Today's Active Topics · FORUM INDEX · Search Forum · Who's Online? · FAQs/Help · Calendar

Main Forums >> DIY, Electronics, Studio Design & Acoustics

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)
Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses
#118038 - 20/04/05 08:45 PM
Folks,

I hope nobody minds, but I figured it's best to start a new topic for this rather than tack it onto the end of the existing cue balls thread.

Last night I spent the evening with my genius friend and lifetime mentor Bill Eppler. Not only is Bill an expert on all matters audio, he can also explain advanced concepts in a way even I can understand. Where else could one get a college-level education for the cost of three beers and a dinner?

Bill and I discussed some very interesting stuff, and by the end of the night I had learned a lot and walked away with even more to think about and share / ask / discuss here.

Cue balls:

In the Cue Balls thread I believe we all ended up agreeing that at higher frequencies sound does in fact travel like a cue ball, but at lower frequencies - below the Schroeder frequency for the room - the "ray tracing" model breaks down and sound waves instead propagate as pressure patterns in the room. This brings up two new questions:

1. How can some low frequency room modes involve four or six surfaces when nothing is actually bouncing off those surfaces at an angle like a ray?

2. If non-axial modes do travel so they touch four or six surfaces, as shown in all of the text books, why is the first non-axial mode's frequency higher than the first axial mode which has a shorter path length?

Diffraction:

In my Acoustics FAQ is this drawing of a 2 by 4 foot absorbing panel that's 4 inches thick:

In the accompanying text I explain that with a panel this thick, having four inches of edge surface all the way around increases the 8 square feet of front surface area by 50 percent. Therefore, this is what accounts for absorption coefficients greater than 1.0, because the edge surface is not included in the calculations that convert Sabins to an absorption coefficient. While this panel is considered by the conversion formula to have 8 square feet of surface, it's really 12 square feet when you include the edges that are also exposed to the room during testing.

It has been suggested that this explanation is wrong, and the true cause of coefficients greater than 1.0 is diffraction of sound waves at the edges of the front surface. When a sound wave travels along a surface and reaches the end, the surface impedance changes suddenly and the wave then wraps around that edge. Sort of like water that's travelling in a pipe and is contained by the pipe. When the water reaches the end of the pipe it is no longer constrained to the size of the inside diameter, and so is free to expand and spread out. And since there had been outward pressure against the pipe walls, when the impedance changes suddenly at the end of the pipe the water does in fact start to spread outward.

But this does not change the fact that the higher absorption is still caused by having more surface area! Whether a wave that travels along the surface wraps around the corner and is then absorbed by the edge, or it's just that the edge is present in the room in the first place, either way it's still the edge that's absorbing. Moreover, I'm not convinced that diffraction is a big contributor at the frequencies the panel is absorbing. Frequencies that are in the range the panel can absorb will enter the panel, rather than skate along the surface. Perhaps at extreme angles of incidence, and with very dense material, a midrange frequency will skate rather than sink in. But it seems to me in that case much of it will skate again anyway when it wraps around the edge.

Impulses:

In the Cue Balls thread I was asked how a sound wave could travel like a cue ball, and I said:

Quote:

Suppose you make a very short click sound in a wave editor program, let's say with fast rise and fall times and 1 millisecond duration. Now play that click through a loudspeaker in a room. The speaker cone lurches forward for a moment sending a sound wave "bouncing around the room" until it runs out of energy.

Now, I was considering only the high frequency content of that wave. However, what some folks may not realize is that a single impulse - no matter how brief - has significant energy at frequencies lower than the pulse length might imply. As proof, consider a 1 millisecond impulse that repeats every 10 milliseconds. Clearly you will have energy at 100 Hz. And if it repeats once per second you can see there is energy at 1 Hz. So by extension even if it never repeats there is still energy down to as low a frequency as you care to measure.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#118092 - 20/04/05 10:46 PM
Ethan:
It has been suggested that this explanation is wrong, and the true cause of coefficients greater than 1.0 is diffraction of sound waves at the edges of the front surface. When a sound wave travels along a surface and reaches the end, the surface impedance changes suddenly and the wave then wraps around that edge. Sort of like water that's travelling in a pipe and is contained by the pipe. When the water reaches the end of the pipe it is no longer constrained to the size of the inside diameter, and so is free to expand and spread out. And since there had been outward pressure against the pipe walls, when the impedance changes suddenly at the end of the pipe the water does in fact start to spread outward.

The fire brigade won't like this. They want the water coming out of the hose to be directed, wouldn't they?
So do sound engineers designing horns and line arrays.

Ethan:
Now, I was considering only the high frequency content of that wave. However, what some folks may not realize is that a single impulse - no matter how brief - has significant energy at frequencies lower than the pulse length might imply. As proof, consider a 1 millisecond impulse that repeats every 10 milliseconds. Clearly you will have energy at 100 Hz. And if it repeats once per second you can see there is energy at 1 Hz. So by extension even if it never repeats there is still energy down to as low a frequency as you care to measure.

Highest regards,

Bert

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#118095 - 20/04/05 10:48 PM
I hope those beers were Belgian?

Avare

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 37
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#118103 - 20/04/05 11:13 PM
Congratulations Ethan:

Quote:

Perhaps at extreme angles of incidence, and with very dense material, a midrange frequency will skate rather than sink in

Andre

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#118105 - 20/04/05 11:14 PM
Ethan,

Before Hugh thinks that me is starting another war on you (you know that we had some very interesting discussions here and there without going at each others throats ):

When you have an impulse in your time window of ETF or whatever, and you window it, cut it of, at 1 msec, that is something completely different than a dirac pulse, and that is what your buddy is suggesting, IMO.

When you window your impulse at 1 msec and you apply a FFT, you will see that the thing is really limited in freq bandwidth. Try it, and you'll see.

Regards (no sarcasme, really),

Bert

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#118107 - 20/04/05 11:23 PM
A dirac pulse is a theoretical concept that has all freqs in it.
But as infinite high freq's have infinite small time information, you'll get an infinite high impulse because you try to store all this information in a infinite small amount of time.
So it has a very high spike in the start of the impuls. The lower freqs need time to develope, as states the uncertainty theory of Werner Heisenberg, so a real dirac pulse also has infinite long time resolution. You are not allowed to limit it to just 1 msec.

Bert

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#118108 - 20/04/05 11:26 PM
Ive always dreamed about turning this into a forum about quantum mechanics

sith lord

Joined: 03/01/04
Posts: 661
Loc: Death Star
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#118182 - 21/04/05 08:23 AM
Then we should definitely discuss Bell's Theorem!

Cheers,

Jim

--------------------
...rubbish at words 'n' stuff.

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#118599 - 21/04/05 07:48 PM
Bert,

> When you have an impulse in your time window of ETF or whatever, and you window it, cut it of, at 1 msec <

That's not what I'm talking about.

> a dirac pulse <

Nor is that. I'd never heard of that, but this first link Google returned says it's a myth because its infinitely short and thus impossible to realize. So while this type of pulse may have some academic interest, it's clearly irrelevant to what I described.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

thefruitfarmer

Joined: 01/09/04
Posts: 1862
Loc: Kent UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#118690 - 21/04/05 11:26 PM
> a dirac pulse <

In the real world would that be pink noise?

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#118715 - 22/04/05 12:24 AM
Bert,

> The fire brigade won't like this. They want the water coming out of the hose to be directed, wouldn't they? <

Sure, and this amplifies my point even better about how small the effect of diffraction really is. And of course fire hoses (like garden hoses) use nozzles to direct the flow. But my basic premise remains - what really increases absorption is the presence of all that edge surface, regardless of anything else going on.

Right?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#118721 - 22/04/05 12:33 AM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Bert,

> The fire brigade won't like this. They want the water coming out of the hose to be directed, wouldn't they? <

Sure, and this amplifies my point even better about how small the effect of diffraction really is. And of course fire hoses (like garden hoses) use nozzles to direct the flow. But my basic premise remains - what really increases absorption is the presence of all that edge surface, regardless of anything else going on.

Right?

--Ethan

hmmm?

Ethan, have a look at the picture in my studio diary of the huge makeshift absorber I was testing in my room. The absorber itself made a great difference for the better as I've already said.

However take a look at the MDF tops I put on the rockwool. I tested with and without those MDF tops, and they actually made NO Difference worth even worrying about. I was pleased by this of course, as I wanted some more worktop space in the studio. But I was quite prepared to leave that top edge ( of quite apreciable area ) absorbent if it HAD have made a difference.

And if the diffraction effect was that small how comes many pro studios soffit mount their monitors to cure the diffraction around the speaker cabinet. Even though soffit mounting excites mroe mdoes than free standing speakers, and thus requires a lot more rear wall absorption.

My Genelecs Soffit mounted sound so much better than freestanding, and it ain't just because I've got a better room now. The previous room was pretty good in fact acoustics wise. Just not as good as the new one, and had NO soudnproofng

I'm not directly disagreeing with you, as I don't know enough to do that, I'm just throwing some questions into the discussion.

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#118723 - 22/04/05 12:40 AM
Paul,

> I tested with and without those MDF tops, and they actually made NO Difference worth even worrying about. <

Sure, at low frequencies. But I bet blocking all that surface would make a very large difference at higher frequencies like those measured when testing absorber panels. And to better test that directly you'd want to measure reverb time rather than frequency response.

> And if the diffraction effect was that small how comes many pro studios soffit mount their monitors to cure the diffraction around the speaker cabinet. <

My understanding is the main benefit of soffit mounting is to avoid SBIR, where sound leaving the rear of the speaker causes comb filtering off the front wall (the wall behind the speakers). And I'm not saying that diffraction does not occur or is insignificant! I'm saying that regardless of whether diffraction causes wrapping or not, it's still the presence of the additional edge that increases the absorption. At least that seems like the most plausible explanation.

How else would the act of diffraction alone increase a panel's absorption?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Scottdru
Cool Dude

Joined: 17/12/02
Posts: 4392
Loc: NYC: isle off the coast of Eur...
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#118737 - 22/04/05 01:11 AM
Quote Ethan Winer:

> a dirac pulse <

Nor is that. I'd never heard of that, but this first link Google returned says it's a myth because its infinitely short and thus impossible to realize. So while this type of pulse may have some academic interest, it's clearly irrelevant to what I described.

Well, just for linguistic clarity, it doesn't say it's a myth, but rather a mathematical fiction (which is very different than a myth, especially where said mathematical fiction serves as a predictive tool). Impossible to realize in the context of seismic activity (per said link), but in other descriptions of the use of Dirac pulses (e.g., medical use), they say that it can be realised only approximately, and that the Dirac function serves as a predictive tool.

Perhaps you guys are indeed talking about different things but, after reading a few of the links in the google search Ethan linked to, I feel I'm none the wiser as to how this may or may not be relevant in this context (perhaps because of lack of some fundamental understanding).

Any good links on Dirac pulses that might give some more entry level info on what they are and how they would be used in this context, Bert? I guess I'm seeing conflicting information as to whether a Dirac impulse is extremely short or infinitely long.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Scottdru]
#118747 - 22/04/05 02:21 AM
Hey Scott,

When you try to store all waves to the infine small freqs you wil have waves that are so short that they will store all energy in an infinite amount of time. So you get an infiniteamount of energy in an infinite slice of time.
That sounds like it must go wrong, doesn't it?

But that's a dirac pulse. In reality we try to get close to this ideal, like in ETF of Mlssa or whatever.

But of course the low energy is smeared over time (longer waves) and doesn't appear as this spike of the highs.

When you FFT such a spike it analyzes all waves in it (amplitudes ad eventually phase) and gets you to the freq domain.

But you understand: a spike like this, because it is always describes as an infinite puls, seems a very short pulse.

But to get to he low freqa, you have to examine the proper amount of time, the tine a wave needs to develope.

So a dirac is infintite in time as well as in freq.

When you take a 1 msec pulse as ethan says, he might consider it as a gunshot (also much highs in the impulse) but it has only time resolution to 34 cm = 1000 Hz.

Ethan sas I don't understand his impulses that yield low freqs at 1 msec, so: go for it, my man.

Goddammit, this took an hour, I'm just back from a gig, drunk and stoned

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#118840 - 22/04/05 09:42 AM
When you try to store all waves to the infine small freqs you wil have waves that are so short that they will store all energy in an infinite amount of time. So you get an infiniteamount of energy in an infinite slice of time.
That sounds like it must go wrong, doesn't it?

Infinite SMALL amount of time, of course

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#119093 - 22/04/05 04:14 PM
Bert,

> go for it, my man <

If the 1 millisecond pulse repeats at a slower rate than 1 KHz - or if it never repeats! - there is still low frequency energy. Or maybe FFT algorithms can see into the future and can tell if a repeat of the pulse is going to happen soon?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Scottdru]
#119097 - 22/04/05 04:15 PM
Scott,

> it doesn't say it's a myth, but rather a mathematical fiction <

You're right, my bad for lumping the two together. The main point is that infinitely narrow pulses are a theoretical exercise, where what I'm talking about is reality that can be easily measured.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#119149 - 22/04/05 06:01 PM
If the 1 millisecond pulse repeats at a slower rate than 1 KHz - or if it never repeats! - there is still low frequency energy.

I really don't get it, Ethan. Could you please explain?
A 1 millisecond pulse is a pulse lasting 1 millisecond, and thus has a bandwidth of 1 millisecond which in the frequency domain is 34 cm = 1000 Hz?

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#119165 - 22/04/05 06:25 PM
Bert,

> I really don't get it <

Okay, let's say you use an audio editor program to make a pulse that's 1 millisecond long with fast rise and fall times. Now insert 9 milliseconds of silence, then paste the pulse at the end of the silence. Now you have a 1 ms pulse, 9 ms of silence, and the pulse again. Repeat this sequence a couple of hundred times so you have essentially created a 100 Hz square wave with a 10 percent duty cycle.

Now analyze the file. What frequencies do you have?

Then do it again but with 10 seconds between each pulse, and analyze again. What frequencies do you have now?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#119169 - 22/04/05 06:42 PM
Now you have a pulse train with a time length of much more that 1 msec.

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#119186 - 22/04/05 07:31 PM
Bert,

> Now you have a pulse train with a time length of much more that 1 msec. <

Okay, so analyze just one pulse's worth of the train. This is why I joked about an FFT algorithm being able to see into the future. The LF content is there, even before other pulses arrive later. Even though it may not be intuitively obvious, I'm telling you there is content below 1 KHz!

Do you have a spectrum analyzer program to try a test yourself?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#119210 - 22/04/05 09:30 PM
I'm aware of the validity of your remarks, but your 1 msec pulse statement doesn't make sense. You are using a delta function (pistol shot) in a pulse train like MLS does, and your 1 kHz remark is confusing
You do nothing with a 1 kHz filter or someting, you're just exiting a speaker or whatever with a delta function (dirac pulse), an approximation of a perfect pulse.
IMO this makes your statement about the pulse bouncing through the room, in the cue ball thingie, less valid.
You in fact use a wideband signal

Bert

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#119461 - 23/04/05 04:39 PM
Bert,

> I'm aware of the validity of your remarks ... You in fact use a wideband signal <

Yes, a narrow pulse is wide band!

Here's another way to look at it: Flip the polarity so instead of thinking of the pulse as narrow up, it's narrow down. Now you should be able to see that there's lots of energy for a long time, yes?

If you still don't get it let me know and I'll ask Bill for a math-based explanation. I'm not a math guy, so Bill knows to explain things to me without any math. But I'm pretty sure there's a formula that will prove the point.

Also, nobody has any comments on edge surface and diffraction? Or an explanation for why non-axial modes that hit all four surfaces start at a higher frequency even though it would seem the path length is longer?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#119484 - 23/04/05 05:42 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

.....Or an explanation for why non-axial modes that hit all four surfaces start at a higher frequency even though it would seem the path length is longer?

--Ethan

I'm not saying this is correct, it is only a theory of mine, and part of why I don't think the cue ball notion is correct.....

If you look at the rectangle described by a tangential mode off 4 surfaces in a rectagular room, I can certainly see why this can be considered a 'path'

But I look at it as more of Boundaries containing a space, rather then paths.

Now, any rectangle 'inside another rectangle' ( at an angle ) HAS to have smaller area than the outer ( room ) rectangle.

I kind of visualise a 'container' for resonance to occour in. Even with an axial mode of only two surfaces, the 'container' they make for trhe resonance is bigger than the 'container' for the tangential moe, hence the axial mode has a lower freqeuncy.

That's the way I currently see it, and although I appreciate it could be way off the mark, it does conform to the tangential freq being lower than the axial.

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Rick Fitzpatrick

Joined: 23/04/05
Posts: 19
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#119591 - 23/04/05 10:05 PM
Bert wrote:
Quote:

Ive always dreamed about turning this into a forum about quantum mechanics

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_plane.htm
(at least this page relates to sound, however, there are many more pages.)

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#119852 - 24/04/05 04:18 PM
Paul,

> I kind of visualise a 'container' for resonance to occour in. <

One problem with the non-axial animations that Jeff linked is they don't show how a wave oscillates between the surfaces. That is shown for the axials, and an equivalent image for non-axials would help clear this up.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#119993 - 24/04/05 09:37 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Paul,

> I kind of visualise a 'container' for resonance to occour in. <

One problem with the non-axial animations that Jeff linked is they don't show how a wave oscillates between the surfaces. That is shown for the axials, and an equivalent image for non-axials would help clear this up.

--Ethan

It certainly would. This is the very bit Im having trouble getting my head around.

Perhaps I need a 4 dimentional head

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Rick Fitzpatrick

Joined: 23/04/05
Posts: 19
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#120070 - 25/04/05 05:26 AM
Quote:

One problem with the non-axial animations that Jeff linked is they don't show how a wave oscillates between the surfaces. That is shown for the axials, and an equivalent image for non-axials would help clear this up.

Hey Ethan, I just came across this, but I've never seen this concept before. Maybe this is SIMILAR to what you are refering to.
web page

fitZ

Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor

Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 25731
Loc: Worcestershire
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#120180 - 25/04/05 11:05 AM
Quote bert stoltenborg:

A 1 millisecond pulse is a pulse lasting 1 millisecond, and thus has a bandwidth of 1 millisecond which in the frequency domain is 34 cm = 1000 Hz?

huh? I've not really been following the detail of this thread, but I don't understand this statement, bert.

Bandwidth isn't measured in time. And the frequency domain has nothing to do with wavelengths or the speed of sound.

Perhaps I should have been paying more attention to your debate with Ethan, but this seems seriously confused and confusing!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Hugh Robjohns]
#120284 - 25/04/05 02:29 PM

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Rick Fitzpatrick]
#120375 - 25/04/05 05:38 PM
Rick,

> I just came across this, but I've never seen this concept before. <

I'd take all of that with a huge grain of salt. This is at the top of the page:

"Nobody really knows yet exactly, in a scientific sense, how and why PrimaSounds works."

