Audio Engineering Society

Convention Paper 7549

Presented at the 125th Convention
2008 October 2–5 San Francisco, CA, USA

The papers at this Convention have been selected on the basis of a submitted abstract and extended precis that have been peer
reviewed by at least two qualified anonymous reviewers. This convention paper has been reproduced from the author’s advance
manuscript, without editing, corrections, or consideration by the Review Board. The AES takes no responsibility for the contents.
Additional papers may be obtained by sending request and remittance to Audio Engineering Society, 60 East 42nd Street, New York,
New York 10165-2520, USA; also see www.aes.org. 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.

In Situ Determination of Acoustic Absorption

Coefficients
Scott Mallais1
1 Audio Research Group, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada

Correspondence should be addressed to Scott Mallais (smallais@uwaterloo.ca)

ABSTRACT

The determination of absorption characteristics for a given material is developed for in situ measurements.
Experiments utilize maximum length sequences and a single microphone. The sound pressure is modeled
using the compact source approximation. Emphasis is placed on low frequency resolution which is depen-
dent on both the geometry of the loudspeaker-microphone-sample configuration and the room in which the
measurement is performed. Methods used to overcome this limitation are discussed. The concept of the
acoustic center is applied in the low frequency region, modifying the calculation of the absorption coefficient.

1. INTRODUCTION In general, a maximum length sequence excitation sig-

Absorption coefficients are very convenient parameters
used to represent the absorption characteristics of a sur-
face. There exist numerous methods used in their de-
termination, however, there are far fewer that are suit-
able for in situ measurements. This has been the focus
of other work [1, 2, 3]. Several considerations are re-
quired when performing measurements in a room. Pri-
marily, one must be aware of nearby objects or surfaces
that may behave as acoustical reflectors, disrupting mea-
surements. Secondly, since many rooms have substantial
background noise (fans, air conditioning units, heaters),
measurements should have high signal to noise ratios.
nal may be used to overcome the problems of unwanted
reflections and signal to noise ratio. By using the appro-
priate gating of sound pressures, the complex reflection
coefficient, and thus the absorption coefficient, may be
determined [1]. The trade off of gating data is lower fre-
quency resolution, which will be mentioned later in this
paper.
Several techniques have been proposed in order to re-
cover from the loss of frequency resolution. Generally,
the frequency response would be multiplied by an ap-
propriate filter, in turn modifying the impulse response
in the time domain. Such filters would result in a quick
Mallais In Situ Absorption Coefficients

decay of the impulse response before the first unwanted

reflection from a room surface, allowing a lower trunca- pa (r) 
α= (3)
pi (r) r=rs

tion error of the impulse response when windowing [4].
It has also been shown that a subtraction technique is and for the absorption coefficient
useful in a room. If the microphone-speaker distance is
kept constant, two measurements may be performed and
 pa (rs ) 2
 
subtracted from another, resulting in an isolated reflected A =   = |α|2 (4)
impulse response from a surface [3]. The first measure- pi (rs ) 
ment contains only the pseudo-free-field response (inci-
dent wave), where as the second contains both the inci- We must have continuity of energy at the boundary sur-
dent and reflected sound pressure from the surface. This face. Therefore, the same should be true for the intensi-
method allows for a very close microphone-sample dis- ties, which are energies per unit second per unit area,
tance, increasing the amount of time between the re-
flected sound wave from the sample and the reflections A+R = 1 (5)
from neighboring surfaces.
and substituting (2) into (5), we obtain
The aim of this paper is to outline some of the difficulties
encountered with in situ measurements. These will be
presented by the application and discussion of particular A = 1 − R = 1 − |ρ|2 (6)
in situ methods.
for the absorption coefficient.
2. THEORY
2.2. Compact Source Model
2.1. Absorption Coefficient
We must now identify a form for the sound pressure p.
In general, the absorption coefficient is calculated from This of course depends on the acoustical source that we
the measurement of the incident and reflected acoustic are using in our measurements. However, in general we
pressures. The presented theory therefore defines the re- use the compact source approximation, which is valid
lationship between these quantities [5]. In the following, when the source is much smaller than the wavelength of
r is the observation position, pi is the incident acoustic it’s radiation (2πa  λ ) [7]:
pressure and pr is the reflected acoustic pressure. The
reflection factor is defined as the ratio of reflected sound
 r ρo 0  r
p t− = S t− (7)
pressure to the incident sound pressure at the surface un- c 4πr c
der study (r = rs ),
where:
t - time [s]
pr (r) 
ρ= (1) r - distance from source to observation point [m]
pi (r) r=rs

