are not like a typical AVR that you buy at your local big-box electronics store. They are far more capable in many aspects…
Philosophy: What should an upmixer do?
Part 1: Behaviour
If you’re like me, you’re a realistic purist. This means that I firmly believe that, if two channels come into the input of the system, you should only have two loudspeakers playing those two channels – unless it sounds better doing it differently.
In other words, if I’m at home, alone, sitting in the “sweet spot”, perfectly located between my two front Left and Right loudspeakers, I want 2.0 in and 2.0 out. No mucking about.
However, if I’m sitting on the sofa with the family, not in the sweet spot, and I have use the “purist” configuration of 2.0 in and 2.0 out, things just don’t work. All of my phantom images will collapse into the closest loudspeaker and that’s that. So, in this case, if I can have an upmixer that can correct the situation and put the centre images back in the centre, whilst maintaining some spaciousness and width, I’ll turn it on.
However, not everyone is like me – not everyone is going to be turning an upmixer on and off according to which chair they’ve put their bum on. Most likely, most people will turn on an upmixer and leave it on (because they want to hear sound coming out of all the loudspeakers they’ve paid for).
So, in a perfect world, in my not-so-humble opinion: if you’re sitting in the sweet spot, and you turn the upmixer on and off, you should not hear any different whatsoever. However, if you’re not in the sweet spot, turning on the upmixer should improve things. (At least, as I said, that’s my philosophy. There are those who say that, even when you’re sitting in the sweet spot, an upmixer should enhance things like spaciousness and envelopment – but I disagree, since I’m a part-time purist…)
Part 2: Technique
So, let’s say that you’re faced with having to make an upmixer. You can basically do one of two things:
- Take the input, analyse the audio signal, decompose it into more audio channels, and send those to more loudspeakers.
- Take the input signal and create new audio channels – for example, feed it into a reverberation unit to make echoes and reverb that are not in the original recording.
The purist in me very firmly believes that an upmixer should not add anything to the original recording. It should derive components of the audio signal that are in the original recording and distribute them to the various loudspeakers. But it should NEVER add something that wasn’t in the original. So, no reverberation – no concert hall sound slapped on top of the original recording. (At least, that’s my philosophy. Some commercially available upmixers are built on the idea that they should do exactly this – for example, simulating a system where your stereo recording is played in a “good” listening room, and then a multichannel version of that simulation is played through your real system. In my opinion, this is misguided at best, since I don’t want the drums in the opening of Lyle Lovett’s song “Penguins” or the anchor on the evening news to sound like they’re being played in a bathroom.)
Bringing it all together
When we were designing the audio signal flow for the BeoSystem 4, BeoVision 11 and BeoPlay V1, we knew that we needed an upmixer. Believe it or not, the first question was not “can we licence one?” (in other words “what can we buy?”) – it wasn’t even “what does everyone else use?” The first question was “what do we need?” which turned out to be a very interesting question indeed!
We decided that we needed an upmixer with the following features:
- it has to understand all of the audio formats from 1.0 to all of the 7.1 variants (because we don’t know what you’re going to play)
- it has to be able to upmix from any of those formats to any other of those formats (because you should be free to set up your loudspeakers however you want)
- it has to be able to downmix from any of those formats to any other of those formats (because you should be free to set up your loudspeakers however you want)
- it has to be able to neither downmix nor upmix if the input format matches the output format
- it has to be able to switch seamlessly between downmixing, upmixing and through-putting automatically with changes in the signal (because you might switch from watching the news to watching a movie, either because you switched to watching a Blu-ray disc, or because the movie was the next thing coming on that TV channel…
- it has to allow some adjustment of some parameters by the end user (everyone likes a little salt and pepper now and again…)
- if you’re sitting in the sweet spot
- it should sound like it’s not doing anything, either spatially or timbrally (a fancy word for “tonal balance-ly”)
- if you’re not in the sweet spot
- it should improve the centre image location
- it should improve spaciousness
- it shouldn’t push the left and right images wider or narrower
- it shouldn’t mess up the timbre too much
Let’s just look at the second of those requirements, since that was a killer. What this means is that you, the customer, should be able to set up your loudspeakers using any current standard of loudspeaker configuration from 1.0 or 7.1 (all seven variants) and the upmixer should take care of everything for you. How can this be done? Well, our solution was to set about to make a master format that encompassed all of those standard formats. In other words, if I wanted to build a loudspeaker configuration in a (large) room that could be used to play back all of those formats (one at a time) – how many loudspeakers would I need and where would they have to be? The answer was 16 (although, I have to admit, a small part of me was hoping that the answer would be 42 – but I always want the answer to be 42…)
As you can see in the table above, we found that we need 16 channel allocations in order to be able to accommodate all of the standard surround sound configurations. Those of you with a BeoSystem 4, BeoVision 11, or BeoPlay V1 should recognise the master list of 16 allocations as the Speaker Role options in your menus.
As soon as we had that, we knew that we needed to build our own algorithm. So, I was given the job…
From there, it was more of an organic process than anything else. I locked myself in the listening room for a couple of months with a 16-channel system made of BeoLab 3’s (yes… I had 16 BeoLab 3’s running in a room that is only 6 m x 5 m x 2.5 m – there wasn’t much room for people to visit and chat) connected to a multichannel sound card connected to my Macintosh running Max/MSP and MATLAB. I started by inputting a 2.0 stereo signal and built an algorithm that derived signals from the stereo signal to send to the various loudspeakers – always making sure that, sitting in the sweet spot, I couldn’t hear the difference (too much…). However, sitting away from the sweet spot, adding the extra channels had to improve things. In many respects, this task was a lot like being a real tonmeister – but instead of taking a bunch of input signals from microphones in front of the orchestra or band, and mixing that down to two loudspeakers, I was taking two inputs (from a CD) and breaking it down into its constituent components for the various loudspeakers. Almost like reverse-engineering a recording.


