View
214
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
1/61
McSquared System Design Group, Inc.
#102 145 West 15th Street, North Vancouver, BC V7M 1R9 Ph 604.986.8181 Fax 604.988.9751website: http://www.mcsquared.com e-mail: info@mcsquared.com
Sound Field Speaker Coverage Modeling Study
Prepared for:
Phonic Ear Inc.
3880 Cypress DrivePetaluma, CA
File: 5325
June 11, 2004
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
2/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 2
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Purpose of the Study..................................................................................................... 3The Sample Classroom.................................................................................................. 4
The room model of Upper Lynn Valley Elementary room #211 ......................................... 5Speaker Configurations Modeled ..................................................................................... 6
Direct Sound versus Total SPL..................................................................................... 6RaSTI Predictions ...................................................................................................... 7C50 (Clarity Ratio) .................................................................................................... 8Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................................................. 8Sound Field Configuration: ToGo corner mounted at 7 to the center of speaker............. 11Sound Field Configuration: ToGo on Desk or Table top.................................................. 27Sound Field Configuration: single small speaker (flat panel, etc.) mounted in corner......... 44ToGo 3D polar response prediction produced by EASE 4.0............................................. 60
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
3/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 3
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to look at predictions of sound field speaker performance usingEASE 4.0 computer modeling software, one of the most widely used sound system design
packages in the industry. The study would include the most common speaker systemconfigurations and common speaker models employed in the sound field application.
The study would be based on acoustical measurements taken in a real elementary schoolclassroom currently using a sound field speaker system, and then the existing acoustical
conditions would be extended in the model to include two higher levels of background noise andtwo longer values for reverberation time to examine which speaker system solution worked best
in varying acoustical conditions that are the primary factors in reducing speech intelligibility.
The results of interest include:
1. Direct sound coverage of the seated ear plane using phase information to calculateexpected interference patterns to show the uniformity of direct sound, which affects bothintelligibility and gain before feedback.
2. Total SPL (direct + reverberant sound energy) at three different reverberation times toassist in showing the relationship between direct sound coverage and the reverberantsound level, and how that can be misleading in predicting improved intelligibility.
3. RaSTI (Rapid Speech Transmission Index) predictions for three different background noiselevels and three different reverberation times to assist in showing which speaker systemconfiguration is the best for rooms where excess noise or excess reverberation time are
the dominant problems.
The study would help to identify common errors in speaker placement and application; speaker
system configurations that reduce the effectiveness of a speech reinforcement system; speakerconfigurations that will reduce gain-before-feedback when used with an open microphone; and
the benefits of one type of speaker over another in providing effective coverage.
These issues have been studied extensively over the past 20 years since the advent of accessibleand affordable time domain measurement capability appeared in the form of the Techron TEF
analyzer. This measurement system allowed sophisticated Time Delay Spectrometry
measurement methods to be applied to sound systems. It would not be an overstatement to saythat more has been learned about the behavior of loudspeakers in an acoustic environment in the
past 20 years than had been understood for the previous 60 years, since Rice and Kellogdeveloped the moving coil loudspeaker in 1925.
The TEF analyzer plainly disclosed the cause of problems with sound systems that could not be
corrected with an equalizer because the response variations were created by a non-minimum
phase system, in other words, a speaker system that had signal delays present in excess of awavelength. That single breakthrough in observation of speaker system performance changed the
understanding of what happens when sound sources interact with each other in the acousticenvironment.
When sound is cancelled out by destructive interference of the sound waves, it cant be repaired
using an equalizer. When the sound is cancelled out, it also begins to have a response that looksvery similar to someone with a significant 4kHz hearing notch. It is possible to install speaker
systems with a frequency response that replicates hearing loss, and presents a different response
at every seat in the house. And thats not a good thing.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
4/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 4
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
The Sample Classroom
The classroom is a 24x30 room with a 9 T-bar ceiling, and an entry vestibule area in the front
corner. There are windows on two outside walls, with operable windows. The neighborhood is
very quiet with no through traffic nearby so exterior noise is minimal. The most significant noisesource was an air pump on the small fish tank on the south exterior wall.
