Studio 30 Resonate - Brief 01

Studi o 30

R e s onate Architecture, Arts, and Acoustics

Assignment 1: Dependencies (Research & Prototyping) Kalliopi Patros 1066954

Songs Group Blue

Raw Listening Phone Speakers facing towards listener @ 500mm

1 Black Betty Ram Jam, 1977 Style: Hard Rock, Blues Rock

Fast (forte) tempo with rhythmic patterns which are shifting from rapid (guitar riff ) back to 4/4 tempo. Note lengths are generally strident and coherent in relation to the melody with some lagging snare/cymbal sounds following the melody.

2 Lacrimosa Zbigniew Preisner, 2009 Style: Classical, Orchestral

Time 3:08 - 3:38

Songs

Expression / Dynamics Ascending scale progression on the guitar. The crescendo of that phrase is mostly noticeable at the end of the phrase (loudest). Mild crescendo.

The Bass felt like the least prominent element of the music during solo guitar. Became most noticeable when rhythm returned to 4/4.

City of Stars Ryan Gosling & Justin Hurwitz, 2016

Time 1:36 - 2:06

"

#

"

!

$%

"

&%

%

' ( $

!

$ )

*

%

+ (

,,

% +

Style: Ballad

-

%

+ %

+

!

"

Melody Tune in a Minor key (B) with a lively melodic contour through the prominent guitar solo.

Texture Layered with instruments. Monophonic in the singing, then evolving with voice overlays of the same phrase.

Could be Homophonic? Orchestration changes from 3 prominent sounds/instruments: Guitar, drums and cymbals, then withdraws back to drums and male bass/ tenor voice.

3

Time 0:47 - 1:17

"

.

"

%

% - %

%

%

)%

Initial geometric investigation

Models 1

Design 1

Design 2

Design 3

Initial geometric investigation

Models 1

Design 4

Design 5

Analysing Music

Design 2

Design 1

1 Black Betty Ram Jam, 1977 Style: Hard Rock, Blues Rock

Listen test 1

Listen test 2

Inward - Bottom Speakers facing inward @ 500mm

Outward - Bottom Speakers facing outward @ 500mm

%

)%

3 0 4

5

/

+

Listen test 1

%

% 5

%

%

Design 3 Listen test 2

Listen test 1

Listen test 2

/

+

+

%

% %

( +

6

% *

+ 9

Time 3:08 - 3:38

2 Lacrimosa Zbigniew Preisner, 2009 Style: Classical, Orchestral

%

%

0

%

6

*

%

+ %

2

1

2 8

(

6

*

(

1

2

%

/

7

0

%

%

/

2

%

*

+

Time 1:36 - 2:06

3 City of Stars Ryan Gosling & Justin Hurwitz, 2016 Style: Ballad

Time 0:47 - 1:17

8 5

%

2

%

2

Design 5

Design 4 Listen test 1

Listen test 2

Listen test 1

Listen test 2

:

6

*

5

%

+

% +

*

(

2

*

%

*

6

*

(

%

2

6

*

5

%

%

+

%

%

6 *

.

% %

2

6

*

5

%

% 2 *

( 1

2

%

6 *

angle of incid ence

angle of re flection

Initial light investigation

Light test 1

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/KN3Nkjc9PELf09KL1C_Xrs276IgMTsv7rHLj8fmQrem-EkL3IjyI3ARlKU3pwUi-HvIgvkYWzQk5TB0tV1ntOaThpEbJ5yNmHpNQYd0Dule1KmDxnKjAB3t4HnCW8OnAFQXARi3gkw

;

<

=

>

>

<

Initial water investigtion

Water 1

.

>

%

7/ %

+ % 7? % 5

7

%

Water waves investigation with models

%

Water Test 2

7/ %

+ % 2

7

% %

%

7/ %

%

7

%

Ray-tracing . +

7

(

+ + @

7 7 7

6

+ .

"

%

7 7

?

-

+

7 7 7

+

+!

!

9

7 7 7

A

?

%

5

!

7 7 7

+

6 $

*

7 7

7

?

:

+

"

%

+

Team Blue - Geometry comparison analysis

Pheobe Yu

Pheobe Yu

Jeremy Bonwick

Jeremy Bonwick

Jeremy Bonwick

Comparison

7

7 7

1

%

2

2

/ +

$ 3

4

8

0

7 7 7

* % 2

%

2

&* % 2

" 2

7

7 7

1

%

%

2

%

Team Blue - Sketching B + +

%

%

" C

? +

?

8

2

?