Of course there were challenges. The system has to work for pop recordings (where every instrument is recorded in mono with a single microphone and the fake reverb is generated digitally) and orchestra recordings (where, at the opposite end, you have two microphones in a concert hall and nothing else) and everything in between. This took some tweaking – but that’s why it took a while to build. The other big challenge was ensuring that it works for more than just a 2.0 input – that it also behaves for other input formats.
In the end, we had an upmixer that had “grown” in Max/MSP. The problem then was how to implement it, since the televisions don’t run Macintosh software inside. The solution to this was reverse engineering – I took my Max Patcher and converted it to a flowchart that was given to our “real” programmers to write the DSP code that would live inside the final products. So, they wrote the code and we ran it on the early prototype of the television (which actually just looked like a raw screen and a printed circuit board on a piece of MDF, as you can see in the photo below…).

One of the “tricks” that I did when making the signal flow was to leave myself a bunch of parameters that I could tune after the whole algorithm was implemented. So, once the Max/MSP + Matlab version on my Macintosh was converted to software inside the final hardware, and that was verified to make sure the conversion was correct, I could start tweaking. This meant leaving the BeoLab 3’s in the listening room, but taking out the Mac and the sound cards and replacing them with an early television prototype (see the photo above… it was VERY early…). From there I could make minor adjustments in the upmixer’s behaviour, including the custom tuning of each step on each of the different sliders that are in the final menus (like “Frequency Tilt” and “Stage Width” – just to name two).
Finally, we had to make sure that the upmixing and downmixing worked with different combinations of inputs (from 1.0 to 7.1 signals) and output configurations (from one loudspeaker to 12, sometimes with subwoofers, sometimes not) and different loudspeaker types (mixing and matching different sets of BeoLab loudspeakers to make sure things held together even if you don’t have 7 BeoLab 5’s in your listening room).
The Wrap-up
Of course, this was the short version of the full story. The longer version would talk about how our first real version of the TrueImage upmixer in a commercial product was made for the first Advanced Sound System that we put in the Audi A8. It would also talk about how TrueImage isn’t a fixed algorithm – it’s constantly evolving to meet the needs of the product it’s put in. So it’s more like a toolbox of possibilities that we can work with in the development process of any of our products that have to negotiate a situation where the number of audio input channels isn’t equal to the number of output channels. This also means that, as time goes on, the TrueImage algorithm will certainly change to meet the needs of the signals that we can receive and the outputs that our products can deliver. However, that would be too much information for this week.
Bang & Olufsen BeoPlay V1 Reviews
I did the sound design of the two BeoPlay V1 variants, but I also had a pretty significant role in the design of the audio signal flow and bass management strategy, including creating the TrueImage algorithm that’s used for up mixing and down mixing of multichannel audio signals.
trustedreviews.com’s review
“As we’ve become accustomed to finding with B&O TVs, the BeoPlay V1’s audio makes most rival sets sound positively puny. Its ability to produce large amounts of power across a wide dynamic range at movie-loving volume levels without distortion, harshness or compression is a joy to behold.”
wired.com’s review
“And speaking of masterful, the V1′s front-facing speaker bar can really fill a small to medium room with sound. Not the tinny, muted ear vomit you get from most HDTVs, but deep, full audio.”
flatpanelshd.com’s review
“BeoPlay V1-32 is noticeable better than the typical slim TV today, and it excels over pretty much any other TV out there. Sound is fuller, clearer and more pleasant but compared to the speaker system in the larger 40-inch version it lacked a little bit of bass.”
t3.com’s review
“Unsurprisingly, the V1 sounds pretty amazing and definitely supports the claim that the speakers are powerful enough to fill a room.”
Bang & Olufsen BeoVision 11 reviews
I did the sound design of the three BeoVision 11 variants, but I also had a pretty significant role in the design of the audio signal flow and bass management strategy, including creating the TrueImage algorithm that’s used for up mixing and down mixing of multichannel audio signals.
whathifi.com’s review
“Take a listen and all the effort is worthwhile: this is arguably the best sounding flatscreen we’ve ever reviewed. The sound has decent weight and authority, and the kind of clarity that’s usually the province of dedicated audio equipment.”
trustedreviews.com’s review
“You probably won’t be surprised following our description of the BeoVision 11-40’s speaker setup to hear that it sounds unbelievably good by flat TV standards. The clarity and dynamic range of the soundstage is unprecedented, in fact, as gorgeously well-rounded and rich trebles sit side by side with deep, clean and perfectly balanced bass. Even better, though, is the terrifically open nature of the mid-range, which completely avoids the muddy, flat sensation of your average flat TV mid-range, making it a distortion-free friend to action movies and quiet TV shows alike.”
techradar.com’s review
“Let’s keep this simple: the Bang & Olufsen BeoVision 11 produces the best audio performance we’ve ever heard from a TV. Especially if you’re lucky enough to be taking advantage of its various surround sound options. Even if you’re only using the built-in speakers, though, you’ll be enjoying a truly outstanding audio performance. The sheer power the built-in speakers can produce is huge by TV standards, enabling them to deliver a wide, dynamic, beautifully open soundstage that wouldn’t sound out of place on a separates system.”
flatpanelshd.com’s review
“Bypassing the selfadjusting algorithms for a second you will find that the Beoviosion 11 is a very potent sound source. There is an excellent depth to the bass and the high frequencies are clear and precise. We had no problems using the TV as a radio through our DVB-C connection (which works quite well by the way) and the sound quality easily matches up to competitors in the soundbar industry. It goes without saying that the low frequencies are not as low as with a dedicated subwoofer, but compared to every other (non-B&O) TV out there, there is no competition at all.”
homecinemachoice.com’s review
“Sonically the BeoVision 11-40 is spectacular. Its remarkable speaker array thumps out levels of volume, bass, treble detailing and mid-range openness you won’t have heard from a TV before.”
B&O Tech: Loudspeaker Development Process
#4 in a series of articles about the technology behind Bang & Olufsen loudspeakers
This week we’ll look at how most loudspeakers in the Bang & Olufsen go from the original idea through to the final product. I’ll use the BeoSound 8 (nowadays called the BeoPlay A8) as an example of this development process. However, the process itself is almost identical for almost all of our products.
The concept
The first step with most (but certainly not all) of our loudspeakers is an idea from either a designer or someone from our product definition department. They’ll come to the acoustics department with an idea of the product concept. This includes things like the following
- what kind of loudspeaker is it? (i.e. a docking station, a “bookshelf” loudspeaker, a floor-standing loudspeaker, etc.)
- the target customer and usage
- the target price
- a rough idea of the size and shape

