Reducing standing waves with phase randomization

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential effects of constantly randomizing the phase of an audio signal on reducing standing waves, or room modes, in a square room. Participants explore the implications of this approach for creating a diffuse sound field, particularly at low frequencies, and its application in measuring sound insulation performance of walls.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether randomizing the phase of an audio signal can effectively reduce standing waves in a room, particularly in the context of achieving a diffuse sound field at low frequencies.
  • Another participant expresses concern that phase randomization could lead to frequency-dependent amplitude modulation, potentially resulting in unpleasant sound quality.
  • A different participant doubts the presence of significant low-frequency audio interference in a room, suggesting that such issues could be addressed with a mixer or equalizer.
  • Some participants argue that any variation in phase at any frequency might be audible and unpleasant, raising questions about the practicality of this approach.
  • One participant proposes that if the goal is to measure sound insulation, random phase changes might not effectively eliminate standing waves, and they inquire whether this method would yield a more even sound pressure level in the room.
  • Another participant suggests that a swept frequency measurement could provide insights into the sound absorbency of wall materials, noting that while it may not measure sound insulation directly, it could indicate how sound interacts with the wall.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the effectiveness and practicality of using phase randomization to reduce standing waves, with no consensus reached on its potential benefits or drawbacks. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications for sound insulation measurement.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the audible effects of phase variations and the distinction between measuring sound absorbency versus sound insulation. There is also uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of phase randomization in achieving the desired sound field characteristics.

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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K