See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233688510

A Tutorial on Scattering and Diffusion Coefficients for Room

Acoustic Surfaces

Article  in  Acta Acustica united with Acustica · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

91 11,336

7 authors, including:

Trevor John Cox Peter D'Antonio

University of Salford Chesapeake Acoustic Research Institute LLC
212 PUBLICATIONS   2,979 CITATIONS    158 PUBLICATIONS   2,155 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jean Jacques Embrechts Jin Yong Jeon

University of Liège Hanyang University
83 PUBLICATIONS   789 CITATIONS    355 PUBLICATIONS   3,723 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

How head-related transfer functions and ear canal impedances grow | HRTFs and ear canal impedances of children View project

Volumetric diffusers: a new paradigm for acoustic treatment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Trevor John Cox on 17 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH
Vol. 92 (2006) 1 – 15
ACUSTICA Review Article

A Tutorial on Scattering and Diffusion Coefficients

for Room Acoustic Surfaces

T. J. Cox1 , B.-I. L. Dalenback2 , P. D’Antonio3 , J. J. Embrechts4 , J. Y. Jeon5 , E. Mommertz6 ,

M. Vorländer7
1
: Acoustics Research Centre, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, UK
2
: CATT, Mariagatan 16A, SE-41471 Gothenburg, Sweden
3
: RPG Diffusor Systems, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774, USA
4
: Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Liege B28, B–4000 Liege, Belgium
5
: Hanyang University, School of Architectural Engineering, Seoul 133791, South Korea
6
: Mueller-BBM, 82152 Planegg, Germany
7
: Institute of Technical Acoustics, Technical University Aachen, 52056 Aachen, Germany

Summary
There is a need to be able to quantify how sound is reflected from a surface, in terms of how it is spatially
dispersed. In recent years, diffusion and scattering coefficients have been developed to enable room acoustic
prediction models to be more accurate, and designers to evaluate the worth of diffusing surfaces. Two coefficients
have been, or are about to be, enshrined in standards. With two coefficients being standardised, there is great
potential for confusion. This paper is intended to bring together authors from different areas to explain where the
coefficients should and should not be applied. In addition, this tutorial paper will revisit the rationale behind the
coefficients and contrast the coefficient definitions and performance.
PACS no. 43.55.-n, 43.55.Ka, 43.55.Mc, 43.20.Ei, 43.20.Fn

1. Introduction Diffuse field methods have the advantage of quickly ob-

In recent years, coefficients have been developed to char-
acterise the scattering or diffuse reflections caused by sur-
faces in rooms. These coefficients have been developed to
meet the needs of geometric room acoustic modellers, dif-
fuser manufacturers and room designers. Unfortunately,
there does not appear to be one ideal coefficient which
meets the needs of all interest groups, and there are no dif-
fusion or scattering coefficients currently in the literature
that do not have flaws in application. While on first exam-
ination it appears possible to produce a watertight defini-
tion of a coefficient, detailed analysis reveals problems. In-
deed, two different coefficient definitions are, or are about
to be, enshrined in international standards. While this may
appear unsatisfactory, it should be remembered that room
acoustics has used an absorption coefficient for a century
which has well defined limitations in application. For ex-
ample, there are two primary techniques for measuring ab-
sorption - the impedance tube and reverberation chamber
methods - and each measurement method has advantages
and disadvantages and is used for different reasons. In an
analogous manner, the methods for characterising diffuse
reflections can be classified either as free or diffuse field.
Received 12 July 2004, revised 21 june 2005,
accepted 18 July 2005.
taining a random incidence coefficient, but are difficult to
predict. A measurement method for obtaining a random in-
cidence scattering coefficient has been standardised by the
ISO [1] based on the Mommertz and Vorländer technique
[2, 3]. Free field methods are often more laborious mea-
surements to carry out, but can be readily predicted and
are used to characterize the uniformity of scattering. A free
field method for a diffusion coefficient, based on the Cox
and D’Antonio technique, has recently been published in
an Audio Engineering Society standard information doc-
ument AES-4id-2001[4]. This methodology is now being
considered by an ISO working group.
With two coefficients being standardised, there is great
potential for confusion. The intention of this paper is to
bring together different interest groups to explain where
the coefficients should and should not be applied. In ad-
dition, this tutorial paper will recap the rationale behind
the coefficients and contrast the coefficient definitions and
performance using new and old measurements and predic-
tions.
The terms scattering and diffuse reflection are used in
different ways and are interchanged in different subject
fields. (Often diffuse reflection is termed diffusion, which
can then be confused with volume diffusion.) Conse-
quently, to reduce misunderstanding, this paper will adopt
the nomenclature that has been used in the standards. A