From there, the acoustics engineer for the project can start looking into what kind of hardware we should use for the project. For example, this means things like:
- how many loudspeaker drivers (i.e. is it a single “full range” driver, a 2-way, a 3-way or something else?)
- loudspeaker driver dimensions (i.e. diameters and depths)
- how much volume we have in the enclosure behind the driver(s)
Based on this, we get a “best guess” of what kind of system we’re looking at – at least with respect to the acoustics. At this point, if the acoustic engineer thinks that it’s a feasible concept, then we’ll move on to building a first prototype. If not, then we’ll enter into meetings with the product definition and design people to start working out the issues. However, for this story, let’s assume that all is well, and we can keep moving on.
Prototype #1
In order to get some idea of the acoustic performance of the system (basically meaning “can it play bass loudly enough?”) a first prototype is constructed. This is almost always a box made of MDF with a reasonable guess of the internal enclosure volume. Typically, at this point, we’ll use some off-the-shelf loudspeaker drivers that have roughly the same size and characteristics as what we’ll need in the product. In the case of the BeoSound 8, that first prototype looks like the one shown in the photo below. This prototype looks like it’s one box, but there is a bulkhead separating the two volumes behind the woofers.

Note that, at this point, we are only considering the acoustic capabilities of the prototype. So, we won’t spend a lot of time tuning it, since there won’t be a lot of listening done to it. A rough tuning is done to clean up the serious problems, but the question being asked at this point is something like “do we have the hardware that can deliver a sound performance that we can work with?” If we were building a car, this would be like having the engine on a test block, checking to see if we are going to get the necessary horsepower out of it – we wouldn’t be taking it out for a drive yet.
So, we do a rough tuning of the prototype, have a quick listen, do some measurements and see if we’re in the ballpark – do we have a “go” or a “no go”? If it’s a “go” then we move on.
One of the big problems with Prototype #1 is that it doesn’t have the same shape as the final product. So, although we can use filtering to make this loudspeaker have the magnitude response we want in one direction – typically on-axis (which is usually, but not always, directly in front of the loudspeaker), it will not have the same off-axis or power response of the final product. This is because the off-axis and power responses of a loudspeaker are primarily determined by the physical shape of the loudspeaker itself. (For a slightly more detailed discussion of this, read this.) If the final loudspeaker is going to have a circular face, and the prototype is a rectangle, then we have no idea how the final product will behave. This is one of the big reasons why we don’t bother tuning Prototype #1 very carefully, since the off-axis and power responses are significant components in the overall “sound” of a loudspeaker. So, we have to build Prototype #2 which is shaped a little more like the final product.
Prototype #2
The second prototype, shown below, looks more like the final product – particularly in the shape of the “baffle” – an acoustical word meaning “the face of the loudspeaker where the drivers are mounted”. You can see that this prototype now has circular faces with a sharp angle between the front and the side/back of the enclosure. This shape has a very different acoustic effect (to be more precise, “diffraction” – but that’s a topic for a future posting) than the smoothed right angle in the MDF box in Prototype #1. So, with this prototype, we can get a much better idea of the off-axis and power responses of the final product. If we see something really problematic at this point, we enter into negotiations with the designer, since it means we are going to ask him or her to change the shape of the loudspeaker.

You’ll also notice in this photograph that the tweeter and the woofer have changed since Prototype #1. This may be either because we found out that there is another off-the-shelf driver available that better suits the requirements of the product – or it’s because we have gone to the manufacturer of the driver to get changes made to the device to make it better suited to the application. (This wouldn’t be surprising, since most drivers are not designed to be put in enclosures as small as the ones we use. In fact, most of our loudspeakers have loudspeaker drivers that have been customised for us specifically for the requirements of the finished products.)
Looking at the back side of the prototype in the photo below, you can see 8 wires coming out. There are two wires connected to each driver, and there are four drivers – two woofers and two tweeters. When we’re measuring or listening to the loudspeaker, these are connected to external amplifiers. Early in the process, we’ll use large, rack-mounted professional amplifiers, but as we get further through the development we’ll start using amplifiers that are more like the the final hardware.