Sketches

& $

- % " + 9

Geometric iterations -

7

%

2

7

+

Design 1

8 7

D

Models 2

7 7 7 7

7

Design 2

8

7

2 D

? %

7 - +

7

3 4

7 1

7 7

? %

3 ,, 4

- %

8 7

D 7 7 7 7

? %

- +

2

3 4

Design 3

8

7

2 D 7 7

8

$

0

2

7 7

# %

8 7

D

8

7

2 D

7

7

7 7 7 7

7 7 7

7 7

? %

3 ,, 4$ 3 0 4

2

E

7 7 7 7 7

8 5

%

!

E +

2 E

? %

E

#

- % %

?

2

6

+

Geometric iterations

Design 4

8 7

D

Models 2

7 7 7 7

7

Design 5

8

7

2 D

? %

7 - +

7

3 4

7

1

7 7 7 7

# %

3 ,, 4 -

E

-

F

%

5

6 3 ,, 4

8 7

D 7 7 7

- % " +

$

8

8

7

2 D 7 7 7 7

-

# %

? 3 ,, 4

7 7

- %

6

*

Light investigations with models

D

A D A <

- +

Light test 2

Design 1

Design 2

Design 5

Light investigations with models

D

A D A <

- +

Light test 2

Design 1.1

Design 3

Computational Pachyderm Acoustic Simulations and analysis Acoustic analysis of selected geometries based on previous lighting tests and observations

Comparison of acoustic conditions with no shell

2

A

7

GH ?

@HI ;

A 7 @H HHH

7 J$GK8

/ F

7 8

Acoustic analysis - no shell

7 ) "L

Omni directional at 1.2m ht Measurements in mm

Computational acousic analysis with selected geometries

physical model

Design 2

The physical scaled model was small in size in comparison to the smartphone. This, investigation of form on a larger scale was required to see more results. The geometry was taken into rhino, scaled up to fit the phone inside and tested with Pachyderm.

lighting test The lighting test shows some slight lateral reflections with prominent reflections on roof peak. However, this will not be very accurate due to the smart phone not fitting entirely within the model. The design also has openings which will further influence the sound propogation. The length of the model may also need to be adjusted as the placement of the sound source will not be toward the back, and the extra length will hinder the potential of the sound reflection into the audience.

3d modelling / pachyderm analysis Once the model was resized in Rhino with an acoustic analysis conducted, the form proved to fail acoustically as there was too much sound loss. The length also contributed to acoustic defeat as the location of the sound source would have sound loss effects regardless of which direction/area of the model they were placed. Further testing was done to see the outcome of rotating the model, however this did not help in the potential length of reflections.

Analysis with models

reflections It was assumed that this design would not perform as well against the other models. This was true due to a few reasons.

-Length of the model to deep to see any results, particularly if sound source is placed in the centre or low back -Slanted roof, not angled enough for optimal acoustic projection -Lateral and roof openings, resulting in significant sound loss This design could have potential with a few adjustments, however it resembles another design in the front elevation which has been explored and developed. All testing showed dramatic sound focussing and poor reflection.

Ray tracing analysis Iteration 2.1 Rotation 180 degrees of model to observe effects of smaller opening. Significant sound loss on bottom left side due to the closed and orthogonal side. The upper right side which steps shows some more sound reflections due to the openings. However, the reflections donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t reach further back into audience.

spl {0;0}

95.457

standard deviation

5.5

Rotations of the geometry.

These views compared to the initial lighting study with the foil prove that the dramatic lateral reflections occur, with most reflections extruding out toward the side or are lost with no directionality.

Iteration 2.2 Wider and taller openings prove to work better in reflection outward, however in this case, the back of the audience specifically at the bottom receive no direct sound. There is also an imbalance comparing the stepping side of the model and the orthogonal side.

spl {0;0}

101.501

standard deviation

5.340

Iteration 2.3

Design 2

Sound source moved further back/mid shell.

spl {0;0}

97.921

standard deviation

5.353

Rotations of the geometry.

Even with the wider opening facing toward the audience, the sound loss on the back end is very significant. Furthermore, the reflections are not propogating deep enough .

Computational acousic analysis with selected geometries

Design 5

physical model The physical scaled model was very small in size in comparison to the smartphone. This, leaving room for more exploration of this particular design on a larger scale. The geometry was taken into rhino, scaled up to fit the phone inside and tested with Pachyderm.

lighting test It is evident from the photos (left) that there are some slight reflections which could be amplified if the scale was larger. The reflections from the phone light are catching at the roof peak of the model and laterally on the two side points. Furthermore, the length of the model (right) looks to be too long to actually have much of an effect.

3d modelling / pachyderm analysis Once the model was resized in Rhino, the results were interesting as there were some long reflections occuring toward the audience zone. This is what lead to further iterations of this form.

Interestingly, minor changes to the geometry including widening of the opening in front of the audience, opening in the roof plane and height differentiations resulted in drastic changes in sound propgation.

Analysis with models

reflections Out of the six models, it was predicted that this form would not perform well enough to explore further. It was the most suprising in performance of the selected geometries and presented quite dramatic results from this initial form to iteration 2.12.

Ray tracing analysis Time: 0.005 m/s increments Sound sources: x4 Observations: The height of the geometry corresponds with the length of time between direct sound and reflection.

Here are two versions of the same geometry, one with a shorter height 5m and one taller at 8m (next page).

The ridges laterally and at the top seem to be performing well due to the peaks collecting sound. The wideness of the form corresponds with the amount of surface area projection into the audience.

Design 5

Lastly, the reverberation time in this model is longer compared to others.

Time: 0.005 m/s increments Sound sources: x4 Observations: Adjustments of the geometry in width to allow for a wider spread toward audience. Looks as though there are more early reflections in this model.

Iteration 5.1

7000

2000

3000 3327.26

4500

5000

9000

7000 6490.81

2000

6000

spl {0;0}

97.047

standard deviation

5.391647

Increased roof height from previous testing.

Closed backing for reduction of sound loss.

Taller hemisphere backing. The sound distribution is even, however would not satisfy the whole receiver area as the sound is focussing.

Iteration 5.2

4000

10000

4000 5000

14000

5000

4500

70

102.431

standard deviation

4.300

00

spl {0;0}

Further increasing to roof height.

Open backing for reduction of sound loss.

Shorter hemisphere backing.

Wider front opening .

Iteration 5.3

5000

3500

8000

10500

4000

1500

5000

standard deviation

4.258

00

103.528

70

spl {0;0}

Same roof height.

Closed backing for reduction of sound loss.

Shorter hemisphere backing.

Wider front opening to left side extending past audience area.

4500

Iteration 5.4

5000

4000

10000

4000

14000

5000

4500

70 00

spl {0;0}

102.266

standard deviation

4.121

Further increasing to roof height.

Closed backing for reduction of sound loss.

Shorter hemisphere backing.

Wider front opening extending past audience area on both sides equally .

35003500

6000

70

spl {0;0}

103.193

standard deviation

4.275

3000 44.24

4000 61.85

45004500

35003500

70

5500

8000

8000 8000.23

35003500

55005500

12500 12500

45004500

Iteration 5.5

00 00

Slight reduction in roof height.

Addition of opening to roof.

Closed backing for reduction of sound loss.

Short hemisphere backing.

Wider front opening extending past audience area.

This iteration performs well in providing a uniform distribution.

Iteration 5.6 6000 5500 3500

500 1500

spl {0;0}

103.250

standard deviation

4.379

2000

8000

3500

4500

5500

7000

5500

1000 2500

Same roof height.

Further addition of openings to roof (x3) Closed backing for reduction of sound loss.

Short hemisphere backing.

Wide front opening extending past audience area.

2500

3500

3500

8000

12000

3500

2500

1000

2500

1000

Iteration 5.7

10000 8000

2000

2000

2000

spl {0;0}

102.826

standard deviation

4.257

Same roof height.

Roof openings pulled outward toward audience to create overhead undulating profile. Extended roof peak.

Closed backing for reduction of sound loss.

Short hemisphere backing.

Wide front opening extending past audience area.

Ray tracing rays of reflection into audience plane. No reflections received toward back.

2000

3000

2000

3500

4000

7000

2000

8000

8000

5000

12000

2000

2000

3500

6000

Computational acousic analysis with selected geometries

Design 1

physical model The physical model worked well with bass volume however failed to perform in clarity of the melody in all songs. The analysis could show the sound getting absorbed by the far back ridges and potentially a lack of reverberation.

lighting test With one light source, the lighting test shows that the back bottom area of the shell does not reflect any sound. The most dramatic reflections seem to be occring at the roof level.

Laterally, the ridges are not performing in the same capacity as the roof area. However, this could be due to the singular sound source within. s

3d modelling / pachyderm analysis This geometry was harder to model in Rhino. With the acoustic simulation, the results were surprising as the SPL value graph showed the distribution was fairly even.

Analysis with models

reflections This design could potentially perform well, combined with some of the other design features of other models.

