iRoom goes 'public beta'.

Post and discuss acoustic topics, Studio design, construction, and soundproofing here

Postby David French » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:04 am

Hey!  I use that!
David M. French
David French
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Indiana

Postby Eric Desart » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:13 am

jonessy,

I'm sorry, I will try it on my systems.

I indeed felt disappointed since you clearly stated it was for Windows XP.

The programs I tried designed for XP indeed mostly (if ever) don't work, cause me all kind of trouble.

I am a strong believer in compatibility of programs.
http://www.computerhope.com/history/windows.htm

Look at the number of OS releases only by Windows.  And that just caused by the ongoing race between different brands.
In function of a user it almost irresponsible.
A normal user wants to use its computer, NOT work ON its computer.

A computer is or should be a TOOL, not a goal in itself.

I have programs which are still as valuable for me as 10 to 15 years back. I even can't run them on XP anymore.
Maybe if a super expert helps me he should MAYBE find a solution.
But I just want to use my computer not working on ....

Best regards
Eric
Eric Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:04 am
Location: Antwerp/Belgium

Postby jonessy » Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:36 am

Eric,

I totally agree with you re compatibility issues.
As much as it causes pain for users, it causes (and costs) double and triple for developers...

The idea behind writing the programme on the .NET 2.0 platform was actually to reduce work in the future.
This ensures compatibility with the forthcoming Windows Vista, x64 platforms and makes things easier to deploy on Mobile devices (such as pocketpc's and smartphones - a version for these devices is coming soon... :) ).

As you probably know, on July-11 Microsoft will retire its support for Windows 98 and ME.
So whether we like it or not, it wouldn't make any sense to continue to develop for 'older' platforms.

Anyway, I would be more than happy if you could test the programme on your non-xp machine.
I'm sure there are still some bugs, and maybe calc errors, so any comments would be more than welcomed.

Best Wishes,

Jonathan Sheaffer.
jonessy
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:39 pm
Location: Israel

Postby Bob » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:26 pm

Bob
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:37 am
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Postby Scott R. Foster » Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:38 pm

Bob wrote:SGarcia:
I use: http://www.onlineconversion.com/


Yep I got that one in my favotires... but t'would be nice for the software to have boxes you fill in with furlongs and drams and such.. then BANG - the entry fields get filled with "proper" units of measure.
SRF
Scott R. Foster
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:41 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL USA

Postby SGarcia » Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:45 pm

David French wrote:Hey!  I use that!


Nice, eh?



Hi Bob, thanks for the link, although it is always nice to have something to work with when your computer is not always connected to the internet.

Regards,

Sergio
SGarcia
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:44 pm
Location: Mexico City, Mexico

Postby J.F.Oros » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:24 pm

Hi Jonathan,

I finally installed the iRoom, and the first impression is good (and I like the interface too :D)

I'll have to play with it more, and also study more indepth the theory behind it (room criterias, etc.), but for now I have just two little observations / sugestions  :

    - in the resonant modes window, the table sort doesn't work properly on the frequency column, it sees the data as text not numbers and so it puts f.e. 40Hz after 200Hz on an ascending order sort.
    - in the same table, maybe you could implement a memory for the last sortings, useful for exemple for sorting after frequency and then after type, so you can see the axials in ascending order

Verry impressive, thanks, this will help me alot in the future. I can't wait for you to write the documentation too.
... studiOTipper ...
J.F.Oros
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:22 pm
Location: Romania

Postby jonessy » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:44 pm

Thanks Flaviu.
Every comment I get will help make this programme a better one, so this is greatly appreciated.

I'm taking notes to improve the next version and once things add up a bit I will make a new build.
I also plan on adding a few "utility" calculators:
1D and 2D QRD Diffusors, Skyline Diffusors, All sorts of absorbers (panel, helmholtz, slat\slot, perforated, etc...).
I really want to make this an 'all-in-one' acoustic calculator.

