Tag: DEVELOPMENT

Marcelia cinema

Test certificate for BBC studio egypt

Test report

 

Clint:

        BBC complex studios in cairo

Test date:

June 14, 2014

Location:

 

Test method

It is based on ASTM E 90 standard

Project discretion

This is hotel based in Cairo Egypt and unique place in Cairo  nile view in agouza

outside noise was  normally 85 db and when the rash hour begging  it measurers 88 db and it is vary hi noise

And that use technique of wall damping construction for sound isolation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test object

  • Measure inside studio background noise
  • Measure outside studio ( street traffic )
  • Compere the measurements with the standard

 

Description of test

                      

Instruments:  sound level meter paa3 S/N 00380650

ACOUSTICAL calibrator B&K S/N 1897713

PAA3 SOFTWARE

HP I7     laptop

Test procedures 

Closing all the doors and start test with

 

SPL meter

RT 60

                          Space and time average

  • Average 6 meter from entrance door
  • Average 300 sec time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test investigation

Audio booth

First test inside the door of the studio and location of test in center of the space and open the window

it measures

 

And measuring the back ground noise in the same place . with closing the window and Curtin

 

 

And measuring RT60

 

Second

Test outside lobby area (rooms)

Measuring in the rooms in third floor with dynamic range testing

 

Third

Test outside lobby area ( garage ) after lobby door to garage and with full loudspeaker power

Measuring that following

And RT60 for the air volume

 

 

 

And after closing the door of garage outside ( street)

Measuring as following ( with dynamic rage )

 

And that is show it noise from 100 hz to 1 khz related to traffic noise

 

The code and testing comparing

Project Design :: Hotel

Goal: To create an aesthetically pleasing and calming environment, which encourages guests to feel relaxed and comfortable so that they enjoy their stay and are more apt to return. To minimize noise from other guest rooms, the corridor and mechanical equipment.

  • Related Codes & Standards
    • Sound Transmission Class (STC)
    • Impact Insulation Class (IIC)
    • Universal Building Code/International Building Code (UBC/IBC)
  • Considerations
    • There are several issues that must be addressed concerning acoustics in a hotel project. These issues stem from the two types of sound that must be controlled: airborne sound and impact sound. A typical airborne sound is music or talking. A typical impact sound is the footfall sound of an upstairs guest.
    • There are two rating systems that compare the acoustic quality of various building assemblies. Both classify acoustical performance with a single number. In both cases, the higher the number, the better the sound isolation performance. Sound Transmission Class (STC) rates a partition’s resistance to airborne sound transfer.
    • The Uniform Building Code (UBC) contains requirements for sound isolation between dwelling units in Group R occupancy project (including hotels). However, these criteria are not universally enforced. UBC requires walls and floor/ceiling assemblies to have an STC rating of 50. The code also requires that floor/ceiling assemblies have an Impact Insulation Class rating of 50. *NOTE: Even if a particular municipality has not adopted this part of the code, it is still recognized as an industry standard minimum.
    • Resilient channel can be used to help improve the isolation quality of a wall. However, if artwork and/or headboards are mounted against the wall (as is often the case in a hotel), the effectiveness will be greatly diminished. Consider increasing the isolation through some other means (i.e., increased mass, increased air space, double or staggered stud walls, etc…).
    • All air-gaps and penetrations must be carefully controlled and sealed. Even a small air-gap can degrade the isolation integrity of an assembly.
    • The perimeter of the wall and any penetration must be sealed air-tight with a non-hardening acoustic sealant.
    • Avoid the installation of back-to-back penetrations (outlets, light switches, and phone jacks). Consider installing a putty pad to the back of all outlets in party walls.
    • Ideally, elevator shaft footings, floor pads, masonry shaft walls, elevator equipment mountings, etc. should be totally isolated from the building structure. Structure borne noise/vibration from elevator operation may be extremely annoying. Additionally, any penetration or air gap in or around the wall must be sealed airtight with a non-hardening acoustic sealant.
    • The building code (UBC) specifies that the entrance doors from interior corridors shall have an STC rating of 26 or higher. The higher the STC rating of the doors, the better the isolation. However, if the seal around and under the door is not maintained, selecting a high rated door is meaningless. Ideally, drop seals that seal to a threshold (not carpet) can be installed. An acoustically absorptive ceiling and carpet in the corridor will help to control the noise levels within the corridor.
    • The majority of noise concerns can be alleviated through proper space planning. Sensitive areas should not be located near potentially noisy areas. Potentially annoying sound transmission from floor to floor (for example, from a restroom or laundry facility above a bedroom) can be mitigated through the vertical mirror of spaces. Potentially noisy areas (such as elevators, vending rooms and laundry facilities) should not be adjacent to guest rooms.
    • Although the building code does not address plumbing noise, this issue can be a major source of noise complaints. Plumbing noise can be both airborne and structure borne. To reduce plumbing noise, pipes should be resiliently mounted, that is, adequately insulated from their supports. To further reduce plumbing noise, the pipes should be wrapped with pipe lagging material.
    • Any roof-mounted equipment should be analyzed for potential noise/vibration impact.
    • Consider the exterior noise impact to the guest rooms (such as a nearby airport or freeway). The majority of this noise is transmitted through the windows and P-Tac units. Upgrading these elements might be necessary.
    • Noise Criteria (NC) ratings can be used to specify the allowable background noise levels (not including activity noise from the occupants) within a given space. Recommended NC levels vary depending on the type of space and the listening requirements. The recommended NC level for a bedroom is NC 20-30. Most hotel air-conditioning systems produce noise levels well in excess of the recommendation. Additionally, HVAC noise can act as a masking system in hotel projects, raising the background noise level and thus reducing the awareness of transmitted noise. (NOTE: Obviously, this benefit only occurs when the system is on.) The equipment noise should not exceed NC 25-30 and the air noise of the HVAC system should not exceed NC 35.