The reflection coefficient is defined in terms of intensity,
being the ratio of reflected sound intensity to the incident
sound intensity at the surface under study (r = rs )
c - speed of sound [m·s−1 ]
ρo - density of air [kg·m−3 ]
S0 - derivative of the volume velocity [m3 ·s−2 ]
The derivative of the volume velocity is with respect to
it’s argument, the time delay (t − r/c). This is an approx-
imation stating that the source loudspeaker is producing
 pr (rs ) 2
 
 = |ρ|2 spherical waves, depending on the acceleration of it’s di-
R =  (2)
pi (rs )  aphragm. A simple form of this statement is expanding
p in spherical waves directly:
Likewise, the absorption factor is defined as the ratio of
absorbed sound pressure to the incident sound pressure e j(kr−ωt)
at the surface, p(r,t) = Bω (8)
r

AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008 October 2–5
Page 2 of 10
Mallais In Situ Absorption Coefficients

where j is the imaginary unit. Since the pressure am-

plitude generally varies with frequency we denote it as e jkro
pi (ro ) = Biω (13)
Bω . Each frequency component of a pressure signal ro
should satisfy (8) (respecting the limitation discussed
previously). If we omit the time dependence (8) becomes and

e jkr e jk(3ro )
p(r) = Bω (9) pr (3ro ) = Brω (14)
r 3ro
The incident and reflected acoustical pressures adopt this
form. These are respectively By taking the ratio of (14) to (13) and isolating ρ, one
obtains
e jkri
pi (ri ) = Biω (10) pr (3ro ) − jk2ro
ri ρ =3 e (15)
pi (ro )
e jkrr
pr (rr ) = Brω (11) Therefore a measurement of the incident and reflected
rr
sound pressures at ro will allow us to determine the re-
Here ri and rr represent the different propagation dis- flection factor. Introducing this result into (6), the ab-
tances travelled by the respective sound waves. The pres- sorption coefficient becomes
sure amplitudes are not necessarily the same. In the spe-
cial case where pi = pr at the surface (with no phase in-
 pr (3ro ) 2
 
version), the boundary is said to be rigid, having a reflec- A = 1−9
  (16)
tion coefficient of unity. pi (ro ) 
We may now see that (1) becomes
2.3. Acoustic Center
pr (r)  Brω If we are to use the compact source approximation,
ρ= = , (12) we must perscribe the proper 1/r factors describing the
pi (r) r=rs Biω

which is the ratio of pressure amplitudes.
Fig. 1: Experimental setup of absorption coefficient
measurement. Geometrically, the reflected wave path is
three times the incident wave path.
Suppose we now were to measure the sound pressure at
a distance ro from a surface as in Fig. 1. The respective
incident and reflected sound pressures would be
AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008 October 2–5
Page 3 of 10
spherical spreading of the acoustic pressure waves. The
origin of these spherical waves, is δ , the acoustic center.
At low frequencies, it has been shown that the acous-
tic center of a disk on an infinite baffle is a disk radius
away from it’s center [8]. As well, if the disk were in-
stead radiating into full space as opposed to half space,
the acoustic center would be half a radius away.
The acoustic center may be found from a series of mea-
surements of sound pressure at multiple distances from a
loudspeaker. Since the pressure should vary as 1/r in the
far field, a plot of the magnitude of 1/p versus r should
be linear. Referring to the acoustic pressure in (9), we
have
1 r
= (17)
|p(r)| |Bω |
Now if we consider that the acoustic center is at a point
away from the origin (taken as the baffle of the loud-
speaker), we replace r with r − δ in (17) to obtain
Mallais In Situ Absorption Coefficients

of sound will then yield the time it will take for this re-
1 r−δ flection to arrive at the microphone position. The im-
= (18)
|p(r − δ )| |Bω | pulse response should then show these reflections, allow-
ing for proper separation of signals in the time domain.
This equation has a r-intercept at r = δ , the acoustic cen-
ter. We may thus plot (18) as a function of r in order to Ultimately, the closest refelection will dictate the time
obtain the acoustic center of the loudspeaker. This cor- window used in gating the incident and reflected signals.
rection to the propagation distance is important at low It is therefore important to position the loudspeaker, mi-
frequencies. At high frequencies, the acoustic center has crophone and sample as far as possible from the other
approximately the same position as the baffle of the loud- surfaces in a room. This is often difficult, especially in
speaker. small rooms and therefore poses a problem. The time
window is related to the frequency resolution by the re-
We must now determine an analogue of (15), using the ciprocal relationship [1]
appropriate 1/r factors. The incident and reflected pres-
sures are 1
∆f ' (23)
∆t
e jk(ro −δ )
pi (ro − δ ) = Biω (19) We see that a frequency resolution on the order of ten
ro − δ
hertz requires a time window of one tenth of a second,
and corresponding to a nearest surface of about seventeen
meters away. This is half the distance that the reflected
sound wave travels. On the other hand, a frequency reso-
e jk(3ro −δ ) lution on the order of one hundred hertz is achieved with
pr (3ro − δ ) = Brω (20)
3ro − δ a nearest surface of almost two meters. It is therefore
clear that the frequency resolution of a measurement is
yielding a reflection factor of limited by the dimensions of the room. However, this
also depends on the geometry of the experimental setup.
3ro − δ pr (3ro − δ ) − jk2ro The length of the time window will be the smallest of
ρ= e (21)
ro − δ pi (ro − δ ) either:

and by substitution of (21) in (6), the absorption coeffi-

1. The difference between the time delay of the re-
cient is
flected wave and the time delay of the incident
2  wave.
 pr (3ro − δ ) 2
 
3ro − δ
A = 1−   (22) 2. The difference between the time delay of the un-
ro − δ  pi (ro − δ ) 
It may be seen that (21) becomes (15) and (22) becomes
(16) when δ = 0, as it should be.
3. CONSIDERATIONS IN SITU
3.1. Reflections
Rooms are generally compromised of six plane surfaces
that partially absorb and reflect sound. It is therefore im-
portant to identify the unwanted reflections from these
surfaces before a measurement is performed. This is
done by simply measuring the distance between the loud-
speaker, plane surface and microphone for a given con-
figuration. Two times this distance, divided by the speed
AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008 October 2–5
Page 4 of 10
wanted reflection and the time delay of the reflected
wave.
This ensures that we exclude the unwanted reflections
from the measurement, and, that the window length is
constant for both the gated incident and reflected waves.
3.2. Noise
In order to satisfy the compact source condition from
section 2.2, the circumference of the loudspeaker driver
must be much smaller than the wavelength of the emit-
ted sound radiation. However, as the size of the source
decreases, so does it’s output level (keeping other param-
eters constant). This can be seen in (7), since the acoustic
Mallais In Situ Absorption Coefficients

pressure is proportional to the surface of the loudspeaker diameter driver in one end and a plug in the other (Fig.
driver. A compromise must then be made between the 3).
size of the source and the desired output level.
Multiple sources of noise exist in a typical room, some
of which are periodic. These range from heating units,
air conditioning units, fans and sound from external en-
vironments. In some situations these disturbances may
be controlled, however this is not always the case.

4. LOUDSPEAKERS
A KEF loudspeaker was used as a source in the first ex-
periment. This loudspeaker is composed of two drivers
in a closed box enclosure (Fig. 2). A significant amount
of diffraction is assumed, due to the edges of its rectan-
gular enclosure [9]. The sound pressure received at the
microphone position is thus the sum of the direct and
diffracted pressures.
Fig. 3: Small driver loudspeaker. This consists of a 3 cm
driver set in a 1.3 m pipe.
This loudspeaker driver will also act as a compact source
up to higher frequencies than the woofer unit. In terms of
diffraction, it is usefull to note that this enclosure is fairly
smooth and does not have long edges like those from a
rectangular box. This loudspeaker should therefore have
lower diffractive contributions at the microphone posi-
tion when compared with the KEF loudspeaker.

5. EXPERIMENTS
Measurements were performed in a rectangular room
with various surfaces (Fig. 4). The first experiment
was performed using a wood paneled wall as a sample
with the KEF loudspeaker. In the second, the same wall
and the floor were separately measured, using the small
driver loudspeaker.
Fig. 2: KEF two-way loudspeaker. Grill was removed to
show the tweeter and woofer units.

The loudspeaker enclosure has the dimensions of 21 cm

by 25 cm by 34 cm (width, depth, height), with a 3 cm
tweeter and a 13 cm woofer (diameters). The tweeter will
follow the compact source approximation up to higher
frequencies than the woofer.
The enclosure in which these units are mounted af-
fects the acoustic center. For a similar arrangement, the
woofer was found to have an acoustic center, δ , of 12.4
cm [10].
In addition, a loudspeaker was constructed using a plastic Fig. 4: Rectangular room of dimensions lx = 5.5, ly = 7.5
pipe of 1.3 m in length, with an outer diameter of 4.5 cm and lz = 2.8 meters. Measurements were performed on
and an inner diameter of 4 cm. The pipe has a 3 cm the wood paneled wall and the floor.

AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008 October 2–5
Page 5 of 10
Mallais
Fig. 5: Signal path of measurement configuration.
The floor is quite rigid, therefore we would expect the ab-
sorption coefficient to be approximately zero for this sur-
face. The wall is assumed to be rigid at high frequencies,
however absorption is expected in the low frequency re-
gion.
Fig. 6: Incident and reflected impulse response from
wood paneled wall using the KEF loudspeaker. The first
reflection is clearly seen at 4.4 ms. The third reflection,
at 7.4 ms is from the front of the loudspeaker.
5.1. Configuration
The experimental configuration is shown in Fig. 1. This
is performed in a room, of dimensions lx = 5.5, ly = 7.5
and lz = 2.8 meters. The loudspeaker-microphone dis-
tance, as well as the microphone-sample distance, is ro =
0.5 meters. The placement of the loudspeaker relative
to the floor is the limiting room factor determining the
available reflection free time from neighboring surfaces.
This was changed depending on the loudspeaker used
(mainly due to the differences in the available mounting
hardware).
The signal chain is shown in Fig. 5. A computer program
sends out a maximum length sequence signal, which is
amplified and fed to a loudspeaker. A B&K free field
microphone captures the acoustic signal, which is subse-
quently amplified and sent back to the computer for fur-
AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008 October 2–5
Page 6 of 10
In Situ Absorption Coefficients
ther processing. The end result is the impulse response of
the loudspeaker–microphone–sample configuration, in-
cluding room reflections.
Fig. 7: Windowed incident (larger curve) and reflected
(smaller curve) impulse responses from wood paneled
wall using the KEF loudspeaker.
5.2. Method
The first step would be to obtain the acoustic centers of
each loudspeaker, then, experiments may be performed
in order to determine the absorption coefficient, A. As
we can see in (22), we require the measurement of ro ,
δ , pi and pr . The latter three are obtained from the
impulse respone of the measurement, or for the case of
δ , from impulse responses at various distances from the
loudspeaker.
In order to obtain the separated incident and reflected
waves, the impulse response must be multiplied by an ap-
propriate window. For either case (incident or reflected),
the time window should be of the same length. This will
ensure that both pressure data have the same frequency
resolution, since we are to take their ratio in order to cal-
culate A. There exists a variety of windows to choose
from [1]. Our analysis utilizes a rectangular window.
This will result in a truncation error at the end of the
time window, although it preserves the shape of the im-
Mallais In Situ Absorption Coefficients

pulse response prior to this. The impulse response using

the KEF loudspeaker is show in Fig. 6.
The incident and reflected impulse responses are then
gated using a time window of 2.8 ms (Fig. 7). Using
(23), this ∆t results in a frequency resolution of 357 Hz.
This resolution is high, and results at frequencies below
this value should be disregarded. The incident and re-
flected waves are then brought to the frequency domain
by use of a fast Fourier transform. The result is the fre-
quency responses shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 9: Impulse response from wood paneled wall using

the small driver loudspeaker.

Fig. 8: Incident (upper curve) and reflected (lower curve)

sound pressure levels from wood paneled wall using the
KEF loudspeaker.

The same method is then applied for the small driver

loudspeaker using a window length of 2.7 ms. The
complete impulse response reveals a significant low fre-
quency component, perhaps originating from a fan or an
air conditioning unit (Fig. 9). The frequency response is
shown in Fig. 10.
The frequency responses for both loudspeakers show a
rise or fall of the sound pressure level below the 350 Hz
region, suggesting errors due to truncation of the impulse
responses. It is apparent that there is little low frequency
content coming from the small driver loudspeaker. We
notice that the sound pressure levels are between 75 and
105 dB for the KEF loudspeaker experiment, while the
sound pressure levels are between 10 and 50 dB when
using the small driver loudspeaker (Fig. 8, Fig. 10). We
speculate that the frequency response will not be repre-
sentative below approximately 2 kHz in Fig. 10. The
measurement on the room floor using the small driver
loudspeaker is shown in Fig. 11. Truncation has resulted
in oscillations in the frequency domain.
Fig. 10: Incident (upper right) and reflected (lower right)
sound pressure levels from wood paneled wall using the
small driver loudspeaker.
6. RESULTS
We may now use the data acquired in section 5.2 to de-
termine the absorption coefficient of the two surfaces. In
the case of the KEF loudspeaker, the acoustic center of
the woofer is assumed to be valid up to approximately
200 Hz due to the size of it’s enclosure. The room in
which the measurement was performed only allowed a
time window of about 2.8 ms, yielding a frequency res-
olution of 357 Hz. The low frequency concept of the
acoustic center is valid up to approximately 200 Hz for
the KEF loudspeaker and higher still for the small driver
loudspeaker. However, the acoustic center correction
would not apply in the frequency region where we have
meaningful data. The absorption coefficient will there-

AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008 October 2–5
Page 7 of 10
Mallais
Fig. 11: Windowed incident (upper right) and reflected
(lower right) impulse responses from room floor using a
small driver loudspeaker.
fore be calculated using (16). An example presented in
the discussion will demonstrate the effect of the acoustic
center on the absorption coefficient at low frequencies.
Fig. 12: Absorption coefficient of wood paneled wall us-
ing the KEF loudspeaker.
Fig. 12 shows the calculated absorption coefficient of the
room wall using the KEF loudspeaker. Fig. 13 and Fig.
14, show the calculation of the absorption coefficient us-
ing the small driver loudspeaker on the room wall, and
floor, respectively. We see that the absorption coefficient
takes on negative values. A negative absorption coeffi-
cient is not allowed in theory. This corresponds to a re-
flection coefficient that is greater than unity, thus requir-
ing more reflected pressure than incident pressure. In the
case of the KEF loudspeaker, we speculate that this is
AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008 October 2–5
Page 8 of 10
In Situ Absorption Coefficients
possibly caused by diffraction.
Fig. 13: Absorption coefficient of wood paneled wall us-
ing small driver loudspeaker. The absorption coefficient
is only shown above 2 kHz due to a poor signal to noise
ratio in the low-mid frequency region.
Fig. 14: Absorption coefficient of room floor using small
driver loudspeaker. The absorption coefficient is only
shown above 2 kHz due to a poor signal to noise ratio
in the low-mid frequency region.
In general, we see that above 3 kHz, both surfaces have
absorption coefficients between ± 0.2.
7. DISCUSSION
7.1. Acoustic Center
The acoustic center should be applied as a correction to
spherical wave propagation at low frequencies. This re-
quires a frequency resolution that is lower than the fre-
quency limit of the acoustic centers application (i.e. 200
Mallais
Hz). It is difficult to achieve a resolution such as this in
small rooms, as was shown in the present study. If mea-
surements in the low frequency region are possible, such
as in a large room, the corrected form of the absorption
coefficient should be used, (22).
The effect of the acoustic center on the absorption co-
efficient will be demonstrated by an example. Consider
that the incident and √ reflected pressure magnitudes sat-
isfy |pr |/|pi | = 1/3 2, measured at the microphone po-
sition in Fig. 1. Once again, ro = 0.5 m and let us as-
sume that the acoustic center is δ = 0.1 m. Substitut-
ing these values into the non–corrected absorption coef-
ficient (16), we find A = 0.5. However, using the acoustic
center corrected absorption coefficient (22), one would
obtain A = 0.32. This is a difference of almost a fac-
tor of 1.6, which is significant. In general, the acoustic
center will tend to decrease the absorption coefficient. It
is therefore important that the acoustic center concept is
used when measurements are made in the low frequency
region.
7.2. Absorption Coefficient
It is worth mentioning that absorption coefficients are
generally determined for absorptive materials. In the
present study, the theory was verified using highly reflec-
tive surfaces. It is not clear why results show negative
absorption coefficients. The theory presented here and
perhaps others, may not hold true for highly reflective
surfaces. This will be verified by testing an absorptive
material in a future study.
7.3. Low Frequency Resolution
As was mentioned earlier in this paper, several attempts
have been made to improve the reliability of data at low
frequencies [3, 4, 11]. Correcting for this problem is not
trivial, and it is of key importance in the in situ determi-
nation of the absorption coefficient at low frequencies.
When one is using a reflection method on a surface in
order to measure the reflection coefficient (and thus the
absorption coefficient), one must realize that the incident
pressure wave or the response from the loudspeaker is
still oscillating well into the reflected impulse response.
A compromise is thus made in order to account for this
problem. Either the impulse response is truncated before
the reflected wave in order to isolate an incident pulse,
or a window is used that weighs the impulse response as
a function of time. In either case the original signal is
modified.
AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008 October 2–5
Page 9 of 10
In Situ Absorption Coefficients
Filtering of the impulse response has been suggested in
order to perform measurements in the low frequency re-
gion [4, 11]. In the present situation, the same principle
could be applied. The general idea is as follows: if the
frequency response of a loudspeaker is filtered so that
the impulse response decays before the arrival of any un-
wanted reflections, the impulse response may be trun-
cated with reduced error, and subsequently, corrected by
the inverse filter in the frequency domain. In principle,
this would have to be employed for both the incident and
reflected waves. The reflected wave in the impulse re-
sponse would not necessarily decay to zero rapidly, since
it has been modified by the wall. A proper filter for the
wall would then be required. This method is presently
under consideration.
8. CONCLUSIONS
A modification to the calculation of the absorption coef-
ficient has been presented in order to include the concept
of the acoustic center at low frequencies. A summary
of difficulties encountered in rooms, such as reflections
and noise, has been discussed. Measurements have been
performed with a typical loudspeaker as well as a low
diffraction compact source on reflective surfaces. Issues
relating to the a compact source have been discussed and
shown by experiments. Finally, the effect of the acous-
tic center on the absorption coefficient has been demon-
strated.
Several important problems persist in the in situ determi-
nation of acoustic absorption coefficients, most impor-
tantly, the limitations on low frequency resolution. Al-
though several methods have been suggested [3, 4, 11]
in order to overcome this problem, it is not clear which
would prove to be the most effective in terms of practical-
ity and accuracy. A proper comparison of these methods
is therefore necessary, which will be the subject of future
research.
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is part of an ongoing study for the require-
ments of a master of science degree, in physics, at the
University of Waterloo. The author would like to ac-
knowledge the Natural Sciences and Engineering Re-
search Council of Canada (NSERC) for research fund-
ing. In addition, this work would not be possible with-
out the help of both Professor Emeritus John Vanderkooy
and Professor Emeritus Stanley Lipshitz.
Mallais In Situ Absorption Coefficients

10. REFERENCES in Normal Rooms?”, presented at the 125th Con-

vention of the Audio Engineering Society, San
[1] M. Garai, “Measurement of the Sound-Absorption
Francisco, CA, USA, October 2–5 2008.
Coefficient In Situ. The Reflection Method Using
Periodic Pseudo-random Sequences of Maximum
Length”, Applied Acoustics, vol 39, 1993, pg. 119-
139.
[2] J.-F. Li, M. Hodgson, “Use of pseudo-random se-
quences and a single microphone to measure sur-
face impedance at oblique incidence”, J. Acoust.
Soc. Am., vol. 102, no. 4, October 1997, pg. 2200-
2210.
[3] E. Momertz, “Angle-Dependent In-Situ Measure-
ments of Reflection Coefficients Using a Subtrac-
tion Technique”, Applied Acoustics, vol 46, 1995,
pg. 251-263.
[4] L. R. Fincham, “Refinements in the Impulse Testing
of Loudspeakers”, presented at the 74th Convention
of the Audio Engineering Society, New York, NY,
USA, October 8–12 1983.

[5] L. Cremer, H. A. Müller, “Principles and Applica-

tions of Room Acoustics”, vol 2, Applied Science
Publishers, 1982.
[6] L. L. Beranek, “Acoustics”, McGraw Hill 1954,
reprinted for the Acoustical Society of America by
the American Institute of Physics.
[7] P. M. Morse, K. U. Ingard, “Theoretical Acoustics”,
McGraw Hill 1968, reprinted by Princeton Univer-
sity Press.

[8] J. Vanderkooy, “Polar Plots at Low Frequencies:

The Acoustic Centre”, presented at the 120th Con-
vention of the Audio Engineering Society, Paris,
France, May 20–23 2006.
[9] J. Vanderkooy, “Simple Theory Cabinet Edge
Diffraction”, J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 39, no. 12,
December 1991, pg. 923-933.
[10] J. Vanderkooy, “The Acoustic Center: A New Con-
cept for Loudspeakers at Low Frequencies”, pre-
sented at the 121st Convention of the Audio Engi-
neering Society, San Francisco, CA, USA, October
5–8 2006.
[11] J. Vanderkooy, S. Lipshitz, “Can One Per-
form Quasi-anechoic Loudspeaker Measurements

AES 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2008 October 2–5
Page 10 of 10