Any other ideas will be gladly implemented.
jonessy
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:39 pm
Location: Israel

Postby J.F.Oros » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:01 pm

That's great, glad I can help  :D

Also some ideas coming now in my mind:

- a simple way to calculate the MSM resonance frequency for a two leaf ensemble

- a function to export all or some (maybe selectively) results data in text, .xls or a nice .pdf form

One thing I didn't see it anywhere and I think it would be really cool : a facility to add (import) a frequency response chart from a measurement card (maybe in 1/3 oct points or finer) and overlay it in a room modes diagram, so you can see the room frequency response and the calculated room modes markers on it .
Although this is probably much easier to do the other way around : in an acoustic measurement program, to have the option of calculating and displaying the room modes on the FR diagram (of course for a rectangular room).
... studiOTipper ...
J.F.Oros
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:22 pm
Location: Romania

Postby jonessy » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:10 pm

Good points.

I'm actually already working on the export thingy :). I will do CSV as it is a 'standard' universal format for data, importable to any spreadsheet.

Matching the resonant modes with a low FR... Interesting...
I think most measurement software allow exporting as JPEG... (My Easera does that).
So I could write a programme that imports the FR chart (the user will be asked to produce it on a specific freq. range) and embeds the modal data into it...
I'll give this some thought, programatically.
jonessy
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:39 pm
Location: Israel

Postby J.F.Oros » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:29 pm

jonessy wrote:Matching the resonant modes with a low FR... Interesting...
I think most measurement software allow exporting as JPEG... (My Easera does that).
So I could write a programme that imports the FR chart (the user will be asked to produce it on a specific freq. range) and embeds the modal data into it...
I'll give this some thought, programatically.

Excellent ! We're making history here  :D  :mrgreen:
... studiOTipper ...
J.F.Oros
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:22 pm
Location: Romania

Postby Bob » Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:11 am

jonessy:

I installed it on my medium capable computer (Windows 2000).

What is the formula for Minimum Floor Area?

What is the formula Desart's 'optimal T60' , 'Minimal T60', 'Maximal T60' ? - are they on the studiotips copies of the acoustics-noise website somewhere?

I tried the room size (the default size on my website's page, after pushing the ConvertToMetric button):
Length: 3.8 m
Height 2.41 m
Width: 3.48 m
using 7.1 and Control Room.

On the Resonant Modes chart it has
 66 hz  Bonello
 71 hz Isolated Axial
 84 hz Bonello
Nice catch that the Gilford 20hz separation criteria only applies to Axial modes.

One of us isn't counting Bonello charts the correctly. (e.g. mine 63hz says 1, yours says 0)
Regards
Bob Golds
"The only thing we regret in life is the love we failed to give."
"Be a rapturist -- the backward of a terrorist. Commit random acts of senseless kindness, whenever possible" - Jake Stonebender
Bob
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:37 am
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Postby Eric Desart » Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:38 am

Bob wrote:What is the formula Desart's 'optimal T60' , 'Minimal T60', 'Maximal T60' ? - are they on the studiotips copies of the acoustics-noise website somewhere?


No they aren't.
They are in one spreadsheet, but only accesible when you decompile/reverse engineer/crack them.
The reason is Bob, that I rather like to publish something about it first.
Before being on the net I didn't feel the need and knowledge is an asset for a company.

Best Regards
Eric
Last edited by Eric Desart on Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eric Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:04 am
Location: Antwerp/Belgium

Postby jonessy » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:37 am

Bob -

The minimum floor area is 40 m2 for a reference listening room and 30 m2 for control rooms.
This is mentioned in Walker's 1997 EBU paper.

Desart's Criteria re reverberation times - you'd have to talk to him about this.

Re Bonello criteria -
I've just checked, but I don't see anything unusual.
There ARE differences, mainly due to our different calculations of speed of sound, but in general it seems the results are pretty similar.
Also, I don't use grouping. The algorithm takes the current mode and compares it to the mode "behind" it in terms of spacing precentage.
If the value is larger than 5% (for any type of mode) it outputs a "bonello warning".
Axials are treated a bit differently as gilford criteria is applied only to them, so for example:
If two modes are seperated by more than 5% and ALSO the latter is an axial seperated by more than 20Hz from a previous axial, you'd get an "Isolated Axial" warning rater than the standard "bonello ISO".
This just reduces the amount of output.