Prototype #3
So far so good. This time, the changes are more evolutionary than revolutionary. We get some more changes made to the drivers, and we make a model that is even more similar to the final shape of the product. If you look carefully at the difference between the second and third prototypes, you can see that the drivers have moved slightly. In Prototype #2, they were directly centred in the circular front, however, in Prototype #3, they’ve shifted slightly. Depending on the product, this might be due to acoustical reasons, but it could also be due to other reasons, such as the necessity to make space for components (like printed circuit boards) inside the enclosure.
As you can see in the photo, Prototype #3 doesn’t have any MDF parts – actually this one was milled out of a block of plastic. However, these days, we don’t do that any more, we use 3D printers. Unfortunately, we can’t start to do a detailed tuning of the loudspeaker yet, since the plastic that we used to use in the old days for milling and the plastic that comes out of a 3D printer is different from the plastic that gets used in the final product. As a result, the vibrations from the cabinet (for example) will be different in this prototype than in the final version. And, since a part of the final tuning is compensating for vibrations in the loudspeaker cabinet, there’s no point in tuning yet.

A funny side-story here. During the actual development of the BeoSound 8, we were doing a test on a prototype that looked exactly like this one (well, not exactly, it was grey…) in the Cube. It was sitting on a small platform on the crane (which hangs from the ceiling), about 6 m off the floor. The test was called a “bass capability” measurement where we put low-frequency tones into the loudspeaker at increasing levels until we reach a pre-determined amount of distortion. Then the frequency is changed and the test is repeated. Well, the test was running, and from the control room, you could hear a “boooooop … boooooop … boooooop … boooo ……… crash” Well, it turned out that the loud low frequency tones caused the prototype to slowly hop along the platform until it went over the edge and crashed on the floor. There wasn’t much left of it, so we had the black one made.
Again, as you can see in the photo below, we’re still using external amplifiers to drive the loudspeaker for measurements and listening.

In the next two photos below, you can see the prototype on the crane in the cube. You’ll notice, particularly in the first photo, that it’s securely clamped to a block of aluminium, which is also clamped to the crane itself. We wouldn’t want it to fall off and crash to the floor, now, would we?


Prototype #4
At this point, we’re getting really close to the end. The production line is being set up, with the machinery being made to build the components in the product. So, we start looking at the early models that are coming off the production line. This means that we’re testing a product that is very close to being the final product, but it also means that we’re “de-bugging” the production line itself. This is why the prototype shown in the photo below looks like the final product – but it really isn’t.

If you take a look at the photo below, you can see that we still have lots of wires having out of the back of the loudspeaker. Some of these are connected to the loudspeaker drivers themselves, because we’re still driving them with external amplifiers. However, there are a lot more wires there. The extra wires are connected to thermal sensors. We’ll come back to those later.

Since this prototype is basically acoustically identical to the final product, we can start working on the sound design of the loudspeaker. This is a three-step process, consisting of listening, measuring, and listening.
Step 1 is to ensure that the loudspeaker doesn’t suffer from any problems with something called rub & buzz. When a woofer moves in and out of a loudspeaker cabinet, there is a considerable amount of vibration sent through the system, either because the woofer is mechanically connected to the rest of the system or because of the large changes in pressure inside the loudspeaker enclosure. If there are any leaks in the cabinet or if two parts can rub together inside, then these vibrations will cause buzzing (which can sound a lot like distortion) at very specific frequencies. These are usually so bad that, if they aren’t fixed, we can’t measure the acoustical response of the loudspeaker. So, these problems get fixed by hand by using stuff like glue, felt, or foam weather stripping. There are two good things about this: the first is that we get a well-performing prototype that we can work with. The second is that we learn what needs to be fixed on the production line to avoid these problems in the final products.
Step 2 is to measure the loudspeaker in the Cube (a 12m x 12m x 13m room) to see how it behaves both in the frequency domain (i.e. what does its magnitude response look like) and the time domain (i.e. when you send in an impulse, are any frequencies ringing longer than others). The acoustical engineer and the DSP engineer work together at this point to look at the measurements and firstly determine whether any physical changes are needed in the loudspeaker to correct problems in its acoustical response. Once these problems are corrected, the difference between the desired response of the loudspeaker and the actual response of the loudspeaker is analysed. That analysis is used to build a filter that reduces the difference so that the we get the desired response from the loudspeaker – at least according to the measurements. For example, if the loudspeaker has too little bass and a bump in its response at 2 kHz, then we will boost the bass and put in a dip at 2 kHz. I’ll go into a lot more detail about this in a future posting.
Step 3 is to listen. The loudspeaker with its corrective filter is brought into the listening room and we start playing music through it. We don’t start fiddling with equalisation right away. The first thing to do is to listen for problems that don’t show up in the measurements. If we detect any problems in the listening room, then we go back to the measurements to see if we can find out why something sounds weird. This puts us in a loop of listen – find problem – fix problem – listen some more – etc. until we run out of problems with physical solutions. Finally, we start listening to music and equalising to get the loudspeaker to sound as we want it (whatever that means). So, we go into the listening room and do this (this usually takes between 3 and 5 days if all goes well). Then we go to a different room (like, say, my living room at home, for example) and start tuning from scratch again. This process of tuning in a room is done in 4 or 5 rooms, resulting in one tuning filter for each room (usually I wind up with between 20 and 40 equalisers for a typical loudspeaker in each room). The problem here is that some of the filters that get put in to clean up the sound of a loudspeaker in a room are actually to correct problems in the room – not the loudspeaker. This is why we do the tuning in more than one room – the different tunings are taken and only the corrections that are common to more than one room are implemented. (For example, we have a room mode at 55 Hz in the main listening room at B&O – so I’ll put in a filter at 55 Hz to reduce that problem when I’m tuning in that room. However, since your living room does not necessarily have a mode at 55 Hz, then that correction should not be part of the loudspeaker.)


After the sound design has been finalised, then there are three more things left to do.
Firstly, the filters for the position switch (free / wall / corner) need to be tuned (using measurements from the Cube) and verified (by listening to music in different positions in different rooms).
Secondly, the final thermal tests have to be performed. For this, we connect the outputs of the thermal sensors (seen in one of those photos above) to a computer and we start playing some techno music really loudly, and we go home for the weekend. When we get back, we have a log file on a computer that tells us how hot the various components got and how that related to the music that we were playing. This tells us how close the loudspeaker components will get to their thermal limits in real life. Using this data, we can program the DSP to not allow the loudspeaker that you purchase to get hotter than it should. This was explained (sort of) in a previous posting.
Finally, we program a bunch of early production models with the “final” software and send them home with various people in the company for “real world” testing.
Production models
Once the production starts for real, we get the first samples that come off the line so that we can measure and test them to ensure that their performance and sound matches the prototypes that we worked on. Sometimes this doesn’t just mean putting the production model in the cube – sometimes it means something a little more customised. For example, for the BeoSound 8, we had to build a custom test rig and software to ensure that the fabric on the grilles was properly attached to the plastic backing. You can see the prototype of this test setup in the photo below.

Finally, we’re done! We sign off the production models and give the go-ahead to start shipping to the dealers.

Of course, the story I’ve told above is sort of skipping over a lot of details – but I’ll fill in some of those holes (at least partially) in future postings.
B&O Tech: The naked truth
#3 in a series of articles about the technology behind Bang & Olufsen loudspeakers
I recently saw a posting on a website showing a “naked” BeoLab 18 – meaning one without the front grille. The enthusiasm generated by that photo made me think that there might be some interest is seeing some Bang & Olufsen loudspeakers when they’re really naked. Visitors to the acoustics department in Struer are greeted by a collection of loudspeakers that have been opened up for viewing. I’ll show some photos of these in future posts. Today, I’ll reveal just two loudspeakers – the BeoLab 3 and the BeoLab 11. Do not try this at home.
BeoLab 3
The BeoLab 3 is a two-way fully active loudspeaker with analogue filtering. It has ABL, two 125 W ICEpower Class-D amplifiers driving a 3/4″ tweeter and a 4″ woofer in the front. In addition, it has two side-mounted 4″ passive radiators. If you take the front woofer off, you’ll get a look inside it as is shown below.

This gives you a direct view of the printed circuit board (PCB) with the analogue filtering and ABL circuitry which live directly behind and below the woofer.

In addition, you can see the PCB with the two power amplifiers on it.

Looking from the sides, through the holes the passive radiators normally occupy, you’ll see how little space there is behind the woofer when it’s mounted in the enclosure.

In the photo above, you can see two “potentiometers”, directly behind the woofer, attached to the vertical PCB that contains the filter circuitry (they have numbers printed on them and they look like the heads of phillips screws). These are for making gain adjustments to on the production line (or if you have to get your loudspeaker repaired) to ensure that the woofer and tweeter have the appropriate levels so that they not only match each other, but that they match the “golden sample” that we keep as a Master Reference. These are necessary to adjust for small differences in components within the circuitry as well as the exact sensitivities of the woofer and tweeter.
On the production line, this procedure is actually pretty cool. The acoustic response of the loudspeaker gets measured on the production line, then the two potentiometers are adjusted by hand to ensure that the response of the loudspeaker is correct – then the loudspeaker is measured again to make sure that the adjustment was performed correctly. This is done for each and every BeoLab 3 that we make.

Note that the PCB containing the power supply which delivers the voltage rails and current to the entire loudspeaker is on the “back” of the enclosure, behind the PCB containing the filters and ABL. The photo below shows a highlight of that circuit – although it’s hard to see from the side.

I know it’s difficult to see everything in there, so let’s take a different look at the components. The photos below show what could be considered to be an “exploded view” of the BeoLab 3. This was done for a special exhibit, so don’t ask for a similar photo of other loudspeakers in the portfolio. Sorry.


BeoLab 11
A block diagram of the BeoLab 11 would be surprisingly similar to the BeoLab 3. It has two 200W ICEpower Class-D amplifiers for the two 6.5″ loudspeaker drivers (each in its own sealed enclosure), filtering (although this time, the filter circuit includes a bass management system that also has a high pass filter for a pair of external loudspeakers), ABL, and a power supply.