There is a low bookshelf beneath the windows on the east side and a collection of shelves and
tables below the windows on the south side.
Measured Background Noise
The background noise measurements were made with an unoccupied room, the windows openand the aquarium pump running. Measurements were made in a number of locations and the
highest levels were used near the aquarium to capture the worst-case noise condition.
125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1000Hz 2000Hz 4000Hz 8000Hz
48 dB 36 dB 35 dB 33 dB 26 dB 21 dB 19 dB
Measured Reverberation Time
We measured the reverberation time with the room unoccupied. There was a small area carpet on
the floor near an upholstered couch, and a substantial amount of books and materials in theshelves around the perimeter on two sides, so the reverberation time was quite short in the voice
bands.
125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1000Hz 2000Hz 4000Hz 8000Hz
0.50 Sec 0.30 Sec 0.32 Sec 0.30 Sec 0.5 Sec 0.45 Sec 0.3 Sec
The room model is shown on the next page. It features the major architectural shape features,
and the ear plane is set at 36 above the floor to reflect the shorter listeners. The image of theroom model shows the ear plane where the coverage and STI plot was calculated. The STI plots
have the room model boundaries turned off for clarity of display, but they were part of thecalculations.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
5/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 5
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
The room model of Upper Lynn Valley Elementary room #211
Upper Lynn Valley classroom #211 ear plane off
Upper Lynn Valley classroom #211 ear plane on
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
6/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 6
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Speaker Configurations Modeled
We modeled several configurations and types of loudspeakers, including:
1. Four speakers mounted on side walls (including variations in mounting and product)2. Four ceiling loudspeakers3. Six ceiling loudspeakers4. Soundsphere ceiling mounted speaker5. TOA F121C ceiling speaker6. Ceiling speaker cluster with 4x 8 drivers in a 24 tile replacement7. FrontRow ToGo mounted in room corner at 7 to speaker center8. FrontRow ToGo sitting on desk or table top9. Phonic Ear Logia mounted in corner10.One 5 2-way speaker in room corner
Most of the device files were available in EASE 4.0, the exceptions were the ToGo and Logiadevices. We created these devices as clusters of existing measured single full range drivers using
the driver size and spacing in the drawings provided to us by Phonic Ear and EASE created thepolar balloons as shown in the section at the end of the document. In the Logia model we shaded
the line array by rolling off the response of the upper and lower drivers above 1000z to reducethe lobing and interference at higher frequencies, this produced a tight vertical pattern. There
may be some slight variation between the predicted and actual coverage of the ToGo and Logia,
but most of the line array coverage behavior is a result of driver spacing and interference, notindividual driver characteristics, so the variations should not be significant.
Direct Sound versus Total SPL
Weve plotted both the direct sound and the total SPL for each speaker configuration. The direct
sound is the direct output from the loudspeaker without reflections or room reverberationconsidered. The direct sound is the most important aspect of a speakers behavior, as the human
brain attempts to process and isolate the direct sound for localization and for timbre or soundquality. All the other reflections that arrive up to 50 milliseconds after the direct sound can
augment the direct sound but those reflections dont improve the audible sound quality, eventhough they may add to the perceived sound level and intelligibility (when the reflections contain
useful bandwidth).
The reflections also affect sound system function such as gain-before-feedback, as the reflections
and lobes can create hot spots that lower the feedback threshold. A 6dB bump in the frequency
response can lower the feedback threshold at that spot by 6dB. The smoother and more uniformthe direct sound coverage, the better behaved the sound system will be around an activemicrophone. Where the teacher will be walking through various lobes in the direct coverage, there
is a chance that the system will be sent into feedback by the sudden increase in level at a fewspecific frequencies.
