Audio Engineering Society

Convention Paper 9462

Presented at the 139th Convention
2015 October 29–November 1 New York, USA

This paper was peer-reviewed as a complete manuscript for presentation at this Convention. This paper is available in the AES E-
Library, http://www.aes.org/e-lib. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this paper, or any portion thereof, is not permitted without
direct permission from the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.

Measuring Sound Field Diffusion: SFDC

Alejandro Bidondo1, Mariano Arouxet2, Sergio Vazquez3, Javier Vazquez4 and Germán Heinze5
1
Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero, UNTREF. Caseros. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
abidondo@untref.edu.ar
2
Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero, UNTREF. Caseros. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
marianoarouxet@gmail.com
3
Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero, UNTREF. Caseros. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
sergiovazquez@gmail.com
4
Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero, UNTREF. Caseros. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
Javier.h.vazquez@gmail.com
5
Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero, UNTREF. Caseros. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
german.heinze@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT
This research addresses the usefulness of an absolute descriptor to quantify the degree of diffusion in a third
octave band basis of a sound field. The degree of sound field diffuseness in one point is related with the
reflection’s energy control multiplied by the temporal distribution uniformity of reflections. All this
information is extracted from a monaural, broadband, omnidirectional, high S/N impulse response. The
coefficient range varies between 0 and 1, evaluates the early, late and total sound field, for frequencies above
Schroeder’s and in the far field from diffusive surfaces, zero being “no diffuseness” at all. This coefficient
allows the comparison of different rooms, different places inside rooms, measurement of the effects of different
sound diffusers coatings and the resulting spatial uniformity variation, among other applications.
 Bidondo et al.
1. INTRODUCTION
For decades, diffusion of a sound field has been a
phenomena without exact and precise measure method
and / or number to quantify it. Some attempts were made
by: a) counting peaks of impulse responses registered at
different places inside a room [1], b) analyzing the
curvature of decays, the variation of reverberation time
with position, c) analyzing the uniformity of sound
energy captured by a rotating directional microphone [2],
defining the degree of sound diffusion with two indices:
the number of reflected sound rays (RN) and the energy
summation (RE) within the lapsed time of the effective
amplitude drop [3], [4], among others. Later, a numerical
method to describe the probability of existence of high
amplitude local peaks appeared [5]. Following this later
path, particularly the quantification of the amplitude level
control, the main objective of this research was to define
and develop an absolute Sound Field Diffusion
Coefficient, SFDC, and its method of calculation from a
monaural impulse response (IR). By complementing and
improving previous results and processes, was also
possible to introduce a new and more complete definition
of the diffusion state at discrete points into a sound field.
Classically, a diffuse sound field is defined as one in
which there is an equal-probability direction of sound
energy flow [9]. Related to the subject of diffuse fields,
must be distinguished between a sound field in that
region of the spectrum where the wave model is valid and
that where the geometric model is valid. Below the
Schroeder frequency approximately, a diffuse field is one
where there is spatial uniformity of modal sound energy,
while above it, a diffuse field is one where there is
randomness in the flow of sound energy. It should be
noted that both descriptions meet the condition of
isotropy [6] or directional uniformity in the propagation
of sound, but are phenomena to be observed differently.
That is to say, that for a range of the spectrum, the
diffusion effect model is manifested as a spatial effect,
while in another, as temporal one.
A study on the diffusion of a sound field in one
physical point of it, should reflect the degree of
reflection’s amplitude control and the degree of
uniformity of reflections temporal distribution, as well as
their audibility, the latter reflected in the energy of each
third octave frequency band in relation to the total energy
of the analyzed IR.
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 2 of 7
Measuring Sound Field Diffusion: SFDC
2. EFFECT OF DIFFUSERS: ENERGY
CONTROL AND REFLECTION’S
TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION
Comparing two situations of the same place and
same spot, firstly without diffusers and then with
diffusers, it can be seen that IRs registered with diffusers
have controlled the reflection’s amplitudes and filled the
temporal evolution of the decays with more reflections.
To control a set of reflections means that their amplitudes
have decreased from the initial condition, filling with
new reflections immediate forward temporal spaces.
Finally denser IRs are obtained, a reflection’s
amplitude / level control is observed and reflections are
more uniformly time distributed (no “time stacking” of
reflections) with (good) diffusers – and correctly located
- than without them.
The effects of introducing diffusers in a room are
called from now on, “energy control” and “reflection’s
temporal distribution”.
These two effects define a sound field diffusion
coefficient: comparing two coating conditions, more
diffusion will exist with greater reflection’s amplitude
control and more uniform temporal distribution of
reflections, into of an IR registered in one physical place.
By mapping the sound field diffusion in several spots,
their standard deviation, compared with an initial
condition, will reflect the degree of diffusion uniformity
of the acoustic space, describing how lobed or not are the
results of different wall coatings.
3. SOUND FIELD DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT
DEFINITIONS
The Sound Field Diffusion Coefficient, SFDC, described
more detailed in [13] and [14], is the degree of amplitude
control and uniformity of reflection’s temporal
distribution, on a monaural IR, after subtracting the
energy decay and normalizing it with respect to its
reverberation time. This analysis can be done in three
time intervals: an early part of the IR, a late part of it, and
in the sum of both. In addition, by finding extreme values
of amplitude control and the degree of uniformity of
temporal distribution, SFDC can be described between 0
and 1, under certain conditions.
The splitting time between the “early” and “late”
parts of the IR, is called tsplit, and it can be set at 30, 50,
80 ms and “determined by the user”. This way, the early
interval is defined between the beginning of the IR –
excluding the direct sound “reflections package” – and
“tsplit” and, the “late” interval from “tsplit” to the end of
the analysis time of the IR. There are two SFDCs: the
Global SFDC and the SFDC by band. The Global SFDC
 Bidondo et al.
is the average of the SFDC by bands results. It describes
the average reflection’s amplitude control and
distribution uniformity into a time interval (early, late or
total); as the method allows to select bands, it can be said
that the Global SFDC is the average SFDC of a limited
bandwidth impulse response (IR). The diffusion
coefficients SFDC by third octave bands describe the
uniformity of reflection’s temporal distribution and
reflection’s amplitude control into a time interval of a
filtered impulse response using normalized band pass
filters according to IEC 61260 [7]. Depending on each
case both tsplit and Band Energy Level, BEL, can be
defined. The BEL is the fallen amplitude in dB from the
maximum of the IR, which stablishes the end of the
analysis time for the SFDC. To evaluate the amplitude
control of diffusing surfaces and the degree of uniformity
in the temporal distribution of reflections, the direct
sound should have to be avoided from the calculus of
SFDC, by defining the end of it at t direct. A general scheme
of time and amplitude limits needed for the calculation of
SFDC is shown in Fig. 1. It is recommended to use tsplit
of 80 ms for large and reverberant rooms such as concert
halls, theaters, and auditoriums. A tsplit of 30 ms is
recommended for rooms with short reverberation time,
RT, such as control rooms and studios. The whole IR
analysis is recommended if no early and/ or late
information is needed, for example at reverberation
chambers, control rooms and recording studios.
Nevertheless, to proceed to the comparison of different
results of SFDC by bands under identical conditions of
analysis, the SFDC results should be accompanied by the
time interval analyzed, tsplit and BEL used (Examples:
SFDC, late, 50ms, 23 dB; SFDC, early, 80ms, 18 dB),
and for the Global SFDC, the included averaged bands
(Example: 250 Hz  10 KHz).
Figure 1. Diagram of the time and level
structures for SFDC by bands calculus.
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 3 of 7
Measuring Sound Field Diffusion: SFDC
Certainly, the SFDC is not related to the length of the
analysis time interval, or the number of reflections, or the
RT, nor the energies involved. Only analyses the
uniformity of the existing reflections, whether many or
few, in the time range of analysis independently if it is
short or long. There may be a high value of SFDC in a
very short time period analyzed (eg.: between 80 ms and
120 ms), and a very low value of SFDC in a long time
analysis interval (eg.: from 80 ms to 2500 ms), and vice
versa.