And it goes downhill from there, through this gem when it continues on the next page:

"It can create a personal and direct experience of the Infinite - God. The chords can provide a musical bridge to your fundamental vibration, your deepest, center tone."

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Savant

Joined: 08/10/04
Posts: 65
Loc: Kansas, USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#120491 - 25/04/05 10:06 PM
Ethan,

I'm limiting my input to your initial post. The rest requires time I don't have.

Quote Ethan Winer:

1. How can some low frequency room modes involve four or six surfaces when nothing is actually bouncing off those surfaces at an angle like a ray?

Because it's a resonance and not a ray.

Quote:

2. If non-axial modes do travel so they touch four or six surfaces, as shown in all of the text books, why is the first non-axial mode's frequency higher than the first axial mode which has a shorter path length?

Explained on page 73 of Newell's Recording Studio Design.

Quote:

Therefore, this is what accounts for absorption coefficients greater than 1.0, because the edge surface is not included in the calculations that convert Sabins to an absorption coefficient.

My only comment on this is the only comment I ever have on this: The Sabine equation (used to calculate absorption in the reverb room method) does not calculate percentages. It calculates absorption.

************

On impulses: I have posted elsewhere on the uncertainty principle as it applies to impulse response measurement. This is nothing new. Dates back to the 1930s. See my post on this thread (and note that it's page 3 of 3) for further discussion.

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

--------------------
All the best,
Savant

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Savant]
#120927 - 26/04/05 05:29 PM
Jeff,

> Because it's a resonance and not a ray ... Explained on page 73 of Newell's Recording Studio Design. <

Thanks. I looked up that reference, but your two statements seem contradictory in that light. Newell's book says that each "leg" of travel accounts for half a cycle, but doesn't that then imply a ray?

> The Sabine equation (used to calculate absorption in the reverb room method) does not calculate percentages. It calculates absorption. <

That doesn't really explain anything. Either the edge surface adds to the total absorption or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then what causes absorption coefficients greater than 1.0?

> I have posted elsewhere on the uncertainty principle as it applies to impulse response measurement. <

Bert and I have been arguing whether a pulse can contain energy at frequencies lower than the pulse length would imply. You're talking about the accuracy of measurements made with a short gate time. These are not the same thing!

Thanks.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Avare

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 37
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#120957 - 26/04/05 06:22 PM
Quote:

Either the edge surface adds to the total absorption or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then what causes absorption coefficients greater than 1.0?

Diffration of the sound. Read ASTM C423. I undersatnd from past posts that you have a copy of that standard.

Andre

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Avare]
#120971 - 26/04/05 06:48 PM
Bert and I have been arguing whether a pulse can contain energy at frequencies lower than the pulse length would imply. You're talking about the accuracy of measurements made with a short gate time. These are not the same thing!

Ethan,

Jeff is of course making sense (as always).
His post states what I discussed with you: a pulse contains low freq info, but only if your time window is large enough to give the info the time to develope.
When you limit a pulse to 1 msec, as you implied to do, you per definition don't have low freq information.
So Jeff is NOT talking about something different!

Bert

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Avare]
#121003 - 26/04/05 07:56 PM
Andre,

> Diffration of the sound. Read ASTM C423. <

Please read the above posts again. I understand that diffraction bends waves around an edge. But how does that by itself increase the apparent absorption of a thick panel? If it's not the presence of the extra edge surface, then what?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#121004 - 26/04/05 07:58 PM
Bert,

> a pulse contains low freq info, but only if your time window is large enough <

Who said anything about time windows? I sure didn't. A pulse that's 1 millisecond long has energy lower than 1 KHz. This is all I ever stated.

Are you now agreeing that a 1 ms pulse has energy at frequencies lower than 1 KHz?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Avare

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 37
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121016 - 26/04/05 08:15 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Andre,

> Diffration of the sound. Read ASTM C423. <

Please read the above posts again. I understand that diffraction bends waves around an edge. But how does that by itself increase the apparent absorption of a thick panel? If it's not the presence of the extra edge surface, then what?

Ethan:

The spec (ASTM C423) specifies that the edges of test material are to be covered. The spec includes several drawings of suggested methods for covering the edge materialo.

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Avare]
#121021 - 26/04/05 08:21 PM
Andre,

> Diffration of the sound. Read ASTM C423. <

I just looked that up, and saw no explanation. In fact, the document author acknowledged not even understanding the principle. I quote:

Quote:

diffraction effects make the measured results greater than the ideal to a degree not yet completely understood

Well, gosh, I sure understand it. As explained above in my first post in this thread.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Avare]
#121024 - 26/04/05 08:25 PM
Andre,

> The spec (ASTM C423) specifies that the edges of test material are to be covered. <

That doesn't explain why diffraction around the corners increases absorption!

Again, please tell me specifically what is wrong with the analysis and drawing shown in my initial post. If having 50 percent more surface exposed is not the root cause of absorption coefficients greater than 1.0, then what is the cause?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Avare

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 37
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121075 - 26/04/05 09:47 PM
Quote:

If having 50 percent more surface exposed is not the root cause of absorption coefficients greater than 1.0, then what is the cause?

1. The is NOT any more surface area exposed. This is explicitly in the standard.

2. The cause diffraction effects.

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Avare]
#121077 - 26/04/05 09:52 PM
Andre,

> The is NOT any more surface area exposed <

Which part of the FOUR labels marked "Edge" do you not understand?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121081 - 26/04/05 09:58 PM
Folks,

Here's proof that a narrow pulse has content at frequencies below the period length might imply:

I created a single pulse with a duration of 1 millisecond in Sound Forge. I then applied a high-Q boost at 120 Hz with an EQ plug-in. Click HERE to download the Wave file to hear it, and below is a screen capture clearly showing the 120 Hz component that was brought out by the EQ.

Any questions?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121085 - 26/04/05 10:04 PM
Ethan:
"A pulse that's 1 millisecond long has energy lower than 1 KHz. This is all I ever stated.

Are you now agreeing that a 1 ms pulse has energy at frequencies lower than 1 KHz?"

No dude. You are deliberately not understanding people. That IS a discussion technique, but not a very fine one. Now go on questioning and redefining 500 years of physics. Tip:
You can start by questioning the benefits of using round wheels on cars by emphasizing the great brake capabilities of square ones.

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#121108 - 26/04/05 10:30 PM
Bert,

> No dude <

What part of my screen cap and Wave file do you not understand? Or put another way, if there was no energy below 1 KHz, then how could EQ have brought out what is obviously a 120 Hz component?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Savant

Joined: 08/10/04
Posts: 65
Loc: Kansas, USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121121 - 26/04/05 10:45 PM
Ethan,

Quote Ethan Winer:

Thanks. I looked up that reference, but your two statements seem contradictory in that light. Newell's book says that each "leg" of travel accounts for half a cycle, but doesn't that then imply a ray?

No.

Quote:

> The Sabine equation (used to calculate absorption in the reverb room method) does not calculate percentages. It calculates absorption. <

That doesn't really explain anything. Either the edge surface adds to the total absorption or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then what causes absorption coefficients greater than 1.0?

The requirement to calculate an absorption coefficient causes absorption coefficients greater than 1.0.

{SNIPPED the impulse stuff. No time for such ing.}

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

--------------------
All the best,
Savant

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121172 - 27/04/05 02:22 AM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Folks,

Here's proof that a narrow pulse has content at frequencies below the period length might imply:

I created a single pulse with a duration of 1 millisecond in Sound Forge. I then applied a high-Q boost at 120 Hz with an EQ plug-in. Click HERE to download the Wave file to hear it, and below is a screen capture clearly showing the 120 Hz component that was brought out by the EQ.

Any questions?

--Ethan

Greetings Ethan

What you see on your screenshot is the ringing artifacts of the EQ algorithm you used.

The pulse is merely exciting EQ filter circuitry into resonance. It's the same whether it's '1's and '0's or whether it's resisitors,capacitors, inductors and op-amps.

It's a *bit* like an 'impact' in some ways to the EQ. Like when you hit a drum with a stick. it doesn't matter how short the impact of the stick is, the drum will ring at it's resonant frequencies.

If you could get a speaker cone with slew rate and damping specs to reproduce a perfect square edge 1ms pulse in a room, I wouldn't doubt that all the modes would be excited into resonance.

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Rick Fitzpatrick

Joined: 23/04/05
Posts: 19
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121182 - 27/04/05 04:25 AM
Quote:

The requirement to calculate an absorption coefficient causes absorption coefficients greater than 1.0.

Huh? Could you please explain this. I understand Ethans original question, and every additional question since. Why is everyone beating around the bush. If I expose the edge to a room, and cover the face, it will absorb at the same coefficent as the face, providing the angle of incidence is the same, no? Then what in sams hell is so hard to understand his question? I too would like to know.
fitZ

Rick Fitzpatrick

Joined: 23/04/05
Posts: 19
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121183 - 27/04/05 04:36 AM
It just dawned on me. If the ASTM standard does not allow edges to be used in absorption tests to rate the coefficient, that is understandable. What is NOT understandable here, is why no one understands Ethans question. In fact, if Paul really didn't understand it, he wouldn't expose the edges in his new mobile absorbers. Hmmmmm.
fitZ

Edited by Rick Fitzpatrick (27/04/05 04:37 AM)

Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor

Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 25731
Loc: Worcestershire
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121269 - 27/04/05 09:37 AM
Guys, it's getting a little warm in here again. Deep, calming breaths everyone...

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Savant

Joined: 08/10/04
Posts: 65
Loc: Kansas, USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Rick Fitzpatrick]
#121486 - 27/04/05 02:51 PM
Rick,

Quote Rick Fitzpatrick:

Quote:

The requirement to calculate an absorption coefficient causes absorption coefficients greater than 1.0.

Huh? Could you please explain this.

Certainly. The ASTM C423 standard measures absorption. It does not measure absorption coefficients. The absorption is expressed in sabines. How absorption coefficients and such things are calculated is somewhat arbitrary in the grand scheme of things. So I'm not perceived as being a pest about this, let's take a look at one of my company's products:

The specimen of 2" Sonomatt absorbed 58.59 sabines at 1000 Hz when tested in accordance with ASTM C423, "A" mounting, at RAL. The specimen area was 64 ft² - i.e., that's how much of the floor it covered in the test chamber.

Now, what can we deduce from this?

For that test, two (2) 48"X96" panels were used. So, we could say the absorption of Sonomatt is 58.59/2 = 29.30 sabines per panel.

The floor area covered is 64 ft². Therefore, we could say the absorption is 58.59/64 = 0.92 Sab/ft². And we know this to be the definition of the absorption coefficient per the standard. So we can report it as such.

Of course, we also know that the exposed edges of the panels add approximately 3.3 ft² to the area of the panels. Thus, we could say the absorption is 58.59/67.3 = 0.87 Sab/ft². Note that we would probably need some sort of qualifier here to distinguish this number from the 0.92 number above.

One step further, we could figure out the actual surface area of the panel - it is sculpted foam, after all - and calculate yet another arbitrary absorption value.

Taking this ad absurdum, we could use chaos theory to determine the actual exposed surface area of all the pores in the foam. We would find that this area is, in fact, approaching infinity. Thus, our absorption coefficient is getting close to 0.

************

I hope this shows that the absorption measured - in sabines - is the only absolute value. To answer Ethan's question, it is not how we calculate the absorption coefficients, but rather it is because we calculate absorption coefficients that leads to values greater than 1.0. Yes, edge effects are included in that. So are diffraction effects. So is the fact that, when using the Sabine equation, it's completely reasonable to expect numbers greater than 1.0 even if you take all the edge and diffraction stuff into account. Think about it:

We could take a large foam or fuzz panel, 24" thick in the center, pyramidal in shape so the edges taper to nothing at the boundaries. There are no "edges" to calculate. Yet we'd very likely see absorption coefficients greater than 1.0.

There are three important things to remember:

1. A full test report disclosing mounting, the area used to calculate absorption coefficients, etc. is crucial to understanding the behavior of a particular acoustical product.

2. As long as we're all following the prescribed methods for testing and mounting, reasonable comparisons between materials can be made. E.g., you can easily compare the absorption coefficients of Sonomatt (above) to those of fiberglass panels, Tectum wall panels, RPG foam panels, etc. because we all follow the same test guidelines and procedures.

3. Folks, I cannot stress this enough: ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS CALCULATED FROM C423 TESTS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES. The sooner we stop thinking about them as such, the sooner we can move on from this.

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

--------------------
All the best,
Savant

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Rick Fitzpatrick]
#121536 - 27/04/05 04:11 PM
Quote Rick Fitzpatrick:

It just dawned on me. If the ASTM standard does not allow edges to be used in absorption tests to rate the coefficient, that is understandable. What is NOT understandable here, is why no one understands Ethans question. In fact, if Paul really didn't understand it, he wouldn't expose the edges in his new mobile absorbers. Hmmmmm.
fitZ

Greetings fitz

Out of interest, when I tested the 'makeshift' version of the PortaTraps, I found that placing an 18mm Sheet of MDF on top of them ( edge ) made absolutely no difference to the ETF results. ( With the test mic at the listening position )

So indeed the largest edge is indeed covered. I've left the side edges exposed simply as a 'just in case'

What I *do* understand though, is that a 1ms pulse doesn't contain LF infomation.

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#121617 - 27/04/05 06:39 PM
Paul,

> The pulse is merely exciting EQ filter circuitry into resonance <

Yes, exactly. But if the pulse did not have any energy at 120 Hz then it would not have triggered the EQ to resonate at that frequency. This is my entire point.

I made a similar point earlier, somewhere else, about flutter echo and wall-wall spacing. If you clap your hands in a hallway or stairwell with a wall-wall spacing of 5'8" (equal to a 1/2 wavelength frequency of 100 Hz) you will not hear 100 Hz nearly as much as the higher frequencies that are more dominant in a hand clap. So in that case you'll hear mainly a "boing" somewhere around 300 to 500 Hz or whatever.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Rick Fitzpatrick]
#121621 - 27/04/05 06:47 PM
Rick,

> I understand Ethans original question, and every additional question since. Why is everyone beating around the bush. <

Thanks for stating the obvious. I was starting to wonder if I'd lost my ability to communicate!

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#121624 - 27/04/05 06:54 PM
Paul,

> I found that placing an 18mm Sheet of MDF on top of them <

As I already explained earlier, you measured the wrong thing.

You measured the change in low frequency response where what changes much more is reverb time.

> What I *do* understand though, is that a 1ms pulse doesn't contain LF infomation. <

See my post above where I explain about frequency content needed to excite ringing. Sorry Paul, but you're wrong on this one. A 1 ms long pulse does indeed have content all the way down to DC.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Savant]
#121634 - 27/04/05 07:13 PM
Jeff,

As always, thanks for clarifying. I'll add just a few points.

> The floor area covered is 64 ft². Therefore, we could say the absorption is 58.59/64 = 0.92 Sab/ft² <

Yes.

> the exposed edges of the panels add approximately 3.3 ft² to the area of the panels. Thus, we could say the absorption is 58.59/67.3 = 0.87 Sab/ft². <

Yes again, and that is explained clearly in my first post of this thread.

> We could take a large foam or fuzz panel, 24" thick in the center, pyramidal in shape so the edges taper to nothing at the boundaries. <

Yes, and in my Acoustics FAQ I make the point that absorption for some products, like tube traps, is best presented using Sabins (only) for this exact reason.

I agree with everything else you wrote too. But none of that explains how diffraction alone can make a panel appear to absorb more than it really does. Again, if the increase is not due to the presence of an edge, then what is the explanation?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Savant

Joined: 08/10/04
Posts: 65
Loc: Kansas, USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121641 - 27/04/05 07:31 PM
Ethan,

Quote Ethan Winer:

I agree with everything else you wrote too. But none of that explains how diffraction alone can make a panel appear to absorb more than it really does. Again, if the increase is not due to the presence of an edge, then what is the explanation?

I really am sorry, but you lost me. I really don't know what you're asking about anymore. What panel is it that appears to absorb more than what is measured? What increase are you talking about?

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

--------------------
All the best,
Savant

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Savant]
#121647 - 27/04/05 07:46 PM
Jeff,

> What increase are you talking about? <

Look at my first post in this thread. I show a panel and explain that the edges add to the total surface exposed to the room while testing, but the edges are not included in the formula that calculates absorption coefficients from Sabins. With me so far? Good!

Now, let's take two hypothetical panels that absorb 100 percent on their front surface, and also 100 percent on their edges. This is not really so hypothetical, because rigid fiberglass and acoustic foam both absorb pretty much 100 percent at the upper midrange frequencies.

It is my contention that 1) a thicker panel will have more Sabins than a thinner panel, and 2) the absorption coefficients will be higher for the thicker panel.

Even though both panels absorb 100 percent, the thicker one will measure better when expressed as Sabins and will also measure better when expressed as absorption coefficients. This is for one reason and one reason only: The additional surface area of the edge.

If you agree with this, then we're done and I've made my point. If you do not agree with this, please explain as completely and explicitly as you can where I've gone wrong.

Thanks.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Avare

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 37
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121676 - 27/04/05 09:12 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Even though both panels absorb 100 percent, the thicker one will measure better when expressed as Sabins and will also measure better when expressed as absorption coefficients. This is for one reason and one reason only: The additional surface area of the edge.

If you agree with this, then we're done and I've made my point. If you do not agree with this, please explain as completely and explicitly as you can where I've gone wrong.

Thwe standard for determining absorption specificies that the edges be covered.

For teh benefit of otheres, the standard gives examples of using masking tape, sheet metal, wood strips etc, to cover the sides.

There is no additioanl surface area of the edge of the test material.

Andre

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Avare]
#121696 - 27/04/05 09:47 PM
Andre,

> Thwe standard for determining absorption specificies that the edges be covered. <

Several mounting options are specified in ASTM C-423 and E-795. But the common "A" mounting method, which is all we've been discussing here, does not specify sealing the edges unless those edges are not exposed when the product is used as intended. Clearly this is not the case for products sold by RealTraps, or for the generic panel shown in my first post here.

Maybe your misunderstanding of the standard is why you've been confused about this all along? However, if you believe I've missed something important, please provide a paragraph number or whatever.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Scottdru
Cool Dude

Joined: 17/12/02
Posts: 4392
Loc: NYC: isle off the coast of Eur...
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121768 - 28/04/05 12:08 AM
Boy am I confused!

This thread seems to be about (at least) 2 different issues, but, in order to break it down to manageable bits of information for gaining further understanding, here is how I'm following the "impulses" issue of this thread:

Quote Ethan Winer:

Impulses:

In the Cue Balls thread I was asked how a sound wave could travel like a cue ball, and I said:

Ethan Winer Quote:

Suppose you make a very short click sound in a wave editor program, let's say with fast rise and fall times and 1 millisecond duration. Now play that click through a loudspeaker in a room. The speaker cone lurches forward for a moment sending a sound wave "bouncing around the room" until it runs out of energy.