The direct sound coverage is affected by the interference generated by having multiple soundsources separated in physical space and time. The distance between speakers creates non-
minimum phase response variations that are different depending on the frequency involved.Where the direct coverage is subject to wide variations over a wide range of frequencies, weve
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
7/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 7
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
plotted direct coverage as low as 250Hz (approximately middle C on a musical scale, which
sounds like high frequencies to most listeners) to show vulnerabilities to early feedback when amicrophone is used.
The Total SPL (direct plus reverberant levels) is indicative of what would be measured if a sound
level meter were used to evaluate the uniformity of the sound field coverage in a room. This is
not representative of the speech intelligibility that would result from the sound system. The
2000Hz STI plots show that the STI values are closely related to the direct sound and not theTotal SPL. This is the equivalent comparison of measuring a sound system using a TEF analyzerand a sound level meter, by isolating the direct sound we get a much better idea of what we can
expect for intelligibility. Any manufacturer using a sound level meter to promote the uniformity oftheir sound field system is not presenting an accurate indication of how the output from the
system will be perceived.
The reader should notice that as the Total SPL becomes more uniform with increasingreverberation time and the difference between maximum and minimum SPL values is reduced,
the RaSTI values generally increase in spread between maximum and minimum values, and the
maximum STI values go down.
RaSTI Predictions
The 2000Hz RaSTI predictions show the predicted intelligibility, factoring in the direct sound
coverage, the room reverberation and the room background noise. Both background noise andexcess reverberation will degrade speech intelligibility. Weve plotted the RaSTI prediction for the
existing room conditions as measured, plus higher levels of background noise (NC-45 and NC-55)and longer reverberation times (0.75 seconds and 1.0 seconds).
For each speaker configuration this shows the trend in speech intelligibility performance loss.Some speaker configurations will produce better results in rooms where the acoustical problem is
excess reverberation, and some speaker solutions may be better suited to a room where theproblem is excess noise.
In general, where the acoustical problem is excess reverberation a speaker configuration thatplaces the speakers close to the listener usually gives the best results.
Where the acoustical problem is excess background noise, any speaker system that can improve
the listeners signal to noise experience will improve intelligibility. Then the key design issuebecomes whether or not good uniformity in sound level can be achieved so that when the sound
system is loud enough for the furthest listener, it is not too loud for listeners closer to the source.
The existing test room acoustical conditions are such that almost any solution works adequatelywell, even an unaided talker can function in the room and provide adequate level at the furthest
listener. As noise and reverberation are increased, the spread in STI values increases betweenworst and best seats.
Thats the key thing to look at in the RaSTI plots for each scenario, look at the minimum STIvalues and the spread between the maximum and minimum STI values. The best speaker
configuration is the one that provides the least difference between best and worst seats, and thehighest overall STI rating. Those speaker configurations will be the ones that have the most
uniform coverage and the highest direct-to-reverberant ratio.
A good STI design target for a classroom would be 0.60 (fair) or higher.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
8/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 8
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
C50 (Clarity Ratio)
The C50 or clarity ratio is the ratio in dB of the sound arriving in the first 50 milliseconds
compared to all the sound arriving later. This is roughly equivalent to the U50 rating that JohnBradley at the National Research Council in Canada promotes as a measure of Useful Energy in a
classroom. The most beneficial energy arrives within the primary Haas zone of 35 milliseconds,
but energy up to 50 milliseconds can provide additional level to speech as long as these late
arrivals have enough spectral content to assist the speech information.
Conclusions and Recommendations
As with any speech reinforcement system, the goal of these classroom speech reinforcementsystems is to provide superior speech intelligibility performance to unaided speech. Those goals
would include: uniform speech levels for all seats; uniform frequency response of reinforcedsound in all seats; improved signal to noise ratio; improved direct to reverberant ratio; and
improved articulation of consonants or modulation transfer function.