Re the speaker configuration -
This doesn't have effect yet. I've put it in the interface for future improvements (such as recommended listening level, etc...).

Thanks for beta-ing,

Jonathan.
jonessy
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:39 pm
Location: Israel

Postby Bob » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:53 am

jonessy:

Re Bonello criteria -

I meant the graphs.
Your's is a bar graph.
Mine is a red line graph.

For the same size room, and roughly the same chart of frequencies (which I'd noticed were a little different, which I attributed as you suggest to temperature), our two graphs are different -- very similar, but not the same.
Bob
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:37 am
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Postby Bob » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:02 am

Eric Desart:

:8

I was just kicking around the idea of comparing it to ITU's (a function of volume).
Bob
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:37 am
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Postby J.F.Oros » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:42 am

Bob, Eric talked a bit about his formula in the polys thread:

Eric Desart wrote:I started (half the eighties) with a strict Volume related approach in fact directly comparable with the formula you find here.
http://www.aes.org/technical/documents/AESTD1001.pdf

That formula is a simplified version of what I used second half the eighties with an adjustable Reverberation Factor to cover not only one type of room or purpose.
Later (end eighties/begin nineties can't remember exact dates but can find that all back), I noticed that with higher RTs, ignoring the shape of the room could give significant undesirable results.
Hence I reworked that approach, and checked it with lots of real live projects, discussed it at the Univ etc.

Now I standard work with concepts as Reverberation factor and Room Shape factor.

But I know that simple mathematical things can't cover all parameters in such a complicated business.  :wink: Hence it's not the magical answer to whatever situation, not at all.

Still, the formula published by AES in 2001, was used by me already second haf the eighties in a more extended form covering not only CRs, and I improved the method end eighties or begin the nineties (and kept playing with it).

And you can play with his room modes spreadsheet to see the recommended RT curves for a given volume (I assume this is the doc Eric refers to).
... studiOTipper ...
J.F.Oros
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:22 pm
Location: Romania

Postby jcgriggs23 » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:36 pm

Bob & Jon,

Is it possible that the discrepancies in your Bonello graphs are due to how you are defining 1/3 octave bands?  I've noticed that some programs (modeWizard is one) use the ISO 1/3 octave bands based on center frequencies and other (RMmapper is one - so I'm guilty either way 8^) use the approach of defining  the edge frequencies for the bands.  Modes on or near the band borders in one of these approaches may wind up in a different  band in the other...

Just a thought.

Regards,
   John
jcgriggs23
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:53 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby Bob » Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:44 am

jcgriggs23:

Is it possible that the discrepancies in your Bonello graphs are due to how you are defining 1/3 octave bands?
Could be - but then the next one over might be higher when the prior one was lower and I didn't see that.
In any event I can't compare the algorithms because I don't have jonessy's source.
Everyone has my source though, including jonessy, so jonessy can figure out the difference.
Regards
Bob Golds
"The only thing we regret in life is the love we failed to give."
"Be a rapturist -- the backward of a terrorist. Commit random acts of senseless kindness, whenever possible" - Jake Stonebender
Bob
 
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:37 am
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada

Postby jonessy » Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:41 am

Bob,


======================================================
EDITED by myself
I removed some words here on a topic that might cause confusion.
======================================================

If you (or anyone else) is interested in the source, it's no big secret, I'm more than happy to email it.
The only parts of the source that cannot be revealed are Eric's math (unless you have his approval).

I will look at the differences more closely when I come home.
It also might be due to the difference in resonant frequencies (shifting a few Hz's from\to each 1/3rd oct. band).
I'll definately look at it.

Best Wishes,
Jonathan.
Last edited by jonessy on Tue May 02, 2006 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
jonessy
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 3:39 pm
Location: Israel

PreviousNext

Return to Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests