AFMG Network Forum
AFMG Network Forum Index -> EASE 4 -> Impact Raytracing RT60 Result Unexpected
Post new topic  Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic 
Impact Raytracing RT60 Result Unexpected
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 7:50 pm Reply with quote
logandodson
Member
 
Joined: 15 Dec 2021
Posts: 8
Location: United States




I am modeling a large gymnasium consisting of 4 basketball courts and a track with concrete walls, a metal deck ceiling, and a hard rubber floor. My expectation for the RT60 of a space this size with these reflective materials would be much higher than my result of 2.89s using Impact Ray Tracing.

My sabine time is 9.11s and I made sure to use the mean free path to determine my delay cutoff, and used enough rays per loudspeaker to attain a 90% impact chance.

Has anyone had a similar experience when modelling a space this large? Or is there something I am missing to get a more accurate RT60 result? Confused

_________________
logan
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:03 pm Reply with quote
Agustín Arias
Member
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 54
Location: Caseros, Buenos Aires, Argentina




Hi Logan. What time did you use for ray tracing? Did you add a "statistical tail" to the reflectogram in the "Probe" module?

_________________
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: Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:45 pm Reply with quote
logandodson
Member
 
Joined: 15 Dec 2021
Posts: 8
Location: United States




Agustín Arias wrote:
Hi Logan. What time did you use for ray tracing? Did you add a "statistical tail" to the reflectogram in the "Probe" module?


I used the mean free path and found that I should be using above 500ms as my time. I think it was 560ms when I ran it. And yes after adding a statistical tail it has a very similar result (2.89 without and 2.82 with). I tried adding a random tail as well as adding missing impacts and attained similar results.

I am thinking a source of my error is that I selected a speaker near my listener seat. So the initial dB reading will be quite large due to direct impacts, and all impacts after will be attenuated by the shear size of the space before reflecting back. This will create a large spike at the beginning that could be a source of the low RT60 time since it is measured by the dB decrease over time.

Would cutting off the initial direct impacts be detrimental or helpful in determining the true RT60?

_________________
logan
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 7:06 pm Reply with quote
Agustín Arias
Member
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 54
Location: Caseros, Buenos Aires, Argentina




That would be weird... can you share an image of your reflectogram at 500 or 1000 hz?

_________________
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: Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:36 pm Reply with quote
logandodson
Member
 
Joined: 15 Dec 2021
Posts: 8
Location: United States




https://ibb.co/48CTtRs
https://ibb.co/TYvQzrd

So this is with and without using the random tail. My random tail this time did add a significant amount of time to the result. However I feel like the parameters I change when creating this random tail change the result so much and I am not sure what these values should be such as the pulse density and maximum density.

I also do no think the slope of the tail is an accurate continuation of the source. You can see clearly where the tail starts because the slope changes drastically.

_________________
logan
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2022 6:40 pm Reply with quote
Agustín Arias
Member
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 54
Location: Caseros, Buenos Aires, Argentina




Hello Logan. My opinion (without having the model) is that the statistical tail must be adjusted correctly and the regression interval must be increased for the calculation of the RT Schroeder.

For this I recommend that you do the following:

1) open the project
2) open the Probe module
3) open the .imp or .rsp file
4) remove any statistical tail (only if you put one in and saved as .rsp file)
5) open the options panel (F9)
6) in the "Rev. time" tab, in the center is the "Replace by" button group. Within them, click on the one that says "Sabine" (Not on the checkbox that is inside the "Display" group at the right!!!). Finally, click OK
7. Add the statistical tail with "add random tail". In "Tail lenght" put a higher time, for example 4 (seconds)
8. Adjust the level and density of impacts until visually verifying that the statistical tail is correct.
9. Once you have added the statistical tail, open Options again and in the "Schroeder" tab verify that the integration time is greater than 4000 ms. Click on "Compute" and check results.

In any case, if the results are still very different, you can send me the model to my email below for a more precise inspection.

_________________
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 May 04, 2022 1:06 pm Reply with quote
logandodson
Member
 
Joined: 15 Dec 2021
Posts: 8
Location: United States




https://ibb.co/QJjX1xp

This is my statistical tail at 1000 Hz. The added tail's slope I would imagine is what is causing these high RTs but does this seem like an appropriate tail for the data?? At lower frequencies, the tail seems to fit the data better and is giving ~4.5s.

_________________
logan
View user's profile Send private message
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2022 2:36 pm Reply with quote
Bruce
Member
 
Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 459
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA




EASE Ray-Tracing is most useful for investigating the Early reflections. Investigation of the full IR is best done with the AURA 4 module. https://www.afmg.eu/en/aura-4-module

_________________
Best Regards,
Bruce C. Olson
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:21 pm Reply with quote
ervinjason
Member
 
Joined: 03 Jun 2022
Posts: 1




I used the mean free path and found that I should be using above 500ms as my time. I think it was 560ms when I ran it. And yes after adding a statistical tail it has a very similar result (2.89 without and 2.82 with). I tried adding a random tail as well as adding missing impacts and attained similar results.

I am thinking a source of my error is that I selected a speaker near my listener seat. So the initial dB reading will be quite large due to direct impacts, and all impacts after will be attenuated by the shear size of the space before reflecting back. This will create a large spike at the beginning that could be a source of the low RT60 time since it is measured by the dB decrease over time.

Would cutting off the initial direct impacts be detrimental or helpful in determining the true RT60?

_________________
video editing on iMac
View user's profile Send private message
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 1  

  
  
 Post new topic  Reply to topic  


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