Height of the peaks could play a roll in projection with some overhang into the audience and widening of the opening.

Ray tracing analysis Time: 0.005 m/s increments Sound sources: x4 Observations: Initial assumptions were that this geometry would perform quite well in reflecting the sound due to the multiple folded surfaces of the shell.

However, the sound did not propogate as expected. This could be due to the symmetry of the form, particularly in plan view or sound diffusion.

The acoustic analysis showed a similar behaviour of sound distribution as presented in initial foil lighting test.

Design 1

It also seems that there are significantly less later reflections and reverberation compared to the previous geometry.

Iteration 1.1 6000

1000

500

4000

4000

4000 1500

1000

1000

MIHH spl {0;0}

101.413

standard deviation

4.912

Same roof height.

Multiple ridged surfaces Closed backing for reduction of sound loss.

Short hemisphere backing.

Opening not as wid. However, sound distribution is even but focussed.

Iteration 1.2 Same specifications as above, with sound source moved back -1000mm.

This proves that the location of the sound source is very important in how the direct sound is projected into the audience.

The coverage of sound looks to be evenly distributed, however not deeply spread.

7IHH

spl {0;0}

97.047

standard deviation

5.391647

3000 1500

1500

1000

2000

1000

8000

1000

1000

1000

1000

Computational acousic analysis with selected geometries

Design 1.1

physical model The physical model has no vertical walls or flat surfaced backing. In the listening tests, this model performed well with amplifying the bass.

lighting test The lighting test revealed some noticable reflections, particularly laterally due to the geometrys widening form outward. For further exploration, the geometry was flipped and rotated and presented further results which were unexpected. The height difference shows the dramatic reflection outward with just one light source which would imply it would do the same with the sound sources in further exploration.

3d modelling / pachyderm analysis In analysis of this geometry, the shell was rotated twice to conduct analysis based on the findings of the lighting test. These tests proved that dramatic height increases in the shell will inform depth of reflections into the audience.

reflections

Analysis with models

This seems to be a successful model in the SPL tests and ray tracing analysis. Depending on the rotation of the geometry the sound looks to be evenly spread and well distributed into the audience surface.

Ray tracing analysis

Time: 0.005 m/s increments Sound sources: x4 Observations: As expected there is some slight sound loss due to the geometry lacking full lateral enclosure.

However, this does not show that the shell is performing very poorly. The form is indicating that depending on the angle of which is the placed in plan, when observing the geometry in the lighting test, there is less sound loss/lack of reflection in the back as there is only one corner. The less folds mean less corners and more surface area for the sound to propogate and reflect.

The acoustic analysis showed a similar behaviour of sound distribution as presented in initial foil lighting test. However, there looks to be some lateral sound loss in the simulation right.

Design 1.1

Decent scattered reverberation towawrd back of audience.

Rotation of geometry to allow for a wider opening into the audience.

Iteration 1.1.1 14000

11000

6000

7000

2500

4000

5000

5000

1500

1000

1000

1000

3000

Sound loss in some area of the geometry due to partial covering. This is evident in the graph.

spl {0;0}

102.990

standard deviation

5.239

Iteration 1.1.2 13000 8000

5000 5000

2500

6000

5000

8000

8000

2500

2000

5000

spl {0;0}

101.298

standard deviation

4.736

Less even distribution of sound, the sound analysis reflects the overhead geometry. This high overhead covering could work well in future exploration with a more symmetrical curve to create a well balanced reflection into the audience.

5000 2500

2500

102.810

standard deviation

4.398

3500

5000

10000

spl {0;0}

This iteration was the most successful in terms of direct sound distribution accross the width of the whole audience. There is also an even reverberation and overall highest coverage of the audience area. The wideness of the opening and placement of sound source is imperative.

4000

5000

14000

1500

1000

4000

Iteration 1.1.3

Design 3 Time: 0.005 m/s increments Sound sources: x4 Observations: Initial refl When observing the geometry in the lighting test, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s evident that there is a projection outward. Depth could be an issue with the form of the backing panel leading downward into a corner.

Direct sounds and early reflections seem to hit an acceptable amount of the front audience area and rays seem to be hitting to about half way.

Design 3

Not much reverberation occuring in this model.

Iteration 3.1

8000

12000 5000

7000

8000

5000

1000

1000

10000

102.298

standard deviation

4.6

1000

10000

1000

1000

spl {0;0}

Curved roof peak to geometry with fairly even sound distribution to audience. Direct sound seems prominent. The width of the opening is not wide enough to provide direct sound to bottom left area of audience.

Iteration 3.2

6000 1500

8000 7000

8000

7000

10000

1000

1000

5500

1000

spl {0;0}

102.559

standard deviation

4.593

The asymmetry of the overhead covering is reflecting back into the audience causing a less â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;shapeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of distribution. However, the sound is still being carried toward the back successfully.

There looks to be a lot of reverberation and less sound focussing than other geometries.

10000 12000

1000

SUMMARY

1

AMPLIFICATION

2

SOFTNESS

3

DESIRED RESULT

VOCAL AND MELODIC CLARITY

BASS AMPLIFICATION AND PROJECTION

ECHO

CLARITY

FOCUS ON QUANDRANT 2-3 OF AMPLIFICATION AND CLARITY OF MUSIC.

effect and echo reflection amplification 4

omni-direction focusing

Successful iterations

Models of successful iterations

1

2

3

4

Reflection of successful iterations & final listening test All three songs were re-listened to in the ‘final’ geometric iterations and summarised.

1

2

-Clarity and articulation in vocals, however not overly projected or amplified. Works well with opera vocals and instrumental -Elimination of any ‘muffled vibration’ present in the bass creating a bright beat and accompaniment -Due to no muffle and echo, there is a distinction in instruments where they can be understood clearly without getting lost within another overpowering instrument -Overall, the music sounded balanced with a articulate and warm texture which sounds intimate and pleasant to the ear

Successful iterations

3

-There is a noticable amplification and body to the music which is distinct -Vocals are again prominent and elevated with the treble standing out vividly -Opera vocals and symphony seem to project well without blending and sounding like muffled vibrations -No lagging bass vibrations with upbeat songs leaving for quite a smooth bass -Both bass and treble are coherent and illuminating working together to create a balance -Warm intimacy to the music which stems from the clarity and balance of both bass and treble

4

-Clear and distinct melody -Previous ‘muffled vibrations’ are less prominent and sound dim compared to other iterations -Texture of the instruments such as the guitar are strongly articulated and sharp -Vocals are clear however, not as clear as (right). One downfall of this is the ‘tinny’ quality that comes when opera style vocals are performed. This creates a blended gesture to the sound which is noticable.

-Strongly differentiates instruments individually

-Melody is very clear -Slight ‘muffled’ vibration occuring with elongated notes particularly with hi hat instruments -The orchestral balance and blend sounds like a ‘muffled vibration’. The reverberance is open, however there is still a strngth to the underlying beats -Prominent beat and distinction which creates a fullness -Works well presenting a strong clarity and vocal projection, particularly for a solo vocalist. Proximity of vocals also sounds intimate and bright -This form works excellently with treble projection. Bass is lively, however further exploration into prevention of ‘muffle’ for bass instruments is to be had.

Personal reflection Through this assignment I have slowly began to understand the basics of acoustic analysis and a general understanding of geometries which produce certain types of acoustic behaviours. From the initial model music testing, I was able to learn to observe certain aspects of the music and think critically with the data and understand how the song will perform in this acoustic shell in an outdoor environment.

For understanding the general basis of acoustics, it took some time to really solidify the concepts. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m still learning to understand exactly the meaning of sound pressure levels and distribution and relating it to a specific area of the geometry.

As these elements are effected by the geometry directly, I have realised that one singluar form can be morphed into an enormous list of iterations. This process is long, however even observing micro changes shows the way in which sound can be easily manipulated based on its provided shell. Furthermore, the sound itself once trialled in any given geometry creates a unique result which can be interpreted differently depending on the circumstance in which the music is to be played. For example factors such as how large is audience is, width of the shell opening, height of the shell, angular roof and surface panels for reflecting the sound can be dictated by the geometry.

Moving forward, I wish to gain a more solidified understanding of what the designs are doing to dictate the sound. For example, pin pointing the effect of sound pressure levels to a certain aspect of the design and then developing it. I wish to explore melodic and vocal clarity and bass amplification as an acoustic base point. In relation to music listening, I hope to deepen my observation skills in linking the music analysis (eg. clarity, echo, amplification, reverberation etc.) back to the geometry. I feel that I have some more observation and learning of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;finalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; designs to do to solidify this. However, based on the findings, I feel that I have a well rounded idea about the forms that will inform my future design to produce the desired outcome.

Height, width and depth all have an effect on the sound projection. From my findings, I have come to realise height has made a dramatic difference in reflecting sound. Aspects such as openings have also proven to have some great effect on the sound propogation. I wish to explore this further by understanding why it does not produce direct sound loss and still propogates outward.