c S. Hirzel Verlag · EAA 1
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
scattering coefficient is a measure of the amount of sound
scattered away from the specular reflection direction. A
diffusion coefficient measures the quality (in terms of spa-
tial uniformity) of reflections produced by a surface; in
the case of the AES coefficient by measuring the similar-
ity between the scattered polar distribution and a uniform
distribution.
2. The need for coefficients
2.1. Geometric room acoustic models
Originally, geometric room acoustic models did not in-
clude the effects of scattering generated by edges and sur-
face roughness. In recent decades, however, considerable
evidence has been produced to show that incorporating
scattering into these models enhances prediction accuracy,
and in many cases is an essential ingredient in an accu-
rate model. For instance, it has been shown that without
surface scattering, these room models tend to over predict
reverberation time [5, 6, 7, 8]. This is especially true in
spaces where absorption is unevenly distributed, as hap-
pens in many concert halls, or where rooms are highly dis-
proportionate, as happens in many factories. Moreover, for
acoustic parameters that are highly dependent on early re-
flection prediction accuracy, such as early lateral energy
fraction and clarity, there can be great sensitivity to the
diffuse modelling technique and correct scattering coeffi-
cients [9]. In the first round robin study of room acoustic
models [8], three models were found to perform signif-
icantly better than others. These three models produced
results approximately within one subjective difference li-
men, while the less successful models produced predic-
tions inaccurate by many difference limen. What differen-
tiated the three best models from the others was the in-
clusion of a method to model surface scattering. Including
frequency dependent diffuse reflection is one of the neces-
sary conditions for good prediction accuracy in geometric
room models.
There are many different methods for incorporating dif-
fuse reflections into geometric room models [10]. This
process is inevitably approximate, because the room mod-
els can not explicitly represent the wave nature of sound.
The room models use a scattering coefficient to determine
the proportion of the reflected energy that is specularly re-
flected, and the proportion that is scattered. (In the com-
puter models these are often referred to as diffusion coef-
ficients, although some programs have already made the
change in nomenclature to scattering coefficient. The term
scattering coefficient is used here to be consistent with
other sections of the paper.) Problems arise because un-
til recently there has not been a procedure for determining
the values of the scattering coefficients for room models,
except by trial and error and through precedence. Conse-
quently, a key driving force behind the ISO process was to
standardise a method to enable random incidence scatter-
ing coefficients to be determined in a rigorous manner.
The scattered energy in a geometric model is usually
assumed to be distributed according to Lambert’s cosine
2
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
law [11], where the diffused energy is proportional to the
cosine of the angle of reflection. Lambert’s law is used be-
cause it fits with the philosophy of the geometric models
which are based on high frequency modelling techniques.
As shall be discussed below, diffusion coefficients used by
diffuser designers are based on uniform energy distribu-
tion, where the reflected energy is uniform in all directions.
Uniform energy distribution is possible because the re-
flected sound from surfaces display coherent interference
effects at the most important acoustic frequencies, indeed
this coherence is explicitly exploited in many diffuser de-
signs.
2.2. Diffuser manufacturer and application
The development of the modern diffuser can be traced
back to the 1970s and Schroeder’s revolutionary designs
that try to achieve diffuse reflection [12]. Before Schroeder
diffusers, there was very little or no information on how to
create defined acoustic scattering. With the introduction
of surfaces like the Quadratic Residue Diffuser (QRD),
for the first time a measure of complete diffuse reflec-
tion was given. In this case, complete diffuse reflection
is when the level of the grating lobes produced by peri-
odic phase gratings all have the same energy. Schroeder
diffusers have since been used in a wide variety of spaces
[13, 14] and a few examples are given as follows. The in-
vention of Schroeder diffusers coincided with the develop-
ment of small room design concepts, involving temporal
reflection free and diffuse zones [15, 16]. Temporal reflec-
tion free zones around the listening position are created by
absorbing or diffusing the first order reflections. Diffusers
are used on the rear wall to provide uniform, enveloping
diffuse reflections, creating passive surround sound. The
use of diffusers can reduce coloration effects due to strong
early reflections that naturally occur in small rooms. For
this reason, there is widespread use of Schroeder diffusers
in small critical listening environments. Other popular ap-
plications for diffusers include the rear walls of large au-
ditoria to prevent echoes, and around stage areas to reduce
coloration due to early arriving reflections and so aid en-
semble and the ability of musicians to produce a good
tone. However, some so-called diffusers do not actually
diffuse in the way the designers intended, due to poor de-
sign [17]. The recent proliferation of diffusers appears to
be a reaction to the dominant mid- late twentieth century
architectural forms. Large flat surfaces became common
place and these generate strong specular reflections. Some-
times this can cause problems of coloration and echoes,
which can be corrected by absorbers or diffusers. There is
a need for contemporary scattering surfaces that comple-
ment contemporary architecture in the way the statuary,
coffered ceilings and relief ornamentation complemented
classic architecture.
Since the 1970s, many other types of diffusers have been
produced, and to enable the merits of these designs to be
evaluated, it is necessary to have a measure of the qual-
ity of the diffuse reflections. The idea of measuring the
evenness of grating lobes, which came from Schroeder’s
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
incident (1-a)(1-s)
1 scattered
(1-a)s
specularly
reflected
energy
rough surface
Figure 1. Illustration of the separation of reflected energy into
scattered and specular components (After Vorländer and Mom-
mertz [3]).
original work, is not a sustainable criterion because sur-
faces do not have to be periodic and so did not neces-
sarily have grating lobes. A new paradigm based on uni-
form scattering in all directions or in specific desired direc-
tions is needed. Consequently, new definitions to measure
the diffuseness of reflections have been developed. This
has culminated in the publication of the Audio Engineer-
ing Society standard information document AES-4id-2001
[4], which gives measurement and calculation procedures
for a diffusion coefficient. For a diffusion coefficient to be
useful to designers, the primary characteristic of the coef-
ficient is that it must rank diffusers correctly according to
quality. This will not necessarily be achieved by the scat-
tering coefficient, as discussed below, and this is why a
separate coefficient has been developed for quality.
Current state of the art in diffuser design is numerical
optimisation [18, 19]. This is an iterative design process: a
starting surface topography is generated, the scattered po-
lar response for the surface predicted, the quality of the
polar response evaluated in a single figure of merit, then
the surface topography is altered to improve the figure of
merit. This loop is repeated until a maximum in the figure
of merit is found. A key element of this design process is
the figure of merit, and for this the diffusion coefficient is
used. Using diffusion coefficients in optimisation has en-
abled designs to move away from the rigid geometric con-
structs imposed by phase grating diffusers. This has en-
abled designs where both acoustic and visual requirements
can be considered and their conflicting requirements re-
solved. It is now possible to make diffusers which blend in
with architectural forms rather than appearing as add-ons;
this is important for diffusers to be acceptable to archi-
tects. Optimized surface shapes can be fully reflective or
partially absorbing as desired.
When a designer requires absorbing surfaces in a space,
a performance specification in terms of the absorption co-
efficient will be used to ensure quality and compliance
with design requirements. One of the aims of research into
diffusion coefficients was to facilitate the use of defined
scattering ability in performance specifications; this can
now be done by specifying diffusions coefficients mea-
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
sured or predicted according to AES-4id-2001. Without
standardisation, the industry is vulnerable to published
performance data, which have no basis in fact and diffusers
that do not perform as intended. The evaluation criteria
developed do not just have to be applied to especially de-
signed surfaces, they can also be used to monitor the dif-
fusion by “accidental” diffusers. It appears that diffusing
surfaces are often applied in a haphazard fashion because
there is an incomplete understanding of when and where to
apply diffusers. For instance, discussions with consultants
will produce examples where it is claimed that too much or
too little surface diffusion resulted in acoustic aberrations.
A priory to developing a better understanding of where
diffusers are needed, is an index to measure their quality.
3. Scattering coefficient
3.1. Intentions and applications of scattering coeffi-
cients
Some sound phenomena can be sufficiently described in
terms of energy or particle radiation as well as a more com-
plex wave approach. This kind of dualism is not only use-
ful to the fields of light propagation or particle physics, but
to sound, too. Typically energy or particle models are used
when broadband, short wavelength sound is considered.
For broadband sound problems and impulse responses, the
coherence length of a pulse must be taken into account.
A reflection as a component of room impulse response is
rather short. In these cases, the scattered field cannot be
easily calculated by coherent techniques like Fourier syn-
thesis or similar techniques. Accordingly interpretation of
the polar distribution of the scattered sound is not neces-
sarily useful, since the details of the distribution, the lobes
and nulls, are spatially smeared with incoherent excita-
tion. Instead, an adequate quantity for describing broad-
band scattering on rough surfaces is a scattering coeffi-
cient.
The scattering coefficient is defined as the ratio of the
non-specularly reflected sound energy to the totally re-
flected energy as shown in Figure 1. Although it is just
a rough single number, the coefficient is well adapted
for use in geometric room prediction methods involving
high frequency modelling and scattered energy following
some probability function. The coefficient is used to de-
cide whether a reflection is diffuse or specular in a room
model. The diffuse reflection’s spatial distribution may
then be Lambert’s law, or any other distribution depend-
ing on the energy balance between specular and scattered
parts and on the angle of incidence [20]. In this sense,
the scattering coefficient has the same importance as the
absorption coefficient. Like the absorption coefficient, the
scattering coefficient varies with frequency and so is given
in one-third octave or octave frequency bands.
3.2. Scope
Although wavelengths are not physically consistent with
the incoherent energy approach, frequency dependent en-
ergy absorption and energy scattering models can predict
3
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
h αspec − α
a 1−α
f << c/2a f » c/2a f >> c/2a
or and and
f << c/2h f » c/2h f >> c/2h
Figure 2. Frequency ranges for scattering from a periodic surface
of repeat distance a, and roughness depth h.
various phenomena of sound fields in rooms. Measure-
ments of incident and absorbed intensity with broadband
signals can yield information about spatial and frequency
averages. These averages are often sufficient in the pre-
diction of noise levels, reverberation times or other single
numbers related to octave or one-third octave bands. This
is, again, the typical large room assumption which is the
basis for classical room acoustics.
The scattering coefficient generally depends on the fre-
quency and angle of sound incidence. Similar to the ran-
dom incidence absorption coefficient obtained in rever-
beration rooms, an angular average of the scattering co-
efficient, i.e. the random incidence scattering coefficient,
can be defined as well. While in models of classical room
acoustics the room dimensions must be large compared
with average wavelengths, the surface roughness must be
smaller than the average wavelengths for the scattering
models, see Figure 2. Both period width and roughness
height must be considered.
In the light of the arguments above, broadband sound
and incoherence, and the fact that room models wish to
separate out specular and diffuse components, the more
appropriate quantity to be used in simulation software is
the random incidence scattering coefficient rather than the
uniformity diffusion coefficient. Then it also follows that
Lambert’s law, as statistical limit of many reflections, is a
reasonable approach [21], remembering that ray tracing is
best with a large numbers of reflections and the late part
of impulse responses, rather than the early reflections with
specific angular dependent behaviour.
3.3. Rationale
The energies of reflections (normalised with respect to a
reflection from a rigid reference plane) in Figure 1 are ex-
pressed in terms of:
Espec = (1 − α)(1 − s) ≡ 1 − αspec ,
Etotal = (1 − α), (1)
where s is the scattering coefficient, α is the absorption
coefficient, Espec the energy specularly reflected and Etotal
the total reflected energy. The coefficient αspec is the “spec-
ular absorption coefficient”. This is an apparent absorption
4
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
coefficient because the energy maybe scattered away from
the specular reflection direction, rather than just being con-
verted into non-acoustical energy. From these equations
the scattering coefficient s can be determined by:
s= . (2)
The “specular absorption coefficient” directly corresponds
to the absorption coefficient if s = 0.
From the general definition in equation (2), several
methods can be used to evaluate the scattering coeffi-
cient. All these methods differ in the way they separate
the “specular” and the “diffuse” energy. These include:
1. The random incidence scattering coefficient measured
in the reverberation chamber [2, 3] by phase-locked av-
eraging of many room impulse responses as the surface
is moved by rotation. This is the “ISO” method [1] and
is given the symbol s.
2. The free-field scattering coefficient obtained by phase-
locked averaging of several free-field responses as the
surface is moved (e.g. rotated). Two approaches have
been suggested, one where the averaging is in the spec-
ular reflection direction only [2, 3], and another where