Now, I was considering only the high frequency content of that wave. However, what some folks may not realize is that a single impulse - no matter how brief - has significant energy at frequencies lower than the pulse length might imply. As proof, consider a 1 millisecond impulse that repeats every 10 milliseconds. Clearly you will have energy at 100 Hz. And if it repeats once per second you can see there is energy at 1 Hz. So by extension even if it never repeats there is still energy down to as low a frequency as you care to measure.

Bert suggested that Ethan might be talking about a Dirac pulse, which, as I understand it, would contain ALL of the frequencies in the spectrum.

Quote bert stoltenborg:

A dirac pulse is a theoretical concept that has all freqs in it.
But as infinite high freq's have infinite small time information, you'll get an infinite high impulse because you try to store all this information in a infinite small amount of time.
So it has a very high spike in the start of the impuls. The lower freqs need time to develope, as states the uncertainty theory of Werner Heisenberg, so a real dirac pulse also has infinite long time resolution. You are not allowed to limit it to just 1 msec.

But Ethan says this is not what he is talking about:

Quote Ethan Winer:

Bert,

> When you have an impulse in your time window of ETF or whatever, and you window it, cut it of, at 1 msec <

That's not what I'm talking about.

> a dirac pulse <

Nor is that. I'd never heard of that, but this first link Google returned says it's a myth because its infinitely short and thus impossible to realize. So while this type of pulse may have some academic interest, it's clearly irrelevant to what I described.

Quote Ethan Winer:

Bert,

> go for it, my man <

If the 1 millisecond pulse repeats at a slower rate than 1 KHz - or if it never repeats! - there is still low frequency energy. Or maybe FFT algorithms can see into the future and can tell if a repeat of the pulse is going to happen soon?

OK . . so Ethan isn't talking about a Dirac impulse that contains all frequencies, but rather in impulse that contains a single frequency (correct?), with the theory that it "has lower frequency energy", as he says is proved by the test for which he supplies a screen shot.

[Ethan: what is the meaning of "has" here - contains, possesses, or something else? Sorry, I'm a language person -- these distinctions can make a huge difference in understanding.]

So Paul explains:

Quote Paul Woodlock:

What you see on your screenshot is the ringing artifacts of the EQ algorithm you used.

The pulse is merely exciting EQ filter circuitry into resonance. It's the same whether it's '1's and '0's or whether it's resisitors,capacitors, inductors and op-amps.

It's a *bit* like an 'impact' in some ways to the EQ. Like when you hit a drum with a stick. it doesn't matter how short the impact of the stick is, the drum will ring at it's resonant frequencies.

If you could get a speaker cone with slew rate and damping specs to reproduce a perfect square edge 1ms pulse in a room, I wouldn't doubt that all the modes would be excited into resonance.

Quote Ethan Winer:

Paul,

> The pulse is merely exciting EQ filter circuitry into resonance <

Yes, exactly. But if the pulse did not have any energy at 120 Hz then it would not have triggered the EQ to resonate at that frequency. This is my entire point.

I made a similar point earlier, somewhere else, about flutter echo and wall-wall spacing. If you clap your hands in a hallway or stairwell with a wall-wall spacing of 5'8" (equal to a 1/2 wavelength frequency of 100 Hz) you will not hear 100 Hz nearly as much as the higher frequencies that are more dominant in a hand clap. So in that case you'll hear mainly a "boing" somewhere around 300 to 500 Hz or whatever.

[Ethan: please note again the use of "have" in your statement above, with regard to my earlier question as to what "has" means in the context of your statement.]

So . . . keeping in mind that (1) I'm a drummer, and (2) I've got a really foggy recollection of the minimal physics I learned in high school (not being a math guy, I tended to have quite a few other priorities at that time, e.g., music, arts, cars and chicks, not necessarily in that order ):

I followed to a certain extent the idea of a pulse that repeats every 10 ms creating energy at 100 Hz-- though it seemed to me that perhaps it wasn't the cleanest explanation, given that it seemed to me there must be other factors involved (for starters, just imagining what it would sound like sending such a pulse to my speakers, and the possible variations in the pulse itself, taking into account what happens when you send an electrical pulse through a speaker, and also the variations in types and sizes of drivers that you might send such an impulse through, and how they would react).

So, fast forwarding a bit since Ethan says he's not talking about Dirac pulses . . . on to Paul's explanation that the pulse is simply exciting resonance. Makes some sense to me, and I especially liked the analogy of a drumstick hitting a drum head (me being a drummer and all), causing the drum to resonate at its fundamental frequency, and also exciting the various overtones, etc. that would be inherent in the drum, given its diameter, depth, tension of the head, and the degree to which the head is evenly tensioned in all directions (which would be related to individual lug tensions and how true the bearing edges are).

So . . . following on with the drum analogy (unless there is any major flaw with that analogy that anybody could reasonably point out):

Following Ethan's theory and comparing the stick to Ethan's 1 ms impulse . . . does the stick itself contain the energy of all these frequencies, or is it my arm that propels it, or is the result of a combination of things? I guess, given my experience that the weight of the stick and the size and shape of the bead on the stick will have some influence on the timbre of the drum (even more so with cymbals) resulting from said impact, this should be taken into account in all of this. (I suppose it would be most comparable to the wave shape of the impulse?).

Again, in my foggy recollection of all things physics that I might have studied in school, I'm guessing terms like stored/potential energy, velocity (which I'm assuming would translate in this case to amplitude?), and perhaps mass might come into play in any explanation of all of this?

Can anyone break this down to basic physics and explain (in a way that I, and possibly even other drummers, can understand ) why Ethan's and/or Paul's theory/explanation does or does not work?

Ethan, if your impulse has (contains? possesses? other?) energy at lower frequencies, how specifically does it differ from a Dirac pulse (or a slice of a Dirac pulse)? I'm somehow thinking your impulse either contains the low frequency or it doesn't, and, if it doesn't, then would I be wrong in assuming that it is rather a function of an equation of things (per my question above)? If the latter is the case, is this relevant to your assertions here? Further to this, I am also unclear as to how this in the end relates to the cue ball/ray tracing thing, so any explanations along those lines would be helpful as well.

This discussion is actually also peripherally interesting to me in that I'm thinking some of this information may perhaps relate to something Walter Sear said, in a Tape Op interview, about why digital recording (as currently implemented) sucks, related to the way he says upper harmonics affect lower frequencies. I'm still trying to get my head around it (or was it bollox?), so maybe this discussion will give me some further background or basis for getting a handle on that. But that's perhaps another post, or maybe a whole other thread.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#121784 - 28/04/05 02:17 AM
Greetings

Thanks Scott

The other thing I forgot to mention, when I created a 1ms pulse and EQed it at low frequecnies ( Same as Ethan's test ), I noticed this.....

Although you can quite clearly see the resonance of the EQ algorithm starting at where the pulse ends, I notice that the pulse itself wasn't altered in anyway. Now if it had LF content in it, it would have altered shape after being EQed.

I also tried EQing at a frequency that the pulse did contain, and indeed the pulse shape, as predicted, did change.

To me that proves there isn't any LF Content in a 1ms pulse.

NOW..... before I write off the notion that a sqaure single pulse of any duration contains all freqs to DC.... ( I can see it contains DC btw. The top edge is certainly DC )

In theory, it might be shown mathematically that a single pulse can be broken down by fourier ( or other ) calcs to show all freqs.... BUT........

In reality a single 1ms pulse ( which is in fact two transients off opposite direction ) cannot contain those LFs.....becuase.....

The future cannot be predicted.

Take a sine wave at,say, 100Hz.. Now, starting from zero and going positive, trace out the sinewave for 3/4's of the wave cycle and stop. Now, it looks like 3/4's of a wavecycle of a sinewave, and indeed by measuring half the wavecycle we can conclude it's 100Hz. But is it really 100Hz? What if at the end of this waveform it transients back to zero and starts that 3/4 of a 100Hz sinewave again. Now we have a wavecycle of 133.3333333333Hz

Altough it was made up of bits of a 100Hz sinewave the lowest frequency it can contain is 133.3333333333333333333Hz

Ok, that was a long winded way of explaining what I want to say, but think you get the drift

Paul

p.s another, and perhaps silly, but slightly amusing analogy is.....

Although DC could be said to contain No frequencies, one could show mathematically that DC contained all frequencies TWICE, one with reverse polarity and identical amplitude to the other one

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#121796 - 28/04/05 05:40 AM
Scott,

A delta function/dirac pulse contains all energy, all sine waves in a signal. All sines are of equal energy. As an infinite high freq has infinite small time, it will pack it's energy in an infinite small amount of time, thus creating an infinite spike in the time domain. The lower freqs are smeared over time. When you wnat to see these lower freqs you need to consider a certain amount of time to give the sines the time to develope.

Ethan speaks about a 1 msec pulse. In my view that is a pulse containing sines with wavelength shorter than 1 msec, or am I insane?
Such a signal CANNOT contain frquencies under 100o Hz (1 msec = 34 cm = 1000 Hz).

Ethan describes pulses longer than 1 msec, his 1 msec statement doesn't make sense. He describes a braodband signal, containing lower freqs.

So he tries to emphasize something sustaining his cueball theory with short wavelengths, but than uses longer wavelengths to get to standing waves.

He is mixing up two signals to get his theory valid.

An impulse HAS all freqs in it, it's a pulse to excite a system like a speaker able to generate multiple freqencies. But when you filter this speaker in the time or frequency domain at 1 msec or 1000 Hz, it will have no output below these freq's.

I'm sorry I cannot describe this more compact.

Bert

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#121797 - 28/04/05 05:51 AM
Ethan's file should have a scale on the time axis. When it has a 1 msec length you can only FFT 1 msec of time, and I bet my foreskin that you won't have any freq content in MLSSA or whatever.
See Jeff's and my remarks on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

Ethan's file has a much longer duration than 1 msec, so it's logical that he can see lower freqs.
His 1 msec claim doesn't make sense, is only meant to sustain his short pulse-cueball theory.

Scottdru
Cool Dude

Joined: 17/12/02
Posts: 4392
Loc: NYC: isle off the coast of Eur...
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#121968 - 28/04/05 01:21 PM
Thanks, bert . . . but, unfortunately, I don't feel like I'm any the wiser.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other?

First, we've already established that the length of the file (and the tail of the wave) is the ringing artifacts of the EQ filter algorithm Ethan used . . . the pulse excited the resonance.

There is a very short spike (which I would assume is the pulse we are talking about) at the beginning of the file . . . but it is too compressed in Ethan's picture to see what is in it. What does the wave form of the impulse itself? Or is it a 1 ms snippet of of pink noise?

Sorry if I'm being a moron here, BTW, but some of this really is new territory for me. I've always had some intuitive sense for acoustics, but I have not dealt with the science of this subject as deeply as I would like to have done.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Scottdru]
#122003 - 28/04/05 02:00 PM
Hehehe,

Moron.... I know who you are.... :-)

But this spike should be windowed at 1 msec.

When you have a spike with lots of time afterwards, you get low freq information.

What you should do is take the spike, put a digital window over it with a time length of 1 msec, and cut the rest of the signal away. THEN you have a 1 msec pulse.
And when you FFT that pulse, you have resolution above 1 kHz, nothing under 1 kHz.

It's not pink noise, it's a wave of fe 100.000 Hz, one of 99.9999Hz, 99.998 Hz etc, etc, bundled together.
The short wave has the same energy than the longer waves, but the energy is concentrated in a shorter time! That's why it has this big spike!
When you limit the time to a window from the beginning of the impulse to 1 msec, you max freq resolution in the lows will be 1 msec = 1000 Hz.

Bert

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#122018 - 28/04/05 02:22 PM
Don't know how to make attachments here, so I do this at home:

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?t=1622

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Scottdru]
#122132 - 28/04/05 06:04 PM
Guys,

Wow, this has gotten way more complicated than necessary!

Scott:

> Ethan says this is not what he is talking about <

Right, I am not talking about restricting the length of a time windowed measurement. I am talking about a single electrical pulse with a duration of 1 millisecond.

> so Ethan isn't talking about a Dirac impulse that contains all frequencies, but rather in impulse that contains a single frequency (correct?) <

No, I'm saying that a single impulse with a fixed duration contains energy at all frequencies. Note "contains" rather than "has" if that makes it clearer.

> how specifically does it differ from a Dirac pulse <

I never heard of a Dirac pulse before Bert mentioned it. But from what I read, the main difference is that a Dirac pulse has an infinitely short duration and thus is a theoretical curiosity. Versus something you can actually create and test in practice, as I have done.

> I am also unclear as to how this in the end relates to the cue ball/ray tracing thing <

It doesn't relate to that at all. It was just an aside I brought up because I knew at least one of the guys here didn't understand the concept of a short pulse containing low frequencies.

> Walter Sear said, in a Tape Op interview, about why digital recording (as currently implemented) sucks <

That statement alone shows some pretty extreme ignorance, no? Not that I want to split this off into yet another tangent!

> upper harmonics affect lower frequencies <

No they don't, other than via nonlinearity in the form of IM distortion or aliasing. The notion of "subharmonics" is a common misconception, but there's no truth to it.

Paul:

> I notice that the pulse itself wasn't altered in anyway <

Either your audio editor program is defective, or you didn't zoom in enough. I just edited the waveform image I posted earlier to show the wave zoomed in enough to see how the top became angled after applying EQ boost.

> In theory, it might be shown mathematically that a single pulse can be broken down by fourier ( or other ) calcs to show all freqs. <

Then why are you still arguing? I am serious! Further, what part of my previous explanation here do you not understand:

Quote:

if the pulse did not have any energy at 120 Hz then it would not have triggered the EQ to resonate at that frequency.

Bert:

> Ethan speaks about a 1 msec pulse. In my view that is a pulse containing sines with wavelength shorter than 1 msec, or am I insane? <

Do you really want me to answer that?

> But when you filter this speaker in the time or frequency domain at 1 msec or 1000 Hz, it will have no output below these freq's. <

Who said anything about loudspeakers or time filtering? I made the statement that a narrow pulse contains lower frequencies than the pulse length implies. That's all I ever said. And showing the effect of adding low frequency EQ to a short impulse proves the point beyond all doubt. Unless you don't understand that EQ works only if the frequencies affected are present in the original source!

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122161 - 28/04/05 07:02 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

.....

Paul:

> I notice that the pulse itself wasn't altered in anyway <

Either your audio editor program is defective, or you didn't zoom in enough. I just edited the waveform image I posted earlier to show the wave zoomed in enough to see how the top became angled after applying EQ boost.

Firstly Ethan I'm not arguing for the sake of it.

I did see that after making my last post. The reason I didn't see it before was because I created the pulse at 100% ( 0dbFS )

I did the test again with a 32bit float audio file, so I could see any effects of EQing that were over 0dBFS.

Yes, you're right, the pule *does* get altered. but I would contend that this is becaseu the ringing starts at the upward transient, and is simply added to the pulse in the result.

Quote:

> In theory, it might be shown mathematically that a single pulse can be broken down by fourier ( or other ) calcs to show all freqs. <

Then why are you still arguing? I am serious! Further, what part of my previous explanation here do you not understand:

if the pulse did not have any energy at 120 Hz then it would not have triggered the EQ to resonate at that frequency.

I'm still 'discussing', becuase I'm not sure that statement is correct. A pulse is two transients ( on up and one down ).

One could argue that a perfect transient doesn't contain any frequencies, becuase it is of infinitely small time duration.

Quote:

Bert:

> Ethan speaks about a 1 msec pulse. In my view that is a pulse containing sines with wavelength shorter than 1 msec, or am I insane? <

Do you really want me to answer that?

> But when you filter this speaker in the time or frequency domain at 1 msec or 1000 Hz, it will have no output below these freq's. <

Who said anything about loudspeakers or time filtering? I made the statement that a narrow pulse contains lower frequencies than the pulse length implies. That's all I ever said. And showing the effect of adding low frequency EQ to a short impulse proves the point beyond all doubt. Unless you don't understand that EQ works only if the frequencies affected are present in the original source!

--Ethan

regardless of Bert's time window explanations for a moment, why is it not possible an IMPACT of energy can cause ringing in an EQ at any frequency?

What I'm saying Ethan, is that while a 1ms pulse might contain the 'building blocks' of lower freqeuncies, it cannot actually contain those frequencies, as those lower freqeuncies need, in the real world, a certain amount of time to realise.

Please explain how you can get 100Hz, which smallest element is 10ms long in a 1ms pulse??

[5 minutes later ]

Here ya go Ethan..... This proves that your initial test with EQ was wrong in it's conclusion....

Try this test....

1] Create a Pulse 8 seconds long with a period of silence either side of it. Use a 32bit float file so you can see any 'overs'

2] Apply a LF boost with high Q as you did in your original test.

3] Note the result.

The result is....

You can quite clearly see the ringing of the EQ TWICE. Firstly at the initial upward transient, and secondly at the downward transient ( end of long pulse.)

And this is what I'm saying...

You don't need any frequency to excite a resonant entity at it's resonant frequencies. The analogy of the drumstick hitting the drum is sound IMHO. The drumstick deosn't contain any frequencies, it only contains kinetic energy, which is transferred to the drum on impact.

The same happens with EQing a pulse. In a pulse there is TWO impacts. When it starts and when it finishes.

I repeat I'm not arguing with you for the sake of it, or indeed becuase it's 'you'. I would contend this with anyone who suggested the same. And I find it all very interesting.

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Savant

Joined: 08/10/04
Posts: 65
Loc: Kansas, USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122178 - 28/04/05 07:25 PM
Ethan,

Quote Ethan Winer:

Now, let's take two hypothetical panels that absorb 100 percent on their front surface, and also 100 percent on their edges. This is not really so hypothetical, because rigid fiberglass and acoustic foam both absorb pretty much 100 percent at the upper midrange frequencies.

100% of what? ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS CALCULATED FROM C423 TESTS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES.

Quote:

It is my contention that 1) a thicker panel will have more Sabins than a thinner panel, and 2) the absorption coefficients will be higher for the thicker panel.

This statement is not a "contention." It's stating the obvious. But it's always good to be clear about your assumptions!

Quote:

Even though both panels absorb 100 percent, the thicker one will measure better when expressed as Sabins and will also measure better when expressed as absorption coefficients. This is for one reason and one reason only: The additional surface area of the edge.

Again, 100% of what? ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS CALCULATED FROM C423 TESTS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES.

And edge effects are not the only reason the thicker panel is better. It's a thicker panel. Thin and thick could both be measured with the edges taped and the absorption would still be better for the thicker panel.

Quote:

If you agree with this, then we're done and I've made my point. If you do not agree with this, please explain as completely and explicitly as you can where I've gone wrong.

I don't know what you're looking for me to agree with. I don't know what point you are trying to make. I have made each and every one of my explanations as complete and explicit as I can. Where more clarification was requested, I gave it.

If your "point" is that edge effects can influence absorption measurements, then I would request we move on from stating the obvious. Edge effects have been known about for decades. (I could give you dozens of references, but I know how you feel about those...)

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

--------------------
All the best,
Savant

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#122186 - 28/04/05 07:42 PM
Paul,

> I'm not arguing for the sake of it. <

Of course, I know you're not, but much of what you are arguing is simply wrong. I am certain that Jeff Szymanski understands that a 1 ms pulse contains energy at 120 Hz, so maybe he'll pipe up and confirm it so we can avoid wasting yet more time on this. In the mean time I'll gladly carry on.

> the ringing starts at the upward transient <

You bet - the transient itself contains low frequencies. Just like dropping a book onto a table. Or the big bang, which had tons of LF content.

Stick a battery across your loudpseaker terminals and watch the woofer cone lurch forward. It doesn't matter if you leave the battery in place, or remove it after 1 millisecond. Either way, the LF energy that was present went through the crossover to the woofer's voice coil.

> why is it not possible an IMPACT of energy can cause ringing in an EQ at any frequency? <

It does, because the IMPACT itself contains low frequencies. So maybe we agree after all? Maybe now you can see that regardless of the pulse length, there is in fact low frequency energy?

> Please explain how you can get 100Hz, which smallest element is 10ms long in a 1ms pulse?? <

Okay, now I see where you're going wrong. Try to envision a small portion of a 120 Hz sine wave. Say, the first millisecond of the wave as it's just starting to curve upward. See what I'm getting at? The curve is what defines the frequency, not the absolute length! You don't need a full cycle for a frequency to exist, as evidenced by pink noise which often contains partial cycles at various frequencies.

Likewise, you can have a partial arc only a few inches long, but that belongs to a circle 60 feet in diameter.

> You don't need any frequency to excite a resonant entity at it's resonant frequencies. <

Yes, you do! Take a tambourine track and boost the bejeezus out of it at 30 Hz. Do you hear a change? I rest my case.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Savant]
#122192 - 28/04/05 08:02 PM
Jeff,

> ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS CALCULATED FROM C423 TESTS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES. <

Rather than go 'round and 'round on semantics, let's try a different approach:

Do you agree or disagree with my basic premise that a panel having an edge surface of four inches will measure approximately 50 percent higher absorption than a (theoretical) panel that's infinitely thin, and that the increase is due mainly to the presence of the edge?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122199 - 28/04/05 08:14 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Paul,

.....

> Please explain how you can get 100Hz, which smallest element is 10ms long in a 1ms pulse?? <

Okay, now I see where you're going wrong. Try to envision a small portion of a 120 Hz sine wave. Say, the first millisecond of the wave as it's just starting to curve upward. See what I'm getting at? The curve is what defines the frequency, not the absolute length! You don't need a full cycle for a frequency to exist, as evidenced by pink noise which often contains partial cycles at various frequencies.

Likewise, you can have a partial arc only a few inches long, but that belongs to a circle 60 feet in diameter.
....--Ethan

I just concentrate on this bit, as Iv'e got to go out in a few minutes, so lack of time.

Yes, Ethan, that's exactly whta I was trying to explain in my exampkle in an earlier post.

If you remember I had a scenario where there was 3/4 of a full wavecycle.

So, OK, let's imagine this 'small portion' of a 120Hz wave.

Yes, I see exactly what you are getting at.

but the point I was making is 'we can't see into the future'.

What if that very small portion of that 120Hz sinewave is repeated at 1ms. ( so it looks a like saw blade )? Then it's Lowest freq component is 1Khz.

That's what I was saying earlier.....

A 1ms pulse may contain the 'building blocks' ( I.e the short segment ) of a 120Hz wave, but unless the wave completes a full cycle it cannot be termed 120Hz for definite.

And similarly with your circle and arc analogy.... The few inch long arc segment of a 60ft dia. circle might suddenly chagne direction completely if more than a few inches were observed.

Both the full circle or frequency IMHO are only being IMPLIED, and not actually present.

This may seem a pedantic difference, but IMO it's an important one.

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#122202 - 28/04/05 08:22 PM
Paul,

> the point I was making is 'we can't see into the future'. <

There's no need to see into the future to determine the frequency components present here and now.

> What if that very small portion of that 120Hz sinewave is repeated at 1ms. ( so it looks a like saw blade )? Then it's Lowest freq component is 1Khz. <

No - the tops of each segment are angled just like the top of the (now-edited) impulse wave image I posted above.

> unless the wave completes a full cycle it cannot be termed 120Hz for definite. <

This simply is not true. As I explained earlier, pink noise routinely contains partial cycles that never complete. But we both know that you can still use pink noise to measure a room's response at those frequencies.

> Both the full circle or frequency IMHO are only being IMPLIED, and not actually present. <

Again, this is simply not the case, and again I wish Jeff would chime in because I know he understands this.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

MarkEdmonds

Joined: 01/12/04
Posts: 71
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122205 - 28/04/05 08:32 PM
Please can I ask how you chaps are building your pulses and exactly which EQ and which settings you are using? This is very interesting and I want to understand more.

I have just been trying my own experiments with this applying low freq EQ to high freq pulses and get nothing.

My immediate reaction on seeing the spike effect in Ethan's pictures was - bug in the EQ algorithm or a feature of digital EQ.

I don't understand why the spike should be so short. If the lower frequency component is present in the pulse, when it is EQed, why doesn't the effect of the EQ last the duration of the pulse? Why does it only appear as a spike at the start?

(Aside #1: does the initial phase of the pulse have any effect?)

(Aside #2: What happens when you treat a low freq pulse with a high freq EQ?)

Mark

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: MarkEdmonds]
#122216 - 28/04/05 08:48 PM
Mark,

> how you chaps are building your pulses <

I started a new empty file in Sound Forge, then used the "Generate Wave" function to create a short (half second) square wave at 1 KHz. I then zoomed all the way in to "sample" level, and set the volume on either side of a single half-cycle near the start to zero. (I also had to disable "snap to zero crossing" to avoid muting the portion I wanted to keep.)

> exactly which EQ <

I have the UltraFunk plug-in suite, so I used that parametric EQ. I set the center frequency to 120 Hz, the boost to full which is 18 dB, and the Q to max which is 24.

> bug in the EQ algorithm or a feature of digital EQ. <

Nope, you can do this with all analog gear and see the results on an oscilloscope, and I've done that many times in the past. But it's a lot more difficult than using Sound Forge and plug-ins!

> why doesn't the effect of the EQ last the duration of the pulse? <

The EQ causes ringing, and that ringing extends the short impulse.

> Why does it only appear as a spike at the start? <

Because the ringing and sustain haven't happened yet.

> Aside #1: does the initial phase of the pulse have any effect? <

No.

> What happens when you treat a low freq pulse with a high freq EQ? <

The high frequency content of a pulse depends on the rise and fall times. If these times are fast then high frequencies are present.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

MarkEdmonds

Joined: 01/12/04
Posts: 71
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122229 - 28/04/05 09:13 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

The EQ causes ringing, and that ringing extends the short impulse.

--Ethan

Ahhh, so that decaying sine wave isn't the original pulse, it is the ringing from the EQ? The original pulse itself only lasted for the duration of the blown-up picture?

I'm slow at this

Mark

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: MarkEdmonds]
#122236 - 28/04/05 09:36 PM
Mark,

> Ahhh, so that decaying sine wave isn't the original pulse, it is the ringing from the EQ? <

Yes.

> The original pulse itself only lasted for the duration of the blown-up picture? <

Yes again.

I made a video recently that explains resonance and ringing as relates to room acoustics. You'll find it 3rd in the list here:

www.realtraps.com/videos.htm

In fact, it was while watching that video again that I realized EQ'ing an impulse is a good way to prove it contains low frequencies.

Another video in that series explains all about comb filtering, and you may find that interesting too.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: MarkEdmonds]
#122271 - 28/04/05 10:58 PM
Quote MarkEdmonds:

Please can I ask how you chaps are building your pulses and exactly which EQ and which settings you are using? This is very interesting and I want to understand more.

I have just been trying my own experiments with this applying low freq EQ to high freq pulses and get nothing.

My immediate reaction on seeing the spike effect in Ethan's pictures was - bug in the EQ algorithm or a feature of digital EQ.

I don't understand why the spike should be so short. If the lower frequency component is present in the pulse, when it is EQed, why doesn't the effect of the EQ last the duration of the pulse? Why does it only appear as a spike at the start?

(Aside #1: does the initial phase of the pulse have any effect?)

(Aside #2: What happens when you treat a low freq pulse with a high freq EQ?)

Mark

Greetings Mark

As we use the same DAW program, I'll explain how I did it in Cubase SX3

I recorded an empty file of, say 10 seconds long at 32bit float.

I then zooomed in and manually drew the pulse with the pencil tool. Set the ruler to 'Seconds' rather than bars and beats, so you can accurately get the pulse to the right length.

Drawing the pulse at 100% ( 0dBFS ) is easy becuase you just run the pencil above the 100% line and voila it's done. Then alter the gain by about -5dB to leave some visible headroom above the pulse.

Save.

Then use the range tool to highlight before and a few seconds after the pulse, and use Offien Processing with the EQ plug of your choice. I used UAD-1 Cambridge EQ and PEQ.

btw - interestingly the UAD-1 precision EQ actually had 'preringing' i.e the ring rose from nothing before the pulse started.

Also, PEQ preringing aside, Ethan is correct in that the ringing is nothing to do with the digital nature of the EQ. It does indeed happen with analog EQs/filters to.

Example: Take an analog synth VCF.. Turn the resonance right up on some synths and the ringing will last forever. i.e it goes into self oscillation and as long as power ( energy ) is applied it will last forever Anyone into 'synths' shoudl be familiar with this.

Even amplifiers, when you pump a square wave through them, will ring on the up and down transient portion of the wave. AFAIK and IIRC, the damping factor wil determine how much. Bert is probably the best person to clarify that one.

Speaker cones will also over shoot and ring from a transient ( 9v battery across the speaker terminals )

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Savant

Joined: 08/10/04
Posts: 65
Loc: Kansas, USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122276 - 28/04/05 11:06 PM
Ethan,

Quote Ethan Winer:

Rather than go 'round and 'round on semantics, let's try a different approach:

It's not semantics. ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS CALCULATED FROM C423 TESTS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES. Or, let me put it this way:

ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS CALCULATED FROM C423 TESTS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES.

How many times should I repeat myself? Here it is again: ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS CALCULATED FROM C423 TESTS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES. Read it carefully. Then read it again. Rephrase it any way you like: WHEN ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS ARE CALCULATED USING THE METHOD PRESCRIBED IN ASTM C423, THE RESULTING NUMBERS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES. It's not semantics.

Quote:

Do you agree or disagree with my basic premise that a panel having an edge surface of four inches will measure approximately 50 percent higher absorption than a (theoretical) panel that's infinitely thin, and that the increase is due mainly to the presence of the edge?

If a panel is infinitely thin, then the panel that is not infinitely thin - e.g., the 4" panel you propose - is infinitely more absorptive. But, again, where the heck are you going with this? I don't understand why you cannot accept the fact that edge effects happen and let it go. Why do you have to attempt to ascribe some sort of made-up universal truth to it? This is ridiculous.

And as for the impulse argument, I stopped following it what seems like eons ago. I'm not about to get back into it. One BS waste of time is enough.

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

--------------------
All the best,
Savant

Scottdru
Cool Dude

Joined: 17/12/02
Posts: 4392
Loc: NYC: isle off the coast of Eur...
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122316 - 29/04/05 03:21 AM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Jeff,
Do you agree or disagree with my basic premise that a panel having an edge surface of four inches will measure approximately 50 percent higher absorption than a (theoretical) panel that's infinitely thin, and that the increase is due mainly to the presence of the edge?

OK . . . not saying that there is no truth to your theory about the effect of edges (I certainly would be in no position to do so at this point), but . . . taking this back to drummer-level logic, I'm not sure I can agree with the edge effect as being the primary cause for the increase (or at least I cannot currently understand why this would be the case). Perhaps I am missing something?

So get myself a bulldozer, right? Actually, better yet, a really beefy truck with a snow plow on the front end. Then I build three dirt berms (piles of dirt, for those who may not be familiar with this word).

One is maybe four feet thick and, for the sake of practical argument, perhaps four times the width of the truck, and of course the berms are four feet thick at the ends (which I would equate to the edges).

The second is 12 feet thick, same thickness at the ends, same width, etc.

Now . . . if I back the truck way the hell up (I'll get to the third berm in a minute), and get it running full speed (don't try this at home!), and run it straight through each of these dirt berms, which one slows down the truck more (or stops it altogether)?

The one that's 12 feet thick, right? Is it because of the thickness of the edges, or is it because of the amount of mass that has to be moved to get to the other side of each berm?

So let's try it with the third berm, which is 12 feet thick (and, for the sake of keeping some consistency with the analogy, we'll say each of the berms are taller than the truck), and we have frame the berm on the side ends and the top end with concrete slabs.

I'm thinking that concrete slabs aren't going to make a whole lot of difference in how effective either berm is in slowing down or stopping the truck . . . and if it does make a difference, it wouldn't make the amount of difference that the difference between four feet of dirt and 12 feet of dirt.

Would I be correct in that assumption? And am I oversimplifying this to the point that there is something in particular in using this analogy that I am overlooking that makes it an ineffective analogy?

Again, sorry if I'm not keeping up with the class, but I figure if I have to watch you guys taking up this much space discussing these minutiae, I might as well learn something. I fully (and proudly) admit to being a drummer, and perhaps I'm showing my own limitations to my detriment, but I figure if you guys can explain it to me, then everybody else should be able to come to some common understanding about it as well -- especially since this debate has been raging on at various levels of civility for a couple of years.

And, while it may sound like it, I'm seriously not trying to be sarcastic in asking these questions, or being "intentionally thick" to make any particular point -- I really am this thick (OK, now I'm being a little facetious), and I'm serious in trying to gain some understanding here.

I don't have any particular interest or investment in who "wins" or "loses" the argument, I just would like to understand it, and perhaps for all of us to come to some common understanding of it.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Rick Fitzpatrick

Joined: 23/04/05
Posts: 19
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122337 - 29/04/05 07:28 AM
Quote:

WHEN ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS ARE CALCULATED USING THE METHOD PRESCRIBED IN ASTM C423, THE RESULTING NUMBERS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES. It's not semantics.

Hmmmmmm. Then why does this state that it does.

Definition:

Practically, the sound absorption is the absorption “footprint” of the specimen in metric sabins. The sound absorption coefficient is the percentage of incident sound energy that, rather than being reflected, is converted to other forms of energy such as heat. Using a reverberation chamber, the sound absorption is computed as the difference of the Sabine absorption with and without the object under test present in the reverberation chamber."

This was from a site that the url was so long, you would kill me. But if you want, I could post it. I tried to change it, but to no avail
fitZ

Edited by Rick Fitzpatrick (29/04/05 07:31 AM)

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#122390 - 29/04/05 09:28 AM
Paul:
Even amplifiers, when you pump a square wave through them, will ring on the up and down transient portion of the wave. AFAIK and IIRC, the damping factor wil determine how much. Bert is probably the best person to clarify that one.

Guys,

This is getting out of hand. I cannot keep up with all these posts, but nobody seems to understand what I mean.

When you draw a spike in the time window of a wave editor, this has nothing to do with a pulse that has a certain timelength.

You see a spike, but also a lot of flat time information.
This flat time information contains the low freq information.

A pulse with a length of 1 msec in a wave editor should be highlighted over exact 1 msec. The marked piece of 1 msec, when FFT-ed with the analyze tool, will not contain freq under 1000 Hz. That's all. You can EQ what you want at 100 Hz, you see nothing or the analyzing tool sucks.

BUT YOU HAVE TO REALLY LIMIT THE PULSE TO 1 MSEC, AND NOT USE A SHORT SPIKE WITH LOTS OF FLAT TIME INFO!!!!!!

DAMMIT!!!!

Scottdru
Cool Dude

Joined: 17/12/02
Posts: 4392
Loc: NYC: isle off the coast of Eur...
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Rick Fitzpatrick]
#122476 - 29/04/05 12:19 PM
Thanks for your efforts to explain and demonstrate, Bert. I think I'm slowly beginning to understand some of this . . . I still need to go and download Ethan's pulse and play with it a bit as well. Didn't have time yesterday.

Quote Rick Fitzpatrick:

This was from a site that the url was so long, you would kill me. But if you want, I could post it. I tried to change it, but to no avail
fitZ

Rick, if you copy the link, you can use the Instant UBB Code function just below the post window to post it. Click on "URL". A window pops up where you can paste the URL. Click "OK", and you'll get a second window. Type in some text like "Click Here" or whatever, and then click "OK" again. This will create a short link for your long URL.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Savant

Joined: 08/10/04
Posts: 65
Loc: Kansas, USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Rick Fitzpatrick]
#122534 - 29/04/05 02:24 PM
Rick,

Quote Rick Fitzpatrick:

The sound absorption coefficient is the percentage of incident sound energy that, rather than being reflected, is converted to other forms of energy such as heat.

By definition, that is certainly the case. And absorption measured using the impedence tube method is calculated as such. A simple level difference calculation that results in a ratio that gives an absorption coefficient. Multiply by 100 and you've got yourself a percentage. For this method,

a = [I(i) - I(r)] / I(i)

Where:
a = absorption coefficient
I(i) = Incident sound intensity
I(r) = Reflected sound intensity

It should be obvious that this value cannot exceed 1.0 since the reflected sound intensity will always be lower than the incident sound intensity.

If I(r) < I(i), then
I(i) - I(r) < I(i)
[I(i) - I(r)] / I(i) < 1.0

These are not the same absorption coefficients as the ones you calculate using the reverb room method.

Quote:

Using a reverberation chamber, the sound absorption is computed as the difference of the Sabine absorption with and without the object under test present in the reverberation chamber."

Also true. And this doesn't say the absorption coefficients from reverb room tests are percentages. The absorption before and after a test sample is in place is measured using differences in decay. For this method,

a = (A2 - A1) / S

Where:
a = absorption coefficient (In this case, a is often called the Sabine absorption coefficient to distinguish it from the normal, theoretical absorption coefficient explained above.)
A2 ~ d2 = the decay rate after the specimen has been added in dB/s
A1 ~ d1 = the decay rate of the empty chamber in dB/s
S = Surface area of the specimen

So, we could rewrite:

a ~ (d2 - d1) / S

(Note that I am using the "~" symbol to denote "is proportional to". I have omitted the constants involved in the equations to keep things simple.)

Since there is no reference to decay in the denominator of the above, one can hardly consider this the calculation of a ratio. Since it's not a ratio, the resulting absorption coefficient cannot be treated as a percentage.

Final note:

a =/ a

I.e., the absorption coefficient calculated using the difference ratio of sound intensity is not equal to the absorption coefficient using decay difference divided by surface area.

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

--------------------
All the best,
Savant

Rick Fitzpatrick

Joined: 23/04/05
Posts: 19
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122594 - 29/04/05 04:44 PM
Quote:

These are not the same absorption coefficients as the ones you calculate using the reverb room method.

Thanks Jeff. I didn't see a caveat. And I wasn't aware there is more than ONE type of absorption coefficient.
As non-scientific person, I took the definition at face value.
Good to see you were on your toes though.
(just kidding) Sometimes, as a bystander, I have to question these things by professinals as trust is only as good as proof, yet proof is meaningless if you can't read a standard. As the song says, I won't get fooled again.
The trouble is, as a consumer, you can't actually QUESTION the product manufacturing "standard", unless you BUY the damn thing.

For all intents and purposes, that is EXACTLY why I do this.

For YEARS, I, and I'm certain other "consumers" too, when reading product specifications, such as "x part built, MEASURED or calculated according to ASTMx(or other) standard", assumed this was a government imposed standard of "quality" or something. It was only when trying to find out exactly what "absorption coefficient" exactly meant, that I finally started questioning things. What irritates me is, there is actually NO proof that a manufacturer does indeed follow a "standard", as a consumer is NOT allowed to know what the damn standard SAYS. In other words, as a consumer, I simply have to TRUST your word. Even
if I question it, YOU can't back it up because YOU arn't legally allowed to tell me what it says EITHER. And don't tell me the test results are your proof. Been there, done that.
In fact, I had to email an Acoustical products company, to contest what one of their Lab reports stated on one of their products. Not only did they misconstrue various data in relating specimen size, they did it on THREE pages. Wha the f... How can a reputable lab do that? Hence my mistrust in even so called "lab results" reports. I still have yet to hear back from them. Anyway, maybe this explains my questioning things like this.
fitZ

Rick Fitzpatrick

Joined: 23/04/05
Posts: 19
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122601 - 29/04/05 04:58 PM
Quote:

Rick, if you copy the link, you can use the Instant UBB Code function just below the post window to post it. Click on "URL". A window pops up where you can paste the URL. Click "OK", and you'll get a second window. Type in some text like "Click Here" or whatever, and then click "OK" again. This will create a short link for your long URL.

Holy moly, lern somthin new evra daigh.. Thanks Scott, I was wondering how people did that. Actually, I tried that, but when submitted, it didn't have the actual link, so it confused me. DOH! Now I know..what a moron.
fitZ

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Savant]
#122607 - 29/04/05 05:07 PM
Jeff,

> ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS CALCULATED FROM C423 TESTS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES. Or, let me put it this way: <

Who said anything about percentages? I did refer to a hypothetical material that absorbs "100 percent" earlier, but that was just to simplify the example. You're the only one who keeps talking about percentages.

> But, again, where the heck are you going with this? I don't understand why you cannot accept the fact that edge effects happen and let it go. <

I do understand that edge effects "happen," though I was beginning to think maybe I was the only one! Where am I going with this? Okay, since you asked: Eric Desart has claimed several times that I'm wrong for stating that edge surface is the primary cause of absorption coefficients larger than 1.0. So I'm hoping to learn what specifically in my explanation is wrong. So far, all I've seen is a lot of beating around the bush, and intentional avoidance of the issues and direct questions I've asked. So here's another direct question, which I hope you'll think about and then answer honestly:

Do you agree with the basic premise of my statement, that edge surface is the primary reason absorption coefficients can be greater than 1? And if not, why not?

> And as for the impulse argument ... One BS waste of time is enough. <

Thanks very much for your assistance. That's exactly the type of intentional avoidance I was referring to.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Scottdru]
#122612 - 29/04/05 05:17 PM
Scott,

> So get myself a bulldozer, right? <

With all due respect, that example is so far afield of what's being discussed I can't see how it applies.

Scott, this is not complicated! You have a hunk of material with a certain amount of surface area. You increase the surface by 50 percent via 4-inch thick edges but don't take that increase into account when computing the absorption coefficient. Voila, all of a sudden the absorption seems higher than possible.

Is this really that difficult a concept?

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Eric Desart

Joined: 03/12/04
Posts: 524
Loc: Antwerp/Belgium
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Rick Fitzpatrick]
#122615 - 29/04/05 05:24 PM
Quote Rick Fitzpatrick:

Quote:

Rick, if you copy the link, you can use the Instant UBB Code function just below the post window to post it. Click on "URL". A window pops up where you can paste the URL. Click "OK", and you'll get a second window. Type in some text like "Click Here" or whatever, and then click "OK" again. This will create a short link for your long URL.

Holy moly, lern somthin new evra daigh.. Thanks Scott, I was wondering how people did that. Actually, I tried that, but when submitted, it didn't have the actual link, so it confused me. DOH! Now I know..what a moron.
fitZ

Fitz,

Another method is:
Go to > http://tinyurl.com
There you can make URLs extremely short.
The advantage is that this short URL remains valid (does nor expire), no matter where you use it.
This does help making short URLs, no matter how long the original. And you can still use it outside the forum.

Of course Scott's suggestion is as well valid.

I just suggest an alternative for hopeless cases.

--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#122620 - 29/04/05 05:35 PM
Bert,

> nobody seems to understand what I mean. <

Now you know how I feel.

Seriously, I know exactly what you mean, but it's not relevant to anything I've been talking about!

Going back to my very first mention of a 1 millisecond pulse, all I said was you could send such a wave to a loudspeaker. I said nothing about being sure to trim away all leading and trailing silence. In fact, even if you did trim away all the silence, that silence still exists in the air and so still contributes low frequencies. Yet somehow that innocent statement triggered accusations of large hygienic inverted water bottles.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122621 - 29/04/05 05:40 PM
[ ****** ] you, Ethan.

Scottdru
Cool Dude

Joined: 17/12/02
Posts: 4392
Loc: NYC: isle off the coast of Eur...
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122636 - 29/04/05 06:41 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Scott,

> So get myself a bulldozer, right? <

With all due respect, that example is so far afield of what's being discussed I can't see how it applies.

OK . . . but it would be a lot more helpful to me if you simply explain to me in some concrete terms why it applies, or where lies the fault or weakness in my analogy.

As I thought I made clear (though stated with a little lighthearted humour), I'm asking these questions without prejudice. I'm just trying to learn and understand here.

Quote:

Scott, this is not complicated! You have a hunk of material with a certain amount of surface area. You increase the surface by 50 percent via 4-inch thick edges but don't take that increase into account when computing the absorption coeffficient. Voila, all of a sudden the absorption seems higher than possible.

For starters, if you read my post, I did not dismiss the idea that the edges may have an effect for acoustic absorption (though I admittedly dismissed it to at least a degree in the dirt analogy, and I can understand that there would be other factors at play here when it comes to acoustic absorption compared to solid matter going through dirt). Rather, I questioned the statement that the difference was more (or primarily related to edge surface than to the thickness of the absorber. I felt I wanted to be sure I understood this more completely before I moved on to looking for further answers as to the edge issue.

Sorry . . . one of the primary ways we learn is by questioning things and dissecting them. If it is unacceptable for me to respectfully question things here in good faith, then what kind of place is this for learning?

I gave an analogy so that you and the others would understand how I was thinking of this situation. You are more than welcome -- and indeed I am actively encouraging you (or anyone else) -- to point out in a concrete manner where I am wrong so that I can learn. A good teacher will find where the student is and will find a way to bring the student closer to the teacher's understanding, rather than just telling him his question is stupid or irrelevant. Sorry, not a valid debating technique either, if you won't respectfully back up why it is that the question is not relevant, and unfortunately I see too much of this coming from certain people on both sides (and have for far too long now). I laid out where I was in my understanding (with the full understanding that doing so publicly exposes my limitations) in the hopes that someone would help bring me closer to what you guys understand.

This is not about ego for me, and it is not about discrediting anybody. Believe me . . . there is no margin whatsoever for me in discrediting anybody, or in being right over anyone here, as every one of you has more background in this than I. I'm honestly trying to understand.

Quote:

Is this really that difficult a concept?

I could have done without the condescension. It is these kinds of statements (along with some others like "what you are talking about is simply wrong") that I keep trying to tell you and the others are SIMPLY NOT PRODUCTIVE, and only serve to alienate the people you are discussing or arguing with. I'm continuing to see more of this from various parties here, and this whole thread continues to get further agitated, with defenses and egos being thrown up, and it becomes less and less educational for anybody.

This issue has gone on broken record stylee for several years now, and still continues to rage on with little real progress, and this kind of aproach is why. It's time to change the damn record.

For all the accusations flying both ways, and for all the claims from people on both sides of this thing that their true intent is to help people, and that they want to make sure that the real truth is known and understood, avoid misunderstandings, etc., there are a few people in this thing who actually ARE trying to achive those goals, but there are still some of you who can't seem to drop the defenses and egos long enough to remember what they said they were arguing all of this for and to actually try to help to the people they claim to want to reach.

Now I'll ask you . . . IS THIS SUCH A HARD CONCEPT TO UNDERSTAND?!?!?!

Sorry . . . I have a lot of patience with people (in many cases well beyond what I should, and even more often more than most people would allow for), but every once in a while I have to let it out and call a spade a spade. You guys don't owe me to catch me up on my physics, but this is, after all, a forum for sharing knowledge. And the bottom line is that this crap is getting really irksome. It isn't the fact that you guys are arguing these points, but rather the way some of you have chosen to argue them that is the problem. I'll say again that I am not at all alone in this assessment. And unfortunately sometimes it seems that some of you are more interested in pointing fingers and assigning sole blame than in finding a solution, or even in helping clarify your basis in argument. As I said, I'm not interested in taking sides in all of this. I only look for a solution for reasonably peaceful coexistence among you. While I don't wish to tar everyone with exactly the same brush, this is simply NOT one sided, no matter how much some of you wish to believe it is. And, again, I'm not alone in my assessment of this. I've gone to bat for you guys (after everyone else had pulled all their hair out and plucked their eyes out over this) and have been willing to try to work with both sides to see if we can find some solution to all of this. And if you are going to ask me to give you some benefit of the doubt and to take you at face value as being sincere, I would appreciate the same respect in return.

Again, I'm not just saying this stuff to one person. I'd like to think people should be able to be honest enough with themselves at least to figure out for themselves what applies and what doesn't.

Can we please get back to a civilised discussion of the issues and facts, without beating each other up or feeling threatened by legitimate (or at least honest intentioned) questions?

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Eric Desart

Joined: 03/12/04
Posts: 524
Loc: Antwerp/Belgium
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122642 - 29/04/05 06:57 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

It has been suggested .....

Quote Ethan Winer:

Okay, since you asked: Eric Desart has claimed several times that I'm wrong for stating that edge surface is the primary cause ....
--Ethan

I see that ... it ... finally got a name ....

Maybe it should be good then that you refer to the message this comes from (after numerous other times over 2 years and more of explaining, asking and begging, starting from very gentle):

http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?p=15973#15973
The part of the topic starting after the dark red bold line.

It should also be good that you state the related quotes from the standard itself:

ASTM C423:2000
• 5.2 The sound absorption coefficient of a surface is a property of the material composing the surface.
It is ideally defined as the fraction of the randomly incident sound power absorbed by the surface, but in this test method it is operationally defined in 4.2.
The relationship between the theoretically defined and the operationally measured coefficients is under continuing study.
Note Eric: point 4.2 is description lab method

• 5.3 Diffraction effects* usually cause the apparent area of a specimen to be greater than its geometrical area, thereby increasing the coefficients measured according to this test method.
When the test specimen is highly absorptive, these values may exceed unity.

Note Eric: The * refers to related studies in the standard itself:

* Chrisler, V.,
"Dependence of Sound Absorption Upon the Area and Distribution of the Absorbent Material,"
Journal of Research, National Bureau of Standards, Vol 13, 1934, p. 169:

* Northwood, T. D., Grisaru, M. T., and Medcof, M.A.,
"Absorption of Sound by a Strip of Absorptive Material in a Diffuse Sound Field,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 31, 1959, p. 595:

* Northwood, T. D.,
"Absorption of Diffuse Sound by a Strip or Rectangular Patch of Absorptive Material,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 35, 1963, p. 1173.

• 11.10 Since diffraction effects make the measured results greater than the ideal to a degree not yet completely understood, no adjustments shall be made in the coefficients for this cause.

More recent:

Proceedings of Noise Con 90
David A. Nelson, P.E., INCE Bd. Cert.,

"Diffraction Effect" in Sound Absorption Tests: Why is the sound absorption coefficient greater than 1.00?
Lab meas. of sound absorption is based on the effect of a patch of material on a diffuse sound field in a reverb chamber.
The math used in the analysis presumes that sound travels with equal probability in all directions.
This is more or less true throughout the room, except over the sample.
For a highly absorptive sample sound travels INTO the specimen, but very little is reflected back.
The discontinuity in the wave field at the edge of the specimen create a diffraction effect that warps the sound field to make the specimen appear as much as a quarter-wavelength larger in each direction.
This increases the sound absorption coefficient to such a degree that it often exceeds the theoretical limit of 1.00. Does this mean the data is invalid? No. The sound absorption coeff. reported are for specimens of the given size in a diffuse sound field: application of these numbers to continuous surfaces may substantially overstate actual performance.

A definition

I can enter lots more references, but since you choose to explain anywhere rather than reading about it, this will do for now.

The fun thing is that you know the content of the standard, but wisely do not refer to it.
You know that I describe diffraction different as your poetic license in this context.
At least try to represent what others told if you refer to them. Not stories about skating sound.
You doubt diffraction without knowing it (but it's a nice word isn't it?).

I specially bought edition 4 now of the Master Handbook of Acoustics of Everest (I had ed. 2 already).
It explains modes rather well (not math but Everest is meant for other target group). It nowhere refers to rays but VERY clearly to wave acoustics.
It even RELATIVATES its own picture, here witheld as proof.
Books are not meant to find usable pictures out of its context but to read.
And Hugh, your related confirmations aren't very professional.
I don't feel like buying newer editions just to see that the content is close to abused, while simultaniously used as proof to substanciate points.

--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Scottdru
Cool Dude

Joined: 17/12/02
Posts: 4392
Loc: NYC: isle off the coast of Eur...
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#122650 - 29/04/05 07:17 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Bert,

> nobody seems to understand what I mean. <

Now you know how I feel.

Seriously, I know exactly what you mean, but it's not relevant to anything I've been talking about!

Going back to my very first mention of a 1 millisecond pulse, all I said was you could send such a wave to a loudspeaker. . . .

Yet somehow that innocent statement triggered accusations of large hygienic inverted water bottles.

--Ethan

Quote bert stoltenborg:

[ ****** ] you, Ethan.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Scottdru]
#122671 - 29/04/05 08:05 PM
Scott,

> I'm asking these questions without prejudice. <

Of course, I know that!

> though I admittedly dismissed it to at least a degree in the dirt analogy <

Right, and that analogy seemed so far off it didn't make sense to me as a reason for dismissing my point. I meant no condescension, honest.

> I questioned the statement that the difference was more (or primarily related to edge surface than to the thickness of the absorber. <

Okay, I see the confusion and I'll gladly explain. This is exactly why I referred earlier to absorbing material that absorbs 100 percent, so it was clear that 100 percent of the sound that strikes either the front surface or edges is absorbed. Note that the idea of material absorbing 100 percent is not so far fetched, and is close to reality for some materials at higher frequencies.

Now, if we assume that the material absorbs everything that strikes it, the only factor that affects total absorption - as measured in a lab's reverb room - is how much material there is. So if you compare the absorption of a 2x4 foot panel that's one inch thick with another that's four inches thick, the thicker one has 37.5 percent more total surface area exposed in the lab, yet the same 8 square feet of front surface is used when converting the (now larger) Sabins to an absorption coefficient.

If this still is not clear, and my explanation in the first post in this thread is still not clear, please let me know and I'll keep trying to explain it.

> this whole thread continues to get further agitated <

Agreed, and mea cupla for my participation in that. It's getting very frustrating to see people who absolutely do understand what I'm saying intentionally pretend they don't understand, just so they can use the rolleyes smiley a few more times. I am not including you in this! All I meant was that your dirt analogy was very far afield of how sound waves pass through material that absorbs.

> Can we please get back to a civilised discussion of the issues and facts <

Yes sir!

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Savant

Joined: 08/10/04
Posts: 65
Loc: Kansas, USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122676 - 29/04/05 08:13 PM
Ethan,

Quote Ethan Winer:

> ABSORPTION COEFFICIENTS CALCULATED FROM C423 TESTS ARE NOT PERCENTAGES. Or, let me put it this way: <

Who said anything about percentages? I did refer to a hypothetical material that absorbs "100 percent" earlier, but that was just to simplify the example. You're the only one who keeps talking about percentages.

The word "incorrigible" comes to mind here for some reason.

Quote:

Do you agree with the basic premise of my statement, that edge surface is the primary reason absorption coefficients can be greater than 1? And if not, why not?

The reasons for absorption coefficients calculated using the reverb room method being greater than 1.0 include, but are not limited to:

Quote John Kopec, former Director of Riverbank Acoustical Labs:

A. Specimen Shape: Odd shaped specimens may...create additional absorption due to interactions between them. For example, absorption coefficients become meaningless when testing theater seats. Thus results on theater seats are given in Sabins per unit rather than Sabins per area.

B. Specimen Size: If a specimen is large in relationship to the test room, increased absorption may result. If a specimen takes up too much space, the sound diffusion in the room is decreased and, depending upon the location or the closeness of the microphone to the absorptive material, higher absorption could (result).

C. Diffraction/Bending Wave Effects: Essentially the bending wave effect, also known as diffraction effects, theory of absorption is that certain sized or shaped
specimens can cause the sound waves to bend around them, turn, or bounce back and forth. The energy used up by the sound wave bending, turning or bouncing around a specimen shows up as increased absorption caused by the specimen.

D. Edge Effects: The edges of some samples are not included in the area used to calculate absorption coefficients. For example, the area used to calculate absorption coefficients on office panels is the width and height of both sides (face arras) only. Although the edges of the panels are exposed to the sound and can provide additional absorption, the edge arras is not included in the calculations. Thus, the thickness of an office panel can be a major contributor to the coefficients exceeding 1.00.

To answer your question directly, I would disagree since there are three other reasons given above by someone that knows more about the topic than both of us. Please let me know how I didn't answer the question this time.

Quote:

> And as for the impulse argument ... One BS waste of time is enough. <

Thanks very much for your assistance. That's exactly the type of intentional avoidance I was referring to.

You're very welcome.