Codes & Testing :: Sound Transmission Class (STC)

Code: STC rates a partition’s or material’s ability to block airborne sound.

Enforcement: Appendix Chapter 35 of the ’88 and ’91 UBC, Appendix Chapter 12, Division II of the ’94 and ’97 UBC will be contained in the forthcoming IBC. Although not all municipalities have adopted this appendix chapter, it is still recognized as an industry standard.

General Information: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) contains requirements for sound isolation for dwelling units in Group-R occupancies (including hotels, motels, apartments, condominiums, monasteries and convents).

UBC requirements for walls: STC rating of 50 (if tested in a laboratory) or 45 (if tested in the field*).

UBC requirements for floor/ceiling assemblies: STC ratings of 50 (if tested in a laboratory) or 45 (if tested in the field*).

* The field test evaluates the dwelling’s actual construction and includes all sound paths.

Definitions:

  • Sound Transmission Class rates a partition’s resistance to airborne sound transfer at the speech frequencies (125-4000 Hz). The higher the number, the better the isolation.

STC Strength: Classifies an assembly’s resistance to airborne sound transmission in a single number.

STC Weakness: This rating only assesses isolation in the speech frequencies and provides no evaluation of the barrier’s ability to block low frequency noise, such as the bass in music or the noise of some mechanical equipment.

Recommended Isolation Level
An assembly rated at STC 50 will satisfy the building code requirement, however, residents could still be subject to awareness, if not understanding, of loud speech. It is typically argued that luxury accommodations require a more stringent design goal (as much as 10dB better – STC 60). Regardless of what STC is selected, all air-gaps and penetrations must be carefully controlled and sealed. Even a small air-gap can degrade the isolation integrity of an assembly.

Codes & Testing :: Impact Insulation Class (IIC)

Code: IIC rates a floor/ceiling assembly’s ability to block impact sound.

Enforcement: Appendix Chapter 35 of the ’88 and ’91 UBC, Appendix Chapter 12, Division II of the ’94 and ’97 UBC will be contained in the forthcoming IBC. Although not all municipalities have adopted this appendix chapter, it is still recognized as an industry standard.

General Information: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) contains requirements for sound isolation for dwelling units in Group-R occupancies (including hotels, motels, apartments, condominiums, monasteries and convents).

UBC requirements for floor/ceiling assemblies: IIC ratings of 50 (if tested in a laboratory) or 45 (if tested in the field*).

* The field test evaluates the dwelling’s actual construction and includes all sound paths.

Definitions:

  • Impact Insulation Class (sometimes referred to as Impact Isolation Class) measures a floor/ceiling assembly’s resistance to the transmission of structure-borne or impact noise.

IIC Strength: Helps to rate structure-borne noise such as footfall, a chair dragging on the floor, or other realistic sounds in a single number.

IIC Weakness: Due to the nature of the testing procedure, almost any assembly with carpet will meet the IIC requirement. Meeting the IIC requirement does not ensure the control of footfall noise. Conversely, if an assembly does not meet the IIC requirement, it does not necessarily mean that there will be a footfall noise issue.

The tapping machine frequently used for this test is not designed to simulate any one type of impact, such as a male or female footsteps, nor to simulate the weight of a human walker. Thus the subjectively annoying creak or boom generated by human footfalls on a limber floor assembly may not be adequately evaluated by this method (American Society for Testing and Materials – ASTM, E 1007, 5.2).