the averaging is done for receivers over a complete
hemisphere [22]. Both can produce a free-field scatter-
ing coefficient at specific angles of incidence, which
can be integrated using Paris’ formula to estimate a
random incidence value.
3. The free-field correlation scattering coefficient ob-
tained from the free-field polar distribution [23]. This
is obtained by comparing the polar response from the
test surface with that for a reference flat surface. This
can produce a free-field scattering coefficient at a spe-
cific angle of incidence, δc (θ), and this can be inte-
grated using Paris’ formula to estimate a random inci-
dence value.
It is also possible to take more pragmatic approaches to
fit measured polar response data to the output of computer
models of reflection [24, 25] and therefore bypass the need
for separating out the specular and diffuse energy during
measurement. But these methods (mostly) give values that
depend on the room model chosen to process the measure-
ments, and so are not useful for standardization.
The measurement of scattering coefficients using phase-
locked averaging is easiest to explain in the free-field. The
specular absorption coefficient is found by rotating the test
sample while phase-lock averaging the reflected pulses.
Phase-locked averaging refers to the fact that the start of
the impulse responses must be correctly aligned to the
same point in time. Figure 3 shows three band pass fil-
tered pulses for different orientations of a corrugated sur-
face. The initial parts of the reflections are highly corre-
lated; this is the specular component of the reflection, and
remains as the sample is rotated. In contrast, the later parts
of the reflected pulses are not in phase and depend strongly
on the specific orientation; this is the diffuse component.
By averaging the reflected pulses while rotating the sam-
ple, the diffuse components are averaged to zero, and only
the specular energy remains.
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
Pressure
Time
Figure 3. Band limited reflected pulses for different sample ori-
entations (After Vorländer and Mommertz [3]).
Table I. Measurement conditions for the reverberation time mea-
surement.
Reverberation time Test sample Turntable
T1 not present not rotating
T2 present not rotating
T3 not present rotating
T4 present rotating
Following procedures similar to those described in ISO
354 [26], the absorption coefficients α and αspec can be de-
termined by measuring four reverberation times as shown
in Table I. The necessary formulations are given in [1]. Fi-
nally, the random-incidence scattering coefficient s is cal-
culated according to equation (2). The crucial difference
between the standard test method of absorption and the
test method for random incidence scattering is that addi-
tional reverberation times are to measured, one while the
empty turntable is rotating (T3 ), and one while the sample
is turned (T4 ). Therefore a circular sample shape is the best
choice due to the invariance of the edge diffraction against
turning. Provided the surface is not so deep so that edge
diffraction is insignificant, only the contribution from the
surface corrugation causes decorrelation during rotation;
this is a measure of scattering due to roughness, not due to
edge diffraction.
3.4. Advantages
A main advantage of the method is that the scattering co-
efficient has a clear physical meaning. Its definition and
measurement using the ISO random incidence method is
closely related to the definition and measurement of the
absorption coefficient according to ISO 354. At model
scale, even the time for the measurement itself is com-
parable to the time required for the measurement of ab-
sorption coefficient. However, more recent studies [27, 28]
have shown that it is difficult to obtain fast measurements
in full-sizes reverberation chambers, although, the method
still gathers a random incidence value in a shorter time
than a free field method could achieve. As already ex-
plained, the scattering coefficient may be used as input
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
Diffusion or scattering coefficient
Figure 4. Top: The polar response for a plane surface and the
plane surface tilted. : Reference plane surface; ——: Plane
surface tilted by 10◦ . Bottom: The diffusion and correlation scat-
tering coefficient spectra for surfaces. : Diffusion coefficient,
plane surface – – –: Diffusion coefficient, tilted plane surface
——: Correlation scattering coefficient, tilted plane surface (Af-
ter Cox and D’Antonio [14]).
data for computer models in order to improve the accuracy
of the results.
3.5. Difficulties and discussions
According to its definition, the scattering coefficient con-
tains only limited information about the spatial distribu-
tion of the reflected sound. Hence, it does not necessarily
differentiate between redirection and dispersion. For in-
stance, for a slightly tilted flat surface (see Figure 4) or
a concave focussing surface (see Figure 5), high values
for the correlation scattering coefficients can be obtained.
The correlation scattering coefficient interprets the redi-
rection or focussing of the sound as being scattering and
therefore gives a high coefficient value at high frequencies.
The diffusion coefficient gives similar values whatever the
surface orientation for the tilted surface, and interprets the
focussing surface as being worse than the plane surface.
This is an illustration of the diffusion coefficient being a
more strict measure of quality. The scattering coefficient
only depends on energy moved away from a particular
direction, and not on how this scattered energy is redis-
tributed. Although this may at first appear strange, it is
consistent with the definition of the scattering coefficient
as used in computer models. For example, if a saw-tooth
shaped surface as shown in Figure 2 is modelled in a room
model as a single plane surface, the use of a scattering co-
efficient considers that the sound at high and at mid fre-
quencies are not specularly reflected with respect to the
modelled surface. If it is desirable for the geometry of the
5
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
Scattering / diffusion coeff.
Figure 5. Top: Polar responses for a flat surface and a con-
cave sample. : Reference plane surface; ——: Concave sur-
face. Bottom: Diffusion and correlation scattering coefficients for
these samples. : Diffusion coefficient, plane surface, - - - - -:
Diffusion coefficient, concave surface; – – –: Correlation scatter-
ing coefficient, concave surface (After Cox and D’Antonio [14]).
surface be explicitly used to scatter sound energy, then it
would be necessary to model the surface in more detail for
higher frequency bands. Therefore, the scattering coeffi-
cients should not be used to interpret single surface items,
but should only be used for large surfaces with roughness.
A surface that does not diffuse uniformly but merely
redirects can be useful to prevent lock-in of sound between
walls etc., but they need to be used with great care to pre-
vent problems. For example, if used to reduce echo prob-
lems, they may just move the echo from one place in a
room to another.
The value obtained for the concave surface depends on
the measurement process used to gain the scattering coef-
ficient. Using the correlation scattering coefficient, which
derives the coefficient from a polar response, high scat-
tering coefficient values are obtained at high frequency
as shown in Figure 5. A concave surface centred on the
turntable using the ISO random incidence method will,
however, (by symmetry) lead to a scattering coefficient of
zero. There are therefore different conclusions, depending
on the method which is used to evaluate the scattering co-
efficient. Therefore, the methods for evaluating the scat-
tering coefficient should be regarded as different practical
ways of gaining the coefficient, defined by a theoretical
separation between specular and diffusely reflected energy.
In the case of a surface which is randomly rough, it might
be expected that the different measurement methods will
give similar results; for other surfaces, this will not neces-
sarily be true.
6
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
Figure 6. Random incidence ISO scattering coefficient for an
empty turntable (diameter 600 mm, size of the reverberation
room 1 m3 ).
Figure 7. The changes in the tails of two impulse responses due
to time variance.
The measurement principle of the ISO random in-
cidence method relies on the assumption that the de-
correlation during the rotation of the sample is only due
to the scattering properties of the surface. However, de-
correlation also occurs due to small temperature devia-
tions during the measurement period or when the base
plate of the turntable is not absolutely perpendicular or
axisymmetrical with respect to the axis of rotation. This
is a particular logistical problem for full-scale measure-
ments [27, 28]. The error generally increases with increas-
ing frequency and can be easily checked by a measurement
with an empty turntable, see Figure 6. According to the
ISO standard [1] a measurement with an empty rotating
turntable shall be considered within the evaluation process
to help compensate for this.
Recent work on full scale measurements [27, 28, 29]
have indicated that swept sine wave measurement may
work better at full scale than Maximum Length Sequence
(MLS) techniques because swept sine waves deal better
with time variance. Figure 7 shows parts of two impulse
responses measured at the same position in the room, with
a fixed turntable and diffuser, after opening and closing
the entrance door, as a function of the number of samples
(at 44.1 kHz) after the direct sound. These two impulse re-
sponse are phase-locked on the direct sound (not shown on
the figure). The delay between both impulse responses in-
creases with time (measured after the direct sound) and
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
this could be interpreted by a change in sound speed,
and therefore by temperature variation of about 0.01 ◦ C.
Small changes in temperature can induce significant ef-
fects which are interpreted by the method as decorrela-
tion, and therefore scattering. These effects are not only
observed when opening and closing the door of the rever-
beration room, but also (but to a lesser extent) when the
room is kept closed, probably due to unavoidable insta-
bility of the propagation medium. As measurement time
grows (which is inevitable in real-size rooms), these time
invariances are more likely to influence the scattering co-
efficient; the effect is most notable at high frequencies
[30, 31]. Air movements created by the rotation of the
turntable does not seem to create short-time effects, i.e.
immediate variations in the impulse responses and rever-
beration times. So, it seems that long-time instability of
the medium (possibly also influenced by air movements)
is the significant effect.
De Geetere and Vermeir [28] reported on the use of
MLS and sine sweep signals and indicated that the best
signal to noise ratios were obtained using sine sweeps. An
explanation has been proposed by Stan et al. [32]; the opti-
mum output signal in the MLS technique is limited by the
need to reduce nonlinearities introduced by the measure-
ment system (mainly in the loudspeaker). By construction,
the log-sine sweep method is less influenced by harmonic
distortion, and therefore can obtain better signal to noise
ratios [33].
Since the measurement method is intended to measure
surface roughness, the results are only reliable when the
structural depth of the sample is small compared to the
size of the specimen (approx. h ≤ d/16, where d is the
diameter of the turntable and h the structural depth; these
limits are based on the measurement findings from a num-
ber of authors). If variations of the structural depth along
the edges of the samples are too large, this may lead to
scattering coefficients which are significantly higher than
those of an extended surface. This edge effect may occa-
sionally cause measured scattering coefficients larger than
1 and limits the measurement method to surfaces which
scatter at mid and high, rather than at low frequencies.
Scattering coefficients greater than one are a problem in
room acoustics programs; in fact this is the same problem
generated by absorption coefficients greater than 1; these
values must be modified by the user of the program in or-
der to be accepted as valuable inputs. Alternatively, differ-
ent sample scales have to be used [29]. So far, it is not clear
if a border around the sample may improve the measure-
ment. While the ISO standard will contain the requirement
that a test specimen shall be circular to guarantee that edge
effects have no or only a small influence over the results,
more recent work has shown that sometimes, it is possible
to use non-circular samples as mentioned below.
To quantify the influence of the edges, hemispheres
were randomly placed on a circular and also on a square
area (directly on the base plate) and the ISO random in-
cidence scattering coefficients were measured [34]. One
additional measurement was also performed, now with
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
Scattering coefficient
Figure 8. Random incidence ISO scattering coefficients of hemi-
spheres on •: a circular area; 2: a square area; : and square plate
(1.6 cm high). (After Gomes et al. [34]).
a square plate (1.6 cm high) placed beneath the hemi-
spheres, so that four edges were “inserted” in the mea-
surement. The results are shown in Figure 8. There are
practically no differences between the ISO scattering co-
efficients measured from hemispheres spread over a circu-
lar or over a square area. However, the additional edges,
which were later inserted in the measurement when a
square plate was used, lead to excessively high values.
These results exemplify how inaccurate scattering coeffi-
cients can be, if they are measured from square samples
which contain edges.
In order to minimise this kind of edge effects it is pos-
sible to hide the edges. In this measurement method, sam-
ples which are symmetrical to the axis of rotation are ‘in-
visible’. Similarly, circular edges which are symmetrical
to the axis of rotation provide no or small influence over
the results. This can be approximated for square samples
by using a new base plate with a square recess within
which the sample is placed [29].
4. Diffusion coefficient
4.1. Rationale
The diffusion coefficient is intended to be a measure of
quality, as the primary goal in developing the coefficient
was to enable the worth of surfaces to be determined. The
concept is to measure the uniformity of the sound scat-
tered from the test surface in an analogous way to how one
might test the uniformity of radiation from loudspeakers.
To do this, the energy reflected from the surface is mea-
sured or predicted as a free field polar response, examples
of which can be seen in Figure 9 [35]. The diffusion coeffi-
cient is then a single number which gauges the uniformity
of the polar response. If the same energy is scattered in
all directions, then the diffusion coefficient is one; this is
termed complete diffusion. If all the energy is scattered in
one direction, then the diffusion coefficient is zero. The
diffusion coefficient is evaluated in one-third octave bands
and is frequency dependent.
7
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
Vol. 92 (2006)

