Using the new ISO 18233 Method to test Transmission Loss and calculate STC-An Experiment

DanDan

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
748
I have been aware of Studiosixdigital since way back in the Terrasonde days. I would trust his product and software claims.

"I'm not sure what you mean about the corner not being in the protocol. It's in the studies and protocol as the preferred location."
The 'standards' have to be used for Legal compliance.
I never bothered to copy the ISO standard when doing IoA Labs, but from memory it was 4 locations with non nearer a boundary than 1.2 Metres. Afaik more are allowed, but there is a minimum, and corners are obviously excluded.
 

Matthew J Poes

AV Addict
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Messages
1,903
I'd looked at that but has anyone paid 19.99 for the app plus 44.99 for the TL module, and compared it with something pro grade, to find out?

I have the Studio 6 module. It uses the traditional method. Its perfectly accurate but it won't work for you. It relies on pink or white noise excitation. In situ it gives bad results when noise isolation exceeds about 30-40 dB's.


They used a cheap mic in this paper, but again, I've been doing this now for over two years. I posted this back in 2018 and started it in 2017. Here we are in February of 2020 and I've now done this quite a few times using many methods. The mic's noise floor matters, especially at high frequencies. In their study they had minimal transmission loss to concern themselves with. I had a lot. In fact, I recently rented another microphone that is even quieter than mine and I noticed that my mic, while rated for a noise floor of 10-15dB, has some higher noise closer to the 17dB range above 5khz. Even using this sweep method seems to suggest that the original results I obtained were low. This ranged from 3khz to 10khz where I saw substantial differences. Above 10khz nothing is accurate, too much transmission loss to get a good result.

Keep in mind that technically none of this is exactly the right way to do it. The actual approach uses two identical matched microphones and a 2-channel software. The sweep is obtained in two locations at the same time. There is a possibility that two sweeps won't be identical and so some of this method might introduce error. I don't have two identical matched mics to test this, but I do have a 2-channel software I can use. Maybe I'll rent a matched pair of measurement microphones next time to see.

The facade measurement I did used matched mics but they weren't mine (the contractor rented them for me) and it didn't cross my mind to test this.
 

Matthew J Poes

AV Addict
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Messages
1,903
Appreciate the tips, thanks.

So, Generators > Sweeps > Measurement and set to e.g. 30hz-16Khz - what about the length setting - is the default 256k long enough for an accurate test (of course, given my other limitations)?

Could you also explain the significance of IR and "maintaining the IR parameters", I don't follow?

A sweep creates an impulse response which has amplitude and time information contained in it. An average of the amplitude response gets rid of the time information. This is not true if you do a vector average. Temporal information is maintained.
 

Matthew J Poes

AV Addict
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Messages
1,903
I have been aware of Studiosixdigital since way back in the Terrasonde days. I would trust his product and software claims.

"I'm not sure what you mean about the corner not being in the protocol. It's in the studies and protocol as the preferred location."
The 'standards' have to be used for Legal compliance.
I never bothered to copy the ISO standard when doing IoA Labs, but from memory it was 4 locations with non nearer a boundary than 1.2 Metres. Afaik more are allowed, but there is a minimum, and corners are obviously excluded.

Are you talking about mic locations or speaker locations?

The mic locations are 3 on either side, corners excluded.

Speaker location I don't recall being specified that rigidly. I have the ISO standard now, I can check later. But usually placed less than a meter from the corner is one of the prefered location. The paper I posted showed them placing it in two locations, corner (.6 meters from the corner) and more out into the middle of the room. I don't recall the standard explicitly requiring multiple speaker locations and the paper doesn't address why they did two. My understanding of the theory here is that you want to create as much a diffuse field inside the room as possible. It makes sense that in these small rooms, more omni speakers might do that.

When I did the last job, the contractor ordered for me the equipment from the Modal shop and it was a compliant kit. Only came with one speaker, two mics. Came with a crib sheet and didn't specify speaker location all that precisely. In that test the room was a lot larger so the speaker was placed out of a corner, but we did redo the tests a few times with the speaker in different locations. One of them was closer to a corner. I don't recall getting meaningful differences.
 

