19.386526 -67.45 -44.1
20.53525 -68.39 -44.1
21.75204 -68.56 -44.1
23.04093 -67.97 -44.1
24.406191 -67.25 -44.1
25.852348 -66.75 -44.1
27.384196 -66.66 -44.1
29.006812 -66.79 -44.1
11.54782 -67.25 -44.1
12.232071 -66.3 -44.1
12.956867 -65.38 -44.1
13.72461 -64.56 -44.1
14.537844 -64.01 Adrian Bersiks_bersik_Acoustic Analysis_Excel.xlsx-44.1
15.399265 -63.86 -44.1
From the figure above there are no interpolation points above the reference line, which means the frequencies were bounded nicely under the maximum amplitude, and the greatest amplitude was captured on the sampling interval exactly, with a closer distribution in amplitudes. Again the 130Hz drop is consistent. Looking at the Excel spreadsheet, the resposnse almost mimics the
*…show more content…*

So these would tend to have more reflections building up, to see that the biggest buildup is in the 400Hz band gives an idea how these materials can influence each other to resonate at a lower range than the previous
*…show more content…*

Otherwise there is just the overall level of -3.25 dB softer when the lights and aircon are off by looking at the reference level. One technical overview Knowing that the room ambient noise didn’t affect the results too much, it would be interesting to cross correlate the best acoustic dampener configuration – the Slits panel vs the control. Not having software to cross correlate in depth, a simple subtraction between the two responses will be done and then plotted: The average amplitude implies that there is an average of around -1dB per frequency over the spectrum comparing the two configurations. Conclusion Going through these configurations and the final cross correlation it is easy to see that the panels on their own make for the most effective acoustic dampener. However if an overall level drop is needed, the ambient noise needs to be taken down by the source, i.e. the aircon and lights should be switched off. Finally, in all the cases of the interpolation points assuming that the speaker was not struggling to reproduce the 130 Hz, the frequency can be a direct relationship to the distance the microphone was in relationship to the first reflective surface. So about 0.66m or 66cm from the first reflective surface seems to be roughly a good estimate as to how far the sound wave had to travel until it came back to the microphone. Of course this