Consequently, there are two key stages to determining

the coefficient, the determination of the polar responses of
the reflected energy, and the data reduction to a single fig-
ure. The data reduction from a polar response to a single
figure of merit has attracted most attention in the literature.
There have been various statistical operations suggested:
standard deviation [18, 19, 36, 37], directivity [38], spec-
ular zone, spherical harmonics [39] and autocorrelation
[40]. Of these, AES-4id-2001 has favoured the autocor-
relation diffusion coefficient as being the most robust and
useful measure – see reference [40] for a detailed justifica-
tion. For a fixed source position, the diffusion coefficient,
dψ , can be calculated from:

n 2 
2
10Li /10 − ni=1 10Li /10
i=1
dψ = 
2
(n − 1) ni=1 10Li /10

n 
Li /10 2
i=1 10
≈ 
2 , (3)
n ni=1 10Li /10

where Li are a set of sound pressure levels in decibels, n

is the number of receivers and ψ is the angle of incidence.
This equation is only valid when each receiver position
samples the same solid reflection angle; AES-4id-2001 in-
cludes formulations for dealing with other cases.
The polar responses are obtained either by measure-
ment, say by MLS, or by prediction, say by Boundary El-
ement Methods (BEMs). AES-4id-2001 sets out the de-
tailed requirements such as the source and receiver posi-
tions and these will not be repeated here. Measurements
will usually carried out at a model scale, say 1:5, to enable
the source and receiver positions to be small enough to fit
in typical test rooms. The use of MLS enables the reflected
sound to be isolated from the incident sound by time gat-
ing [40, 41] and from a set of gated impulse responses the
scattered polar response is obtained. Figure 9. Top: A 3D polar response measured from a diffuser
The diffusion coefficient is intended to be evaluated ei- shown in the middle of the figure (After Cox and D’Antonio
ther in a single plane or over a hemisphere. Diffusers gen- [14]). Bottom: Polar responses for two single plane surfaces:
erally break down into two categories; (i) single plane ——: An optimized curved surface, and : a semi-cylinder.
diffusers, also known as 1D diffusers, where the surface (After Cox and D’Antonio [35]).
is extruded in one direction and the scattering produced
is mainly in one plane, and (ii) hemispherical diffusers
where the surface produces scattering in two or more coefficients due to finite panel size effects. This is why the
planes. (An insert in Figure 16 shows examples of the two flat surface generates diffuse reflections and consequently
types). For single plane diffusers the polar responses are large diffusion coefficients at low frequencies.
measured over a semicircle, for a hemispherical diffuser The diffusion coefficient definition is not compatible
the responses are measured over a hemisphere. This con- with most (if not all) geometric room acoustic models.
trasts with the ISO random incidence scattering coefficient There is no reason why a room model could not be devel-
which only gives a single hemispherical estimation even oped to use the diffusion coefficient definition, but philo-
for single plane diffusers (anisotropic surfaces). sophically the models are closer to the scattering coeffi-
The diffusion coefficient evaluates all mechanisms as cient which measures the amount of energy scattered away
diffuse reflection; the effects of surface roughness and from the specular direction. The scattering coefficient def-
edge diffraction are combined. AES-4id-2001 states that inition is not that useful for diffuser designers because
a reference flat surface should also be measured for com- it is concerned with how much energy is removed from
parison. This enables the determination of the point at the specular direction and not how the scattered sound is
which surface roughness becomes significant to be seen, distributed; as shown before, redirected energy can be in-
Figure 5b for example. One of the consequences of this, is terpreted as dispersion by scattering coefficients. In room
that at low frequency flat surfaces produce large diffusion models, the scattered sound is usually distributed accord-