DanDan

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
748
"The mic locations are 3 on either side, corners excluded."
As you will see in the B&K video, our standard is different. They use 5 and 7 which suggests my memory of 4 and 6 with more allowed may be correct.
I don't have our standards in my Library, or software enabled. But from memory ISO requires locations not nearer than 1.2 M from any boundary.
There is some requirement for distance between locations, again I think 1.2M
You are right about my conflating speaker and mic locations, brain fart, but I guess different speaker locations would show up anomalies or problems. Might be needed to get by the 'qualifiers' in the various meters and software.
These memories may have been superseded, I do see Hemi speakers of late. PZM effect overrides Boundary reflection I guess. But Omnidirectional and less than a metre from a double boundary strikes me as contradictory. Also regular DoDecs are always on stands. Maximum room drive would of course place them in a Tricorner, but I have never seen that happen.

When you get a moment you might take a look at the recommendations in the ISO standard and let us know.
But here is an extract from our Gov on the recently introduced mandatory testing. I see nothing excluding corners here, and I do see a height variation.
This may or may not be the same as ISO guidelines, but I guess the requirement for 8-10dB excess over ambient needs to be achieved in any case. At least one other speaker position seems mandatory.

(An omni-directional sound source should be used which meets the directivity requirements of Annex A of I.S. EN ISO 16283-1. For each source position, the average sound pressure level in the source and receiving rooms is measured in one-third octave bands using either fixed microphone positions (and averaging these values on an energy basis) or a moving microphone.
For the source room measurements, the difference between the average sound pressure levels in the adjacent one-third octave bands should be no more than 8 dB.
If this condition is not met, the source spectrum should be adjusted and the source room measurement repeated. If the condition is met, the average sound pressure level in the receiving room, and hence a level difference, should be determined.
It is essential that all measurements made in the source and receiving rooms to determine a level difference should be made without moving the sound source or changing the output level of the sound source, once its spectrum has been achieved.
The sound source should then be moved to the next position in the source room and the above procedure repeated to determine another level difference. At least two
positions, at a minimum 1.4 metres apart, should be used with each source position also varied in height by at least 0.7 metres.
The standardised level differences, in one- third octave bands, obtained from each source position shall be inverse-energy averaged to determine the level difference, DnT according to equation 6 of I.S. EN ISO 16283-1.
A.2.3 Measurements using multiple sound sources operating
simultaneously
Omni-directional sound sources should be used which meets the directivity requirements of Annex A of I.S. EN ISO 16283-1. The sound sources should be driven by separate and uncorrelated signals and adjusted so that each sound source is of a similar level.
The average sound pressure level in the source and receiving rooms is measured in one-third octave bands using either fixed microphone positions (and averaging these values on an energy basis) or a moving microphone.
For the source room measurements, the difference between the average sound pressure levels in the adjacent one-third octave bands should be no more than 8 dB.
If this condition is not met, the source spectrum should be adjusted and the source room measurement repeated. If the condition is met, determine the average sound pressure level in the receiving room, and hence the level difference, D as defined in I.S. EN ISO 16283-1.)
 
Last edited:

Matthew J Poes

AV Addict
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Messages
1,903
"I'm not sure what you mean about the corner not being in the protocol. It's in the studies and protocol as the preferred location."
I don't have our Standards in my Library, or software enabled. But from memory ISO requires 4 source locations not nearer than 1.2 M from any boundary.
There is some requirement for distance between locations, again I think 1.2M.
Six in the Receive room. More allowed if you want in both rooms.

Are we talking about mic or speaker locations? I think you are referring to the mic locations.
 

Matthew J Poes

AV Addict
Thread Starter
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Messages
1,903
"The mic locations are 3 on either side, corners excluded."
As you will see in the B&K video, our standard is different. They use 5 and 7 which suggests my memory of 4 and 6 with more allowed may be correct.
I don't have our standards in my Library, or software enabled. But from memory ISO requires locations not nearer than 1.2 M from any boundary.
There is some requirement for distance between locations, again I think 1.2M
You are right about my conflating speaker and mic locations, brain fart, but I guess different speaker locations would show up anomalies or problems. Might be needed to get by the 'qualifiers' in the various meters and software.
These memories may have been superseded, I do see Hemi speakers of late. PZM effect overrides Boundary reflection I guess. But Omnidirectional and less than a metre from a double boundary strikes me as contradictory. Also regular DoDecs are always on stands. Maximum room drive would of course place them in a Tricorner, but I have never seen that happen.

When you get a moment you might take a look at the recommendations in the ISO standard and let us know.
But here is an extract from our Gov on the recently introduced mandatory testing.

