Тёмный

How to Measure Sound with a Handheld Meter - Workbench Wednesdays 

Подписаться
Просмотров 7 тыс.
% 171

One of the loudest pieces of equipment on Bald Engineer’s electronics workbench is the Electronic DC Load. James has finally had it with its noise and decided to swap the fan out. To see (and not just hear) an improvement, he uses a #Tenma 72-942 handheld sound meter to compare before and after: bit.ly/30LJjxP
Engage with the element14 presents team on the element14 Community - suggest builds, find project files and behind the scenes video: bit.ly/2MFMG0v
Visit the element14 Community for more great activities and free hardware:
Tech spotlights: bit.ly/2KLz0TS
Roadtest and Reviews: bit.ly/2KH4fj3
Project14: bit.ly/2wPnajx

Наука

Опубликовано:

 

29 июл 2020

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 14   
@aaronhastings873
@aaronhastings873 2 года назад
As others have mentioned the A and C are frequency weightings (filters) that approximate equal loudness contours at high and moderate levels. F (fast) applies an exponential window for averaging with Tau = 0.125 seconds. S (slow) Tau is 1 second.
@brandtharen
@brandtharen 4 года назад
Nice choice in using a Noctua fan. I've been very pleased with the sound level of Noctua fans in my PC.
@MAYERMAKES
@MAYERMAKES 4 года назад
2 annotations by me, dont forget that measuring sound levels inside tight enclosures, like the plastic tub will give false readings as the sound reflects of the walls and the sound pressure is altered compared to open air. and sesecondly: mmmmmhhhhh Noctua fans, one of my favourite austrian suppliers.
@thomasmartin680
@thomasmartin680 4 года назад
that's right. Ideally these kind of measurment should be made in a deaf room. BUT, if you want a before/after comparison. and not accurate value, it makes sense. I would use a wooden box lined with wooden fiber or any kind of absorbent instead of a plastic tub though. That's for 2 reasons: 1_ few mm of plastic will not absorb much from the outside, I think the sheer distance between devices is makes a bigger difference. 2_ absorbent in the inside would limit most reverberation (reflections). at least in the high frequency range, which is the usefull range in this example. About 4-5 cm of wooden or glass fiber would be enough. Don't by so called "acoustic foam", it's cheap but pretty useless. Also, all acoustic measurement are supposed to be at least one meter away from source. The reason for that is sound pressure decreases by 6 dB every time you double the distance, so the dB reading you'll get will increase dramatically the closer you get to the source and will not reflect actual perceived sound level. One meter away allows you to quickly calculate the SPL level at any distance given the formula: Ld= Lref- 20log(1/d) where Lref = sound pressure measured at 1 meter, d = distance from source, L= Sound pressure measured at distance d from the source. This is only true in free field environment, but can be usefull in most cases as long as your room is not too reverberent.
@bald_engineer
@bald_engineer 4 года назад
How would you feel if I had lined the plastic box with some sound absorbers? While I was going for a comparative measurement, I did wonder what would have been a more appropriate measurement. Because you're right, we got an artificially high measurement.
@thomasmartin680
@thomasmartin680 4 года назад
That would be better, but still not the best. If i had to make this kind of measurement, i would try to lower the background noise by getting away of other appliances. Try this: place the DUT as far away as possible to any other source of noise or walls and turn it off. Place the microphone one meter away from it, set it for dBA in slow mode. Now, turn off every thing you can in the room: PCs, scopes, ventilation, AC... and measure the background noise. Then, turn the DUT on to measure its noise. If you can get at least a difference of 6 dB between the two measurement, you can assume that the biggest contributor to noise is the DUT. The bigger the difference (the lower the background noise), the more accurate the measure. This would still not be perfect, but at least it should give you a more accurate value. And would not cost a penny.
@xXDeltaXxwhotookit
@xXDeltaXxwhotookit 4 года назад
Noctua's standard colours are always a talking point, but they do make it easy to identify them in the field.
@simpsonizer
@simpsonizer 4 года назад
HA!! At 2:40 there is a 77.7 or 777! You win! Also, lucky number 777 is a neat syncronicity too
@CABohol
@CABohol 4 года назад
Nice
@JHaas117
@JHaas117 4 года назад
really interesting.
@RyanThompsonrthomp
@RyanThompsonrthomp 3 года назад
Nactua fan replacement for my power supply haha
@DaveMcAnulty
@DaveMcAnulty 4 года назад
"A" simulates the human ears frequency response, "C" is unweighted.
@MortenPiil
@MortenPiil 4 года назад
Not quite, A simulates the ears freq. resp. at the threshold of hearing i.e. at very low noise levels. C simulates the f.resp. at more normal soundlevels. See here for explanations of the averaging times also: www.nti-audio.com/en/support/know-how/frequency-weightings-for-sound-level-measurements
@thomasmartin680
@thomasmartin680 4 года назад
wrong. Both are weighted, but different curves. A curve is indeed weighted to reflect human ears response, C curve is supposed to be the human ear response at higher SPL levels. dBspl or Z weighting are "flat response". Z weighting is equal to spl but defines limits for the bandwidth.