8
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
1
AES-4id minimum distance
Diffusion coefficient
0.75
0.5
Rectangular battens
0.25 Plane surface
0
0.1 1 10
Receiver arc radius (m)
Figure 10. The variation of the diffusion coefficient with receiver
distance for two surfaces. The minimum measurement radius for
this geometry given in AES-4id-2001 is marked (After Harg-
reaves et al. [40]).
ing to Lambert’s law rather than a uniform energy distribu-
tion, another incompatibility with the diffusion coefficient
definition. Lambert’s law is not used in diffuser design be-
cause it is possible to achieve even energy distribution, a
philosophy that can be traced back to Schroeder’s orig-
inal work on diffusers. Furthermore, Lambert’s law is a
high frequency, incoherent point scattering law, whereas
specialist diffusing surfaces deliberately exploit coherence
and interference to generate their diffuse reflections. Con-
sequently, Lambert’s law is inapplicable for evaluating dif-
fusers. Conversely, using the diffusion coefficients in geo-
metric room acoustic models is likely to produce incorrect
results.
4.2. Advantages
A key advantage of the diffusion coefficient formulation
is that evaluation can be carried out using prediction
models. The polar response scattering from diffusers can
be predicted accurately using techniques such as BEMs
[42, 43, 44] and so the diffusion coefficient can be pre-
dicted. This enables diffuser designs to be evaluated with-
out having to resort to the construction of prototypes and
time consuming measurements. In the last decade, a dif-
fusion coefficient has been used in diffuser design, for ex-
ample in optimisation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that
structures that have been developed using the diffusion co-
efficient are successful [13]. Consequently, a track record
of successful use of the diffusion coefficient in diffuser de-
sign and application is being built up.
4.3. Difficulties
A key difficulty with the diffusion coefficient is the near
field problem which hampers measurements of large sur-
faces. The diffusion coefficient is easiest to measure when
surfaces are small, consequently, it is often said that the
diffusion coefficient is for small surfaces with large rough-
ness. The problem with large surfaces arises because of
near field effects. To get results from equation (3) that
are invariant to source and receiver radii, the receiver and
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
source positions should be in the far field, otherwise the
sound pressure level measured includes near field aberra-
tions. This can be a problem with measurement, but is not
a problem with prediction, as receivers can be placed a
long distance away in that case. Figure 10 shows how the
diffusion coefficient varies with receiver distance from the
surface. The near field extends for a long distance from
the surface, particularly for oblique sources and receivers.
Furthermore, equation (3) is monitoring the uniformity of
100
energy polar responses, and close to large surfaces specu-
lar reflection effects dominate. If the receivers are too close
to the surface, they all receive similar energy from a flat
surface. Consequently, measurements must be made some
way from the surface so that a majority of receivers do not
receiver specular reflections. This then enables the energy
scattered away from specular directions to be evaluated.
Fortunately, it is not necessary to measure at distances
where the scattering energy follows the inverse square law
– the true far field – because that is a long way from the
surface. The process of getting the diffusion coefficient is
to first gain the polar response data, and then throw away
most of the information in data reduction. Consequently,
being overly exacting in gaining the polar response and
insisting on measurement in the true far field is not nec-
essary. Incidentally, for some surfaces it is not sufficient
just to measure in the far field. For concave surfaces, and
others that might have significant aberrations closer to the
surface, it is necessary to measure in the near field as well
as the far field to ensure that effects such as focussing are
monitored.
Further measurement problems arise for hemispherical
evaluation because the number of source and receiver posi-
tions to be measured becomes large if many angles of inci-
dence need be measured. For a single angle of incidence,
over a thousand receiver positions must be measured at
a resolution of 5◦ . This requires an automated measure-
ment system. To get random incidence values, assuming
a 10◦ incident angle resolution, an impractical 0.4 million
source-receiver pairs need to be measured. (The number of
measurement points can be reduced in many cases because
surfaces have planes of symmetry, but this would still lead
to an impractically large data set). Such detailed evalua-
tion, however, is rarely needed and so AES-4id-2001 sug-
gests a smaller number of incidence angles that can be
used if time is limited. There are two main reasons why
very detailed random incidence is not required. (i) Acous-
tics is governed by reciprocity, by measuring a large num-
ber of source-receiver pairs there is a large amount of du-
plication. (ii) Diffusers are usually applied to treat first or-
der reflection issues, and consequently the first order an-
gles of incidence are the most important to measure and
other angles of incidence are of secondary importance.
Single plane measurements and predictions do not suffer
from this problem, and are quick and easy to carry out.
The main drawback in using the autocorrelation func-
tion to evaluate diffusion from the polar response is that
intermediate values of the diffusion coefficient are hard to
interpret. For example, what does a value of 0.5 mean? It
9
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
1
Diffusion coefficient
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
125 200 315 500 800 1.25k 2k
f (Hz)
Figure 11. The diffusion coefficient for various sets of semicylin-
ders. The number of cylinders in each set is: ——: 1; – – –: 2;
— —: 3; : 4; - - - - -: 8. (After Cox and D’Antonio [14]).
is hoped that overtime an understanding will be built up
of what intermediate values mean and so this will only be
a short lived problem. For example, experience indicates
that the difference limen for the diffusion coefficient for
single plane diffusers is about 0.1, i.e. diffusers with coef-
ficients within 0.1 of each other have equally good polar
responses.
4.4. Other features
The diffusion coefficient values produced tend to be small.
Values for the autocorrelation coefficient can in theory
spread over the entire range from 0 to 1. A value of close to
zero has been measured for a concave surface designed to
focus sound on a single receiver. A value of 1 can be mea-
sured for a small single sphere or semi-cylinder. As soon
as more complex surfaces are introduced such as a set of
semi-cylinders, the diffusion coefficient reduces because
of the lobing introduced. This is illustrated in Figure 11.
This lobing is unavoidable in extended structures, and so
the diffusion coefficient is rarely close to 1 for usable
and realistic diffusers. For example, a single semi-cylinder
may produce complete diffusion, but to cover a wall a set
of semi-cylinders are needed, and the mutual interference
between the reflections from each of the cylinders mean
that diffusion is no longer complete. This phenomena is
why AES-4id-2001 makes detailed requirements on the
test surface, for example insisting that if a surface is to
be applied in a periodic manner, it is necessary to measure
at least four repeat sequences of the surface. Experience
shows that for practical surfaces, the diffusion coefficient
does not exceed 0.7.
While a diffusion coefficient is a useful measure of spa-
tial dispersion, it does not monitor the degree of temporal
dispersion generated, i.e. the amount that the reflections
are dispersed in time in the impulse response. If a diffuser
is being used to treat a first order reflection problem such
as an echo, the degree of temporal dispersion is impor-
tant to the suppression of the echo. For complex surfaces,
spatial and temporal dispersion go hand-in-hand, but for
simple surfaces, such as cylinders, spatial dispersion may
10
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
be generated without temporal dispersion. This can lead to
echoes not being sufficiently suppressed [14].
5. Contrasting diffusion and scattering co-
efficient
Comparisons between diffusion and the scattering coeffi-
cients have rarely been undertaken; they have been devel-
oped in relative isolation. Comparisons are hindered be-
3.15k
cause by definition many surfaces that could be tested us-
ing the diffusion coefficient can not be tested using the
scattering coefficient and vice versa. The following sec-
tions detail some comparison work, which goes some way
to illustrating and comparing the differences between scat-
tering and diffusion coefficients, although it has not always
been possible to achieve an exact comparison of the ISO
and AES methods.
5.1. Schroeder diffusers and Fourier theory
The far field scattering from a Schroeder diffuser can be
predicted using a simple Fourier Model [44]. The Fourier
Model is not exact, but it does give reasonably accurate
predictions of the scattering from the surfaces except at
low frequencies and large angles of incidence or reflection.
Under this approximate model, the scattered pressure, ps ,
from the surface can be simplified to:
 