(An omni-directional sound source should be used which meets the directivity requirements of Annex A of I.S. EN ISO 16283-1. For each source position, the average sound pressure level in the source and receiving rooms is measured in one-third octave bands using either fixed microphone positions (and averaging these values on an energy basis) or a moving microphone.
For the source room measurements, the difference between the average sound pressure levels in the adjacent one-third octave bands should be no more than 8 dB.
If this condition is not met, the source spectrum should be adjusted and the source room measurement repeated. If the condition is met, the average sound pressure level in the receiving room, and hence a level difference, should be determined.
It is essential that all measurements made in the source and receiving rooms to determine a level difference should be made without moving the sound source or changing the output level of the sound source, once its spectrum has been achieved.
The sound source should then be moved to the next position in the source room and the above procedure repeated to determine another level difference. At least two
positions, at a minimum 1.4 metres apart, should be used with each source position also varied in height by at least 0.7 metres.
The standardised level differences, in one- third octave bands, obtained from each source position shall be inverse-energy averaged to determine the level difference, DnT according to equation 6 of I.S. EN ISO 16283-1.
A.2.3 Measurements using multiple sound sources operating
simultaneously
Omni-directional sound sources should be used which meets the directivity requirements of Annex A of I.S. EN ISO 16283-1. The sound sources should be driven by separate and uncorrelated signals and adjusted so that each sound source is of a similar level.
The average sound pressure level in the source and receiving rooms is measured in one-third octave bands using either fixed microphone positions (and averaging these values on an energy basis) or a moving microphone.
For the source room measurements, the difference between the average sound pressure levels in the adjacent one-third octave bands should be no more than 8 dB.
If this condition is not met, the source spectrum should be adjusted and the source room measurement repeated. If the condition is met, determine the average sound pressure level in the receiving room, and hence the level difference, D as defined in I.S. EN ISO 16283-1.)

I'm using 18233 which is a newer alternative standard. I don't believe 16283 used the sine sweep method.

It's my understanding that the speakers should be placed in corners to help excite LF modes and that the mics need to be placed in various locations. I just found a technical note in the standard where researchers proposed that the standard should include corner measurement locations and point out that there is no difference in moving the speaker or mic, but moving the mic is easier. That not measuring in corners is over-estimating the true perceived TL because it does not account for those resonances in the corners.

When I did this, I measured everywhere, including near corners, hence why I said what I said about needing to average (which is in the standard).

The method standard you give is not what I'm doing here and won't work for the average person to do in situ due to noise issues. As noted.

This, by the way, seems to be where the technical note originated. It's interesting because they are suggesting it as part of the standard referenced above, where you are saying they don't allow the use of corner placement.

As I said when I started all this, 18233 isn't widely used but should be. It's a superior method and I don't understand why it is not more widely adopted for field use. I personally think the classical method in 16283-3 is likely inaccurate much of the time.
 

mc_deli

Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Messages
5
A sweep creates an impulse response which has amplitude and time information contained in it. An average of the amplitude response gets rid of the time information. This is not true if you do a vector average. Temporal information is maintained.
Thanks for this. I've been browsing the REW manual. Next step is to try it:)
 

DanDan

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
748
There are obviously different standards and practices at play. But I expect the directive I quoted is legally mandatory here in the EU.
The sound source should then be moved to the next position in the source room and the above procedure repeated to determine another level difference. At least two
positions, at a minimum 1.4 metres apart, should be used with each source position also varied in height by at least 0.7 metres.

When testing here, I use my own 2250 and rent the rest of the rig hired from the local B&K source. So noisy mics are not an issue.
As it happens I use iPhone internal mics, a PMIK-1 and the UMIK-1 for other room measurement including decays. Typical Prosumer rooms can easily have a 40dBA ambient. Not so different to TL sites.
So even up at 5K, 60dBTL, 100dB SPL, we are looking at a sweep intrusion close to ambient, but remember that 20-25dB 'Bonus'.
I hear you regarding odd mic noise spectra, but that is present at both source and receive and is overridden by the spectra generated and measured in both cases. Our standard seems to include adjusting the spectrum as well as speaker position. Whatever is necessary to achieve the 8dB differential in each third octave.
So I have to concur with Mr. Studiosixdigital on the matter of internal iPhone mics. BTW elsewhere he compares them with typical cheap externals which are no better. But I will stick with my PMIK because it has Cal files and is the right size for a Calibrator.
As I said I guess the the reason for two or more speaker locations is due diligence, looking for greater than 8dB difference in each third octave, perhaps as big as possible.
I would be interested in what your ISO standard says. I wasn't quick witted enough to make a photocopy way back when we did Labs in Liverpool. ( Despite the fact that the standard was next to the copier and a huge stack of blank paper! )
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom