Graduate Reducing standing waves with phase randomization

Click For Summary
Randomizing the phase of an audio signal may not effectively reduce standing waves or room modes in a small space, as variations at any frequency could be audible and unpleasant. While the intention is to create a diffuse field with equal energy across frequencies, the resulting amplitude modulation might detract from audio quality. In applications like testing wall sound insulation, random phase changes may not lead to a more even sound pressure level, as standing waves would likely persist. Swept frequency measurements could provide better insights into sound level variations in the room, indicating wall absorbency. Ultimately, while phase randomization might help in some contexts, it does not directly measure sound insulation performance.
Jaryd Miles
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Will constantly randomizing the phase of an audio signal, say a speaker in the corner of a square room, reduce standing waves (i.e. room modes) in the room?

For example if you wanted to create a diffuse field in a small (i.e. no standing wave interference patterns) at low frequencies.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That would produce a frequency dependent amplitude modulation of the original programme. Could sound pretty unpleasant, I think.
 
I doubt you get much interfetence of low frequency audio in a room that you couldn't fix with a mixer/equaliser.
 
houlahound said:
I doubt you get any inte5frtrncr of low frequency audio in a room.
I was referring to the frequency of the random phase changes.
The problem, I thing, would be that any variation at any frequency will be audible and probably unpleasant.
 
sophiecentaur said:
I was referring to the frequency of the random phase changes.
The problem, I thing, would be that any variation at any frequency will be audible and probably unpleasant.
Say the application is testing the sound insulation of a wall, where it is desired to have equal energy at all frequencies incident on the wall (to give a truer representation of the wall's performance). So 'audio quality' aside, would the random phase give a more even sound pressure level around the room or would the standing waves and the associated nodes/anti-nodes remain in the same position?
 
If you are trying to measure, rather than to listen, I should think that a swept frequency measurement would take you through peaks and troughs in the sound level, measured in the room, as the phase difference of direct and reflected wave change with frequency. That would give a good indication of the absorbency of the wall material. I remember, years before you could buy RF vector analysers at a decent price, we used a R&S instrument that worked on the same principle to what I'm suggesting and it would give you the equivalent to a swept Voltage Standing Wave Ratio, which would tell you how good the termination was, on a cable.
Now this method will not tell you 'sound insulation' because you need to measure levels on the other side of the wall BUT it will tell you the sound absorbency (but you don't know if the incident sound has gone through or been lost in the material of the wall.
 
Last edited:
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
4K