The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?
Old 9th November 2010
  #1
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?

Hi Everyone,

I've been doing a bunch of reading around here on "QRD's" and "Skyline" type diffusers and I'm going to be making a bunch of my own soon but I have a question.

How important are the well dividers in both the QRD and Skyline type diffusors? I'm a little confused as GiK's new QRD doesn't have well dividers and I've seen many skyline type diffusers without dividers.

I think I'm going to make a bunch of these though as sawing up some 2x2's isn't that hard

PME Records QRD Diffusor Construction

Thanks!

Spencer
Old 9th November 2010
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I once had the same question:

QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-n7-fins-0-deg-100-8000-hz.gif
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-n7-fins-56-9-deg-100-8000-hz.gif
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-n7-fins-random-100-8000-hz.gif

QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-n7-no-fins-0-deg-100-8000-hz.gif
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-n7-no-fins-56-9-deg-100-8000-hz.gif
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-n7-no-fins-random-100-8000-hz.gif
Screens are from a beta version of AFMG Reflex, posted with permission. More info here:
New EASE Tools Go Beta - AFMG - Ahnert Feistel Media Group


One can make diffusers without fins that perform well but then you need to redesign them in order to achieve even diffusion and good scattering.


Sincerely Jens Eklund
Old 9th November 2010 | Show parent
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Jens pretty much summed it up!thumbsup
Old 9th November 2010 | Show parent
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencerc ➡️
How important are the well dividers in both the QRD and Skyline type diffusors?
For small prime numbers and 1D, dividers are more important. Large number 2D PRD's are more complex in the response. More like a cloud of energy than the more distinct spatial lobes of 1D small number sequences. The starting point in a 2D PRD is perfectly random. The result of the removal of the well dividers is by nature pretty random as well, though not perfectly random. Summing these effects is still random enough.

The 1D prime 7 QRD shown above only have four distinct depths on the seven steps. A whole world of difference from the large number devices. So for large number devices, at least 2D PRD's, it should work fine without dividers.

I believe there are pros and cons to each approach. PRD's have the property of attenuating specular direction reflections at the build frequencies. This attribute should work better with well dividers as the result is closer to the math ideal. The spread should also be more like the perfectly random math suggests. On the other hand, divider less structures may provide some better performance below the design frequency. I get this idea from the fact that some of the deeper wells are placed next to each other, effectively giving larger pockets for the sound than a single deep well provides. Have seen no references to either of these ideas in the litterature. So please take it for what it worth as half qualified musings.


Regards,

Andreas Nordenstam
Old 9th November 2010 | Show parent
  #5
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks Everyone,

I think im going to build some of those 2d diffusors like on the link I posted, but I'm going to wait to buy some of GiK's all wood QRD's when they come out.

Thanks!

Spencer
Old 9th November 2010 | Show parent
  #6
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
sticky! sticky! those pics are so useful!
Old 9th November 2010 | Show parent
  #7
Gear Maniac
 
collo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Jens: Nice graphs indeed! What software is that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupo ➡️
... I get this idea from the fact that some of the deeper wells are placed next to each other, effectively giving larger pockets for the sound than a single deep well provides...
The wider effective width in this situation would result in a lowering of the HF cutoff frequency for that group of wells.
Old 9th November 2010 | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by collo ➡️
Jens: Nice graphs indeed! What software is that?
New EASE Tools Go Beta - AFMG - Ahnert Feistel Media Group

/Jens
Old 9th November 2010 | Show parent
  #9
Gear Maniac
 
collo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks for that - it looks like a good tool. I like the idea of using cloud computing resources. I guess ultimately its use to the DIY community will depend on how much they charge when it is released.
Old 9th November 2010 | Show parent
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by collo ➡️
I guess ultimately its use to the DIY community will depend on how much they charge when it is released.
I’m already starting to worry. I’m addicted already. heh
Old 9th November 2010 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by collo ➡️
The wider effective width in this situation would result in a lowering of the HF cutoff frequency for that group of wells.
Interesting point. Though, there are differences inside those compound wells. Here's an example:


There are still height differences from well to well inside the larger pits. Should result in some effect on the high frequencies.


PS: the graphs are indeed great, Jens!
Old 10th November 2010 | Show parent
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupo ➡️
PS: the graphs are indeed great, Jens!
Glad to help!

I’m currently playing around trying to find a good finless design.
Old 16th November 2010 | Show parent
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Been having a great time beta testing the Ease/Reflex software Jens recommended. Excellent program!


The dividers vs finless issue seems pretty easy to determine when it comes to QRD's. They really need dividers to be good. PRD's, however.. They do perform pretty good straight out of the calculations without dividers. Interestingly, the results are the opposite of what I expected. I presumed the low end behaviour to be better without the dividers, while the opposite happened.

Here are some results to show one example of the differences. These are prime 17, ~17cm deep, ~60cm wide:

QRD 17 with dividers:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-17-qrd-well-dividers-diffuse-incidence.png

QRD 17 without dividers:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-17-qrd-without-well-dividers-diffuse-incidence.png

PRD 17 with dividers:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-17-prd-well-dividers-diffuse-incidence.png

PRD 17 without dividers:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-17-prd-without-well-dividers-diffuse-incidence.png


This set of predicitons are mostly included because the QRD with dividers looks much better than the one below. For some odd reason, the prime 23 QRD below looks particularly bad. No optimization applied to the PRD above.


With some optimization of the PRD's using different primitive roots and offsets, performance can be extended quite a bit down into the midrange. So I made my first attempt at a diffusor calculator creating an excel spreadsheet to find the various permutations of PRD's.


Here are some prime 23, ~21 cm deep, ~80cm wide:

23 QRD with dividers:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-23-qrd-dividers-diffuse-incidence.png

23 QRD without dividers:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-23-qrd-without-dividers-diffuse-incidence.png

23 PRD with dividers:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-23-prd-dividers-diffuse-incidence.png

23 PRD without dividers:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-23-prd-without-dividers-diffuse-incidence.png



And lastly, an optimized variant of the prime 23 PRD:

Optimized 23 PRD with dividers:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-23-prd-rotation2-dividers.png

Optimized 23 PRD without dividers:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-23-prd-rotation2-without-dividers.png




Pics are made using the beta version of Reflex. Permission to post the pics here was kindly granted by the AFMG team. There may be discrepancies between these graphs made using the beta and the results from the final release version. The non-normalized diffusion coefficient is particularly tricky and those curves may be disregarded.
Old 17th November 2010 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Diffuser orgy

Interesting.


How do these perform if multiple periods? I’m currently experimenting with a 1200mm period so we could compare easily with a total width of 2400mm (since yours are either ≈ 600mm or 800mm, 3 or 4 periods to reach 2400mm total i.e.). My effective depth will probably be fixed at 190mm (220mm total depth per panel) due to the material and production technique I’m using.

I know you prefer 1/6 octave graphs for diffusion and scattering coefficients, so the graphs below is in this format but in the appendix of AAaD (Cox/D´Antonio), 1/3 octave is used so I would prefer this option so one can compare (at least to some extent) with these values. Also, it’s a bit quicker to render the graphs if 1/3 oct. heh

As we discussed via PM, the lack of modeling to predict temporal dispersion can be troublesome since the reported diffusion coefficients for some shapes looks “too good to be true”, like the single poly (ellipse) for instance (witch offers superior spatial dispersion but no temporal dispersion and therefore is not a good diffuser). I made some examples to illustrate the problem to other readers of this thread. I think the polar plot is useful get some clue on temporal dispersion. If there are no lobs, there is probably no “diffusion” in the time domain either. A FDTD (Finite Difference Time Domain) model would certainly be useful.



Random incidence for scattering and normalized diffusion coefficients, normal (0 deg) incidence for polar plots. All models 190mm effective depth:


One fined N7 QRD; 600mm, 190mm effective depth (220mm total), 1mm fins:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-qrd-n7-fins-600mm.gif


4 x fined N7 QRD; 600mm period, 2400mm total, 190mm effective depth (220mm total), 1mm fins:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-4-x-qrd-n7-fins-2400mm-total.gif


One finless (no dividers) N7 QRD; 600mm, 190mm effective depth (220mm total):
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-finless-n7-qrd-600mm.gif


4 x finless N7 QRD; 600mm period, 2400mm total, 190mm effective depth (220mm total):
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-4x-finless-n7-qrd-2400mm.gif


One poly; 600mm, 190mm depth:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-one-poly-600mm.gif


4 x 600mm polys; 2400mm total, 190mm depth:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-4-polys-2400mm.gif


One poly; 2400mm, 190mm depth:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-one-poly-2400mm.gif


Freeform (stepped, no fins): positive and negative panel @ 1200mm each, 2400mm total width, 190mm effective depth (220mm total):
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-freeform-2400mm.gif

Screens are from a beta version of AFMG Reflex, posted with permission. More info here:
New EASE Tools Go Beta - AFMG - Ahnert Feistel Media Group



Sincerely Jens Eklund
Old 21st November 2010 | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Hi!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund ➡️
How do these perform if multiple periods?
The ones I'm working on aren't working that well when repeated straight forward. If the repetition consist of a mirrored unit, performance is much better! There are however ways to make much nicer responses from larger arrays if each of the pieces are unique and together form a larger unique piece. This is particularly effective when combining two very similar but quite not the same shapes. Building unique models is not a problem in my case since they won't be machined.