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

--------------------
All the best,
Savant

Edited by Savant (29/04/05 08:25 PM)

Savant

Joined: 08/10/04
Posts: 65
Loc: Kansas, USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Rick Fitzpatrick]
#122677 - 29/04/05 08:14 PM
Rick,

Quote Rick Fitzpatrick:

For YEARS, I, and I'm certain other "consumers" too, when reading product specifications, such as "x part built, MEASURED or calculated according to ASTMx(or other) standard", assumed this was a government imposed standard of "quality" or something. It was only when trying to find out exactly what "absorption coefficient" exactly meant, that I finally started questioning things. What irritates me is, there is actually NO proof that a manufacturer does indeed follow a "standard", as a consumer is NOT allowed to know what the damn standard SAYS. In other words, as a consumer, I simply have to TRUST your word. Even
if I question it, YOU can't back it up because YOU arn't legally allowed to tell me what it says EITHER. And don't tell me the test results are your proof. Been there, done that.
In fact, I had to email an Acoustical products company, to contest what one of their Lab reports stated on one of their products. Not only did they misconstrue various data in relating specimen size, they did it on THREE pages. Wha the f... How can a reputable lab do that? Hence my mistrust in even so called "lab results" reports. I still have yet to hear back from them. Anyway, maybe this explains my questioning things like this.
fitZ

I share in your frustration about the standards. They are copyrighted material, so distribution to the public is not allowed. The "out" for many of the manufacturers is that they are not, as you may have suspected, government-enforced standards for quality. They are completely voluntary. If I were so inclined, I could measure all the absorption coefficients here in our lab however I saw fit, report the numbers in our lit, and no one can really say I did anything wrong. And I've actually seen some competitors who do just that!

And as for what's provided in a lab report, capitalism sometimes rears it's ugly head there, too. Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of capitalism. However, our practice of simply giving Riverbank a model name and brief specimen description and letting them write the actual report is not practiced industry wide. (BTW: If you, or anyone else, ever has questions about the description of a specimen in any of our publicly available Riverbank reports, please let me know how I can clarify!)

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

--------------------
All the best,
Savant

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Eric Desart]
#122680 - 29/04/05 08:19 PM
Eric,

> Diffraction effects* usually cause the apparent area of a specimen to be greater than its geometrical area, thereby increasing the coefficients measured according to this test method. <

Nobody is disputing that diffraction occurs. What I do question is 1) how significant that is, and 2) what diffraction has to do with my contention that the additional edge surface is primarily responsible for the increased absorption. As I stated in my initial post in this thread:

Quote:

Whether a wave that travels along the surface wraps around the corner and is then absorbed by the edge, or it's just that the edge is present in the room in the first place, either way it's still the edge that's absorbing.

If you could comment on that I'd be most grateful.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122681 - 29/04/05 08:22 PM
Folks,

Just so y'all don't think I'm ignoring any replies, I have to leave now to help out at the big Hi-Fi show in New York. I'll be back late tomorrow, and will resume Sunday.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Scottdru
Cool Dude

Joined: 17/12/02
Posts: 4392
Loc: NYC: isle off the coast of Eur...
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122688 - 29/04/05 08:42 PM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Agreed, and mea cupla for my participation in that.

Thanks, Ethan . . . and I'll have a cupla meas myslef! To go. With nothing on.

I appreciate the reply, except that it could probably have done quite nicely without this little bit:
Quote Ethan Winer:

It's getting very frustrating to see people who absolutely do understand what I'm saying intentionally pretend they don't understand, just so they can use the rolleyes smiley a few more times.

Surely we've heard that accusation enough times from both sides? As many times as it gets repeated, I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably expect that it would garner anything other than an in kind reply? Just thought I'd point that out as an example of what I'm talking about, and why I'm getting frustrated.

Ethan Winer Quote:

All I meant was that your dirt analogy was very far afield of how sound waves pass through material that absorbs.

OK, fair enough, but could you give me even a rough clue, or even at least a few words that I could google or something so I can learn a little bit more about why?

Quote Ethan Winer:

Now, if we assume that the material absorbs everything that strikes it, the only factor that affects total absorption - as measured in a lab's reverb room - is how much material there is. So if you compare the absorption of a 2x4 foot panel that's one inch thick with another that's four inches thick, the thicker one has 37.5 percent more total surface area exposed in the lab, yet the same 8 square feet of front surface is used when converting the (now larger) Sabins to an absorption coefficient.

OK, so then, following that on, if it is the surface area that is the primary factor, it would seem (to me) like I should be better to use four 1-inch thick 2' X 4' panels of said material than one 2' X 4' sheet that is 4 inches thick, since I would have a bit under four times the surface space.

But THAT doesn't sound right either . . . does it? Or does it? Especially with regard to the lower frequencies?

I guess my gut instinct or common sense logic (from the information that I currently have in my grasp) would say that, for higher frequencies, this greater surface area would make a pretty big difference (or, for the sake of argument, perhaps the primary difference), but for lower frequencies, maybe not as much?

Am I going wrong somewhere?

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Savant

Joined: 08/10/04
Posts: 65
Loc: Kansas, USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122724 - 29/04/05 10:19 PM
Folks:

I would like to do my part to bring this discussion back to the root. Below is the original statement from Ethan from his initial post:

Quote Ethan Winer:

Diffraction:

In my Acoustics FAQ is this drawing of a 2 by 4 foot absorbing panel that's 4 inches thick:

[image(SNIPPED for brevity)]

In the accompanying text I explain that with a panel this thick, having four inches of edge surface all the way around increases the 8 square feet of front surface area by 50 percent. Therefore, this is what accounts for absorption coefficients greater than 1.0, because the edge surface is not included in the calculations that convert Sabins to an absorption coefficient. While this panel is considered by the conversion formula to have 8 square feet of surface, it's really 12 square feet when you include the edges that are also exposed to the room during testing.

It has been suggested that this explanation is wrong, and the true cause of coefficients greater than 1.0 is diffraction of sound waves at the edges of the front surface. When a sound wave travels along a surface and reaches the end, the surface impedance changes suddenly and the wave then wraps around that edge. Sort of like water that's travelling in a pipe and is contained by the pipe. When the water reaches the end of the pipe it is no longer constrained to the size of the inside diameter, and so is free to expand and spread out. And since there had been outward pressure against the pipe walls, when the impedance changes suddenly at the end of the pipe the water does in fact start to spread outward.

But this does not change the fact that the higher absorption is still caused by having more surface area! Whether a wave that travels along the surface wraps around the corner and is then absorbed by the edge, or it's just that the edge is present in the room in the first place, either way it's still the edge that's absorbing. Moreover, I'm not convinced that diffraction is a big contributor at the frequencies the panel is absorbing. Frequencies that are in the range the panel can absorb will enter the panel, rather than skate along the surface. Perhaps at extreme angles of incidence, and with very dense material, a midrange frequency will skate rather than sink in. But it seems to me in that case much of it will skate again anyway when it wraps around the edge.

First, I would like to point out that there are no questions in the above section. Just statements. I just thought I'd point that out in case anyone took issue with my not answering the question posed, since there was no such thing.

FWIW, the original reason I jumped into this thread was because I take issue with the universality implied in some of the statements above.

Second, I'd like to summarize some discussion points specifically in reference to the above:

1. Diffraction: When panels are tested in a reverberation chamber, sound is randomly incident on the sample. Therefore, diffraction is not out of the question and could very well be a relevant contributor to coefficients greater than 1.0, among the other items listed in my previous post.

2. A Note About Area Increase: While probably not intentional, the proposed "50% increase" in surface area is given in relation to a 2'x4' panel. It is worth noting - in the interests of everyone understanding how things are done - that a single 2'x4' panel is rarely, if ever tested alone. The minimum test specimen size - that Ethan himself is quite fond of citing - is 60 ft² for an official absorption test. This relatively larger area is chosen, among other reasons, to try and minimize the effects of edges. When you take an 8'x8' area of 4" thick panels, all abutted to one another, the exposed edges - if they are indeed exposed - amounts to ~17% of the area of the large sample. Significant? Yes. But if one 4" panel of absorber A is compared to one 4" panel of absorber B and both were tested with the edges exposed, it's all comparable.

3. Edge covering: The reverb room standard allows for covering of exposed edges. This has been alluded to and I would like to add some detail. Edge covering is not a mandatory requirement, but it is a standard option. Why? One reason is because some manufacturers intend for the edges of their panels to be covered in a real-world installation. Another reason is, for research purposes, sometimes manufacturers would like to quantify edge effects. This is well-documented in some of the papers Eric cited above. Those two example reasons aside, in my experience most manufacturers (Auralex included) will opt not to have the edges of their panels covered as that is not how the panels will be installed in the real-world. And more "real-world" testing is something we are all quite fond of.

4. Personally: I would never argue that edge effects aren't relevant. I would also never argue that diffraction effects aren't relevant. I will never agree that edge effects are the only - or even the main - contributor to absorption coefficients greater than 1.0. That could certainly be true in some specific cases. But IMO the entire section above over-simplifies things. Of course, this over-simplification might be appropriate in some instances. Certainly, it's worth over-simplifying if the goal is to explain to someone one way absorption coefficients could exceed 1.0. But it should not ever be implied that it's the only reason.

I hope I have helped clear things up.

Best regards,

Jeff D. Szymanski
Chief Acoustical Engineer
Auralex Acoustics, Inc.

--------------------
All the best,
Savant

Edited by Savant (29/04/05 10:19 PM)

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122787 - 29/04/05 11:35 PM
Greetings Everyone

You know I've just been thinking....

We've had TWO LONG threads ( related ), and as yet NO ONE has been able to explain the cueball/modes analogy.

Even Ethan and Hugh, who originally said it was a sound ( no pun itended ) explanation of modal behaviour havne't been able to explain it.

Ethan even mentioned the Cue Ball thing in his 1st post in this thread. Although oddly he changed the original notion from 'Modal behaviour can be described as a cue- ball" to "Sound can act like a cue ball"

Cue-Ball behaviour isn't difficult. And if modal behaviour can be explained by the action of a cue-ball, then this explanation should be simple also.

Therefore, I can only conclude that the explantion of modes with a cue-ball model is really quite wrong, and in fact 'Beginners' in particular shouldn't be mislead by this model.

Altough, IF ANYONE can explain it, I'm stilling wiling to listen of course Altough I'nm not holding my breath. A few peeps who I know are very knowledgable about this have already explained it's a wrong notion i nthe previous thread.

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Eric Desart

Joined: 03/12/04
Posts: 524
Loc: Antwerp/Belgium
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#122944 - 30/04/05 03:43 AM
The following picture relates to my previous post about the edge effect.

This are 12 metal framed semi rigid Rockwool boards with non-woven fleece.
Those frames are 100 % reflective and the baffles rather thick (bit less than 5").
In fact it are 2 x 50% thick boards with a metal core in-between.

Here one can clearly see the frequency dependency of the edge effect/diffraction.
The further spaced apart the higher this diffraction effect becomes.
Again here you can see that when both measurements are combined in one table or one graph as SO-CALLED objective comparison of different absorbers that one just misleads readers.
This shows about the highest diffraction one possibly can obtain in a lab. (+ increased diffusion)
http://www.realtraps.com/ibm_test.htm
Look at "test 2 photo 1" (second picture on page).

One can clearly see that not the edge surface and related absorption is defining.
In the high frequencies removing the frame has more effect. This is related the ratio obstacle versus wavelength.
Leaving the edges unframed will have an additional effect, but is still more ruled by diffraction than increased surface influence.
A board of 25 mm on a 75 mm cavity will show comparable diffraction with 100 mm boards, while having only 1/4 of the edge surface.

I assume this is possible the only related picture showing this phenomenon in newsgroups.
This data belongs to the Cath. Univ. Leuven/Belgium and myself. I emphesize the Copyright of this data.

Leave this picture here were I put it.

Look at the principle trend, don't ask for special phenomena you'll notice.
If you calculate the difference in total surface caused by the deviating edge surface that's about 17.5 %. But this has little sense since those edges are not absorptive at all. And they are too stiff and stable to show any significant resonant behavior in those low frequencies.

While there are a lot of possible phenomena interacting as also Jeff referred to in previous messages, for normal type A and even other types of measurements, diffraction IS the main cause. The edges play a roll in function of wavelength.
This whole thing also points to the transition between wave and ray behavior.
But even when absorptive edges contribute it's still for significant part the diffraction offering the energy where needed to become absorbed.

If one takes corner absorbtion which are perfect triangles and one fills the corners from floor to ceiling then there is NO edge surface at all.
Yet one of the very significant causes for this typical high corner absorption behavior with a decaying (in function of increasing frequency) absorption curve is EXACTLY this edge effect with an edge surface of 0, NUL, NADA, NOTHING.

I measured baffles (LOTS of them) with and without perforated frames (close to perfect acoustic transparent frames), the difference is that small that it hardly is worth the cost (hardly economical), and one does it often for psychological reasons rather than real useful acoustic gain.

In this case I differ from opinion with Jeff (and based on lots of own lab, study and real live measurement experience).
There are differences, the question is how important are they in the whole picture.

Fact is that Ethan is wrong in his approach, and that's not a matter of opinion but acoustics. And that absorption is part of a whole complex of interactions and/or phenomena does not change that.
And it's used to prove that the published values of competitive materials are 65 % inflated.
I don't know ANY single measurement where the impact of the edge effect is that large than the picture I linked higher up. And this data is put in a table and graph with standard measurements (guess: competitive solutions) as so-called objective comparison.

For large 3-D objects the whole thing becomes even more complicated.

--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Eric Desart

Joined: 03/12/04
Posts: 524
Loc: Antwerp/Belgium
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Eric Desart]
#122962 - 30/04/05 08:14 AM
Quote Eric Desart:

I measured baffles (LOTS of them) with and without perforated frames (close to perfect acoustic transparent frames), the difference is that small that it hardly is worth the cost (hardly economical), and one does it often for psychological reasons rather than real useful acoustic gain.

Sorry, this was unlucky expressed

Should be:
I measured baffles (LOTS of them) with frame, with and without perforation (close to perfect acoustic transparent frames), the ........... etc.

Very interesting to point to:
Look carefully at the above graph and you recognize this strange corner absorption behavior diminishing with increasing frequency.
And one doesn't need edges for that. It's as well true for the "Studiotips Super Chunks" as the "MegaLENDRS" shown in this group already (as all others were there is an absorber edge).

It's because of all those phenomena that Standards clearly distinguish between standard measurements which are to be expressed as absorption coefficients, and discrete objects which MUST be expressed as Sabines. Both can't be compared with one another.

Fitz:

All those uncertainties, explain why Jeff so clear distinguishes between Sabine values as measured in a lab and exact energetic absorption coefficients.
It's literally stated in point 5.2 of the standard.
Point 11.10 tells: guys, he, this is a complicated business, don't apply simple formulas, we don't let you.

If it was that easy, simple formulas should be provided to calculate from one to the other and vice versa.
European Sabine values (ISO) will seemingly often be lower than US Sabine values (ASTM), caused by measurement differences (mainly diffusity and diffraction caused by deviating sample size defined by ISO and ASTM).
We call it all Sabine whatever and he was just one single individual.

--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor

Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 25731
Loc: Worcestershire
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#122987 - 30/04/05 10:09 AM
This is an extraordinarily tedious, unnecessarily argumentative and extremely academic thread of no practical relevance to the average SOS reader...

...but if those participating feel they are gaining something constructive from it, that's fair enough. Thankfully, the ratio of views to replies is extremely low in comparison to the norm for the SOS forums, so it's not wasting too much bandwidth.

However, I think I need to respond to Paul's comments since he mentions me specifically -- and I already noticed Eric tried to draw me in earlier with similar notices...

Quote Paul Woodlock:

We've had TWO LONG threads ( related ), and as yet NO ONE has been able to explain the cueball/modes analogy.

The cue-ball analogy has been explained perfectly well as far as I can see, and I don't understand why you are unable to move on.

Quote:

Even Ethan and Hugh, who originally said it was a sound ( no pun itended ) explanation of modal behaviour havne't been able to explain it.

For heaven's sake! The path of a cue ball on a pool table was likened to the ray concept of travelling sound waves, and used purely to differentiate the fundamental difference between axial and tangential modes. That's what analogies are for: to liken the unfamiliar to the familiar, to help decribe some limited aspects of an unfamiliar concept or behaviour.

Once the concept of travelling sounds waves in a confined space are understood, (using the cue ball analogy if it helps) then the additional complexities of low frequency behaviour, and the mutual interaction of LF travelling waves in a confined space to create 'stationary waves' can be explained (if necessary). But as we all know, this topic area quickly gets extremely complicated, and not least because of the three-dimensionality involved.

THE CUE BALL ANALOGY IS NOT A COMPLETE OR EXHAUSTIVE EXPLANATION FOR STATIONARY WAVES: IT IS A USEFUL TEACHING AID TO HELP A NOVICE TAKE A FIRST STEP ALONG THE WAY...

That was the concept in which it was used first on this forum; that is the context in which I support its use; and that is the context in which many other reputable acousticians use it (or similar) analogies. What is the problem?

Quote:

Therefore, I can only conclude that the explantion of modes with a cue-ball model is really quite wrong, and in fact 'Beginners' in particular shouldn't be mislead by this model.

Forgive me if my cynism has come to the fore once more, but this really does look like an attempt either at childish point-scoring (again), or to prolong an argument purely for the sake of it. Grow up! Move on!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Hugh Robjohns]
#122992 - 30/04/05 10:21 AM
Forgive me if my cynism has come to the fore once more, but this really does look like an attempt either at childish point-scoring (again), or to prolong an argument purely for the sake of it. Grow up! Move on!

Aw Hugh,

But we love it so much this way...

Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor

Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 25731
Loc: Worcestershire
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#122997 - 30/04/05 10:36 AM
What ever rings your bells, bert

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Hugh Robjohns]
#123095 - 30/04/05 03:22 PM
Quote Hugh Robjohns:

.......

Forgive me if my cynism has come to the fore once more, but this really does look like an attempt either at childish point-scoring (again), or to prolong an argument purely for the sake of it. Grow up! Move on!

hugh

[sigh]

You know Hugh, I can quite easily forgive you for your cynism getting the better of you. After the studiotips v, ethan battle over christmas, it's even quite understandable.

However your continued PATRONISATION is really quite insulting. It really says more about YOU than I ( or anyone else ) participating in these threads. So please.... ENOUGH ALREADY!!

Cue-Balls.....

I started the other thread on cue-balls because after Ethan proposed the notion in a previous thread ( which got locked ), I couldn't see how cue-balls were relevent to modal behaviour. And after you jumped down my throat in that thread, at least some discussion twoards explaining it got underway.

However IMO the cue-ball analogy wasn't resolved in that thread, and since Ethan started this thread, my cue-ball thread has laid fallow.

So despite your ridiculous accusations of 'childish point scoring', or whatever, I simply want to learn more about acoustics, so I can translate that into practical help and practical realisations.

Now despite being a very busy person, I actually enjoy helping people ( Who would fall under your category of 'average SOS reader' ) get the better out of the rooms they use for their home studios.

You may or may not have noticed, that since coming here I've actually stuck around to help people on a lot of threads and issues with a lot of practical advice, where I can. ANd indeed the MORE I learn about the subject, the MORE I can help others.

So instead of continuing to insult me, why not actually explain the cue-ball thing. Not relating to sound behaving as rays ( I understand that ), but pertaining to modes.

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor

Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 25731
Loc: Worcestershire
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#123186 - 30/04/05 09:04 PM
Quote Paul Woodlock:

I started the other thread on cue-balls because after Ethan proposed the notion in a previous thread ( which got locked ), I couldn't see how cue-balls were relevent to modal behaviour.

It has been explained several times. I EXPLAINED IT ABOVE IN CAPITALS. You seem to want to perservere in making more of a simple analogy than it can stand to be, and then follow it up with unfounded claims that those of us who used this perfectly appropriate analogy in a perfectly appropriate, clear and specific context, are somehow guilty of misleading people as to the true nature of modal behaviour!

It's sometimes hard to believe this isn't all some pesuedo-academic version of trolling!

Quote:

So instead of continuing to insult me, why not actually explain the cue-ball thing. Not relating to sound behaving as rays ( I understand that ), but pertaining to modes.

Jeez! How many times. THE CUE BALL ANALOGY WAS USED AS A MEANS OF EXPLAINING IN A SIMPLISTIC WAY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FLOW OF ENERGY (for want of a better description) PERTAINING TO AXIAL AND TANGENTIAL MODES WITHIN AN ENCLOSED SPACE.

IT HAS NO USEFUL MEANING OUTSIDE OF THAT PURELY CONCEPTUAL AND DELIBERATELY SIMPLISTIC ILLUSTRATION.

IT CANNOT SERVE IN ANY FURTHER WAY TO HELP YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF ROOM MODES -- IT WAS MERELY INTENDED TO AID THE FIRST FEW STEPS IN THE LONG ROAD OF ACOUSTIC ENLIGHTNEMENT.

Savant, Bert, Eric and others have all gone to some lengths with some fantastic animations and illustrations to explain some of the more academic aspects of room mode behaviour. These would appear to serve your advanced and academic interest in the subject well.

Chasing the Cue Ball analogy and trying to claim that it is something more than it clearly is, serves no purpose -- other than for deliberate mischief-making.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Hugh Robjohns]
#123226 - 01/05/05 12:15 AM
Quote Hugh Robjohns:

Savant, Bert, Eric and others have all gone to some lengths with some fantastic animations and illustrations to explain some of the more academic aspects of room mode behaviour. These would appear to serve your advanced and academic interest in the subject well.

Chasing the Cue Ball analogy and trying to claim that it is something more than it clearly is, serves no purpose -- other than for deliberate mischief-making.

Hugh

Hugh,

I, for the LAST TIME, can assure you that I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST IN DELIBERATE MICHIEF MAKING!!

In fact even in the battle with Ethan over Christmas, there was no DELIBERATE michief making. My posts in there resulted from REAL ISSUES with Ethan, and not from some kind of trolling.

That particular battle with Ethan is OVER! In fact I'm currently talking privately with Ethan to try and avoid any further battles. Which FWIW is going very well.

Whatever conclusions you drew of me during that Christmas battle, and however wrong, are understandable.

But I'm really finding it hard to understand why you continue this hair-trigger response to my 'post-battle' posts in this forum.

IMO neither you or Ethan has explained the cue-ball analogy. And, no, saying it's an energy flow isn't enough. Particularly as Eric and Others have said the cue-ball analogy is not valid. So NO you haven't explained it properly. And why you take that so personally is anyone's guess.

Now I could just take Eric's word for it that the Cue-Ball analogy is wrong. And as Eric has far more knowledge about acoustics than ANYONE ELSE here, then that perhaps wouldn't be a bad move.

HOWEVER, it's actually out of respect for you and Ethan that I continued to ask. After all, despite other issues, neither you or Ethan are stupid, so Paul W thinks..."Ahh, well there must be 'something' in this cue-ball thing"

And that's why I am making some effort to get to the bottom of it. I have an open mind. I've said enough times, I can't see the cue-ball thing myself where modes are concerned, but I CAN see the cue-ball thing where simple reflections are concerned.

And how can I 'make more of something than it really is' if I don't know it's initial scope or boundaries?

All I want to do is to learn. All I did was mention your name in association with an acoustical concept, that for me, at least, hasn't been closed yet. And ( again ) you respond with pre-determined negativity and a tone of patronisation that, particularly for a moderator of a respected forum, that's not only quite unprofessional, it's insulting.

Ironically... just like the 'personals' you tried so hard to stop during the christmas battles, since then it's becoming increasingly clear your agenda is more personal than academic.

Lastly, and the very last time.....

My presence here, now the christmas battle is over, is ONLY to Help and to Learn.

Now if you can't put a closure to your wrongly concluded personal issues with me, then by all means ban me. Which would be sad, as whatever my failings, I do believe I have something worthwhile to contribute here.

Otherwise please leave me alone to continue to help and continue to learn.

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

thefruitfarmer

Joined: 01/09/04
Posts: 1862
Loc: Kent UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#123261 - 01/05/05 08:31 AM
Conceptualisation is a very personal thing....

I like to think of the behaviour of sound waves in a room as analogous to when a stone is thrown into a pond. I realise this is a limited analogy and it probably won't satisfy everyone but it works for me.

Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor

Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 25731
Loc: Worcestershire
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#123325 - 01/05/05 02:06 PM
Quote Paul Woodlock:

IMO neither you or Ethan has explained the cue-ball analogy.

I am sorry. I can not think of any further explanations beyond those I have now given four times already that would help you to grasp this very simplistic analogy of a simplistic desciption of two simple configurations of sound waves reflecting in a confined space.

I suggest you no longer waste any more of your time or cognitive powers worrying about it. It is not important in the grand scheme of things, and is (and always was) clearly intended for a level of understanding well below your current engagment in this topic.

Quote:

And, no, saying it's an energy flow isn't enough. Particularly as Eric and Others have said the cue-ball analogy is not valid.

This coming down to semantics, interpretations, and vested interests -- none of which I have any time for -- but I remain comfortable that that specific analogy is perfectly valid in the context for which it was used. If it doesn't work for you, so what? Leave it alone and find another one that does work for you. The indisputable fact remains that it has proved helpful to further the initial understandings of a great many others.

Quote:

I CAN see the cue-ball thing where simple reflections are concerned.

Yippee! That all it was intended to explain ! That's it. There is no more to it than that. It is the very first step in understanding how sound waves can can bounce around in a room. That's exactly what I have been saying over and over again: THE CUE BALL ANALOGY IS NOT A COMPLETE OR EXHAUSTIVE EXPLANATION FOR STATIONARY WAVES: IT IS A USEFUL TEACHING AID TO HELP A NOVICE TAKE A FIRST STEP ALONG THE WAY...

So why do you keep coming back to it, like a dog worrying a bone?

Quote:

And how can I 'make more of something than it really is' if I don't know it's initial scope or boundaries?

You have repeatedly made demands that the 'cue ball analogy' be explained to you as if it is some great universal truth that defines 'stationary waves.' It doesn't, and it was never claimed that it did.

The original purpose of the analogy, and the context in which it was used, were clearly defined in the original thread, and further clarifactions have been given several times.

I completely fail to see how you can have the nerve to claim that you are unaware of its "initial scope or boundaries." To make such a claim implies you are either extremely dense -- which I know catagorically your are not -- or mischief making. I see no third option!

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Rod Gervais

Joined: 24/01/05
Posts: 238
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#123351 - 01/05/05 03:44 PM
Paul,

Picture this in this manner - and then let's move on (I think).

The pool ball analogy has nothing to do with modes and nodes..... and was never really intended to describe them.

However - when someone begins 1st attempting to understand this - getting a picture (in their mind) of how sound moves around a room and what it does in the process - is a daunting task at best - so why not begin with a picture they can relate to, and expound from there?

This (I believe) is all that Ethan was attempting - to create that 1st picture for someone.

Taking it from there to explain simple sound movement - from which he (and others) can begin to add some depth to.

Is the analogy perfect - not by any means - does it pertain to standing waves? Not in the least!!,,,,,but does it give a raw beginner something on which to build? A picture he can begin with - that can then be expounded on? I believe it does.

I do know a wee bit about this - and understand what it was Ethan was trying to portray.

I have to agree with Hugh on this. I believe it's time to move on from here.

Sincerely as always,

Rod

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Rod Gervais]
#123394 - 01/05/05 06:55 PM
Rod:
"Is the analogy perfect - not by any means - does it pertain to standing waves? Not in the least!!,,,,,but does it give a raw beginner something on which to build? A picture he can begin with - that can then be expounded on? I believe it does."

Hey Rod,

The fact that Ethan himself is not able to understand, using this cueball theory you and Hugh find so valueble for beginners, why a tangenial mode has a shorter wavelength than an axial mode, means that this theory is only confusing for beginners and is an extremely bad example on how these mechanims work.
Same for the impulse example, IT SUCKS AS AN EXAMPLE FOR ACOUSTICAL NEWBIES.

Hugh repeatedly suggested that people who are worried about this Acoustical Myth Building are only in it for generating mischief.
NO! We're in it because we don't like acoustical BS and misleading those interested in acoustics!

I also consider Hugh adressing the SOS-members a bit patronizing.

Bert

daveyd

Joined: 30/04/05
Posts: 5
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#123415 - 01/05/05 09:22 PM
Ok im one of the newbies that have an interest in acoustics but dont understand it, to me acoustics are basically this:

Sound is a vibration of air, vibration behaves in a similar way to water, reflections are caused by sound bouncing off hard or non absorbing surfaces, some sound will 'flow' over a surface and some sound will be absorbed. Reflections are easy to understand, this cue ball theory i dont follow as i find the whole thread to be confusing, is the cueball theory talking about air movement or reflections? Ive not wanted to ask, as i dont want to have BOLD LETTERS thrown at me for asking what is to me a relevant question!

Testing acoustic panels is another thing, i think a panel gives absorption figures over 1(total absorption)for 2 reasons, 1st, the surface area isnt totally flat, if sound behaves as water then it will hit an object and go in different directions, it wont just bounce back or be absorbed, so a sculpted product would have a larger surface area to absorb over than a flat area, but a flat panel would also have a rough surface, you see what i mean? Also, do some soundwaves cancel out others if they intereact, or am i barking up the wrong tree?
If testing is done over a large surface area, than the 4" edges wont affect the test at all, or have i missed the point there to?

I want to learn all about acoustics, im very interested in not only the products that the manufacturers here are pushing, but also manufacturers like RPG, all the manufacturers have something to offer different areas of acoustics, so there is much to learn from all of you.

Please dont treat me like an idiot for not knowing anything about this subject, remember that you all started out knowing nothing too

bert stoltenborg

Joined: 14/01/05
Posts: 178
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: daveyd]
#123444 - 01/05/05 10:25 PM
Ok im one of the newbies that have an interest in acoustics but dont understand it, to me acoustics are basically this:

"Sound is a vibration of air,"
Yes

"vibration behaves in a similar way to water"
Not really. Sound in air is a longitudinal wave, the air is compressed and expanded by the wave in the diection of the sound, water moves lateral, up and down in the direction of the wave.

"reflections are caused by sound bouncing off hard or non absorbing surfaces"
yes

"some sound will 'flow' over a surface and some sound will be absorbed"
yes

"Reflections are easy to understand, this cue ball theory i dont follow as i find the whole thread to be confusing, is the cueball theory talking about air movement or reflections?"
Problem is that sound only at high frequencies can be considered as a kind of ray bouncing of reflecting surfaces (not really, but as an analogy to make the concept more clear, OK).
At low frequencies sound cannot be seen like that. When you do you get the problems Ethan has trying to understand standing waves/modes. At low freq's sound has to be considered as a resonance, especially when the dimensions of the room are comparable to the length of the waves involved.
Only then you get a good picture of what is happening.
Sound is not air particles being shot through a room, bouncing of walls. The air particles have to be considered as small balls, all connected by little springs. A particle that is exited will bounce at the next particle, etc etc.
So each particle is moving away from a starting position (equilibrium), until the spring is strechted so much that it gets stronger than the exiting force and is pulling the particle back and propelling it in the opposite direction. The friction of the spring (the air) will eventually stop the movement.
So even at high frequencies the ray example is not totally valid.

"Ive not wanted to ask, as i dont want to have BOLD LETTERS thrown at me for asking what is to me a relevant question!"
Nobody does that, except when you are told for several years by some very high ranking acousticians like Jeff or Eric how things work and you refuse to understand and keep on spreading misleading stories you invent when smoking bad weed, some guys get tired and frustrated because all the time and energy and good will they spend is neglected. That's what is happening here.

I'm not an expert on acoustics, and especially not on testing absorption. You have to ask guys like Jeff and Eric etc, they have many years of academic training and experience in very large companies. I consider these guys, in opposition to what some people say about them (pedantic), as exceptional helpfull and generous to give all these years of experience and knowledge to us. Hiring a lesser acoustician to learn you this stuff would cost you a fortune and yield less result.

"Please dont treat me like an idiot for not knowing anything about this subject, remember that you all started out knowing nothing too"
Never! You are totally right. That's why some people go through these effords to explain things; because they don't treat other people as idiots.

daveyd

Joined: 30/04/05
Posts: 5
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#123447 - 01/05/05 10:54 PM
Thanks bert, im pleased that im getting some of the basics right. Im keen to learn, so i may ask some more odd basic questions at some point along the way

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Savant]
#123450 - 01/05/05 11:16 PM
Jeff,

First, let me say thanks for toning down your original post.

> energy used up by the sound wave bending, turning or bouncing around a specimen shows up as increased absorption <

Yes, this is exactly what I've been asking about, and the explanation that energy used while bending around the edge is what I was missing.

> Although the edges of the panels are exposed to the sound and can provide additional absorption, the edge area is not included in the calculations. Thus, the thickness of an office panel can be a major contributor to the coefficients exceeding 1.00 <

And this is precisely the point I make in my Acoustics FAQ, that Eric said is wrong. So I'm glad to see someone else state what has been obvious to me all along.

Now the final question is: How much of the increase is from energy depleted by wave bending, and how much is from simply having 50 percent more edge that's not included when converting Sabins to an absorption coefficient?

I'm going to again use my intuition and assume the extra edge must account for at least 3 or 4 times more absorption than energy lost while bending. At least when considering a single panel that's 2x4 feet and 4 inches thick. If anyone has something concrete to refute this with, I'd love to hear it.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Scottdru]
#123452 - 01/05/05 11:23 PM
Scott,

> could you give me even a rough clue, or even at least a few words that I could google or something so I can learn a little bit more about why? <

Sound is absorbed as it passes through the absorbing material, and your dirt hill example was more for a truck trying to push the dirt aside.

Now that Jeff posted a quote from a respected acoustician saying exactly what I've been saying all along, my follow-up question (already asked above) is what amount of increase can be attributed to each factor.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Savant]
#123454 - 01/05/05 11:37 PM
Jeff,

> I would like to point out that there are no questions in the above section. <

Yes, those are "statements" from my Acoustics FAQ, and the only "question" is why does Eric say it's wrong.

> a single 2'x4' panel is rarely, if ever tested alone. <

Yes, understood, and that too is explained clearly in my FAQ:

Quote:

In practice, multiple panels are placed adjacent to each other during testing, to minimize the contribution of the edges. So when 2 by 4 foot panels are tested, typically eight of them are arranged into a larger square. But even when placed to form a single surface area of 8 by 8 feet, four-inch thick edges still inflate the measurements by more than 16 percent.

> in my experience most manufacturers (Auralex included) will opt not to have the edges of their panels covered <

Yes, and that's exactly what I explained to Andre when he wrongly stated that all ASTM tests are supposed to be done with the edges masked.

> it should not ever be implied that it's [edge surface] the only reason. <

This is why I asked if anyone here has something concrete to contribute. Common sense tells me the edge is probably a much bigger contributor. But I'm here to learn too, and would love to see specific numbers.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#123457 - 01/05/05 11:46 PM
Paul,

> NO ONE has been able to explain the cueball/modes analogy. <

At some point way back in that thread Jeff (I think it was Jeff) explained that at lower frequencies sound ceases behaving like rays, and I acknowledged that as reasonable. So I don't think that's an open issue anymore. But at higher modal frequencies I have to assume the ray stuff still applies.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Hugh Robjohns]
#123458 - 01/05/05 11:47 PM
Quote Hugh Robjohns]......

Quote:

I CAN see the cue-ball thing where simple reflections are concerned.

Yippee! That all it was intended to explain ! That's it. There is no more to it than that. It is the very first step in understanding how sound waves can can bounce around in a room. That's exactly what I have been saying over and over again: THE CUE BALL ANALOGY IS NOT A COMPLETE OR EXHAUSTIVE EXPLANATION FOR STATIONARY WAVES: IT IS A USEFUL TEACHING AID TO HELP A NOVICE TAKE A FIRST STEP ALONG THE WAY...

Hugh,

I can now see that you've perhaps unwittingly misunderstood the original statement that started this all off.

Ethan said: Non-axial modes bounce around the room more like a cue ball on a pool table, and they're weaker than axials and so contribute less resonance.

Like I've said already, I understand the 'ray' model of sound for non-resonant(non-modal) behaviour For this ( in a 2D model ) the cue-ball analogy is completely valid. As is the mirror model ( including the Mirror Trick for finding 1st reflection points for absoprtion of Early Reflections ), and indeed any other model where the angle and direction of incidence = the angle and direction of reflection.

However, Ethan was QUITE CLEARLY referring to MODAL BEHAVIOUR. Which is a quite different kettle of fish.

As soon as I read that statement by Ethan ( even before others replied ), alarm bells rang in my brain's knowledge department. I couldn't understand how this could be the case. At least not from what I'd learnt to that date.

And then, which further confirmed my scepticism on the matter, was the Reply by Eric ( who has a lifetime's experience in acoustics )...

Eric said: Non-axial modes don't bounce around a room as a cue ball, but form as stable interference patterns as axials.

Eric's statement was much more in line with my understanding of modal behaviour.

However, you then chimed in on the thread and supported Ethan's cue-ball analogy.

OK, so then I was in a situation where there was a bunch of guys (whose knowledge I respect) who were showing differing opinions on whether the cue-ball thing was correct for MODAL behaviour.

Like I say, for NON-MODAL room behaviour.. Cue Balls? EASY!

BUT

For Modal Behaviour? Nope! I couldn't understand that.

I have a very passionate inquiring mind, I just had to get to the bottom of it. I can only take so much info 'on trust' from anyone. It has to also make perfect sense. Otherwise I can't help but to investigate further. And as it was you and Ethan who were proposing the cue-ball analogy for modal behaviour, it's natural that I should come to you guys 1st for further explanation.

Now, because of the negative history of this cue-ball discussion I am indeed gonna close it, and not pursue it any further in this forum. In fact I'm not gonna pursue it anywhere for the time being. I'm basically cue-balled out

:

Paul

Rod Gervais

Joined: 24/01/05
Posts: 238
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: bert stoltenborg]
#123460 - 01/05/05 11:57 PM
Quote bert stoltenborg:

The fact that Ethan himself is not able to understand, using this cueball theory you and Hugh find so valueble for beginners

Bert,

I'll ask you this nicely - at least once - please, please do not put words into my mouth.

I am extraordinarily carefull to say exactly what I mean to say - and I absolutely resent you (or anyone else for that matter)presenting me as something I am not - or presenting something I said as more than I actually said.

It's always possible that some person might read what you said and actually believe it rather than read what I wrote to see how poorly you understood and presented it.

If it is an issue with you not understanding the American version of the English language because you aren't from this country - perhaps it would be better if you asked me what I meant before responding to it, but I've read enough of what you write to not really think that this is the case.

I never stated that I considered this theory valuable - nor did I state that I considered it BS - I only stated that I could see what it was Ethan was presenting.

I was very VERY carefull to neither support nor condem it.

Perhaps part of the problem here shows itself in your post though........ might it be that you are so full of looking only for the bad that you completely miss the point?

Such as the way you did with my post???????

If you could so completely missread my post - maybe you should re-read the entire thread to see what else you may have misconstrued.

Sincerely,

Rod

Ethan Winer
Real Traps

Joined: 19/11/02
Posts: 830
Loc: New Milford, CT USA
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Eric Desart]
#123463 - 02/05/05 12:01 AM
Eric,

> If you calculate the difference in total surface caused by the deviating edge surface that's about 17.5 %. But this has little sense since those edges are not absorptive at all. And they are too stiff and stable to show any significant resonant behavior in those low frequencies. <

Thanks, yes, this is exactly what we need. Now, if only you had an example showing 1) the panels clustered, 2) the panels separated with skirts, and 3) the panels separated without skirts, we'd have the complete answer!

> it's used to prove that the published values of competitive materials are 65 % inflated. I don't know ANY single measurement where the impact of the edge effect is that large <

With corner foam, much more edge is exposed when tested than will be exposed when installed.

--Ethan

--------------------
Focal Press author: The Audio Expert
The acoustic treatment experts

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#123470 - 02/05/05 12:14 AM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Paul,

> NO ONE has been able to explain the cueball/modes analogy. <

At some point way back in that thread Jeff (I think it was Jeff) explained that at lower frequencies sound ceases behaving like rays, and I acknowledged that as reasonable. So I don't think that's an open issue anymore. But at higher modal frequencies I'm pretty sure the ray stuff still applies.

--Ethan

Ethan, you don't know how good that post makes me feel.

The humility you show above is something that indicates a real turning point in your approach to discussing acoustics on the Net.

Keep it up and you're knowledge of acoustics will improve exponentially. And even better, tensions for all will decrease exponentially.

Thankyou!!

To others: Please don't judge my words to Ethan negatively. Ethan won't be offended. He knows where I'm coming from. The reason I'm commenting on Ethan's post publically in this way is becuase I want you all to know that Ethan and I are making good progress in resolving this long running feud between Ethan and studiotips. Ethan's post above is the best visible sign to date, that progress is being made, and I just wanted to highlight that. And to also thank Ethan.

Thanks

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

Eric Desart

Joined: 03/12/04
Posts: 524
Loc: Antwerp/Belgium
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#123487 - 02/05/05 01:55 AM
Quote Ethan Winer:

Thanks, yes, this is exactly what we need. Now, if only you had an example showing 1) the panels clustered, 2) the panels separated with skirts, and 3) the panels separated without skirts, we'd have the complete answer!

WE, don't need anything.

You write a 100% wrong article, based on nothing than non-substantiated believes, you proudly call "The Numbers Game" as a so-called expert about a subject you know nothing about, read by maybe 200.000 people already, via countless direct links in groups, indirect links via your FAQ and Site, direct and indirect links via countless press releases and magazine articles, without 0.000000001 % of responsibility.

This leads and relates directly to your physical false and fraudulent comparisons of your products with competitive products on your site thereby deceiving numerous people.
AGAINST CLEAR OFFICIAL RULES IN THE OFFICIAL STANDARDS both ASTM and ISO (British = ISO too).
So first YOU apply the rules as stipulated in the Standards in the inmediate and direct interest of WE

It's a pity that nobody at SOS seems to have the background to judge this (or just isn't interested), or know their own related British Standards (derived from ISO).

YOU shouldn't start learning about a topic AFTER 200.000 people are mislead.

I'm a scientist. Do you think I'm going to provide you with the data resulting from REAL scientific academic studies, you use to play your GURU roll?

I PROVED YOUR ARTICLE AND RELATED BS ON YOUR SITE AND FAQ TO BE NONSENSE.

I will not release any more data.
Show the scientific comparison data you used to write your article and the related BS on your site and Faq.
ASTM C 423 speaks about DIFFRACTION NOT EDGE SURFACE.
For YOU diffraction is just a word, here even translated in this context as some kind of skating sound.

That this "numbers game" article is wrong and your comparisons are FALSE is mentioned to you, explained, suggested and begged for several years now.

So:
WE don't need additional scientific data.
WE need a minor bit of integrity and honesty on your part of your data which is in DIRECT interest of WE

One writes about stuff AFTER one knows what one is talking about.
Use others to play with than me.

Ethan found a sentence he can use out of context again while, as traditional simultaneously, ignoring ALL THE REST.
In his ..... mind this thread confirms him being right.

Ethan, why do you still use the proven and by you known fraudulent data of "Foam by Mail" on your site to substantiate the quality of your products?

--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Scottdru
Cool Dude

Joined: 17/12/02
Posts: 4392
Loc: NYC: isle off the coast of Eur...
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#123492 - 02/05/05 02:32 AM
You know, I was just going to say that I have found this thread helpful and enlighting to a certain degree, even through the various bits of tension that have arisen.

I think there have been some good things brought out through discussing the disagreements -- whether the arguments were completely academic or anorak, and whether they were about factual or semantic issues.

However -- Eric, I have to say that your tone (among other things) in your last post in particular is completely unhelpful to any resolution of this issue -- for the reasons I have mentioned to you numerous times in our communications. Your presentation really leaves no room for a change of approach, and only serves to put Ethan on the defensive and back him into a corner.

Paul and Ethan have been working toward having these conversations in a way that moves toward more productive discussion that can help people learn and decide for themselves.

This thread is one of the first threads in which Ethan and any of the Studiotips guyse where involved where I felt that I could enter in and ask serious questions for myself (both to learn and to try to verify for myself what made the most sense), because I didn't feel so much that any questions I might raise would automatically contribute to things blowing up further into the same old flame wars.

Again, when either party starts bringing in all of the same old accusations that have been flying back and forth for a couple of years now, the objectives you both say you have are absolutely not served, most especially in the case of the kinds of people who do not have enough knowledge (or the resources to gain the information to start) to be able to figure out for themselves whether you or Ethan are most correct.

This approach only serves to force the people who most need correct information into one camp or another based on reasons that are more likely to have little or nothing to do with acoustical science -- either that or they just avoid the threads altogether. What good does that do anybody?

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Eric Desart

Joined: 03/12/04
Posts: 524
Loc: Antwerp/Belgium
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#123493 - 02/05/05 02:44 AM
Quote Paul Woodlock:

The reason I'm commenting on Ethan's post publically in this way is becuase I want you all to know that Ethan and I are making good progress in resolving this long running feud between Ethan and studiotips.

Paul,

Can you do me a favour?
I respect your intentions, but why do you think you speak for Studiotips?
If you believe you personally have to resolve something with Ethan I 1000 % respect that.

If I reply here than I'm Eric, NOT Studiotips, NOT a friend from here NOR an enemy of there.
I'm Eric responding to the content of a topic, as the topic goes. I don't respond as Studiotips nor act on behalf of Studiotips.
I'm triggered by my personal values and things I personally stand for.
I think if Jeff responds, he's Jeff, if Bert respond he's Bert. The same goes for all others. All mature people responsible for their own acts.

If Ethan feels he has to resolve something with Studiotips, he knows the owner.

--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Scottdru
Cool Dude

Joined: 17/12/02
Posts: 4392
Loc: NYC: isle off the coast of Eur...
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Eric Desart]
#123495 - 02/05/05 03:18 AM
Quote Paul Woodlock:

And even better, tensions for all will decrease exponentially.

Agreed, but it won't if Eric keeps using language such is these statements below as an approach to conflict resolution.

Quote Eric Desart:

You write a 100% wrong article, . . . as a so-called expert about a subject you know nothing about,

Quote:

This leads and relates directly to your physical false and fraudulent comparisons of your products with competitive products on your site thereby deceiving numerous people.
AGAINST CLEAR OFFICIAL RULES IN THE OFFICIAL STANDARDS both ASTM and ISO (British = ISO too).
So first YOU apply the rules as stipulated in the Standards in the inmediate and direct interest of WE

Fraudulent is a pretty strong word and carries some pretty heavy connotations. For starters, Ethan DID change the language on his site to specify that the product tested was "Foam by Mail", rather than to imply that the product tested was Auralex or Primacoustic or whatever. But, if Ethan really is being intentionally "fraudulent", do you expect that your constantly accusing him publicly of being a fraud is likely to get him to back down on something he may be wrong about and to publicly state "OK, Eric . . . you're right . . . you caught me . . . I've been intentionally lying to everybody for all this time"? Or do you think it would be more likely to cause him to feel a need to defend himself even harder? Last I checked, your approach here is one of the prime examples of what NOT to do in conflict resolution.

Quote:

It's a pity that nobody at SOS seems to have the background to judge this (or just isn't interested), or know their own related British Standards (derived from ISO).

Perhaps this is something that could be discussed in time if we could get to the point of having civil discussions here.

Quote:

Do you think I'm going to provide you with the data resulting from REAL scientific academic studies, you use to play your GURU roll?

Again, while I might understand some of the background from which this statement arises, again, public name calling and accusation isn't going to contribute to the resolution of conflict.

Quote:

Again, see above comment.

Quote:

Use others to play with than me.

Quote:

Ethan, why do you still use the proven and by you known fraudulent data of "Foam by Mail" on your site to substantiate the quality of your products?

Again, I'm not sure I understand what makes it "fraudulent" since he has now changed the language of the site to specify that the actual product tested was "Foam by Mail"?

Sorry Eric, but . . . I've called Ethan out on some of this kind of stuff in this thread, and I have to call you out on it too.

--------------------
Scott
--Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Eric Desart

Joined: 03/12/04
Posts: 524
Loc: Antwerp/Belgium
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#123498 - 02/05/05 03:56 AM
Scott,

--------------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing ............... Albert Einstein

Paul Woodlock

Joined: 23/11/04
Posts: 791
Loc: Peterborough, UK
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Eric Desart]
#123503 - 02/05/05 05:14 AM
Quote Eric Desart:

Quote Paul Woodlock:

The reason I'm commenting on Ethan's post publically in this way is becuase I want you all to know that Ethan and I are making good progress in resolving this long running feud between Ethan and studiotips.

Paul,

Can you do me a favour?
I respect your intentions, but why do you think you speak for Studiotips?
If you believe you personally have to resolve something with Ethan I 1000 % respect that.

If I reply here than I'm Eric, NOT Studiotips, NOT a friend from here NOR an enemy of there.
I'm Eric responding to the content of a topic, as the topic goes. I don't respond as Studiotips nor act on behalf of Studiotips.
I'm triggered by my personal values and things I personally stand for.
I think if Jeff responds, he's Jeff, if Bert respond he's Bert. The same goes for all others. All mature people responsible for their own acts.

If Ethan feels he has to resolve something with Studiotips, he knows the owner.

Greetings Eric

Just to clarify:

When I use the term 'STudioTIps' I don't use it as the Forum itself, or Dan. i.e not in the sense you mentioned.

I use it collectively describe you, me, bert and everyone else who is on the opposing the side to Ethan in the ongoing disagreements.

All I want to do is stop the negativity that's having adverse effects on everybody.

I completely respect everyone's right and individuality to speak for themselves, and whatever values they hold personally.

I am not trying to stop anyone voicing there opinions or values, or using their expertise to contend with anything said by anyone else. And furthermore I am not trying to speak for anyonelse.

i.e If you disagree with things Ethan says ( or does ), and respond, then that's completely fine by me. If Ethan spreads innacurate acoustics, then YES, he should be put right. Just as I should be put right if I say something innacurate. And the same with anybody else.

Like I say, all I'm trying to do is to reduce the negavity. Particularly the way Ethan has responded to correction in the past.

I think ( and hope ) Ethan is beginning to learn that it's wise to check his facts and knowledge that little bit further, before excitedly publishing 'papers' on the Internet and in magazines, whenever he think he concludes something new about acoustics.

Ethan's last post ( that I thanked him for ) wasn't the usual "I'm being picked on!" It wasn't the usual "selective out-of-context arguments" he's used in the past in order to make himself look correct at all costs, depite the truth. It was a post of admission of incorrectness, and admission of not being the Guru.

I read Ethan's post to say......."I originally said Modes can be modelled by cue-ball behaviour. However Jeff has now explained that low frequencies don't act as a ray, and I can see that now. However I still think that higher modes can act as a ray, but I'm not sure!"

I'm the same as you Eric, in that I don't like misinformation being spread about the Internet. I try and correct a lot of misinfomation on Music making forums myself regarding Sound engineering and production.

And where Ethan's concerned.... Like anyone else, if he publishes infomation that's clearly misleading and incorrect, I shall, wherever I have the knowledge, continue to attempt to put him right.

On the other hand, if he shows some humility, and acts like a student ( like he did above ) instead of an 'I'm always right guru!", then I shall also give him some credit for that.

So, to reiterate.... You and everyone elses voice, maturity, individuality, personal values, etc,etc is FULLY RESPECTED MY ME. I'm just trying for positivty instead of negativity.

Apologies for any confusion

Paul

--------------------
Pauls Studio Build Diary at http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=1

daveyd

Joined: 30/04/05
Posts: 5
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#123517 - 02/05/05 08:43 AM
hmm now see for me, i dont know what any of you are talking about!

I dont know who is talking sense and who isnt!

Where can i find good articles to read on the subjects above? A friend of mine has given me a list of articles to read by Trevor Cox of Salford Uni, im assuming i wont understand a great deal of what hes talking about, but can anyone recommend me any other articles?

Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor

Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 25731
Loc: Worcestershire
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Paul Woodlock]
#123529 - 02/05/05 09:27 AM
Quote Paul Woodlock:

However, Ethan was QUITE CLEARLY referring to MODAL BEHAVIOUR. Which is a quite different kettle of fish.

I can see where you are going with this, and partially why you are confused, but I don't agree that modal behaviour is a completely different kettle of fish: it is simply a more complicated extension of the same thing. The rules don't suddenly change simply because the wavelengths do, but they do become more involved and other factors become more significant.

Quote:

Eric said: Non-axial modes don't bounce around a room as a cue ball, but form as stable interference patterns as axials.

This is true and I'm not arguing with what has been said. What I would say is that while the modes (nodes and nulls) aren't bouncing around a room, the sound energy still is. It is the source and reflected energy paths that are interfering with one another to create the static 'stationary waves.' It is the fact that the sound wave's wavelength is of a similar dimension to that of the enclosed space that results in what you want to call 'modal behaviour' as opposed to simple reflections.

This is precisely what was shown in the nice animations that Jeff posted way back at the beginning of this thread.

Quote:

Eric's statement was much more in line with my understanding of modal behaviour.

That's fine. Stick with it if it works for you.

Quote:

OK, so then I was in a situation where there was a bunch of guys (whose knowledge I respect) who were showing differing opinions on whether the cue-ball thing was correct for MODAL behaviour.

With the greatest respect to the 'bunch of guys', they do seem to share a very didactic attitude to some explanations, especially when issued from some specific sources.

Quote:

For Modal Behaviour? Nope! I couldn't understand that.

What can I say? It is a teaching approach that I have used for many years, and with the aid of suitable diagrams and explanations, it has always appeared to work in helping my students understand:

(a)how and why stationary waves are formed
(b)why they form at specific freqencies
(c) how those frequencies can be calculated
(d) and how that leads on to the recommendations for specific room ratios and why larger rooms are easier to treat than smaller ones.

And it all flows naturally from the initial discussion about cue balls....

Look: if you don't find it a useful beginning that's fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But when used in the appropriate context as a starting point to which extensions and caveats can be added, there is nothing wrong with it at all. There is no black and white here, just shades of grey.

Shall we move on now?

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Hugh Robjohns
SOS Technical Editor

Joined: 25/07/03
Posts: 25731
Loc: Worcestershire
Re: Bill Eppler on cue balls, modes, diffraction, and impulses [Re: Ethan Winer]
#123533 - 02/05/05 09:38 AM
It seems all the usual suspects have jumped off the deep end once again. There is no sense is furthering the arguments here yet again. I am, sadly, forced to lock this thread and I will remove any further threads that attempt to continue any or all aspects of this again.

Ethan, it is quite clear where you have been going with your 'edges' debate. I suggest you continue your discussion in private with Jeff to resolve the matter to your satisfaction (although I would have thought he has already provided the required answers very clearly).

Eric, your posts are unbelieveable. I feel your contributions to this thread are consistently more confusioning and damaging than are constructive. I don't think this forum serves your needs, or that you serve this forums needs. Perhaps it would be best if you refrain from any further activity here. Thankyou.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)

 Rate this thread 1 star 2 star 3 star 4 star 5 star Jump to --FORUM INDEX-- *Main Forums* -----   Recording Techniques   Production - Mixing, Mastering, Gear & Techniques   News   Music Business   Mac Music   PC Music   Apps and Other Computers/OS   Guitar Technology   Keyboards & Synthesis   DIY, Electronics, Studio Design & Acoustics   Music Theory, Songwriting & Composition   Live Sound & Performance   User Reviews   Remote Collaboration*SOS Forums* -----   Magazine, Website & Forum Feedback   SOS Support Forum

 Extra Information 0 registered and 16 anonymous users are browsing this forum. Moderator:  David Etheridge, James Perrett, zenguitar, Martin Walker, Forum Admin, Hugh Robjohns, Zukan, Frank Eleveld, SOS News Editor, Forum Permissions       You cannot start new topics       You cannot reply to topics       HTML is disabled       UBBCode is enabled Rating: Thread views: 82517
May 2016
On sale now at main newsagents and bookstores (or buy direct from the SOS Web Shop)
Click image for May 2016
Other recent issues:
DAW Techniques

Email: Contact SOS

Telephone: +44 (0)1954 789888

Fax: +44 (0)1954 789895

Registered Office: Media House, Trafalgar Way, Bar Hill, Cambridge, CB23 8SQ, United Kingdom.

Sound On Sound Ltd is registered in England and Wales.

Company number: 3015516 VAT number: GB 638 5307 26