Posts Tagged Absorption
AuraGELL-O™ Bifractive Diffuser Technology!
Posted by Acoustics First in Products, Restaurants, Uncategorized on April 1, 2017
AuraGELL-O™
Biosynthesized Bifractive Polyamide with Diffusive Biomass Technology
Acoustics First® is hankering to announce the first products made with our newly developed AuraGELL-O™ Compound. First realized by Peter Cooper and patented in 1845, this Biosynthesized Bifractive Polyamide has a “sweetness” when combined with our Diffusive Biomass Technology. AuraGell-O™ is a Bio-Polyamide compound which exhibits Bifractive properties, doubling the potency of the Biomass Diffuser Technology by carving the wave in two, thereby creating a phase cancelling stream which functions as a frequency tuned absorber.
The AuraGELL-O™ Infra-Red dissolves low-frequencies, while AuraGELL-O™ In-LIME absorbs the mid-band frequencies (Acoustics First® is cooking up AuraGELL-O™ Ultra-Violet for high frequencies).
Available in AuraGELL-O™ Barrel and Pyramid formats, you get the benefits of classic diffuser styling with the added bonus of the AuraGELL-O™ Biosynthesized Bifractive Polyamide with Biomass Diffuser Technology.
Installation is a piece of cake – Just nail it to the wall!
By mixing the AuraGELL-O™ products with other traditional acoustic products, you get enhancements never before considered – extra diffusion and absorption with a fruity scent!
“We loved our AuraGELL-O™ Barrels so much – we went back for seconds!” – Angelo LeMonjello
Call Acoustics First® and get your AuraGELL-O™ Barrels and Pyramids today – because by tomorrow, they will all be devoured!
Update: Due to an outbreak of AuraGELL-O™ weevils, and massive consumer demand, we regret to inform you that this was an April Fool’s joke.
Bon appétit!
Simulations! Now in stereo – and with absorption!
Posted by Acoustics First in Absorption, Diffusion, Product Applications on December 22, 2016
You heard right – with both ears! (or Eyes?)
The Acoustics First® simulations took a huge leap forward toward more accurately modeling real world acoustic environments in two important areas.
- Ability to simulate Two sources (Now in Stereo!)
- Modeling Absorption to strategically remove energy from a space!
These two additions to the Acoustics First® simulations allow a vast improvement to the modeling of acoustic field development – and, while still in the early development stages, has already been instrumental in advancing the development of systems and products to improve acoustics in numerous ways.
See for yourself: In this most recent simulation, we compare the development of the acoustic field in two spaces with identical stereo sources – one room is basically a concrete box, while the other is a concrete box treated with absorbers and diffusers.
Untreated vs. Full Treatment Room Sim (Two Channel – With Absorption and Diffusion!) from Acoustics First®.
Important Observations:
- Absorbers at early reflection points (Note Early reflection in First room)
- Diffusers breaking up specular reflections
- Absorbers constantly removing energy from the space – greatly reducing the overall intensity over the span of the simulation.
- This simulation is only modeling .046 of a second!
We hope you find this informative and stimulating and we will continue future developments of these simulations and try to add more functionality and realism to help all those out there to better be able to visualize the different ways you can affect the acoustics of a space.
For some of our previous Simulations – Click Here!
For our Vimeo Channel – Click Here!
Contact Acoustics First® for a high bitrate, presentation quality version of the videos – as well as permission and terms of use.
Demystifying Acoustic Data: Part 2 – Test Material Mounting
Posted by Acoustics First in Absorption, Home Entertainment, Home Theater, Products, Recording Facilities, Theater on October 13, 2016
For anyone new to the world of acoustics, there is a multitude of terms, coefficients and numbers that are thrown around. This flood of information can seem intimidating, especially to beginners. In this series, acoustician Cameron Girard of Acoustics First® hopes to help you distinguish between what’s useful and what’s not.
Part 2: How Mounting in Testing Affects Sound Absorption Data
As I discussed in my previous article, the best way to compare the performance of sound absorbing panels is by referencing the Sound Absorption Coefficient (SAC) and Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC). However, these coefficients are often used as marketing tools. Be on the lookout for companies that list absorption coefficients and NRCs without mention of a particular testing standard or mounting method. It’s vital to check for this information, as direct comparisons to competitors and other materials can only be made if their testing procedures are the same.
The sound absorption of a material that covers a flat surface not only depends on the physical qualities of the material but also on how the material is mounted during installation. The mountings specified in laboratory tests are intended to simulate conditions that exist in normal use, such as direct wall mounting and installation into a ceiling grid.
Many materials for treatment of walls or ceiling are tested using what is called Type ”A” mounting. Type ”A” mounting means the test specimen was placed directly on the test surface of the reverberation chamber. Lay-in ceiling tiles, on the other hand, are often tested using ”E400” mounting. The ”E” designates a sealed air space behind the specimen (simulating the air gap between a dropped tile ceiling and the structural ceiling) and the number after the ”E” is the depth of the airspace in millimeters. The airspace behind the acoustic material affects the sound absorption by acting as a bass trap. The deeper the cavity behind the panels is, the lower the fundamental of the “trapped” frequencies will be.
To see what this look like in terms of actual numbers, let’s take a look at how different mounting methods effect the sound absorption coefficients of Acoustics First’s HiPer® Panel (a low-profile, composite absorber/diffuser panel).
Since the HiPer® Panel can be used effectively in multiple applications; we had it tested in accordance to the two most-common mounting procedures, Type E-400 and Type A. The results of the laboratory tests are as follows:
|
Product Info |
Sound Absorption Coefficients |
||||||||
| Product Name | Thickness | Mounting | 125Hz | 250Hz | 500Hz | 1kHz | 2kHz | 4kHz |
NRC |
| 1″ HiPer® Panel | 1″ | E-400 | 0.43 | 0.28 | 0.51 | 0.76 | 0.99 | 1.10 | 0.65 |
| 1″ HiPer® Panel | 1″ | A | 0.09 | 0.28 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.94 | 0.85 | 0.70 |
As you can see from the chart, the sound absorption coefficient at 125 Hz varies greatly between E-400 mounting (SAC of .43) and Type-A mounting (SAC of .09). If mounting the HiPer® Panel in a ceiling grid, with a sizable airspace, you can expect significant low-frequency absorption, but mounting it on a wall (Type-A) will result in much less absorption at 125Hz.
Other mounting methods are available, but are not used as frequently. Here are some of the basic mounting designations (See ASTM E795 for more information.)
Type A mounting – Test specimen laid directly against the test surface (wall panel on drywall).
Type B mounting – Test specimen cemented directly against the test surface. Type B mounting is intended to simulate acoustical ceiling tiles or other sound-absorptive products adhered to a hard surface with an adhesive.
Type C Mounting—Test specimen comprising sound-absorptive material behind a perforated, expanded, open facing or other porous material.
Type D Mounting—Test specimen mounted on wood furring strips.
Type E Mounting—Test specimen mounted with an air space behind it (dropped tile ceiling).
As we’ve discussed, acoustical data can vary greatly depending on the mounting method used during testing. Acoustics First tries to include as much information about testing procedures as possible, because we feel an informed client makes the best client.
Contact Acoustics First for your all your sound control needs!