For a sound system designer, that list of goals has to be balanced with practical architectural and
budget limitations, so there is always some degree of compromise between the perfect solution
and the available solution. The key to good sound system design is to understand what the actualeffects of a design compromise will be, and to avoid making compromises that affect the ability todeliver the minimum required performance. The limits of those design compromises are set by
functional requirements of the users and the environment the system operates in. In a swimmingpool, where the minimum requirement might be to understand a simple command such as
Everyone clear the pool a speech reinforcement could have an STI rating as low as 0.45 and itcould still provide effective communication. In a classroom where the minimum requirement may
be to successfully communicate the properties and uses of polytetrafluoroethylene, a minimum
STI rating may need to be as high as 0.65.
If the speech reinforcement system fails to meet the design goals, it fails as a useful item, nomatter how inexpensive or easy to install it might have been. This would be equivalent to using
strings of Christmas lights for general room lighting instead of fluorescent lights, because the
Christmas lights are cheaper and easier to install and do not require an electrician or otherspecialized technician. The installation may have been inexpensive, but they arent very effectivein providing a suitable work light level.
Speaker System Issues
Of the speaker types and configurations reviewed in this study, there are a few consistentbehaviors that were observed.
Two Way Surface Mount Speakers
While there are some minor variations between the various brands and models of small two way
speakers (5 woofer and a separate dome tweeter), but they all share a common problem of acollapse of the vertical coverage pattern at the crossover point where both the woofer andtweeter are operating at the same level. This is typically an octave wide band at 3-4kHz, right in
one of the more critical bands for articulation of consonants. The only small speakers that dontbehave in this fashion are devices with the tweeter coaxially located in the centre of the woofer.
The effect of that vertical coverage collapse is often an octave wide frequency band that can have
a coverage pattern as narrow as 20 degrees vertical. If these boxes are turned sideways andmounted horizontally, as is commonly done when yoke mounting them, that becomes a very
narrow horizontal coverage pattern in that critical octave. This makes placement and aiming of
these small two way speakers very critical if full speech band performance is going to be delivered
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
9/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 9
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
to the seats. The mounting positions that would provide the best overall level uniformity are not
necessarily the mounting positions that work best for 3-4kHz.
Single Speaker Solutions with Spherical Spreading Wavefronts
All single speaker solutions that have a coverage pattern that approximates a sphericalwavefront, and therefore inverse square law attenuation of the direct sound, have the same basic
limitation in covering a large area uniformly. This would include the single TOA F121C speaker,the Soundsphere, a small speaker in one corner, the four speaker pyramid ceiling speaker, anNXT flat panel, etc. This is the same basic behavior as an unaided talker. The only way to be loud
enough in the back is to talk louder at the front.
For any single speaker installation there will be a significant drop in direct sound level withincreasing distance, and this will always result in having the sound levels be much higher for
listener close to the speaker than the most distant listener would experience. If the distance islarge enough it may be too loud for the closest listener when it is adequately loud at the most
distant listener.
These systems will always have an issue where the feedback threshold with an open microphone
will limit the maximum available sound level. By the time the system gain is increased to thepoint where it would be louder than the unaided voice, it will likely be prone to feedback when the
teacher was close to the speaker and will operate safely when the teacher is furthest away fromthe speaker. If this is the only way the system is used, where the single loudspeaker is on the
opposite side of the room from the teacher, then there can be some small benefit to the increased
sound level at the greatest distance from the teacher, but that also limits how close the teachercan get to the speaker and the students on that side of the room.
Typically any room that can be covered by a single small speaker could just as effectively be
covered by a talker with louder voice, and the primary acoustical problem would be elevatedbackground noise levels and not excess reverberation.
Single Speakers with Shaped Coverage
The ToGo and Logia line arrays show some real promise for good sound level uniformity over amoderate size of classroom. The key aspect in using any line array is to make sure the audience
seating is kept far enough away from the loudspeaker so that they are beyond the nearfieldanomalies in a line array, and instead they are all seated in the area where there is minimal
change in level or frequency response.
