https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021034
Super cool!
Thanks to Yifan Zhu, Xudong Fan, Bin Liang, Jianchun Cheng, and Yun Jing.
Super cool!
Thanks to Yifan Zhu, Xudong Fan, Bin Liang, Jianchun Cheng, and Yun Jing.
I guess is the same principle used in the article.Interesting stuff! I have found another attempt of slimming down diffusors using Helmholtz resonators in this scientific article: Metadiffusers: Deep-subwavelength sound diffusers. Seems like a problem might be that there also seems to be a lot of absorption in very specific frequencies. Or is that a problem? Also, there seem to be a lot of flat areas on these diffusors, doesn't these flat areas just reflect the sound as if it had been a wall?
I'm pretty sure the use cases they have in mind are commercial and industrial and not to do with studio or residential construction, at least at this point.Interesting stuff! I have found another attempt of slimming down diffusors using Helmholtz resonators in this scientific article: Metadiffusers: Deep-subwavelength sound diffusers. Seems like a problem might be that there also seems to be a lot of absorption in very specific frequencies. Or is that a problem? Also, there seem to be a lot of flat areas on these diffusors, doesn't these flat areas just reflect the sound as if it had been a wall?
I wish I knew the scale... Learn blender and see how much it costs to print. Looks like most acoustic treatment companies have their heads in the sand and are stuck with decades old diffusion and absorption methods. You'd think they'd have a half decent employee who would look at recent developments, and a product manager would would get them out of the stone age.
A couple of research reports do not indicate that useful products based on that research can be produced and sold NOW.
I find this sneering attitude toward companies that have put in the time and effort to produce useful products to be very offensive.
Could you point to a company that is developing or creating absorption panels that aren't based on decades old designs/Corning 703/Rockwool, etc? Just seems like the typical "wait for a company like Tesla/Apple, then play catch up." I'd love to give my money to a company pushing the boundaries when I move towards room treatment.
Interesting. That's a commercial distributor though. No datasheets posted either, that I can see.Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but it seems different to the examples you mention. https://www.revolutionfibres.com/products/phonix/
Agreed. There's no useful technical information on how this product works and it seems they are only focusing on office furniture as the main application.Interesting. That's a commercial distributor though. No datasheets posted either, that I can see.
Could you please ask him for an update on the applications side of the research? A few other questions:Yun Jing (Last author of this paper) was my Materials 2 professor 5-6 years ago. Not my favorite teacher but very interesting guy. In one class he brought in a sample that came out of his lab. It was a small honeycomb looking sample probably like 5'' x 5'' that was "designed" to be potentially be integrated into the skin of an aircraft. It had the absorption material within the structural honeycomb elements if I remember correctly.
I spoke to him about for a bit but honestly remember very little. I don't think he like me due to my chronic absences. I later tried to get on his research team but "they were full (my chronic absences)".
If anyone cares enough I can email him any questions/ask for additional figures etc.
Yes, products never built, tested, or attempted will never move the market forward.
You continue to be glib about the amount of time, effort and money need for developing a new product. Have you participated in any R&D effort? What was the product and what was new about it? How long did the effort take? How much clock time and how many man-hours were required to get to a market ready product? How much did the effort cost?
Useful to make light: A candle. Something useful that is more efficient than every other kind of thing in its product category: an LED bulb. Useful is far too low a standard. I'd respect a company trying to figure out the figurative LED bulb more than a company just making incremental improvements to or selling candles, which is what I think is happening with acoustic panels since zero metasurfaces/materials seem to be on the market.
If I need candles, I appreciate the effort of a company producing candles.
You mentioned candles and then LED bulbs. There is a very long chain of R&D leading from candles top LED bulbs.
Could you point to a company that is developing or creating absorption panels that aren't based on decades old designs/Corning 703/Rockwool, etc? Just seems like the typical "wait for a company like Tesla/Apple, then play catch up." I'd love to give my money to a company pushing the boundaries when I move towards room treatment.
The big advances in many fields in record years have come from the application of computation and communication. Absorption panels may not have changed much but the ability to measure and analyze room acoustics has been a huge step forward.
You seem focused on absorption products and have not mentioned reflection or diffusion. References like Tools and Everest discuss the effect of all three on sound. It makes sense to understand what you need to fix problems for a specific room before choosing products.
I sneer because I've been shopping for a year for speakers, and many of them have issues that $100 computer speakers don't have (JBL LSR308 hiss, Tekton Electra/DI beamyness and lobing, both vs JBL 104,) or the manufacturer talks about a "drawback" to something like a coaxial driver even though there was a whitepaper on a speaker that solved the issue a decade ago (Gelenec 8260), or they company could have bent, elongated, and enlarged a port to get rid of chuffing on a $2,300 set that chuffs way more than an $800 set that goes even louder (Elac Navis vs Kali IN-8.)
It isn't clear what your problem is. You haven't said what your budget is or what your needs are. Can't you find even one speaker that meets your needs at a price that you can afford? If you can find such a prouct, just buy it and be happy with your choice.
A number of people on this forum have very positive things to say about the LBL 3 series monitors. I think that it is great that they offer such good sound at such a low price. If my application was for listening at 18" from the speakers, I'd be concerned about hiss. If I expected to listen from 9', I'd be less concerned.
Coaxial drivers are without their issues. One of the advances common to the JBL 3 series, 7 series and the M2 was the waveguide. In a speaker that uses coaxial mid and tweeter drivers, the waveguide seen by the tweeter is changing shape as the mid driver produces sound.
To avoid these issues with sound panels, looks like making some will at least be cheap and as good as what's on the market for absorption. Before I bought my house I was shopping for a $10k 3D printer to try making the grid shaped material in 2' x 4' panels, and I've emailed one of the guys who made the ring shaped dampener for air flow through tubes... Maybe at some point I'll go down that path again as some schmuck with a hobby until billion dollar companies have a first mover peer that bankrupts them or makes them change.
You might first put some effort into measuring sound quality in your room and then seeing what is actually needed.
I sneer because I've been shopping for a year for speakers, and many of them have issues that $100 computer speakers don't have (JBL LSR308 hiss, Tekton Electra/DI beamyness and lobing, both vs JBL 104,) or the manufacturer talks about a "drawback" to something like a coaxial driver even though there was a whitepaper on a speaker that solved the issue a decade ago (Gelenec 8260), or they company could have bent, elongated, and enlarged a port to get rid of chuffing on a $2,300 set that chuffs way more than an $800 set that goes even louder (Elac Navis vs Kali IN-8.)
To avoid these issues with sound panels, looks like making some will at least be cheap and as good as what's on the market for absorption. Before I bought my house I was shopping for a $10k 3D printer to try making the grid shaped material in 2' x 4' panels, and I've emailed one of the guys who made the ring shaped dampener for air flow through tubes... Maybe at some point I'll go down that path again as some schmuck with a hobby until billion dollar companies have a first mover peer that bankrupts them or makes them change.
Could you please ask him for an update on the applications side of the research? A few other questions:
Maybe your chronic absence for the past 5-6 years has made him miss you.
- Could he provide a description of what happens to the air at the cavity mouths to achieve these effects?
- How did he and his team think of this approach? Why did they decide to pursue this work?
- Is <1kHz practical with this technology? What the lower frequency limit would be?
- Is true broadband diffusion possible? How linear would it be across the spectrum? Are they able to control linearity?
- Has he considered how to deal with lobing/periodicity effects when placing many of the same diffuser side-by-side?
- Does he know of any companies working to make this technology available for retail or custom orders (i.e., if it's actually been put to use outside of laboratories)?
- For absorption only, what is the effectiveness of this technology? Can it be used for linear absorption <500Hz? <100Hz?
So you don't want a bunch of these panels across the wall and if you do no more than 2x2. This is what makes me what to generate wall-sized sequences rather than small panels that get less effective as you repeat them."Supplementary Note 4. The influence of period number of QRS. Figure S4 shows the simulated normalized diffusion coefficients of MSD with different number of periods: 1×1, 2×2, 4×4, and 6×6 with normal incidence. The results show that the diffusion coefficient slightly deteriorates as the period number increases for both SD and MSD, which agrees with the conclusion in Refs. 2 and 3. In addition, once the period number exceeds 1×1, the trend of the diffusion coefficient curve becomes stable, although with different amplitudes at different unit-cell numbers. This result, therefore, validates the comparability between SD and MSD at a period number of 2×2."