Today on, “Similar, yet different…” we are going to analyze two more of our acoustic diffusers and compare/contrast their designs and functionality… and this one is a doozy; The Model D vs. The Aeolian®. These two diffusers have some very interesting similarities and some surprising differences – so lets get started!
We have discussed the Aeolian® construction before, so we will start here with a quick recap as a reference point. The Aeolian® started life as a blocky-looking diffuser – just like the Model C, but the implementation is different. While the Model C retains its “blocky” appearance, the Aeolian® has run through a mathematical process called “bicubic interpolation.” This smooths the transition from one block to the next, creating the wavy appearance of the Aeolian® diffuser.
So, keep that in mind: The diffuser was tuned with different height blocks and then the transitions were smoothed.
The Art Diffusor® Model D has multiple layers of math below its curved surface. While the Aeolian® started life as “Blocks” of different heights… the Model D started life as “Rings” of different sizes and heights. The calculation for the heights is identical to the mathematics used in tuning the Aeolian®, but why different sized rings?
There is an older diffuser design known as a Maximum Length Sequence (MLS) diffuser. These were tuned to different frequencies using a specific depth, and different spacings of “lands and valleys.”
The Model D started with the concept of twisting the MLS spacings into rings, and changing the size of the rings. Then to break the “MLS mold” of having the same depth, this MLS ring structure is raised to different heights using Quadratic Residue calculations… effectively combining the rings of MLS spacings with different QRD heights. While this could have been where this stopped, we wanted to interject more randomness into the equation.
Wherever the rings of different heights intersected, we decided to change the heights by values relative to the difference between the two rings. This height variation is what is responsible for the “random” waviness. This was accomplished with different Boolean Functions, to either add or subtract height where the rings intersected.
This method of using Boolean Functions inserts a known-height randomization into a hybrid MLS/Quadratic system. (That’s a mouthful.) The final step, after refining the ring size, height, position and intersection parameters… was to smooth the whole geometry with “Bicubic Interpolation.” That’s right. This final step smooths all the transitions from the heights, just like the blocks of the Aeolian®.
So onto the Simple Similarities!
Both diffusers use a quadratic residue calculations to get the main heights of the diffusive elements. Both diffusers are finished off with a helping of “Bicubic Interpolation” to smooth it all out. This gives them both a very organic look… The Aeolian® looks a bit like rolling waves, and the Model D resembles droplets of rain in a puddle…
They do perform quite a bit differently though.
The Aeolian® has great lower mid-band performance… while the Model D is a beast in the upper mid-bands starting about 2.5K. The difference is in the severity of the geometry. The Aeolian® is a gently rolling surface which redirects the waveforms uniformly through a wide range of frequencies. The Model D has a very irregular surface. With the different ring sizes, heights, locations and boolean functions… it’s meant to target and shred mid to high frequencies. Both diffusers are asymmetric – and affect different frequencies in different ways.
The Aeolian® is also deeper than the Model D – and this depth is a single resonant cavity… allowing it to be a great bass absorber as well. The Model D is useful in environments where you have bass control in place, but really need to diffuse the upper mid range and bring those frequencies to life… or maybe shred some flutter echos or comb filtering. There are scenarios where both are used in the same environment – but for different reasons.
While both the ArtDiffusor® Model D and the Aeolian® both look like liquids frozen in time, they have some other similarities in the math behind them… Yet they are still as different as rolling waves versus droplets of rain in a puddle.
With all of the challenges of 2020, Technologies for Worship Magazine wanted to discuss the issue of acoustics in the current state of things. They approached Acoustics First® for help. While focusing on streaming, the article also covers other emerging issues and future challenges as we all move forward.
To overcome your present and future acoustic challenges, contact Acoustics First® for help!
When the Unity Spiritual Center of Woodstock wanted to use their sanctuary for more varied community events, it became apparent that they needed to address the acoustics of the space to meet the demands of those functions.