SFDC is intended to be applied initially on a
monaural IR, captured with an omnidirectional
measurement microphone. In addition, the IR’s
registering method should bring the largest signal to
noise level (S/N) possible, to obtain the largest result’s
bandwidth. That’s why is recommended to use a very
long logarithmic sound sweep, LSS, as stimulus signal,
assuring the best possible environmental conditions
inside the room to measure (avoiding impulsive noises,
and reducing background stationary noise as possible).
To get results between 0 and 1, extreme “absolute
values” were needed to compare with. As the theoretical
condition of total diffusion is not achievable [9], real
maximum values were found.
Results of SFDC processing the same IR were found
to vary mainly in function of selected tsplit, tdirect and
BEL [dB]. Finally, the only variable that depends on the
quality of the registered IR is BEL. It was also found that
exists a BEL [dB] interval and a frequency bandwidth for
which most of the SFDC band’s results remain constant.
4. DESCRIPTOR
4.1. Calculation
The SFDC is the multiplication of the degree of
uniformity of reflection’s temporal distribution and the
reflection’s amplitude control:
𝑆𝐹𝐷𝐶 = (𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑦) ∙
(𝐴𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙) (1)
The SFDC uniformity of reflection’s temporal
distribution is named distr_coef, and is inversely
proportional to the normalized kurtosis, k0 [8] [12] [14]
of the existing reflections at each selected time intervals,
as seen in Eq. 2, Eq. 3 and Eq. 4.
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟_𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓 = 𝑘
1
(2)
0 ∙0.02
 Bidondo et al.
On the other hand, k value is the one that takes the
ratio of Eq. 3, by one-third octave bands, to a group of
fixed “a” values of Fig. 2 to overcome what was called
the “wave problem”.
𝑧 (𝑘 ) = 𝑅
𝑅(𝑘)
(3)
𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿
Where:
𝑡2
𝑅𝑇𝑂𝑇𝐴𝐿 = ∫𝑡1 ℎ2 (𝑡)𝑑𝑡 (4)
𝑡2
𝑅(𝑘) = ∫𝑡1 ℎ2 >𝑘 (𝑡)𝑑𝑡 (5)
The larger k found in an IR, the less amplitude
control, due the existence of discrete high-amplitude
reflections; thus a low k value means high reflection’s
energy control or “uniformity” of amplitudes into the
analysed IR. It is important to mention that the whole
average of h2 always is 1.
Both dist_coef and k may take values from 0 to
infinite, so to get results of SFDC from 0 to 1, this is to
say absolute results of SFDCs, maximum absolute values
of temporal distribution, dist_coef, and minimum
absolute k values, by bands, were needed to compare
with. Equation 6 shows the relative result of SFDC, and
Eq. 7 shows the way those values are converted to
absolute ones.
Figure 2. Weighting function; “a” values.
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 4 of 7
Measuring Sound Field Diffusion: SFDC
1
𝑆𝐹𝐷𝐶𝑟 = [ ] ∙ [𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡_𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚 ] (6)
𝑘
𝑆𝑚𝑖𝑛_𝑘 𝑆𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡_𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓
𝑆𝐹𝐷𝐶𝑎 = { } ∙{ }
𝑆𝑘 𝐸, 𝐿, 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑀𝐴𝑋𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡_𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓 𝐸, 𝐿, 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
(7)
Being SFDCr: relative SFDC, SFDCa: absolute
SFDC, S: Spectrum, min: minimum values, E: early
time interval, L: late time interval, Total: the whole
impulse time duration (contained into BEL).
4.2. The absolute values
In the way to find the extreme (maximum and
minimum) values of dist_coef and k, respectively, it was
found that SFDC’s results for some real spaces showed
more diffusion than computer models with maximum
scattering coefficient on their surfaces. So the absolute
values were found from real spaces with well registered
monaural, omnidirectional, using as sound stimulus a log
sine sweep, and full bandwidth, IRs.
To assure IRs were recorded in the far field of
diffusers reflections, big halls were chosen, all of them
with Schroeder frequency [10] less than 100 Hz.
