Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Chris Whealy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sound absorption in air.

Chel van Gennip wrote:
http://www.sensorsmag.com/articles/0...299/main.shtml I thin the
http://www.ktu.lt/ultra/journal/pdf_...adisauskas.pdf


Both of these articles are discussing air absorption in the context of
ultrasonic transducers.

It is indeed more than you expect. For a living room situation I see about
3 db for 20 kHz at 4m. For a concert hall situation I see 20dB loss for
20kHz at 28m. I am afraid there are no fast transients or extremely high
frequencies for sound in a real life concert hall.


Now you've switched context and are referring to losses in the audible
frequency range (i.e. not ultrasonic).

For all practical (read audible) purposes, the absorption of sound by
air is not significant for indoor listening situations.

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sound absorption in air.


"Chris Whealy" wrote in message
...
Chel van Gennip wrote:
http://www.sensorsmag.com/articles/0...299/main.shtml I thin the
http://www.ktu.lt/ultra/journal/pdf_...adisauskas.pdf


Other references:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/atmossndabsorbcalc.html
http://www.measure.demon.co.uk/Acous...e/iso9613.html

Both based on ISO 9613 - 1

(gives the absorbtion of sound by air near STP as about 0.5 dB/meter at 20
KHz)

http://www.earthworksaudio.com/tech/hf_sound.pdf

(A hi rez advocate gives the absorbtion of sound by air near STP as about
0.068 dB/meter at 20 KHz - note this implies RH ~= 0%)

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/gen..._still_air.htm

(gives the absorbtion of sound by air near STP as about 0.563 dB/meter at 20
KHz)

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/Acoustic...nts/PDF/A7.pdf

(NASA recomends raising the frequency of disturbing sounds to exploit the
additional absorbtion of air at high frequencies)


Both of these articles are discussing air absorption in the context of
ultrasonic transducers.


So what do we call a loudspeaker or mic operating above 20 KHz, if not an
"ultrasonic transducer".

Does 40 or 50 KHz change between being ultrasonic and sonic depending on
whether its being used to clean false teeth or reproduce the sound of some
musical instrument via a SACD or DVD-A?

I think not! ;-)

It is indeed more than you expect. For a living room situation I see
about
3 db for 20 kHz at 4m. For a concert hall situation I see 20dB loss for
20kHz at 28m. I am afraid there are no fast transients or extremely high
frequencies for sound in a real life concert hall.


Now you've switched context and are referring to losses in the audible
frequency range (i.e. not ultrasonic).


Many of the sources I cited provide data for a range of audible and
ultrasonic frequencies. Introducing ultrasonic frequencies is clearly
on-topic because reproduction of ultrasonic frequencies is a heavily
promoted so-called advantage of so-called "high rez" media such as DVD-A and
SACD.


For all practical (read audible) purposes, the absorption of sound by air
is not significant for indoor listening situations.


Can you honestly say that after checking the "other references" I provided
above?


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sound absorption in air.


"Chel van Gennip" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:09:19 +0100, Arny Krueger wrote:


"Chris Whealy" wrote in message
...



For all practical (read audible) purposes, the absorption of sound by
air is not significant for indoor listening situations.


Can you honestly say that after checking the "other references" I
provided above?


A rhetorical question? ;-)

There has been a lot of discussion about "audibility" of the frequencies
above 20 or even 50 kHz. As this verifyable data shows, these frequencies
are absent in a concert hall. I therefore think they should be absent in
recordings too, audible or not.


I find it interesting that the data from Earthworks was only realistic for
rooms where the air was improbably dry.

There seems to be quite a bit of convergence among data from numerous
sources.

It is important to know air does change sound.


It's a low pass filter in real-world applications, plain and simple.

That has implications. If
you do scientific measurements on a violin, you better put the microphone
as close as possible to the instrument, if you want to make a recording
to listen to, keep your distance.


I'm not going to go that far. Close micing is a good way to help manage the
contribution of the room sound to the overall sonic picture. If you have
the luxury of a room that sounds good, then this is less important.

Quite a bit of real-world listening involves being reasonably close to the
players. I still remember the first time I listened to a string quartet
when I could literally reach out and touch their music stands.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mixing, Any additional suggestions? Matrixmusic Pro Audio 22 May 27th 05 03:15 AM
enhancing early reflections? [email protected] Pro Audio 4 April 28th 05 05:51 PM
Some Recording Techniques kevindoylemusic Pro Audio 19 February 16th 05 08:54 PM
Some Mixing Techniques kevindoylemusic Pro Audio 78 February 16th 05 08:51 AM
Creating Dimension In Mixing- PDF available on Request (112 pages0 kevindoylemusic Pro Audio 14 February 14th 05 06:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"