Recommended Isolation Level
An IIC rating of 50 will satisfy the building code requirements. As with STC, it is typically argued that luxury accommodations require a more stringent design goal. Bare in mind, some floor assemblies rated as high as IIC 70 could still transfer noticeable footfall noise.

Recommended Isolation Level
An IIC rating of 50 will satisfy the building code requirements. As with STC, it is typically argued that luxury accommodations require a more stringent design goal. Bare in mind, some floor assemblies rated as high as IIC 70 could still transfer noticeable footfall noise.

ANSI  (recommendation) .

Hotels/Motels
          Individual rooms or suites 40-45 (db)
          Meeting/banquet rooms 40-45 (db)
          Halls, corridors, lobbies 45-50 (db)
          Service/support areas 60-65 (db)

 

And for the clubs

The noise levels in clubs ranges between  95-98 dB(A) region

Ground type., the exposure times and frequency of exposure and the proportion of attenders vs. non-attenders . According to all the previous factors a test must be  retake Loud speakers will be relocated  according to the wind direction , to reach the standards levels .

 

 

Conclusion

  • All the door must retreated with new gasket
  • Must adding a threshold for main door and garage
  • All partitioning tested is meet E90 STARNDRD
  • Traffic and train noise totally sound isolated

*The test result  apply to the time of test (from 5 pm to 10 pm ) we will not be responsible for any other test done out of the above time frame.

 

This study made under American standard test method  

Dr. Ibrahim Elnoshokaty.               

Acoustical consultant                   

 

Eng. Eslam Youssef                        Eng. Mohamed hamdi

  R & D engineer                       Test and measurement

                                                     Engineer

 

 

 

Speech intelligibility in noise

ABSTRACT
Speech can be modified to promote intelligibility in noise, but the potential benefits for non-native listeners are difficult to predict due to the additional presence of distortion introduced by speech alteration. The current study compared native and non-native listeners’ keyword scores for simple sentences, unmodified and with six forms of modification. Both groups showed similar patterns of intelligibility change across conditions, with the native cohort benefiting slightly more in stationary noise. This outcome suggests that the change in masked audibility rather than distortion is the dominant factor governing listeners’ responses to speech modification.
Key Topics

Random noiseMaterials analysisSequence analysisSpeech analysisElectric measurements
1. Introduction GO TO SECTION…

Listeners are frequently required to understand recorded or synthetic speech output under less-than-ideal conditions. One approach to maintaining intelligibility in such environments is to modify the clean speech prior to output (e.g., Skowronski and Harris, 2006 ; Taal et al., 2013 ). Large-scale evaluations have demonstrated gains equivalent to a reduction in speech level of more than 5 dB for participants listening in their first language, at least for English ( Cooke et al., 2013 ). It is of interest to ask whether non-native listeners (NNLs) benefit from speech modifications to the same extent as native listeners (NLs). While the effect of noise on speech perception in NNLs has been researched extensively (see review in García Lecumberri et al., 2010 ), most studies to date have employed unaltered forms of speech. Far less is known about the impact of modified speech on NNLs.
Many speech modification algorithms aim to improve the masked audibility of speech. For instance, Taal et al. (2013) sought the optimal linear filter maximizing an approximation to the Speech Intelligibility Index ( ANSI, 1997 ). If masking release is the main effect of speech modification, previous studies of the effect of noise on NNLs (e.g., Cutler et al., 2004 ) lead to the prediction that this group of listeners will benefit by a similar amount to NLs for speech material with a predictable syntactic structure and limited lexicon. However, a known side-effect of modification is some degree of distortion, and it is also possible that NLs are able to use their richer experience with the phonology of the target language to extract a larger benefit than NNLs.
Earlier studies with altered speech styles provide a mixed picture of their effects on NNLs. Hazan and Simpson (2000) examined the degree of benefit produced by selective amplification of perceptually-salient regions of vowel-consonant-vowel material. Two groups of NNLs with different first languages showed similar intelligibility gains over unprocessed speech as a NL cohort. However, a study using synthetic speech ( Reynolds et al., 1996 ) demonstrated that NNLs suffer larger deficits than NLs for this form of non-standard speech material. Likewise, Lombard speech has been shown to be somewhat less beneficial for NNLs ( Cooke and García Lecumberri, 2012 ).
The current study measured the effect of speech modification on NNLs using a range of algorithms tested in Tang and Cooke (2011) . The six modification techniques tested differ both in their effect on intelligibility and in their degree of disruption to speech quality as predicted by an objective measure. NNLs identified keywords in simple unmodified and modified English sentences presented in stationary and fluctuating maskers. Results are compared with those from a NL cohort of 24 British English participants tested in Tang and Cooke (2011) .