However.. I'm not sure about the array idea. Most diffusers seems to work better alone. Most diffusers works better at some angle to the sound. So even if placed next to each other, it may be benefitial to angle them a bit to avoid perpendicular incidence. And it's often times a good idea to have some air gap around them to let low end diffract around the obstacle to reach absorbers behind.

How important is repeated performance for you? How large arrays do you envision to use?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund ➡️
I’m currently experimenting with a 1200mm period so we could compare easily with a total width of 2400mm (since yours are either ≈ 600mm or 800mm, 3 or 4 periods to reach 2400mm total i.e.). My effective depth will probably be fixed at 190mm (220mm total depth per panel) due to the material and production technique I’m using.
Was playing around with some ideas that may fit your purpose just for the fun of it. Though I think you're doing just fine on your own..! So I've been concentrating on ideas more suitable for my own builds. So no direct comparisons possible.

There's definitely a learning curve attached to this process. There's so much to consider! The diffuse incidence plots are great for a general view, but they do not reflect performance from the typical diffuser sound receiver angles in typical rooms. There are seldom situations where there truly is a diffuse sound field striking the diffuser. (seems pretty obvious when put that way!) Most of the time, most of the energy will either come from the speakers at a rather steep angle (sidewall placements, ceiling) or nearly perpendicular (rear and front walls). So I've been concentrating more on getting good response in certain directions. The oblique incidence seems easy enough compared to getting good response head on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund ➡️
I know you prefer 1/6 octave graphs for diffusion and scattering coefficients, so the graphs below is in this format but in the appendix of AAaD (Cox/D´Antonio), 1/3 octave is used so I would prefer this option so one can compare (at least to some extent) with these values. Also, it’s a bit quicker to render the graphs if 1/3 oct. heh
The question is how the 1/3 octave data in The Book is calculcated. It would surprise me if each value represents a single sample point. As the 1/3'rd octave graphs do. If you want to have 1/3'rd octave data that is somewhat representative, you'll have to enable the "8 point frequency averaging".

My point is that too few samplepoints makes the graph non-representative of the actual performance. The difference between the true curve and the few lonely samplepoints are too large with 1/3'rd octave by itself. If using frequency averaging, data carries larger value. Then again, if you use 8 points per octave frequency averaging you may as well use a 24 points per octave graph and get the same information amount in a nicer looking graph.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jens Eklund ➡️
I think the polar plot is useful get some clue on temporal dispersion. If there are no lobs, there is probably no “diffusion” in the time domain either. A FDTD (Finite Difference Time Domain) model would certainly be useful.
Sorry, but we'll have to find something else to use as a gauge for time dispersion. A flat plate have a pretty large amount of lobing! A pyramid also have a large amount of lobing. There's clearly 0 temporal dispersion going on with those shapes.

Lets hope for an upgrade that provides some means to see temporal dispersion as well.

As for now, I simply look for a nice spread in physical depths. That's bound to translate into a series of lumps of energy comming at different time points.

Got a better idea?


Andreas
Old 21st November 2010
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencerc ➡️
How important are the well dividers in both the QRD and Skyline type diffusors?
Back to this question.

Been playing extensively with simulations on various diffuser configurations. Small prime number 1D diffusers seems to be in dire need for well dividers. Large prime number 1D PRD's works pretty good without dividers. However, it takes a large prime number to get any decent response straight out of the calculator. Have spent a week now optimizing the process and the end result is pretty far off from the standard PRD calculations. These gives significantly improved response as divider-less units.

A skyline, 2D PRD, is an entirely different animal. It's so large and complex that I think it's pretty safe to say that it'll work fine without dividers.
Old 22nd November 2010 | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Jens Eklund's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Hi Andreas


Just sent you a PM but anyway:

You are right about the temporal bit. What I meant was that if there are no lobs at all, there’s probably no temporal dispersion but if there is, we just don’t know. I guess I need to measure my upcoming model as I did with my current one (but I was hoping to evade the process this time) .

Below is a pic of a painted (mix of filler and paint) EPS diffuser:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-img_9187.jpg



And here’s a 1/24 octave resolution graph of the latest progress of my new model:
QRD and Skyline Well Dividers?-freeform-2400mm-24th-oct.gif
Screen is from a beta version of AFMG Reflex, posted with permission. More info here:
New EASE Tools Go Beta - AFMG - Ahnert Feistel Media Group


Good luck with your models!
Sincerely Jens Eklund
📝 Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump