| Subject: | Re: "silence chamber" (nested enclosures) |
|---|---|
| From: | "jpbeale" jpbeale |
| Date: | Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:36 am ((PST)) |
--- In Mike Feldman <> wrote: > jpbeale wrote: > > ... That would double the attenuation from 40 dB to 80 dB > Be careful multiplying logarithms... Yes. In general, if you have a chamber which attenuates incident sound X dB at a given frequency, and it is completely surrounded by another chamber which by itself attenuates Y dB at that frequency, then the composite chamber attenuates X + Y dB. In my example 40 + 40 = 80 dB. True, that may not properly be called "doubling". Now, this formula an approximation to the extent that it neglects any resonance modes between the inner & outer chamber walls. For reasonable (well-damped) chambers, I believe it is pretty close. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: "silence chamber" (nested enclosures), Mike Feldman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | new recorders at NAMM 2007?, oryoki2000 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: "silence chamber" (nested enclosures), Mike Feldman |
| Next by Thread: | To err is human, Barry Blesser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU