AFMG Network Forum
AFMG Network Forum Index -> EASE 4 -> Weird RT 60 Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic  Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic 
Weird RT 60
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:26 am Reply with quote
andrzejhd
Member
 
Joined: 21 Jul 2015
Posts: 18
Location: Szczecinek/Birmingham




Hi again. I'm having a problem with accurate RT60 predictions in a modeled room (big factory hall). I did some physical measurements of this space and RT60 (T20) times range from 2.7s (125Hz) to 3.6s (1.6kHz).

I managed to calibrate the model with 15% accuracy using Local Decay Time, but Ray Tracing (Probe module) gives me values that are much lower and the 'ratios' between frequencies change as well.

What RT60 model should I use? Ray Tracing with high order and high density is the recommended method, right?

Thanks for help,
A. Wink
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:56 am Reply with quote
andrzejhd
Member
 
Joined: 21 Jul 2015
Posts: 18
Location: Szczecinek/Birmingham




Anyone? Very Happy
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:08 pm Reply with quote
Bruce
Member
 
Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 459
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA




The recommended method is to use AURA.

_________________
Best Regards,
Bruce C. Olson
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
PostPosted: Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:42 am Reply with quote
andrzejhd
Member
 
Joined: 21 Jul 2015
Posts: 18
Location: Szczecinek/Birmingham




Thanks for your reply! Unfortunately my budget doesn't allow for the AURA module. Sad
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 10:45 am Reply with quote
thomas
Member
 
Joined: 16 Mar 2011
Posts: 73




Hi Andrzej,
possible reasons for too short rev. time (simulated) are:
- simulated impulse response is too short
(IR has to be at least 40 dB long!
-> >=2/3*expectet RT + "flighttime" of the direct sound
(important in realy large rooms))

- wrong distribution of absorbing faces in the model
(the effectiveness of an absorbing face depends on radiation strength!
A fact, that is'nt taken into account in statistical methods (Sabine, Eyring)).
And: in a large factory hall is it possible, that no absorbing material is on
the ceiling and on the walls, all is "on the floor", so sound that travels
only between the walls never sees any absorbing face and the measured
RT is higher than with Sabine predicted.
So make sure, that your absorbing materials are in the right position.

Another possible problem occurs, when scattering and diffraction are
really important but simulation only takes specular reflections into
account. But then, the simulated RT should be too long.

Best regards
thomas
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 6:14 pm Reply with quote
andrzejhd
Member
 
Joined: 21 Jul 2015
Posts: 18
Location: Szczecinek/Birmingham




Thanks Thomas! I'll give it a go...

Btw. Could you guys recommend any books that are addressing simulation issues? I can find a lot of books on general acoustics, but there is not so much 'simulation specific' stuff.

Thanks,
Andrzej
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 2:28 pm Reply with quote
thomas
Member
 
Joined: 16 Mar 2011
Posts: 73




Hi Andrzej,
there is an EASE-tutorial I would recommend (look for "ease afmg tutorial").
And then simulate rooms, you always know.
Start with very simple rooms. Always think about
the results ("What happens in reality, what does the
simulation, what is the difference (if there is one)?").
Good luck
thomas
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:35 pm Reply with quote
AFMG Pedro Lima
Forum Moderator
 
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Posts: 266
Location: Germany




Hi Andrzej,

The most related books I know are probably:

Vorlaender, Michael. Auralization: Fundamentals of Acoustics, Modelling, Simulation, Algorithms and Acoustic Virtual Reality.

Feistel, Stefan. Modeling the Radiation of Modern Sound Reinforcement Systems in High Resolution.
http://www.logos-verlag.de/cgi-bin/engbuchmid?isbn=3710&lng=eng&id=

The second is more specifically related to modelling of sound sources (usually of interest for manufacturers who would like to insert their speakers in EASE or Focus).

Kind Regards,
Pedro Lima
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 1:51 am Reply with quote
Agustín Arias
Member
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 54
Location: Caseros, Buenos Aires, Argentina




Did you add a random tail to your reflectogram? can you post a picture of your reflectogram?

_________________
Eng. Agustín Arias
Ottobre & Ottobre, Acoustical Consultants
Buenos Aires, Argentina
agustin.arias@outlook.com
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:02 pm Reply with quote
andrzejhd
Member
 
Joined: 21 Jul 2015
Posts: 18
Location: Szczecinek/Birmingham




Thank you Pedro!

I'm still working on my model guys. As soon as I finish, I'll try to post the reflectogram.

PS. Do you know how to deal with coefficients bigger than 1? I've been trying to find some info on that and I get the physics of it, but don't know how to normalize it in a right way.

Thanks,
A.
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:17 pm Reply with quote
Agustín Arias
Member
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 54
Location: Caseros, Buenos Aires, Argentina




If you have values greater than 1, use 1, which means total absorption. Values greater than 1 appears in measurements of absorption coefficients in laboratory when, for instance, the sample under test has rigid boundaries (edge effect). So it has to be set to 1 for EASE

_________________
Eng. Agustín Arias
Ottobre & Ottobre, Acoustical Consultants
Buenos Aires, Argentina
agustin.arias@outlook.com
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:43 pm Reply with quote
andrzejhd
Member
 
Joined: 21 Jul 2015
Posts: 18
Location: Szczecinek/Birmingham




Yeah, but should I scale all the coefficients in a "smooth way" or just "clip" the ones that are bigger than 1?

I'm testing the AFMG SoundFlow and when I specify the sample size - some coefficients are as big as 3.6... Sad
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:49 pm Reply with quote
Agustín Arias
Member
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 54
Location: Caseros, Buenos Aires, Argentina




Yes, "clip" the values greater than one to 1. Do not modify the others coefficients

_________________
Eng. Agustín Arias
Ottobre & Ottobre, Acoustical Consultants
Buenos Aires, Argentina
agustin.arias@outlook.com
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:53 pm Reply with quote
andrzejhd
Member
 
Joined: 21 Jul 2015
Posts: 18
Location: Szczecinek/Birmingham




Cool. Thanks for that Agustin! Very Happy
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 19, 2015 5:03 pm Reply with quote
Agustín Arias
Member
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 54
Location: Caseros, Buenos Aires, Argentina




andrzejhd, sorry but I've just read your previous comment!:

"I'm testing the AFMG SoundFlow and when I specify the sample size - some coefficients are as big as 3.6".

That result is very weird. I though that you were using an absorption coefficients database where some materials could show values such as 1.2. But 3.6 is too much!!! My Soundflow demo license has expired so I can not check that, but I'm pretty sure that the values calculated with Soundflow are always between 0 and 1.

Maybe that value (3.6) is the surface absorption coeficient = absorption coefficient*surface

_________________
Eng. Agustín Arias
Ottobre & Ottobre, Acoustical Consultants
Buenos Aires, Argentina
agustin.arias@outlook.com
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
AFMG Network Forum Index -> EASE 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 2  
Goto page 1, 2  Next
  
  
 Post new topic  Reply to topic  


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2003 phpBB Group
Theme created by Vjacheslav Trushkin
Variation by CodeWeavers and AFMG