2. Methods GO TO SECTION…

2.1 Listeners
A group of 71 young adult listeners participated in the experiment. All were native monolinguals in Spanish or bilingual in Spanish and Basque, and all were in their second year of studies for the degree of English Philology at the University of the Basque Country, Spain. Of these, six failed to complete some of the conditions and were excluded from subsequent analysis.
2.2 Speech and noise material
Sentences were drawn from the GRID Corpus ( Cooke et al., 2006 ) and consist of 6 word sequences with spoken letter and digit keywords in the fourth and fifth positions, e.g., “lay red at K 4 now,” spoken by 1 of 34 male or female talkers. These so-called “matrix” sentences were chosen in this preliminary study to avoid the involvement of higher-level knowledge which is known to produce larger NL benefits in noise ( García Lecumberri et al., 2010 ). Sentences were drawn at random from the corpus and presented in stationary (speech shaped noise; SSN) or fluctuating (speech modulated noise; SMN) maskers. The SSN sample approximated the long-term spectrum of the unmodified speech corpus. SMN was derived by modulating the SSN signal with the short-term temporal envelope of randomly-concatenated sequences of utterance from the corpus.
2.3 Processing conditions
Speech material was processed by six different modification techniques described in Tang and Cooke (2011) : “SegSNR,” “ChanSNR,” and “LocalSNR” equalized the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in each frame, frequency channel, and time-frequency location, respectively; “SelectBoost” amplified masked channels in the frequency range 1800–7500 Hz; “Pausing” introduced a 300 ms pause preceding a word boundary in such a way as to avoid the most intense noise epoch, while “Combined” consisted of Pausing and SelectBoost in sequence. Modifications were applied to clean speech prior to mixing with noise.
The overall root-mean-square (rms) energy was equalized following the modification, and since the Pausing and Combined techniques introduced pauses, the duration of the remaining speech sections was linearly compressed by an equivalent amount.
Figure 1 shows waveforms and spectrograms for unprocessed and modified speech for an example utterance. It is evident that the modification techniques differ in the degree of alteration to the signal and its spectro-temporal characteristics. For example, while ChanSNR is equivalent to a constant spectral filter and has little effect on speech quality, both SegSNR and LocalSNR impose rapid variations across time frames and result in significant audible distortions. Table 1 provides an estimate of distortion using the objective speech quality measure PESQ ( Rix et al., 2001 ). For the modifications tested here, values cover the entire PESQ range, from 1 (poor quality) to 4.5 (undistorted speech) relative to the reference unmodified speech signal.

Click to view
Fig. 1.
Original and modified waveforms and spectrograms for the utterance “Set red by O 2 soon.”

Table 1.
Table 1.

Click to view
Table 1.
Mean PESQ values across 50 sentences in each modified speech condition. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

2.4 Procedure
In Tang and Cooke (2011) , NLs were tested at SNRs of −6 and −9 dB, apart from the modification method LocalSNR, which was mixed at SNRs of 0 and 3 dB due to reduced intelligibility at lower SNRs. In the current study, NNLs were tested at −6 and 0 dB for all conditions apart from LocalSNR, which was presented at 3 and 6 dB. Results are given here for the SNRs that the two listener groups had in common, namely, −6 dB (3 dB for LocalSNR). SNRs were computed over the region where the speech is present.
Listeners heard speech in noise in 28 conditions made up of all combinations of the 2 masker types, 2 SNRs, and 7 sentence processing conditions (i.e., 6 modifications plus unmodified speech). Sentences were blocked by condition: within each block the SNR, masker, and modification was constant. Each block consisted of 50 utterances. To avoid sentence subset effects, 28 sets of 50 sentences were generated for each condition (i.e., 784 sets in total) and listeners were assigned to sentence sets using a balanced design which ensured that no listener heard the same sentence more than once, and that each listener heard the same number of sentences in each of the 28 conditions. Condition order was also balanced across listeners, and the order of stimulus presentation within each condition randomized.
The experiment took place in a quiet laboratory. Stimuli were delivered under computer control via Plantronics Audio-90 headphones (Plantronics, Santa Cruz, CA). Participants entered letter and number keywords using a computer keyboard. Listeners were familiarized with the task via a short practice session and undertook the main experiment, which required approximately 90 min to complete, over 2 sessions separated by a break.