The other major issue to consider when placing line arrays is that they do have a nominal
cylindrical fan shaped coverage pattern. That speaker coverage should not be pointed at the rearand side walls, the fan shaped coverage should be tilted down so that the centre of the coverage
pattern aims at the most distant seated listener. In that scenario, most of the sound is directedinto the seating and not at the rear and side walls. All the seats are typically within the vertical
coverage if the most distant seat is the selected target. The speaker should be mounted high
enough that the entire coverage pattern does not have to make its way through a forest of headsto get to the rear row. For elementary school seating, the bottom of the line array should be at or
just above seated student head height and at least 6-8 away from the closest listener. If the linearray is tilted down from that position and aimed at the most distant seat, the direct sound
coverage should be fairly uniform.
Even line arrays may not be the best choice when excess reverberation is the primary acoustical
problem as they are still limited by the available direct-to-reverberant ratio that a single speakercan provide in a reverberant room. They might have 3-5dB better D/R than a conventional single
speaker, but that may not be adequate in all reverberant classroom settings.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
10/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 10
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Multiple Speaker Locations and Positioning
When installing multiple ceiling or wall mounted speakers, the two most important considerations
are having the distance between the speaker and the listener be as short as practically possible;and having the density of the speakers be high enough to keep the notches caused by destructive
interference narrower than 1/3 octave in any seat. If the speaker spacing is equal to the ceilingheight, that will often provide enough overlap in coverage to keep the cancellation notches below
1/3 of an octave. Some ceiling loudspeakers have a broad enough 2-4kHz coverage pattern toallow center to center spacing up to 1.5 times the ceiling height, but not all ceiling speakers arecreated equal.
The installation of multiple ceiling speakers will often provide a higher D/R ratio in a reverberant
environment, primarily because the speaker is closer to the listener, and all listeners have asimilar speaker to listener distance. When the reverberation time becomes very long, increasing
the number of speakers can begin to reduce to the intelligibility. This can be calculated in advanceof installation using conventional spreadsheet sound system calculations, software is not required.
Room Acoustics and Speaker Selection
In rooms where excess background noise is the major problem and reverberation time is fairlyshort and controlled, almost any loudspeaker can provide an improvement in speech intelligibility
by making speech louder and improving signal to noise. The primary design consideration isuniform sound level and frequency response. That might be provided using a single line array, or
multiple ceiling speakers, or even the side wall mounted speakers in a narrow enough room.
In rooms were excess reverberation is the primary problem and there are also problems with
elevated background noise exacerbated by the excess reverberation time, the speaker selectionprocess needs to be considered more carefully. Ceiling speakers are often a good choice in this
setting. Having the speakers closer to the listeners definitely helps improve intelligibility byimproving both S/N ratio and D/R ratio. Single speaker solutions may not deliver adequate
performance in highly reverberant environments.
Available Amplifier Power
One of the most significant performance aspects of sound system design is having adequate
headroom for the signals being reproduced. Many small loudspeakers have very low efficiency,often in the range of 80-85dB @1watt @1metre. To deliver reinforced speech levels higher than
unaided speech with a dynamic signal like speech often requires much more power than is
provided. One of the observations we have made of several sound field systems is that they aredrastically underpowered and so they often exhibit severe clipping just as they are producing a
sound level that would be louder than an unaided talker. It is not unreasonable to assume a 20dBdynamic range for a speech source unless it is heavily compressed. Any speech reinforcement
system should be designed so that it will not clip in normal operation. The system gain limitshould be the feedback threshold and not the amplifier output power.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
11/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 11
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Sound Field Configuration: ToGo corner mounted at 7 to the center of speaker
500Hz direct sound field
The ToGo is mounted at 7 to the center of the speaker and the speaker has a 10 degree downtilt
so that the axis of the speaker is aimed at the ear plane in the opposite corner of the room.