In the posting describing ABL, I mentioned that there are thermal sensors distributed inside B&O loudspeakers to allow the device to continually “know” how hot it is. The photo below shows one of those sensors. It’s mounted on the small, green PCB that is screwed directly to the magnet assembly of the woofer (in the centre of the silver circle). This tells the circuitry the temperature of the woofer magnet. By itself, this information is not really useful, since the woofer magnet can get very hot without suffering damage. What we’re REALLY worried about is the temperature of the wire voice coil that is located inside the magnet – however, we cannot mount a temperature sensor on the coil, since this would stop the loudspeaker from working properly. So, the loudspeaker’s circuitry contains a “thermal model” of the woofer which calculates the temperature of the voice coil based on the temperature of the woofer magnet and the amount of power that has been sent into the woofer. This allows the loudspeaker to calculate the temperature of the voice coil based on the magnet temperature and the music that you’re playing.


You may notice that there is no thermal sensor on the opposite woofer. This is because the same signal is being sent to both woofers, so it is safe to assume that the two magnets (and therefore the two voice coils) are the same temperature.

That’s it for this week. Next week, I’ll walk through our development process – describing the steps that we take when we develop a loudspeaker starting with the first meetings with the designer, all the way through to the first products off the production line.
B&O Tech: What’s so great about active loudspeakers?
#2 in a series of articles about the technology behind Bang & Olufsen loudspeakers
Part 1: The very basics
Let’s build a loudspeaker with a relatively decent frequency range. Actually, I should be more specific – I mean not only that it can play a wide range of frequencies, but it can do so adequately loudly to be useful. Chances are that you’ll want it to play down to something around 100 Hz (which is actually not that low… It’s only about an octave and a half below concert C – also known as Middle C to pianists) and up to about 15 000 Hz (which is probably still audible, depending on how old you are, how many hours you have spend clubbing, how loudly your iThingy is usually playing, and whether or not you use ear plugs when you ought to…).
In order to do this, you’ll probably have to use at least two loudspeaker drivers – a woofer for the low frequencies (say, below about 2000 – 3000 Hz) and a tweeter for the high frequencies. The woofer is either big in diameter (say, about 12 to 40 cm) , or it can move very far in and out, or both. The tweeter is much smaller in diameter (on the order of 20 mm or so in diameter), and doesn’t need to move in and out as much. For the purposes of this posting, let’s say that that’s enough (which is not entirely infeasible – there are many loudspeakers in the world that are based on one woofer and one tweeter. Some of them are actually good!) The reason you need a bigger loudspeaker driver for the low frequencies is because, the lower you go in frequency, the more air molecules you need to move. Unfortunately, for every time the frequency is halved (i.e. you go down one octave), you need to quadruple the volume of air that you have to move in order to get the same sound pressure level. So, when it comes to bass, physics is your enemy.

Okay, so we have a woofer and a tweeter, and each of them has to get a different portion of the audio signal. This means that we have to divide the signal using something called a “filter” which, in its most basic form, lets some frequencies through unimpeded and makes other frequencies quieter. A “high pass filter” will let high frequencies through and make lower frequencies quieter. A “low pass filter” will do the opposite. So, we put a low pass filter in the path of the signal going to the woofer, and a high pass filter in the path of the signal going to the tweeter. The combination of those two filters are what is called the crossover, since it is the circuit that allows the audio signal to cross over from the woofer to the tweeter and back again, as is necessary.


Part 2: Amplification
Unfortunately, loudspeaker drivers are very inefficient. Typically, you should expect about 1% of the electrical power you send into a loudspeaker driver to be available as acoustical power. The other 99% is lost as heat. This means that if you want your loudspeakers to play loudly, then you’re going to have to feed them with a lot of power (because you are throwing away 99% of what you put in). Consequently, you need something called a “power amplifier” connected to the loudspeaker drivers. This is a device that has a small audio signal coming into it (typically a change in voltage with almost no current) – it makes the signal much louder, typically by increasing the voltage by some multiplication factor (say, around 20 times) and making current available as is needed. (And since voltage multiplied by current is power, we get a power amplifier.)
Part 3: Signal flow
Now we start getting into the interesting stuff. At this point in the process of designing our loudspeaker, we have to make a choice. Either
- we put one power amplifier at the start of the chain, and filter its output before sending the signals on to the woofer and tweeter (a passive loudspeaker design), or
- we filter the signals first and then use a separate power amplifier for each driver (an active loudspeaker design) .

To be honest, if the diagram above was all there was to it, there wouldn’t really be much point in making an active loudspeaker. If all we did was to make relatively simple low pass and high pass filters, we basically could do the same filtering to the audio signal either way. The passive filtering circuit is big, and the active filtering circuit is small (basically because the passive components have to be able to dissipate more power) but the power amps in the active design take up space, so there’s not much gained there. So what’s the point? Some people will make the claim that the amplifier has “better control” of the loudspeaker driver if there is no circuitry (like a low-pass or a high-pass filter) between them. However, to be honest, even if that were true enough to make an audible difference in things (I won’t say whether it is or it isn’t – since this is a debate best left out of this posting), it certainly wouldn’t be the first item on your list-of-things-to-worry-about. So, what IS the point?