After analyzing more than 300 IRs, only 81 were
selected from 26 Halls.
Figure 3. Third octave dist_coef maximum
values taken from 81 IRs of 26 big rooms.
 Bidondo et al.
The early, late and global maximum dist_coef’s and
minimum k’s were found analyzing each third octave
band independently, for tsplit = 80 ms and direct sound
security factor of 2, from all of the 81 IRs. The results are
observed in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, which are used from now
on to get absolute SFDC’s results, this is between 0 and
1, on IRs recorded in the far field from diffusive surfaces,
and for frequencies higher that Schroeder frequency. In
the case of shorter distances from diffusive surfaces,
values over 1 can be reached, for example in Recording
Studios and Control room’s sweet spots.
Figure 4. Third octave minimum k values
taken from 81 IRs of 26 big rooms.
5. SOUND FIELD MAPPING & EFFECT OF
SCATTERING SURFACES ON THE
SOUND FIELD’S DIFFUSION
Once an SFDC descriptor with absolute results was
obtained, direct and differential studies on diffusion were
done. Direct studies result in the diffusion uniformity of
the mapped area, by means of equation (8). It was also
found the effect of a scattering surface into the sound
field by comparing SFDC’s results prior and after its
inclusion in a test room. For this, SFDC was mapped in
several points into the room for both conditions (with and
without the test surface).
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 5 of 7
Measuring Sound Field Diffusion: SFDC
𝜎
∆𝜎 = [̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ] (8)
𝑆𝐹𝐷𝐶 𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝒏
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∆𝑆𝐹𝐷𝐶 = [(𝑆𝐹𝐷𝐶 𝑓 − 𝑆𝐹𝐷𝐶𝑖 )] (9)
𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝒏
(𝜎𝑓 −𝜎𝑖 )
∆𝜎 = [|∆𝑆𝐹𝐷𝐶
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ | ] (10)
𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝒏
Equation (9) is the average differential SFDC by
bands and global; it shows the diffusion change in one
point of the space, for each frequency band and global.
Equation (10) is the normalized differential standard
deviation of the data set of the mapped points, by
frequency bands and global. It shows the spatial
uniformity change of the sound field referenced to the
SFDC value, for a particular band or global results. If it
is negative, the dispersion of SFDC’s mapped values was
reduced so the coating under test has improved the spatial
uniformity of sound energy (what is supposed or
expected to do). If it is positive, SFDC’s values
dispersion increased after allocating the new coating, so
it did not work as expected.
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Some of the applications of the SFDC are seen in the next
paragraphs.
6.1. Comparison of SFDC at different
positions inside a small Theater
Figure 5 shows the SFDC late, with tsplit of 80 ms,
for 4 positions inside a small (500 seats) Argentinean
theater: The Margarita Xirgu Theater. P1 is located at the
center – front of the main floor, P3 is located at the rear
part of the main floor (near the rear wall), P5 is located at
1st floor balcony and P6 is located at 2nd floor balcony.
All measurements were made for the same sound source
(dodecahedron) position.
 Bidondo et al.
Figure 5. Comparison of SFDC late, 80 ms,
in 4 positions inside a small theater.
Results show the different late diffusion
characteristics of the sound field at each position. In this
case, this information is useful to compare seat positions
and / or determine the precise quantities of diffusion a
project needs.
6.2. Measuring scattering effects in a sound
field
With the intention to observe the SFDC variations in
a sound field while introducing a circular diffuser in it,
initial and final values were measured in 4 microphone
positions inside the room. Results applying (9) and (10)
show the variations of the SFDC and the Normalized
standard deviation of the mapped points in figure 6.
Positive values of  mean that for some reason, the
sound field diffusion uniformity decreased (instead of
increasing), for example because of diffuser’s lobulation
(caused by concatenation of identical numerical
sequences – in numerical diffusers), wrong diffuser
location, small diffuser’s size, etc. Figure 7 shows the
tested unit and its measurement setup.
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 6 of 7
Measuring Sound Field Diffusion: SFDC
Figure 6. Differential SFDC Total, averaged from 4
positions (solid line) and Normalized Standard
Deviation of the differential mapped results (dotted
line). All in function of frequency [Hz].