Np N
ps (ψ, θ) = A e−2jkdn e jk(n+np N)w(sin θ+sin ψ), (4)
np =1 n=1
where ψ is the angle of incidence, θ the angle of reflection,
Np the number of periods, N the number of wells in a pe-
riod, w the well width, k the wavenumber, dn the depth of
the nth well, and A is a constant. This approximate theory
enables a simple formulation for a scattering coefficient to
be derived. In addition, the polar response can also be cal-
culated from equation (4) and so the diffusion coefficient
can be found from equation (3). Hence, a direct compar-
ison of diffusion and scattering coefficients can be made
[45]. The scattering coefficient is not the ISO random in-
cidence coefficient, however, but instead is a free field ver-
sion of the Mommertz and Vorländer coefficient [2, 3].
The free-field scattering coefficient is evaluated by find-
ing the invariant energy, Espec , in the specular direction
(ψ = −θ) when the surface is moved. Equation (4) is a
single plane formulation, so it is natural to translate the
surface. If the surface is assumed to be very large, so that
edge effects are not significant, then the scattered pressure
does not change with translation. The invariant energy is
found by averaging over the translation of one period:
 2
 Np N 
    −2jkd 
Espec 
≈ A e n
(5)
 ,
 np =1 n=1 
where A is a constant. The invariant energy has to be put
in a ratio with the energy from a flat plane surface for nor-
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
Scattering / Diffusion coefficient
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1000 2000
f (Hz)
Figure 12. Diffusion and correlation scattering coefficients for a
modified primitive root diffusing using the Fourier test bed. The
design frequency was 500 Hz, and the diffuser has 6 wells per pe-
riod. – – –: Scattering coefficient using Equation (7); : Dif-
fusion coefficient, diffuser; · · · · · ·: Diffusion coefficient, plane
surface; ——: Correlation scattering coefficient. (Modified from
Cox and D’Antonio [45]).
malisation purposes [3]. This ratio gives a reflection coef-
ficient, Rspec :
  
  Np N −2jkdn 2
   A np =1 n=1 e 
Rspec 2 =  2 . (6)
A Np N 
This then represents the proportion of energy that is spec-
ularly reflected by the surface, and so the scattering coeffi-
cient can be readily evaluated. To emphasis that this is not
the same as the ISO random incidence coefficient, it will
be given the symbol s :
 2
1 
N 
 
s = 1 −  e−2jkdn  .
N 
n=1
The scattering coefficient is independent of angle of inci-
dence, a peculiarity for the surface being tested here. Con-
sequently, the random incidence scattering coefficient is
numerically identical to the free-field case. (Incidentally,
equation (7) is similar to the prediction model Embrechts
et al produced for Gaussian rough surfaces - see equation
(19) in reference [46] - except for a cos() factor in the ex-
ponent.)
Equation (7) shows that to get the greatest scattering,
the sum of the reflection coefficients of the wells must
be evenly spaced around the unit circle. This is achieved
for the modified versions of the primitive root diffuser
[47, 48], at integer multiples of a design frequency. This
is illustrated in Figure 12 where at multiples of the design
frequency, s = 1 (except at 3 kHz where it behaves like
a flat surface). This complete scattering simply means no
energy is in the specular direction, it doesn’t necessarily
say how good the dispersion produced is. This is why the
AES coefficients are numerical less than the scattering co-
efficient.
This free field scattering coefficient in Equation (7) is
given by the sum of the well reflection coefficients squared
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
3000 4000
Figure 13. Scattered polar distribution for - - - - -: N = 7 QRD,
and ——: N = 7 QRD with the well order rearranged. f =
4500 Hz, QRD design frequency 500 Hz. Simple Fourier theory.
- there is no dependence on the order of the wells in the dif-
fuser. Figure 13 shows the polar responses for a QRD and
a QRD with the well order rearranged. The QRD has more
even lobe energy than the reordered QRD and so the AES
diffusion coefficients are different, 0.19 and 0.10 respec-
tively. The free field scattering coefficient, however, re-
mains unchanged because in both cases the energy moved
from the specular direction is the same. This is an illus-
tration of why the diffusion coefficient is seen as a stricter
test of diffuser quality.
Sakuma and Kosaka [22] examined different types of
scattering coefficient using BEM predictions on sinusoidal
surfaces. They refined the Mommertz and Vorländer free-
field method by using more receiver points. Instead of just
using a receiver located in the specular reflection, Sakuma
and Kosaka used many receivers placed over the whole
hemisphere. The energy variant and invariant to surface
(7) movements is calculated at each receiver, and these then
averaged and used to give the scattering coefficient. They
demonstrated that the coefficient evaluated this way bet-
ter matches the random incidence ISO coefficient than the
original Mommertz and Vorländer free-field method for
surfaces where the scattering is strongly angular depen-
dent. (For the Schroeder diffusers being examined here,
the scattering is not sufficiently angular dependent to show
the difference between the evaluation techniques).
5.2. Correlation scattering coefficient
Mommertz presented a method for evaluating a free field
scattering coefficient from polar responses of single plane
diffusers measured in the plane perpendicular to the corru-
gations. This is done by correlating the scattered pressure
polar responses from the test surface and a reference flat
surface. This correlation scattering coefficient is given by:
 n 2
 ∗ 
i=1 p1 (θi )p0 (θi )
δc = 1 −   2  n  2 , (8)
n    
i=1 p1 (θi ) i=1 p0 (θi )
where p1 is the pressure scattered from the test surface;
p0 is the pressure scattered from the flat surface, and θi
11
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
the receiver angle of the ith measurement position. An al-
ternative description of this coefficient was given by Em-
brechts et al. [46] who described it as an LMS prob-
lem and extended the definition for the more general case
of hemispherical diffusers. Cox and D’Antonio [14] have
produced extensive tables of this scattering coefficient for
single plane scatterers. In general, scattering coefficients
are needed in 1/3 octave bands, but the definition given in
Equation (8) is necessarily a single frequency definition
because pressure magnitude and phase is required. There
are various methods that can be devised for getting a 1/3
octave band value, but they all give numerically similar
values. Consequently, it was found that a simple average
of the single frequency scattering coefficient values pro-
duced in each 1/3 octave band is sufficient.
The correlation scattering coefficient is not the same
as the ISO random incidence coefficient or the free-field
scattering coefficient calculated using surface movements.
This is illustrated in Figure 12 where the free-field scatter-
ing coefficient using surface movement is compared to the
correlation scattering coefficient for the simple Schroeder
diffuser test bed. This difference arises because the coeffi-
cient definition is different. The free-field Mommertz and
Vorländer method measures the amount of energy moved
from the specular direction when the surface is moved, the
correlation scattering coefficient measures the dissimilar-
ity between the test and flat surface scattering over a polar
response.
One useful property of the correlation scattering coef-
ficient is that it is readily predicted; something that is not
true of the ISO random incidence scattering coefficient.
Kosaka and Sakuma [49] examined various issues con-
cerning the calculation of free-field scattering coefficients
using BEM models. They concluded that the minimum re-
ceiver distance was the sample diameter, that the receiver
points should be spaced at most 3◦ apart, and it does not
matter for the correlation scattering coefficient whether the
sample is round or square. However, they also found that
edge diffraction can cause the scattering coefficient to be
overestimated, something that can also be seen in the scat-
tering coefficient tables in [14].
5.3. Some results and discussions
Here predictions have been tested by comparing predic-
tion and measurement in a two dimensional polar response
for a single cylinder and a set of cylinders. Predictions
were carried out using a BEM [42] and measurements in
a 2D goniometer [36]. Figure 14 compares the predicted
and measured correlation scattering coefficient and a good
match is achieved. This provides evidence that the coef-
ficient can be predicted and that the measurement system
used is robust.
To measure the random incidence correlation scattering
coefficient, a sample of a 1D QRD has been tested at 1:5
scale. It is shown as an insert in Figure 16. The sample
was measured in the 2D goniometer first with the QRD
wells perpendicular to the measurement arc, and then with
12
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
1
Scattering coefficient
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
f (Hz)
Figure 14. Predicted and measured correlation scattering coef-
ficient. 2D measurements on semi-cylinders compared to BEM
predictions. ——: Prediction, 1 cylinder; : Measurement, 1
cylinder; – – –: Prediction, 4 cylinders; - - - - -: Measurement, 4
cylinders. (After Cox and D’Antonio [14]).
1.2
Scattering or Diffusion coefficient
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
100 500 1000 4000
f (Hz)
Figure 15. Various scattering and diffusion coefficients for a
model scale N=7 QRD shown in Figure 16. ——: Correlation
scattering coefficient averaged over 3 sample orientations and
3 sources; : Random incidence ISO scattering coefficient;
- - - - -: Single plane diffusion coefficient, diffuser; – – –: Single
plane diffusion coefficient, plane surface. —×— Single plane scat-
tering coefficient predicted using equation (7).
the wells parallel to the measurement arc. For each sam-
ple orientation, three incidence angles (0◦ , 30◦ and 60◦ )
were measured. These measurement results were then av-
eraged to give an approximate random-incidence coeffi-
cient. A similar sample was measured using the ISO ran-
dom incidence method in a model reverberation chamber.
The results are compared in Figure 15. There is reasonable
correspondence between the two measured results, though
in two frequency bands the results are significantly differ-
ent. For example, for the 3.2 kHz octave band the random
incidence measurements exceeds 1, something that can not
happen with the correlation scattering coefficient. Consid-
ering one measurement is done in a diffuse field and the
other in the free field, however, the match is actually quite
good, indeed better than many have obtained when diffuse
and free field absorption coefficients are compared.
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
Also shown in Figure 15 is the scattering coefficient pre-
dicted using the simplest Fourier model, Equation (7). The
prediction accuracy is surprisingly good considering that
the Fourier theory makes many assumptions. Figure 15
also shows the diffusion coefficient. This is a single plane
measurement in the plane of maximum diffusion. In this
case the scattering and diffusion coefficients agree as to the
frequency at which significant scattering/diffusion begins
(≈500 Hz). Again, the diffusion coefficient is numerically
less than the scattering coefficient values.
A final feature of note in Figure 15, is that the 1D QRD
produces a high value for both the ISO and the correlation
scattering coefficients, even though it is plane and extruded
in one direction. Figure 16 further illustrates this point,
where the ISO random incidence scattering coefficients for
a single plane and a hemispherical diffuser are compared.
To use a very simplistic analysis for the 1D QRD, even
if the scattering coefficient in the plane of maximum dis-
persion was 1, the scattering coefficient in the extruded
direction must be close to 0, and so it might be expected
that the hemispherical coefficient would be ≈0.5. Yet high
frequency values for the random incidence scattering co-
efficient are close to 1; this happens because when the sur-
face is rotated, the topology changes dramatically. Conse-
quently, the ISO method may often produce high scatter-
ing coefficients for extruded 1D surfaces. A more strict
measure of scattering ability would be two coefficients
in two orthogonal directions, as is done for the diffusion
coefficient. But then current geometric room models can
only deal with single hemispherical based scattering coef-
ficients, so this more strict evaluation is incompatible with
current room models. Some models are introducing sev-
eral distribution functions to be used in conjunction with
the scattering coefficient; this may help in more accurately
distributing the randomly directed diffuse rays.
6. Discussions and conclusions
In order to fully understand and model the physical prop-
agation of sound in a space, the wave nature of sound, and
the diffusion and scattering that finite and rough surfaces
produce, must be considered. It is necessary to include a
model of surface scattering in geometric models to enable
accurate predictions in many cases. This surface scattering
model requires a coefficient that determines the proportion
of energy specularly and diffusely reflected, and to date
this has been done by precedent and empirically. With the
standardisation by ISO of a method to measure the scatter-
ing coefficient, it should be possible to refine and improve
room predictions. In most practical cases users of geomet-
ric room acoustic models still have to guess most values,
but if a set of typical wall elements in concert halls (say
coffered ceilings of various depths) are eventually mea-
sured, they can serve as guidelines for the actual ones -
much like absorption coefficients today where an exact
measured case is seldom found (except for commercial ab-
sorbers) but some “engineering skills” have to be applied
to estimate a value based on similar measured ones.
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
1.2