Acoustician Cameron Girard ran reverb calculations and provided a comprehensive treatment proposal utilizing Sonora wall panels. Sonora panels are a great solution for worship and performance spaces, offering excellent broadband sound absorption in an attractive, customizable finish. In addition to controlling the specular wall-to-wall reflections (echoes) which degrade speech and music, the recommended treatment aimed to reduce excessive reverberation by approx. 50%, significantly improving intelligibility. Cameron’s clear panel layout facilitated a simple installation that was performed by handy volunteers from USGW’s congregation.
Sonora Panels tamed reflections from the back wall and lowered the overall intensity. This increased clarity while keeping the ambiance that the congregants enjoyed. Acoustic changes that tame a space don’t need to destroy its acoustic character… they can be focused to manage some of the elements that produce unwanted artifacts.
The front of the room received some more Sonora Panels, but reinforcing surfaces from the ceiling were left reflective to allow any unamplified voices from the stage to carry into the audience.
Now a full year removed from this project, How did it turn out?
”The sanctuary at the Unity Spiritual Center of Woodstock turned out beautifully both visually and acoustically. The folks at USCW are very pleased and the old sanctuary now has new life with more activities and recognition from the community as a great new venue for many things both church and community based including concerts and stage productions.” – George Muligano USCW
Another Happy Client!
Reach out to Acoustics First for a treatment recommendation for your performance space or worship facility!
While these two diffusers look very different, there are a fair amount of similarities between them. Their physical size and depth allow them both to be great mid-frequency diffusers, but did you know that the Aeolian® started life as a blocky-looking diffuser – just like the Model C? It’s true!
The mathematics behind the two diffusers is similar, but the implementation is different. While the Model C retains its “blocky” appearance, the Aeolian has run through a mathematical process called “bicubic interpolation.” Without turning this into a math-heavy post, if you take a “blocky” design like the Model C and run its geometry through bicubic interpolation, you get a “curvy” surface like the Aeolian® – It “smooths” the transition from one block to the next in a 3 dimensional matrix.
While they did not begin as identical geometries, they were similar in their height ratios – with the Aeolian® starting with fewer blocks in a more random distribution, and a slightly taller maximum height. They both effect similar frequency ranges, with the Aeolian® going slightly lower and higher due to its depth and interpolated surface. The pattern and type of the diffusion is also different because of the different geometries – the Model C has blocks, and the edges of those blocks introduce a great deal of edge “diffraction” – which is what happens when a wave interacts with an edge, or corner, of a surface. It bends and shears around the edge, which helps break up the continuity of the waveform, where the Aeolian® takes the approach of redirecting most of the energy off a randomized and continually-curved surface.
It is important to note that the two are similar, yet different in their absorption numbers as well. With the Aeolian® being deeper with a single large cavity, it provides a bit more absorption in the low frequencies than the Model C, which is a more rigid geometry containing smaller elements. Depending on the space, this may be a useful addition to the diffusive properties. While some spaces need the extra absorption, some are pretty well balanced already and are just looking to “sweeten” the sound a bit.
On the surface, they are both a nominal 2’x2′ square of thermoformed Class A plastic with lightly textured surface. That is the extent of the visual similarities, and we cannot hide the aesthetic differences between the two devices. The ArtDiffusor® Model C is a “classic” diffuser. Many have been looking at these for the better part of 3 decades now. It’s a classic design at this point with no need for introduction – it is what the quintessential diffuser “looks” like. In fact, when many people think of a diffuser – the Model C is what they visualize! The Aeolian® is a modern rendition of the classic design. Using modern calculation techniques, we can now present the type of diffusion the Model C is famous for, in a different way.
While the two geometries look entirely different, and perform a bit differently, they have a common heritage as mathematical, 2-dimensional diffusers. You could say that the Model C is the grandparent of the Aeolian®, and that pedigree has been passed on – having a similar foundation, but a different final interpretation.
AudioXPress turned to Acoustics First® for their “Focus on Acoustics” Edition (August 2020), to help shed light on what test data is – and what it isn’t. Many people rely on lab results when trying to find products that meet design criteria… but there are limitations to this data. The “Elephant in the Lab” is that there is no such thing as absolute, repeatable, accuracy in lab tests… and this article brings to light why that is, and why it will likely always be the case.
It also addresses the impact this has on calculation accuracy, simulations, and what is being done to address this issue.