As can be seen, effects of the diffuser are measured
in terms of differential SFDC. Positive values of
Differential SFDC mean diffusion was increased.
Negative values of Normalized standard Deviation mean
the spatial uniformity of the sound field was increased.
This way, a statistical measure of the footprint of the
scattering surface could be made in a similar way as the
ISO absorption coefficient measurement in a
reverberation room [15], containing the information of
amplitude control, degree of uniformity of reflections’
temporal distribution and spatial uniformity produced by
the unit.
 Bidondo et al.
Figure 7. Diffuser tested with differential
SFDC analysis.
It can be seen that, whatever the case, the possibility
of quantifying the diffusion of a sound field enables to
relate the diffusion and scattering coefficients with direct
effects on the sound field, in a similar way the absorption
coefficient of surfaces are related to changes in the
reverberation time of a sound field.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by UNTREF University,
and their main authorities, Jozami, A. and Kaufmann, M.,
Rector and Vice Rector respectively. Also we have to
thank the Environmental Acoustics Group, ITEFI, CSIC,
from Spain, Marzin Zastawnik from AGH University,
Yong Hee Kim from Hanyang University, Urquiza, N.,
Loria, J. M., Olivera, S. and Luquet, E., students from
UNTREF, http://isophonics.net/, and
http://www.openairlib.net/ who provided impulse
responses or measurement facilities.
AES 139th Convention, New York, USA, 2015 October 29–November 1
Page 7 of 7
Measuring Sound Field Diffusion: SFDC
8. REFERENCES
[1] Jeon, J. Y., Kim, Y. H., Vorländer, M. “Counting
local peaks in impulse responses for evaluation of the
in‐situ diffusion in concert halls”. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 129, 2501. (2011).
[2] Kim, Y. H., Yoo, H. J., Jeon, J. Y. “Perception of
scattered sounds in rectangular concert halls”. ISRA
2010, Melbourne, Australia. 2010.
[3] Kim, Y. H. “Evaluation of Wall Diffusers for the
Acoustical Design of Concert Halls”. Doctoral
dissertation. Department of Sustainable Architectural
Engineering Graduate School, Hanyang University.
(2011).
[4] Jeon, J. Y., Kim, Y. H. “Investigation of sound
diffusion characteristics using scale models in
concert halls”. NAG/DAGA International
Conference on Acoustics 2009. The Netherlands.
(2009).
[5] Hanyu, T. “Analysis method for estimating
diffuseness of sound fields by using decay-cancelled
impulse response”. ISRA 2013. Canada. (2013).
[6] Randall, K. E. “The measurement of sound diffusion
index n small rooms”. Research department Report
No. 1969/16. UDC 534.84. BBC. (1969).
7 IEC 61260 ED. 1.0 B:1995. (1995).
[8] Rose, P. Forensic Speaker identification. Ch. 8.
Taylor & Francis. (2002).
[9] Kutruff, H. “Room Acoustics”. Ch. 8. 4th Edition.
Spon Press. (2000).
[10] Skålevik, M. “Schroeder Frequency Revisited”.
Akutek. Forum Acusticum. 2011.
[11] https://acousticengineering.wordpress.com
[12] De Lorenzo, F., calabró, M. “Kurtosis: A statistical
approach to identify defect in rolling bearings”.
2nd International Conference on Marine Research
and Transportation. Italy. 2007.
[13] Bidondo, A., Vazquez, S., Vazquez, J., Heinze, G.,
Arouxet, M., Saavedra, A. “Sound Field Diffusion
Coefficient: Development & Definitions”. ICSV 22.
Italy. 2015
[14] Bidondo, A., Vazquez, S., Vazquez, J., Heinze, G.,
Arouxet, M., Saavedra, A. “Sound Field Diffusion
Coefficient: Absolute values”. ICSV 22. Italy. 2015
[15] ISO 354:2003. Acoustics – Measurement of sound
absorption in a reverberation room. International
Organization for Standardization. 2003.