1
Scattering coefficient
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
800 1260 2000 3125
125 200 320 500
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 16. Random incidence ISO scattering coefficients for two
different diffusers and also the diffuser shapes. Left diffuser is
single plane device, right diffuser is hemispherical device. Mul-
tiple periods of each were used. 8 periods of the single plane
device equalled the diameter of the base plate. : Single plane,
2 : Hemispherical. (After Cox and D’Antonio [14]).
While the scattering coefficient has been developed for
room acoustic modelling, there has been insufficient test-
ing within the room models. While some have found good
accuracy using the values, other have not. The discrep-
ancies appear to centre on the type of room being mea-
sured. If the overall room shape and sizes and orientations
of surfaces are such that a diffuse field is created even if
no rough or scattering surfaces are used, then the reverber-
ation time can be well predicted even without diffuse re-
flection modelling, even if predictions of finer parameters
such as clarity may suffer [50]. For other room shapes, ac-
curate modelling of scattering is more crucial. As the value
of the scattering coefficient required depends on the room
model being used [9], blindly applying measured scatter-
ing coefficients in room models may produce inaccurate
predictions for markedly non-diffuse spaces.
Scattering coefficients give a quick and rough estimate
of the scattering process, they should not be used to eval-
uate the worth of surfaces when designing or specifying
diffusers. The scattering coefficient is only concerned with
how much energy is moved from the specular direction, it
does not measure the quality of dispersion. For this reason,
diffusing surfaces need to be evaluated using the diffusion
coefficient when quality is being assessed. The diffusion
coefficient should not, however, be blindly used in geomet-
ric room models as its definition is not compatible with the
surface scattering models used in current geometric algo-
rithms.
There are many issues surrounding these coefficients
that remain to be resolved. One common question is
13
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
whether there is a direct link between the diffusion or scat-
tering coefficient and a physical property of the space. This
arises because practitioners are used to the direct link be-
tween the absorption coefficient and the reverberation time
that arises in a diffuse field. For diffuse reflection and scat-
tering there is no simple relationship, but maybe future re-
search should include investigating what relationships, if
any, exist between these coefficients and the room acous-
tic quality.
Another avenue for future research is to develop meth-
ods for in-situ measurement of the diffusion or scattering
coefficients. There is a great deal of interest in measuring
in-situ absorption coefficients [51]. In recent round robin
trials of room acoustic models [52], a key finding has been
that the accuracy of the prediction models are highly de-
pendent on the quality of the input data, including the ab-
sorption and scattering coefficients of the surfaces. One
of the difficulties in carrying out an in-situ measurement
of scattering is that the effects of absorption and diffusion
can be similar on the volume acoustic, making it difficult
to separate the two effects.
References
[1] ISO/FDIS 17497-1: Acoustics - Measurement of the sound
scattering properties of surfaces – Part 1: Measurement of
the random-incidence scattering coefficient in a reverbera-
tion room. 2000.
[2] E. Mommertz, M. Vorländer: Measurement of scattering
coefficients of surfaces in the reverberation chamber and
in the free field. Proc. 15th ICA,, 1995, II, 577–580.
[3] M. Vorländer, E. Mommertz: Definition and measure-
ment of random-incidence scattering coefficients. Applied
Acoustics 60 (2000) 187–199.
[4] AES-4id-2001: AES information document for room acou-
stics and sound reinforcement systems – characterisation
and measurement of surface scattering uniformity. J. Audio
Eng. Soc. 49 (2001) 149–165.
[5] H. Kuttruff, T. Strassen: On the dependence of reverbera-
tion time on the wall diffusion and on room shape. Acustica
45 (1980) 246–55.
[6] Y. W. Lam: On the parameters controlling diffusion calcu-
lation in a hybrid computer model for room acoustic pre-
diction. Proc. IoA 16 (1994) 537–544.
[7] M. Hodgson: Evidence of diffuse surface reflections in
rooms. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89 (1991) 765–71.
[8] M. Vorländer: International round robin on room acoustical
computer simulations. Proc. 15th ICA, 1995, II, 689–692.
[9] Y. W. Lam: A comparison of three diffuse reflection mod-
eling methods used in room acoustics computer models. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 100 (1996) 2181–92.
[10] B.-I. L. Dalenbäck, M. Kleiner, P. Svensson: A macro-
scopic view of diffuse reflection. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 42
(1994) 793–807.
[11] H. Kuttruff: Room acoustics, 4th edition. E. & F. N. Spon,
2000.
[12] M. R. Schroeder: Binaural dissimilarity and optimum ceil-
ings for concert halls: More lateral sound diffusion. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 65 (1979) 958–63.
[13] P. D’Antonio, T. J. Cox: Diffusor application in rooms. Ap-
plied Acoustics 60 (2000) 113–42.
14
Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
[14] T. J. Cox, P. D’Antonio: Acoustic absorbers and diffusers:
Theory, design and application. Spon Press, 2004.
[15] D. Davis, C. Davis: The LEDE concept for the control of
acoustic and psychoacoustic parameters in recording con-
trol rooms. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 28 (1980) 585–95.
[16] P. D’Antonio, J. Konnert: The RFZ/RPG approach to con-
trol room monitoring. Proc. Audio Eng. Soc., October
1984, Preprint 2157 (I–6).
[17] T. J. Cox: Acoustic diffusers: the good, the bad and the ugly.
Proc. IoA(UK) 26 (Reproduced Sound (2004)).
[18] T. J. Cox: Optimization of profiled diffusers. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 97 (1995) 2928–41.
[19] T. J. Cox: Designing curved diffusers for performance
spaces. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 44 (1996) 354–364.
[20] J. J. Embrechts: Broad spectrum diffusion model for room
acoustics ray-tracing algorithms. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107
(2000) 2068–81.
[21] R. Heinz: On modelling the diffuse scattering properties of
boundaries in sound particle simulations for room acous-
tics. Acustica 82 (1996) 82–90.
[22] T. Sakuma, Y. Kosaka: Comparison between scattering co-
efficients determined by specimen rotation and by directiv-
ity correlation. International Symposium on Room Acous-
tics: Design and Science (RADS), Awaji, Japan, 2004, 056.
[23] E. Mommertz: Determination of scattering coefficients
from reflection directivity of architectural surfaces. Ap-
plied Acoustics 60 (2000) 201–203.
[24] A. Farina: A new method for measuring the scattering co-
efficient and the diffusion coefficient of panels. Acustica 86
(2000) 928–942.
[25] T. J. Hargreaves: Acoustic diffusion and scattering coeffi-
cients for room surfaces. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sal-
ford, 2000.
[26] ISO 354: Acoustics - Measurement of sound absorption in
a reverberation room. 2003.
[27] J. J. Embrechts: Practical aspects of the ISO procedure for
measuring the scattering coefficient in a real-scale exper-
iment. Proc. Forum Acusticum, Sevilla, 2002, RBA–06–
001–IP.
[28] L. De Geetere, G. Vermeir: Investigations on real-scale ex-
periments for the measurement of the ISO scattering coef-
ficient in the reverberation room. Proc. Forum Acusticum,
Sevilla, 2002, RBA–06–004.
[29] M. Vorländer, J. J. Embrechts, L. De Geetere, G. Vermeir,
M. H. D. Gomes: Case studies in measurement of random
incidence scattering coefficients. Acta Acust. united with
Acust. 90 (2004) 858–67.
[30] M. Vorländer, H. Bietz: Der Einfluß von Zeitvarianzen
bei Maximalfolgenmessungen. Fortschritte der Akustik,
DAGA 95, 1995, 675–678.
[31] M. Vorländer, M. Kob: Practical aspects of MLS measure-
ments in building acoustics. Applied Acoustics 52 (1997)
239–258.
[32] G. B. Stan, J. J. Embrechts, D. Archambeau: Comparison
of different impulse response measurement techniques. J.
Audio Eng. Soc. 50 (2002) 249–62.
[33] A. Farina: Simultaneous measurement of impulse response
and distortion with a swept-sine technique. Proc. Audio
Eng. Soc., 108th convention, 2000, preprint 5093.
[34] M. H. A. Gomes, M. Vorländer, S. N. Y. Gerges: Aspects
of the sample geometry in the measurement of the random-
incidence scattering coefficient. Proc. Forum Acusticum,
Sevilla, 2002, RBA–06–002–IP.
 Cox et al.: Scattering and diffusion coefficients tutorial
[35] T. J. Cox, P. D’Antonio: Surface characterization for room
acoustic modelling and design. Proc. International Sym-
posium on Room Acoustics: Design and Science (RADS),
2004, CO2.
[36] P. D’Antonio: The Disc Project: Directional scattering co-
efficient determination and auralization of virtual environ-
ments. Proc. Noise-Con 93, May 1993, 259–264.
[37] D. Takahashi: Development of optimum acoustic diffusers.
J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn. 16 (1995) 51–58.
[38] J. A. S. Angus, A. C. Marvin, J. Clegg, J. F. Dawson: A
practical metric for evaluating sound diffusers. Proc Audio
Eng. Soc., 98th Convention, February 1995, Preprint 3955
(D5).
[39] J. A. S. Angus: Diffuser assessment using surface spherical
harmonics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104 (1998) 1857.
[40] T. J. Hargreaves, T. J. Cox, Y. W. Lam, P. D’Antonio: Sur-
face diffusion coefficients for room acoustics: free field
measures. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108 (2000) 1710–20.
[41] P. D’Antonio, J. H. Konnert, P. Kovitz: The Disc Project:
Experimental measurement of the directional scattering
properties of architectural acoustic surfaces. Proceedings
of Sabine Centennial, June 1994, 1pAAd2, 141–4.
[42] T. J. Cox: Predicting the scattering from reflectors and dif-
fusers using 2-dimensional boundary element methods. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 96 (1994) 874–8.
[43] T. J. Cox, Y. W. Lam: Evaluation of methods for predicting
the scattering from simple rigid panels. Applied Acoustics
40 (1993) 123–140.
View publication stats
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
[44] T. J. Cox, Y. W. Lam: Prediction and evaluation of the scat-
tering from quadratic residue diffusers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
95 (1994) 297–305.
[45] T. J. Cox, P. D’Antonio: Contrasting surface diffusion and
scattering coefficients. Proc. 17th ICA, 2001, 6B.09.01.
[46] J. J. Embrechts, D. Archambeau, G. B. Stan: Determina-
tion of the scattering coefficient of random rough diffusing
surfaces for room acoustics applications. Acta Acustica–
Acustica 87 (2001) 482–94.
[47] E. Feldman: A reflection grating that nullifies the specular
reflection: A cone of silence. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98 (1995)
623–634.
[48] T. J. Cox, P. D’Antonio: Acoustic phase gratings for re-
duced specular reflection. Applied Acoustics 60 (2000)
167–186.
[49] Y. Kosaka, T. Sakuma: Numerical study on the behavior
of scattering coefficients of wall surfaces. Proc. 18th ICA,
2004, Mo2.B2.2.
[50] B.-I. Dalenbäck: The importance of diffuse reflection in
computerized room acoustic prediction and auralization.
Proc. IoA(UK) 17 (1995) 24–34.
[51] C. Nocke, V. Mellert: Brief review on in situ measurement
techniques of impedance or absorption. Forum Acusticum,
Sevilla, 2002, RBA–03–001–IP.
[52] I. Bork: A comparison of room simulation software – the
2nd round robin on room acoustical computer simulation.
Acustica 86 (2000) 943–956.
15