Confusion can result because the two best-known statistical-acoustics models of energy decay in coupled rooms give variant predictions, despite being derived from identical base assumptions. It is shown here that the model given by Cremer and Müller is formally identical to the model given by Kuttruff and that differences between the models arise only if Cremer and Müller's approximate solution method is followed. An exact formulation of Cremer and Müller's model is given explicitly and its predictions are shown to agree with those of Kuttruff's model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DavisA. H. (1925) Reverberation equations for two adjacent rooms connected by an incompletely sound-proof partition. Phil. Mag.Vol. 50, pp. 75–80.
2.
CremerL., and MüllerH. A. (1982) Principles and Applications of Room Acoustics, vol. 1, trans. SchultzT. J., Applied Science Publishers, New York, pp. 261–283.
3.
KuttruffH. (2000) Room Acoustics, 4th Ed., Spon Press, New York, pp. 142–145.
4.
BoyceW. E., and DiPrimaR. C. (1997) Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems, 6th Ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, Chap. 7, pp. 335–413.
5.
SummersJ. E.TorresR. R., and ShimizuY. (2004) Statistical-acoustics models of energy decay in systems of coupled rooms and their relation to geometrical acoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.Vol. 116, pp. 958–969.
6.
SummersJ. E. (2003) Reverberant acoustic energy in auditoria that comprise systems of coupled rooms. Ph.D. Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, Department of Engineering Science. (Electronic copies may be obtained from the author.)
7.
SummersJ. E.TorresR. R., and ShimizuY. (2004) Estimating midfrequency effects of aperture diffraction on reverberant-energy decay in coupled-room auditoria. Building Acoust.Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 271–291.
