English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The scattering phenomenon is known to be of great importance for the acoustic quality of a performance arts space. The scattering of sound can be achieved in different ways: it can be obtained by the presence of architectural and/or decorating elements inside a room (e.g., columns, statues), by the geometry and roughness of a surface (e.g., Quadratic Residue Diffuser (QRD)) and by the diffraction effect occurring when a sound wave hits the edges of an obstacle. This article deals with the surface scattering effects and the diffusion phenomenon only related to MDF and plywood panels tested by disposing the wells both horizontally and vertically. The test results undertaken inside a semi-reverberant room and inside a large reverberant room have been compared to highlight the success and the failure of the measuring methodologies. In detail, according to the existing standards and regulations (i.e., ISO 17497—Part 2), diffusion measurements have been undertaken on a few selected types of panel: two QRD panels (made of Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) and plywood) with and without a smooth painted solid wood placed behind the QRD. The panels have been tested inside two rooms of different characteristics: a semi-anechoic chamber (Room A) and a large reverberant room (Room B). The volume size influenced the results that have been analyzed for both chambers, showing an overlap of reflections on panels tested inside Room A and a clear diffusion response for the panels tested inside Room B. In terms of the diffusion coefficient in all the octave bands between 125 Hz and 8 kHz, results should not be considered valid for panels tested in Room A because they were negatively impacted by extraneous reflections, while they are reliable for panels tested in Room B.

Comparison Failure and Successful Methodologies for Diffusion Measurements Undertaken inside Two Different Testing Rooms