A Revised Sound Energy Theory Based on a New Formula for the Reverberation Radius in Rooms with Non-Diffuse Sound Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper discusses the concept of the reverberation radius, also known as critical distance, in rooms with non-uniformly distributed sound absorption. The reverberation radius is the distance from a sound source at which the direct sound level equals the reflected sound level. The currently used formulas to calculate the reverberation radius have been derived by the classic theories of Sabine or Eyring. However, these theories are only valid in perfectly diffused sound fields; thus, only when the energy density is constant throughout a room. Nevertheless, the generally used formulas for the reverberation radius have been used in any circumstance. Starting from theories for determining the reverberation time in non- diffuse sound fields, this paper firstly proposes a new formula to calculate the reverberation radius in rooms with non-uniformly distributed sound absorption. Then, a comparison between the classic formulas and the new one is performed in some rectangular rooms with non-uniformly distributed sound absorption. Finally, this paper introduces a new interpretation of the reverberation radius in non-diffuse sound fields. According to this interpretation, the time corresponding to the sound to travel a reverberation radius should be assumed as the lower limit of integration of the diffuse sound energy
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".