Well, in order to get the point, we need to know a little more about how a driver behaves when you put it in an enclosure.
Part 4: Some basic acoustics
Take a really big sealed box and cut a hole in one side that has the same diameter as a woofer. Put the woofer in the hole so that the woofer is now in a “sealed enclosure”. If you do a frequency response measurement of the output of the woofer (on-axis, meaning “directly in front of the woofer” you’ll probably see that, as you go lower and lower in frequency, you’ll reach a point where the output of the woofer drops as you go lower. In fact, it has a natural high-pass characteristic. The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this discussion – you’ll either have to trust me on this one, or go read more stuff. If you thump the woofer with your thumb when it’s in this box, it will sound a little like a kick drum – it’ll go “thump”.
If you make the box much, much smaller in volume, you’ll see that the natural frequency response of the system changes. This is because the air in the box acts as a spring behind the woofer, and as the box gets smaller, the spring gets stiffer. The result of this in the frequency response is that you get a peak at some frequency. If you thump the woofer in this smaller box, you’ll now hear it ringing (at the frequency where you see that peak in the response) – now it goes ‘boommmmmm’, humming at one pitch – a bit like a big bell. The smaller you make the box, the higher in frequency the pitch go, and the longer it will ring. In addition, you’ll notice that there is a lot less low-frequency output below the ringing frequency.
If you take a look at the plot below, you can see examples of this. The curves show the response of the same woofer in different sized sealed enclosures. The flattest curve is the biggest box – notice that it doesn’t have a peak poking up, and it has about 40 dB (this is a LOT) more output at the very bottom end (okay, okay, it’s 1 Hz, but the absolute values aren’t important here – it’s the difference in the curves that counts). The curve with the biggest peak is the result of putting a woofer in a box that’s just too small for it. (If you’d like to know the details behind this plot, read this.)

Part 5: Bringing it all together
Let’s start this section by admitting a simple fact: if the only thing criterion you use to judge a loudspeaker with is the volume of the enclosure behind the loudspeaker drivers, Bang & Olufsen loudspeakers are too small (yes – even the BeoLab 5). Take any of our loudspeakers, and you have an example of a woofer that is put in an enclosure that has too little volume for it to behave well naturally. In other words, when we look at the natural response of any of our loudspeakers, they look more like the “bad” curve than the “good” curve in the plots above. This means that we have to encourage it to behave a little better. This means, in the simplest case (still looking at the curves above) that we have to boost the bass and remove the peak in the natural response of the system.

We do this by making a filter (in addition to the low pass filter) that overcomes the natural behaviour of the woofer in its enclosure. If we want more bass out of the system, we turn up the bass. If we want to remove a 7.3 dB peak at 143.5 Hz that has a Q of 4.6, then we put in a dip of 7.3 dB at 143.5 Hz and a Q of 4.6 (If those terms don’t make any sense, don’t worry – all that’s really important to know is that we can “undo” the effects of a peak in the natural response of the system by putting in a reciprocal dip in the signal that we feed it.)
In theory, this is possible using filters that happen after the amplifier – but it is certainly MUCH MUCH easier to make those filters (even without going to digital processing) using small resistors and capacitors and op amps before you get to the amplifiers. For example, you can see in the photo above, the SMD resistor and capacitor (which can be used in a modern active crossover) are much smaller than the power resistor and the inductor (which we would still have to use in a passive crossover).
So, even if you’re not doing anything other than trying to customise the sound of a loudspeaker using some filters (also known as equalisers) – as we do in almost all of our loudspeakers – it is smarter to make an active loudspeaker than a passive one.

Part 6: The beneficial side effects
So, in order to compensate for the acoustical effects of putting a woofer in too small a package, we have to make an active loudspeaker design instead of a passive one.
But this then raises the question, now that we have an active loudspeaker, what else can we do? The answer is lots of stuff!
Since we can apply filtering independently to each loudspeaker driver we can do some serious customisation of the system. To give just a few simple examples:
- You have a resonance in the woofer at a frequency that is above the crossover. You want to correct the problem in your filtering (because you can hear and/or measure it), but the problem does not exist in the midrange. So, you want to have a filter on the woofer alone – not the woofer and midrange and a passive crossover.
- You want to do some dynamic processing on a driver without affecting the others. (for example, ABL)
- You want to compensate for small differences in loudspeaker driver sensitivity on a production line by doing an automated measurement and a gain offset on a driver-by-driver, loudspeaker-by-loudspeaker basis to ensure that loudspeakers leaving the factory are better matched to the “golden sample”

An active loudspeaker design makes all of these examples MUCH easier (or perhaps even “possible”) to achieve.
Conclusion
All of that being said,
- if your electroacoustical behaviour of every component in your audio chain was “perfect” (whatever that means) AND
- if loudspeakers behaved linearly (i.e. they gave you the same frequency response at all listening levels, and they didn’t change their behaviours when they heat up, and so on and so on) AND
- if you did everything properly (meaning that your cabinets were the right size and shape) AND
- if your production tolerances of every component in the system was +/- 0%.
Then MAYBE a passive loudspeaker design could work just as well as an active design…
B&O Tech: What is “ABL”?
Header info #1 for full disclosure: I’ve been given the green light from the communications department at Bang & Olufsen to write some articles describing some of the more technical aspects of B&O loudspeakers here on my own blog site. This is the first posting in what will be a series of articles.
Header info #2 for fuller disclosure: This particular posting will look familiar to some forum people at www.beoworld.org, since I wrote the original version of this as a response to one of the questions on their site. However, I’ve beefed up the response a little – so if you’ve come here from beoworld, there is only a little new information in here.
Almost all loudspeakers made by Bang & Olufsen include Adaptive Bass Linearisation or ABL. This includes not only our “stand alone” loudspeakers (the BeoLab series) but also our iPod docks and our televisions. The only exceptions at the moment are our passive loudspeakers, headphones, and the BeoLab 5.
There is no one technical definition for ABL, since it is in continual evolution – in fact it (almost) changes from product to product, as we learn more and as different products require different algorithms. Speaking very broadly, however, we could say that it reduces the low frequency content sent to the loudspeaker driver(s) (i.e. the woofer) when the loudspeaker is asked to play loudly – but even this is partially inaccurate.
It is important to note that it is not the case that this replaces a “loudness function” which may (or may not) be equalising for Equal Loudness Contours (sometimes called “Fletcher-Munson Curves”). However, since (generally) the bass is pulled back when things get loud, it is easy to assume this to be true.
When we are doing the sound design for a loudspeaker (which is based both on measurements and listening), we make sure that we are operating at a listening level that is well within the linear behaviour of the loudspeaker and its components. (To be more precise, when I’m doing the sound design, I typically use a standard-ish playback level where -20 dB FS full-band pink noise results in something like 70 dB (C) at the listening position (sometimes I use 75 dB (A) – but, depending on the amount of low end in the loudspeaker, this might result in the same volume setting).)
This means that
- the drivers (i.e. the woofer and tweeter) aren’t being asked to move too far (in and out)
- the amplifier is nowhere near clipping
- the power supply is well within its limits, and
- nothing (not the power supply, the amplifiers, or the voice coils) is getting so hot that the loudspeaker’s behaviour is altered.
This is what is meant by “linear” – it’s fancy word for “predictable”, (Not to mention the fact that if we were listening to loudspeakers at high levels all the time, we would get increasingly bad at our jobs due to hearing loss.)
So, we do the tuning at that low-ish listening level where we know things are behaving – remember that we always do it at the same calibrated level every time for every loudspeaker so that we don’t change sound design balance due to shifts associated with equal loudness contours. (If you tune a loudspeaker when it’s playing loudly, you’ll wind up with a loudspeaker with less bass than if you tuned it quietly. This is because you’re automatically compensating for differences in your own hearing at different listening levels.)
Once that tuning is done, then we go back to the measurements to see where things will fall apart. For example, in order to compensate for the relatively small cabinet behind the woofer(s) in the BeoSound 8 / BeoPlay A8, we increase the amount of bass that we send to the amplifiers for the woofers as part of the sound design. If we just left that bass boost in when you turn up the volume, the poor speaker would go up in smoke – or at least sound very bad. This could be because
- the woofer is being pushed/pulled beyond its limits, or
- because the amplifier clips or
- the power supply runs out of steam or
- something else.
(Note that BeoSound 8’s do not actually run on steam – but they do contain the magic smoke that keeps all audio gear functioning properly.) So, we put the loudspeaker in a small torture chamber (it’s about the size of a medium-sized clothes closet), put on some dance music (or some slightly more-boring modified pink noise) and turn up the volume… While that’s playing, we’re continually monitoring the signal that we’re sending to the loudspeaker, the driver excursion, the demands on the electronics (i.e. the amp’s, DAC’s, power supply, etc) and the temperature of various components in the loudspeaker, along with a bunch of other parameters…

Armed with that information, we are able to “know” how those parameters behave with respect to the characteristics of the music that is being played (i.e. how loud it is, in various frequency bands, for how long, in both the short term and the long term). This means that, when you play music on the loudspeaker, it “knows”
- how hot it is at various locations inside,
- the loudspeaker drivers’ excursions,
- amplifier demands,
- power supply demands,
- and so on. (The actual list varies according to product – these are just some typical examples…)
So, when something gets close to a maximum (i.e. the amplifier starts to get too hot, or the woofer is nearing maximum allowable excursion) then SOMETHING will be pulled back.
WHAT is pulled back? It depends on the product and the conditions at the time you’re playing the music. It could be a band of frequencies in the bass region, it could be the level of the woofer. In a worst-case-last-ditch situation, the loudspeaker might even be required to shut itself down to protect itself from you. Of course, there is no guarantee that you cannot destroy the loudspeaker somehow – but we do our best to build in enough protection to cover as many conditions as we can.
HOW is it pulled back (i.e. how quickly and by how much)? That also depends on the product and some decisions we made during the sound design process, as well as what kind of state-of-emergency your loudspeaker is in (some people are very mean to loudspeakers…).
Note that all this is done based on the signals that the loudspeaker is being asked to produce. So it doesn’t know whether you’ve turned up the bass or the volume – it just knows you’re asking it to play this signal right now and what the implications of that demand are on the current conditions (voice coil temperature, for example) This is similar to the fact that the seat belts in my car don’t know why the car is stopping quickly – maybe it’s because I hit the brakes, maybe it’s because I hit a concrete wall – the seat belts just lock up when they’re asked to move too quickly. Your woofer’s voice coil doesn’t know the difference between Eminem and Stravinsky with a bass boost – it just knows it’s hot and it doesn’t want to get hotter.
It’s important to note that some of what I’ve said here is not true for some products. Bang & Olufsen’s analogue loudspeakers cannot have the same amount of “self-knowledge” as the digital loudspeakers because they don’t have the same “processing power”. However, we make every effort to ensure that you get as much as is possible out of your loudspeaker while still ensuring that you can’t do any permanent damage to it. However, it’s fair to say that, the more recent the model, the closer we are able to get to the maximum limits of the total system for a longer listening period.