The ToGo achieves a large area of uniform coverage even though there are some large variationsclose to the speaker. The maximum level is 91.28dB and the minimum level is 76.6dB for a total
variation of14.68dB. The seating area is within 6-7dB in uniformity.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
12/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 12
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
2000Hz direct sound field
At 2000hz there is a very large uniform area of coverage. The maximum level is 88.04dB and the
minimum level is 67.77dB for a total variation of 20.77dB. The bulk of the seating area is within5-6dB of level uniformity.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
13/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 13
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
4000Hz direct sound field
At 4000Hz the patch is a different shape but similar in overall size. The maximum level is 89.61dBand the minimum level is 68.07 for a total variation of 21.54dB. The bulk of the seating is within
4-5dB although there are some large blue areas near the seating on the side near the speaker
system.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
14/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 14
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
2000Hz Total SPL (direct + reverberant) at current reverberation time
The maximum level is 88.75dB and the minimum level is 80.76dB for a total variation of 7.99dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
15/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 15
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
2000Hz Total SPL (direct + reverberant) at 0.75 second reverberation time
With the 0.75 second reverb time the level variation drops to 3.99dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
16/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 16
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
2000Hz Total SPL (direct + reverberant) at 1.0 second reverberation time
At 1.0 second reverb time the level variation drops 3.19dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
17/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 17
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
RaSTI with current background noise and current reverb time
The single ToGo has a very large area of superb STI value. The maximum is 0.77 and theminimum is 0.72, but the area of 0.74 to .75 is very large.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
18/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 18
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
RaSTI with NC-45 background noise and current reverb time
Increasing the noise level does not affect the STI values.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
19/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 19
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
RaSTI with NC-55 background noise and current reverb time
Increasing the background noise to NC-55 reduces the minimum STI value but has no significanteffect on the area that scores good values of 0.74 to 0.75.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
20/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 20
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
RaSTI with NC-45 background noise and 0.75 second reverb time
Increasing the reverb time to 0.75 seconds reduces the maximum STI values and increases the
range of STI values. The maximum value is 0.69 and the minimum value is .58. The area thatachieves 0.62 to 0.65 is quite large and uniform.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
21/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 21
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
RaSTI with NC-55 background noise and 0.75 second reverb time
Increasing the noise level to NC-55 has no significant affect on the STI values
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
22/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 22
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
RaSTI with NC-45 background noise and 1.0 second reverb time
Increasing the reverb time to 1.0 seconds reduces STI values overall. The maximum value is 0.65and the minimum is 0.54. The uniformity of the STI values is noticeably reduced from the 0.75
second values.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
23/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 23
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
RaSTI with NC-55 background noise and 1.0 second reverb time
Increasing the noise level to NC-55 does not significantly affect the STI values, there is only a
slight reduction. Any single source speaker solution is more affected by excess reverberation thana distributed speaker solution.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
24/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 24
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
2000Hz C50 with the current reverb time
The ToGo provides very uniform C50 values over a large area, most of the seating is between 11-15dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
25/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 25
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
2000Hz C50 with 0.75 second reverb time
Increasing the reverb time to a 0.75 second drops to a range of 2-7dB, with the bulk of the
seating area ranging from 3-5dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
26/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 26
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo corner mounted
2000Hz C50 with a 1.0 second reverb time
As with any single source speaker system configuration, the C50 values drop off with increasing
reverb time. At 1.0 seconds the range of C50 values drops from 5-0dB. The bulk of the seatinghas a value between 0-3dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
27/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 27
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Sound Field Configuration: ToGo on Desk or Table top
500Hz direct sound field
With the ToGo speaker closer to the ear plane and closer to the listeners, the near field anomaliesare more likely to interact with the teachers microphone.
The maximum level is 95.77dB and the minimum level is 77.21dB for a total variation 18.56dB.
The bulk of the level difference happens within the first 4 radius of the loudspeaker. The bulk ofthe seating area is covered with a uniformity of 6-7dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
28/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 28
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
1000Hz direct sound field
The 1000Hz coverage is more constrained at this mounting height. The maximum level is
88.66dB and the minimum level is 68.8dB for a total variation of 19.86dB. The bulk of the levelvariation occurs in the nearfield of the speaker. There is about 10dB of variation throughout the
seating area.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
29/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 29
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
2000Hz direct sound field
The 2000Hz coverage pattern appears as a largely square footprint at this mounting height. Themaximum level is 93dB and the minimum level is 58.91dB for a total variation of 34.04dB, with
the bulk of the variation in the nearfield of the speaker location.
The bulk of the seating area is covered to a uniformity of about 6dB. The nearfield exhibits someextreme behavior that could generate feedback when the microphone is in close proximity to the
loudspeaker.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
30/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 30
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
4000Hz direct sound field
The 4000Hz coverage almost grazes the listening plane with the speaker sitting on a desktop andno tilt, there are some significant level variations in this band. The maximum level is 92.98dB and
the minimum level is 66.18dB for a total level variation 26.8dB. A large area of the seating iswithin 3dB but there are also several zones within the seating that are about 7-8dB lower in level.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
31/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 31
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
2000Hz Total SPL (direct + reverberant) at current reverb time
The level variation in the Total SPL is exaggerated by the very high level in close proximity to thespeaker painted on the listening plane. The maximum level is 93.24dB and the minimum level is
80.57dB for a total variation of 12.67dB. Most of the seating area is within 4dB in level/
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
32/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 32
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
2000Hz Total SPL (direct + reverberant) at 0.75 second reverb time
At 0.75 second reverb time the far field coverage exhibits less variation. The maximum level is
93.82dB and the minimum level is 86.17dB for a total variation of 7.65dB. Most of the seatingarea has a level variation of about 2dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
33/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 33
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
2000Hz Total SPL (direct + reverberant) at 1.0 second reverb time
Increasing the reverb time to 1.0 seconds reduces the total variation further. The maximum levelis 94.1dB and the minimum level is 87.6dB for a total variation of 6.5dB with less 2dB of variation
over the seating area.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
34/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 34
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
RaSTI with current background noise and current reverb time
The ToGo provides similar STI performance to the corner mounting, the maximum level is
artificially high as the highs core appears on the desk top the speaker is sitting on. The maximumSTI value is 0.78 and the minimum value is 0.71. A large area of the seating is still 0.74 to 0.75
in STI which is very good.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
35/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 35
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
RaSTI with NC-45 background noise and current reverb time
Increasing the noise level does not have a significant effect on STI values.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
36/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 36
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
RaSTI with NC-55 background noise and current reverb time
Increasing the noise level to NC-55 reduces the minimum STI values, but its important to notethat those low scores are behind the loudspeaker.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
37/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 37
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
RaSTI with NC-45 background noise and 0.75 second reverb time
Increasing the reverb time to 0.75 seconds drops the overall STI levels, the maximum being 0.72
and the minimum being 0.58. Significantly, the STI values in the primary coverage area have
dropped from 0.74 to 0.66-0.62. This is typical of the effects of reverberation on any singlesource speaker configuration.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
38/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 38
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
RaSTI with NC-55 background noise and 0.75 second reverb time
Increasing the noise level to NC-55 produces no further reduction in STI showing that theperformance is most affected by excess reverberation.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
39/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 39
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
RaSTI with NC-45 background noise and 1.0 second reverb time
Increasing the reverb time to 1.0 seconds produces another major drop in STI values overall. Themaximum value is 0.69 and the minimum value is 0.53. Significantly, the area inside the directcoverage has dropped from 0.66 to 0.62 down to 0.62 to 0.57. The maximum and minimum
values are all very close to the loudspeaker.
Excess reverberation is the major limiting acoustical parameter for maintaining good speech
intelligibility with the ToGo.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
40/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 40
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
RaSTI with NC-55 background noise and 1.0 second reverb time
There is no significant effect on STI value by increasing the noise level to NC-55.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
41/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 41
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
2000Hz C50 with current reverb time
With the ToGo at desktop or table height, the C50 values are artificially high very close to thespeaker because these results are painted on an ear plane at 36 above the floor. The maximum
value of 23dB happens directly in front of the speaker. The C50 values over the seating arearange from 11-16dB, very similar to most other systems in the current acoustical environment.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
42/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 42
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
2000Hz C50 with 0.75 second reverb time
Increasing the reverb time reduces the C50 values. The seating area ranges from 2-5dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
43/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 43
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo on Desk or Table top
2000Hz C50 with 1.0 second reverb time
The C50 values drop to 3-0dB over the seating area with the reverb time at 1.0 seconds.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
44/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 44
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Sound Field Configuration: single small speaker (flat panel, etc.) mounted in corner
500Hz direct sound field
A single speaker mounted in a corner is entirely dominated by inverse square law for direct soundlevel drop off and will be seriously affected by increasing reverb time.
The maximum level is 92.13dB and the minimum level is 77.18dB for a total level variation of
14.95dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
45/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 45
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
1000Hz direct sound field
The maximum level is 90.19dB and the minimum level is 74.32dB for a total level variation of
15.87dB. There is more than 10dB of level drop across the seating area.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
46/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 46
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
2000Hz direct sound field
The maximum level is 90.03dB and the minimum level is 74.28dB for a total level variation of15.75dB. There is almost 12dB of level variation across the seating area.
Any effort to get the speaker loud enough in the far corner will result in the speaker being 12dB
louder near the source. If the teacher has to walk near the speaker it is likely to be a feedback
problem.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
47/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 47
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
2000Hz Total SPL (direct + reverberant) at current reverb time
In the current reverb time there is 6.93dB of level variation in the room.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
48/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 48
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
2000Hz Total SPL (direct + reverberant) at 0.75 second reverb time
As the reverb time increases the level variation drops to 3.36dB, an indicator of large variations in
STI value with increasing reverb time.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
49/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 49
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
2000Hz Total SPL (direct + reverberant) at 1.0 second reverb time
With the 1.0 second reverb time the level variation drops to 2.66dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
50/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 50
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
RaSTI with current background noise and current reverb time
With the current acoustical conditions a single speaker can provide good STI values, but may still
be a feedback problem.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
51/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 51
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
RaSTI with NC-45 background noise and current reverb time
Increasing the noise level to NC-45 does not impact the STI values.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
52/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 52
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
RaSTI with NC-55 background noise and current reverb time
Increasing the noise level to NC-55 does not have a significant impact on STI values.
What that means is that the speaker has enough sound level to provide the needed S/N ratio at
this reverb time. S/N ratio adjustment can be achieved by level adjustment whereas performancelimits caused by the reverb time in the room are a factor of direct/reverb ratio and cant be
corrected by turning it up.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
53/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 53
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
RaSTI with NC-45 background noise and 0.75 second reverb time
As expected increasing the reverb time drops the overall STI values significantly and reallyincreases the range of STI values in the seating area.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
54/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 54
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
RaSTI with NC-55 background noise and 0.75 second reverb time
Increasing the noise level to NC-55 doesnt have any significant impact on STI values.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
55/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 55
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
RaSTI with NC-45 background noise and 1.0 second reverb time
Increasing the reverb time to 1.0 seconds causes a further drop in STI values in the seating area
and increases the spread in STI values as well.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
56/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 56
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
RaSTI with NC-55 background noise and 1.0 second reverb time
Increasing the noise level to NC-55 has no significant effect on the STI values.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
57/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 57
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
2000Hz C50 with current reverb time
The single speaker works reasonably well when the reverb time is short. The range of C50
through the seating area is 15-10dB.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
58/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 58
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
2000Hz C50 with 0.75 second reverb time
Increasing the reverb time to 0.75 seconds drops the range of C50 to 5-2dB through the seating
area.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
59/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 59
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
Single small speaker mounted in corner
2000Hz C50 with 1.0 second reverb time
At a 1.0 second reverb time the C50 values drop to 3-0dB through the seating area.
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
60/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 60
McSquared System Design Group Inc.
ToGo 3D polar response prediction produced by EASE 4.0
500Hz 1000Hz
1600Hz 2000Hz
2500Hz 3150Hz
8/2/2019 Whitepaper Duo vs Single Speakers
61/61
Phonic Ear Sound Field Speaker Coverage Study Page 61
4000Hz 5000Hz
6300Hz 8000Hz
Recommended