3. Results GO TO SECTION…

In the unmodified speech condition, NLs (from Tang and Cooke, 2011 ) identified 63.8% of keywords correctly in stationary noise and 81.1% in fluctuating noise, while NNLs obtained scores of 52.8% and 67.7%, respectively, representing NL benefits of 11.0 and 13.4 percentage points. Figure 2 plots mean percentage keywords correct for the two listener groups for all conditions. It is evident that NL and NNL scores are highly-correlated [ r = 0.97, p < 0.001] with the best linear fit having a slope close to unity and showing a mean NNL deficit of just over 12 percentage points. Click to view Fig. 2. Mean keyword correct scores for NLs and NNLs in stationary noise (filled symbols) and fluctuating noise (unfilled symbols). Points have been shifted randomly by up to ±0.5 percentage points to avoid overlap. Native data come from Tang and Cooke (2011) . The upper panel of Fig. 3 presents changes in keyword scores, expressed in percentage points, for the six processed speech conditions for both listener groups relative to their respective unmodified speech baselines. Overall, NLs and NNLs show a very similar pattern of gain for each masker. The additional NL gain in stationary noise averaged 5.1 percentage points across modifications and 0.8 percentage points in fluctuating noise. Separate two-factor (modification by listener group) repeated-measures analyses of variance were computed for each masker type. For the SSN masker, gains differ across modifications [ F(5, 435) = 363, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.66] and listener group [ F(1, 87) = 10.2, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.06] but the interaction between these factors is not statistically-significant [ p = 0.22]. For the SMN masker, the effect of modification is again significant [ F(5, 435) = 250, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.62]. However, the two listener groups have equivalent overall gains [ p = 0.48]. The modification by listener group interaction is significant [ F(5, 435) = 3.61, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.023]. Post hoc comparisons based on a Fisher's Least Significant Difference value of 2.6 percentage points indicate that the interaction is due to different gains for the LocalSNR modification technique. Click to view Fig. 3. NL and NNL keyword score gains in percentage points (pps; upper) and changes in RTs (lower) over unmodified speech in SSN (left) and SMN (right). Error bars represent ±1 standard error. Native data come from Tang and Cooke (2011) . Figure 3 (lower) plots changes in response times (RTs) relative to unmodified speech. The median RT (measured from stimulus onset) per listener in each condition was used to avoid the influence of very long or short RTs. In the baseline unmodified speech condition NLs required 2.8 and 2.7 s for the SSN and SMN maskers, while NNLs responded in 3.4 and 3.1 s, respectively. For both maskers there is a significant interaction between nativeness and modification technique [SSN: F(5, 435) = 2.8, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.01; SMN: F(5, 435) = 4.9, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.03]. The pattern of RT change is complex, and varies both with modification technique and masker type. For NNLs, most of the RT changes across modification methods represent an amplified version of those seen for NLs. 4. Discussion GO TO SECTION... In common with most previous studies which compared speech-in-noise intelligibility of NL and NNLs (see review in García Lecumberri et al., 2010 ), the non-native group identified fewer keywords correctly in noise than the native cohort. However, both listener groups showed a strikingly similar pattern of intelligibility changes when confronted by modified speech relative to an unmodified speech baseline. This finding is in line with Hazan and Simpson (2000) , whose two NNL groups benefited from speech enhancements to a similar degree to that of a native control group. Unlike Hazan and Simpson (2000) , whose modifications involved selective amplification of regions of phonetic importance, the algorithms tested in the current study were designed to promote masked audibility without regard for speech content, since a wider range of modification strategies are available if the need to identify salient phonetic information is removed. The present study supports the notion that differences in masked audibility across modification techniques affect NLs and NNLs identically. We found little evidence for the hypothesis that NLs are better able to handle distortions to the expected speech pattern resulting from speech modification. While NLs did benefit more (or suffer less) from modifications in the stationary masker, this additional NL benefit of around 5 percentage points was similar for all modifications regardless of the amount of objective distortion each one introduced. For the modulated masker NNLs were more adversely affected in the LocalSNR condition, where it might be argued that distortion played some part. However, the two conditions containing pauses had lower objective speech quality but exhibited no NNL disadvantage. One possibility is that spectro-temporal and pause-based modifications have differential effects on NLs and NNLs. As expected, listeners responded more rapidly in conditions which produced high intelligibility. For instance, RTs decreased in stationary noise for the LocalSNR and SelectBoost modifications. Here, though, non-native RTs showed larger decreases over their baseline. This may be a ceiling effect: it is possible that at around 2.6 s for SelectBoost NLs were already responding as rapidly as possible. In spite of their larger decrease in RT, NNLs in the same condition remained slower at around 2.85 s. It is less clear why RTs for NNLs were more adversely affected than those for NLs in conditions which exhibited intelligibility reductions in the presence of fluctuating noise. The largest differential effect is seen for SegSNR. This modification redistributes energy across time frames to ensure that each has an equivalent SNR. For fluctuating maskers this has the side-effect of coupling speech modulations to those of the masker. The possibility that NNLs require more processing resources to perform speech separation under these conditions merits further study. Finally, we note that the aim of this initial study was to establish the effect of masked audibility and distortion in sentences where the value of higher-level linguistic information is minimized. It remains to be seen whether modifications to more complex speech material interact with a listener's native language status. 5. Conclusions GO TO SECTION... Changes in intelligibility resulting from modified speech show a similar pattern for NL and NNLs despite differences in the degree of objective speech distortion across modifications. This outcome encourages the deployment of algorithmically-altered forms of speech in applications such as public transport interchanges where they promise to benefit listeners regardless of whether they are listening in their native language. Acknowledgments GO TO SECTION... This work has received funding from the European Union 7th Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. FP7-PEOPLE-2011-290000 (INSPIRE) and the Basque Government under grant Language and Speech (IT311-10).

ما هو sharedin ?

شيرد اين

هو احدث  جهاز فى مجال التسويق الالكترونى والذى لا يقتصر على المواقع التواصل الاجتماعى  فقط بل ابتكار واجهة اعلامية قوية من حيث الشكل والمضمون بشكل طرفيهى للمتلقى ويقوم الجهاز بتذويد ب domain name ,web hosting , web site  وقد يتوافر لدى الجهز اكثر من 6000 temples   على احدث المواقع العالمية html5  وباحدث التصميمات يستطيع المستخدم انشاء موقعة الخاص بشكل سهل وبمنتهى الاحترافية ويقدر شيرد اين على عمل الكثير وهو وضع رايو انترنيت على web site  وايضا وضع جريدة الكترونية لكل نشاطات المستخدم  وايضا يتيح للمستخدم ارسال لكل المواقع التواصل الاجتماعى ( Facebook . YouTube .LinkedIn .google +, twitter) من خلال صفحة واحدة يستطيع ان ينشر كل ما يريد على صفحات التواصل الاجتماعى وايضا يستطيع ان يعمل جدول لهذة الارسالات محدد التوقيت فمن الممكن تقوم بتسويق الالكترونى لشركة او لمهنتك فى 5 دقائق كل يوم

كيف يتم ادارة شيرد اين من الداخل ؟

يقوم شبرداين على نظام linux  وذلك لاقصى درجات الاستقرار كما هو معلوم نظام linux  غير قابل للفيروسات فيكون الجهاز محمى تماما

كيف جاءت فكرة شيرد اين ومن صنعها ؟

جاءت فكرة  sharedin  بعد اكتساب موقع التواصل الاجتماعى الشهرة القصوة وعدد مستخدمى الانترنيت فى ازدياد مستمر لذلك تم تخطيط وابنكار هذا الجهاز من خلا 3 شركات وهى شركة  enoshmink وهى صاحبة الفكرة والشركة متخصصة فى تكنولوجيا الصوتيات ونظم متكاملة وايضا شركة real deal  وهى الشركة القائمة بتطوير الجهاز وشركة  I host you  المعنية بكل تفاصيل  hosting _ room site _domain name

كيف يتم انشاء موقغ الكترونى من خلال شيرد اين ؟

انشاء موقع الكترونى من خلال شيرد اين فهى عملية سهلة من 3 خطوات

اول خطوة : الدخول على الصفحة الرئيسية للوحة الادارة والضغط على زر بعنوان web

ثانى خطوة : الضغط على  rv site builder

ثالث خطوة : اختيار احد الاشكال المتوفرة من 6000 شكل لموقع وتتستطيع الاضافة والحذف صور و الفيديو وكل ما يحتوية  website  الخاص بك بشكل جذاب جدا بستخدام ل

 html5

ماهى مميزات الموقع من خلال شيرد اين ؟

1- موفع شكل جذاب

2- سهولة الترقية كل الموقع

3- سهولة حذف واضافة اى شى على الموقع صور وكتابة وفيديو وصوت

4- انشاء عدد كبير من الايملات الخاصة باصم صاحب ال  domain

 

 كيف يمكن الوصول للبريد الالكترونى ؟

بسهولة جدا يستطيع الوصول للبريد الالكترونى الخاص بك الموجود على  sharedin  وايضا يسطتيع التزامن مع ال  outlook  بطريقة اوتوماتيكية موجودة فى  web mail

 

كيف يتم كتابة مقال ثم نشرة عبر شيرد اين ؟

يمكنك كتابة المقال الذى تريدة عن طريق اختيار زر باسم  shared in my post  بعد الضغط سيظهر صفحة جديدة تستطيع ان تضيف فيها web site  او  YouTube  وكتابة صور كل ما تحتوية من مواد دعائية الذى يريدة المستخدم نشرها من خلال مواقع التواصل الاجتماعى وايضا يستطيع يعمل اكثر من رسالة من خلال الوقت الذى يريد فية ان يرسل الرسالة وهذة الخاصية تقلل الكثير من الوقت  فالتعامل مع كل مواقع التواصل الاجتماعى مثلا لو اردت ان ترسل 5 رسائل عن منتج ما فانت تحتاج من 45 الى 60 دقيقة على الاقل فى كل رسالة حتى يثنى لك ان تدخل على كل مواقع التواصل الاجتماعى وترسل هذة الرسالة ولكن من خلال  sharedin  تستطيع ارسال هذة الرسائل لكل مواقع التواصل الاجتماعى بعد كتابتها فورا  وايضا تستطيع ان 5 رسائل ان تحدد توقيتاتهم ويقوم هو بارسالهم فى الموعد الموحدد وارساال ال  feedback  لهذا المواقع على بريدك الخاص

ما هى اهمية راديو والجريدة الالكترونية فى شيرد اين ؟

الراديو هى طريقة جديدة للتسويق الالكترونى حيث  ان لكل مستخدم مزاجة الخاص  فى الموسيقى فيتيح لك شيرد اين عمل الراديو الخاص بك وايضا الرسلة الدعائية التى يقوم بعملها على الراديو بسهولة ويسر لكل مستخدمى الموقع المستخدم وايضا قمنا بتطوير اعادة اتجاة الاغانى المرسلة على مواقع التواصل الالكترونى  للراديو مثلا الاغنية الجديدة اى اغنية جديدة موجودة الان بستطيع المستخدم ارسالها فى رسالة وبعد ان تنتهى تتوجهة الاشارة للراديو الخاص بالمستخدم بسهولة مما جعل مستمعى الراديو اكثر واكثر  والاعلانات الموجودة على الراديو مسموعة اكثر اما عن المجلة فهى ارشيف لكل الرسائل التى قام المستخدم بارسالها من خلال شيرد اين ووضعها على الويب

 badge-1

الأخطاء الشائعة فى عزل الشبابيك فى أستوديوهات التصوير او أستوديوهات الصوت

The acoustic window is the surface through which the sound waves travel. It occupies the space between the piezoceramic assembly and the water. Any material used to create the acoustic window will absorb some of the sound waves that pass through it. Therefore, engineers carefully choose the least absorbent materials. The acoustic window is sometimes referred to as the acoustic face.

Epoxy, plastic, and urethane are the three materials Airmar uses most often for our acoustic windows. These materials have sound wave carrying capabilities or acoustic properties between those of the piezoceramic element and water.

Acoustic window materials fall into two categories. Soft, rubbery, elastic materials like urethane carry sound waves in almost the same manner as water. So, water and urethane are said to have similar acoustic properties. Because of this close match, the thickness of acoustic windows made from urethane does not need to be tightly controlled in our product designs.

Hard materials like plastic and epoxy have acoustic properties somewhere between those of piezoceramic elements and water. In other words, the plastic or epoxy acts like an intermediate acoustic step between the fluid water and the rigid piezoceramic element. A plastic or epoxy acoustic window is called a matching layer. Layer thicknesses are carefully calculated and produced to match the sound wavelength at the operating frequency.

by Dr.ibrahim elnoshokaty

الأخطاء الشائعة فى عزل الأسقف والجدران فى أستوديوهات التصوير او أستوديوهات الصوت

Four acoustic terms you need to be familiar with:

Reverberation
Reflections
Absorption – Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC)
Isolation – Sound Transmission Class (STC)

Reverberation:
In an enclosed space, when a sound source stops emitting energy, it takes some time for the sound to become inaudible. This prolongation of the sound in the room caused by continued multiple reflections is called reverberation.Reverberation time plays a crucial role in the quality of music and the ability to understand speech in a given space. When room surfaces are highly reflective, sound continues to reflect or reverberate. The effect of this condition is described as a live space with a long reverberation time. A high reverberation time will cause a build-up of the noise level in a space. The effects of reverberation time on a given space are crucial to musical conditions and understanding speech. It is difficult to choose an optimum reverberation time in a multi-function space, as different uses require different reverberation times. A reverberation time that is optimum for a music program could be disastrous to the intelligibility of the spoken word. Conversely, a reverberation time that is excellent for speech can cause music to sound dry and flat.

Reflections:
Reflected sound strikes a surface or several surfaces before reaching the receiver. These reflections can have unwanted or even disastrous consequences. Although reverberation is due to continued multiple reflections, controlling the Reverberation Time in a space does not ensure the space will be free from problems from reflections.Reflective corners or peaked ceilings can create a “megaphone” effect potentially causing annoying reflections and loud spaces. Reflective parallel surfaces lend themselves to a unique acoustical problem called standing waves, creating a “fluttering” of sound between the two surfaces.Reflections can be attributed to the shape of the space as well as the material on the surfaces. Domes and concave surfaces cause reflections to be focused rather than dispersed which can cause annoying sound reflections. Absorptive surface treatments can help to eliminate both reverberation and reflection problems

Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC):
The Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) is a single-number index for rating how absorptive a particular material is. Although the standard is often abused, it is simply the average of the mid-frequency sound absorption coefficients (250, 500, 1000 and 2000 Hertz rounded to the nearest 5%). The NRC gives no information as to how absorptive a material is in the low and high frequencies, nor does it have anything to do with the material’s barrier effect (STC).
Sound Transmission Class (STC):
The Sound Transmission Class (STC) is a single-number rating of a material’s or assembly’s barrier effect. Higher STC values are more efficient for reducing sound transmission. For example, loud speech can be understood fairly well through an STC 30 wall but should not be audible through an STC 60 wall. The rating assesses the airborne sound transmission performance at a range of frequencies from 125 Hertz to 4000 Hertz. This range is consistent with the frequency range of speech. The STC rating does not assess the low frequency sound transfer. Special consideration must be given to spaces where the noise transfer concern is other than speech, such as mechanical equipment or music.Even with a high STC rating, any penetration, air-gap, or “flanking” path can seriously degrade the isolation quality of a wall. Flanking paths are the means for sound to transfer from one space to another other than through the wall. Sound can flank over, under, or around a wall. Sound can also travel through common ductwork, plumbing or corridors.

by Dr.ibrahim elnoshokaty


المتطلبات الاساسية لعمل استوديو

 Design  Studio

Goal: To achieve an optimum acoustic environment in a home studio, which requires careful attention to sound isolation and the interior acoustic environment of the studio.

  • Tips/Considerations
    • Ideal sound isolation is achieved with massive construction, an airspace and elimination of any structural connections that may transmit sound. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to properly isolate sound when building a studio in an existing residence, mainly because of the common lightweight, wood frame construction and the presence of windows (it’s important to fill windows with materials comparable to the rest of the wall). For new construction, you should specify walls with a high STC. An appropriate STC for a home studio depends on the specific activities taking place within the studio. Most likely, it would require an STC of 60 or more. Although STC is a good rating for speech frequency, it does not consider the low frequency sounds.
    • Achieving the optimum interior acoustic environment involves protecting the studio from noise (noise within the space and noise transmitted into the space) and controlling the reflections within the space.
    • Assuming all transmitted noise is controlled, the primary noise concern is from the HVAC system (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning). All mechanical equipment must be controlled to a very quiet level (NC 15-20).
    • It is not necessary to cover every surface in the studio with a sound absorbing material. This would create an acoustically “dead” environment with too much bass sound. To create the optimum acoustic environment, a balance of absorption and diffusion should be considered. There are several commercially manufactured products for both absorption and diffusion. It is recommended to consult an acoustical expert in order to obtain specifics on particular products as well as determine the amount and placement of such products within the specific studio setting.
    • Note: Absorption and diffusion materials only help the interior acoustic environment and do not help with isolation.
    • by Dr.ibrahim elnoshokaty

A logging while drilling acoustic isolation technology by varying thickness of drill collars at a distance greater than wavelength

 

A key technology for logging while drilling (LWD) acoustic measurements is the design of an acoustic isolator to suppress tool waves propagating along the drill collar, such that acoustic signals from earth formations can be effectively measured under LWD conditions. Up to now, the LWD acoustic isolation is achieved by periodically cutting grooves along the drill collar between acoustic transmitter and receivers. Such a technique, although it is effective, reduces the mechanical strength of the drill collar and adds cost to the manufacturing and maintenance of the LWD tool, hindering the application of the LWD acoustic technology. We have developed an LWD acoustic technology that does not use the groove-cutting design. We utilize the inherent frequency stopband for extensional wave propagation along a cylindrical pipe and effectively broaden the stopband by combining drill pipes of different cross-section areas whose lengths are greater than a wavelength but are shorter than the transmitter-to-receiver distance. After propagation through the combined drill collar system, the stopband in the collar extensional wave is significantly widened and the wave amplitude in the stopband is substantially reduced. Making LWD acoustic measurements in this widened stopband allows for recording acoustic signals from the surrounding formation.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE