Skip to main content
TUTORIALS10 min read

Sabine vs Eyring: Same Room, Different Answers — Worked Comparison

Calculate RT60 with both Sabine and Eyring equations for the same recording studio. See exactly where the results diverge, why, and when the 28% difference matters for design decisions.

AcousPlan Editorial · March 18, 2026

Both the Sabine and Eyring equations predict the same quantity — RT60, the time for sound to decay 60 dB — yet they can produce answers that differ by 30% or more in the same room. Understanding when and why they diverge is essential for any practitioner doing RT60 calculations. This article uses a single recording studio to demonstrate the difference numerically, including the Millington-Sette equation as a third comparator.

The Room

A medium-sized recording control room:

  • Length: 6.5 m
  • Width: 5.0 m
  • Height: 2.8 m
  • Volume (V): 6.5 × 5.0 × 2.8 = 91.0 m³
  • Total surface area (S): 2 × (6.5×5.0 + 6.5×2.8 + 5.0×2.8) = 2 × (32.5 + 18.2 + 14.0) = 129.4 m²
The room is treated for recording use, not a professional anechoic chamber, but well above typical commercial fit-out.

Surface Inventory and Materials

SurfaceDimensionsArea (m²)Material
Floor6.5 × 5.032.5Hardwood over concrete
Ceiling6.5 × 5.032.5Fabric-wrapped 100 mm mineral wool
Front wall5.0 × 2.814.0Angled 50 mm studio foam panels (80% coverage) + 2 mm hardwood (20%)
Rear wall5.0 × 2.814.0150 mm broadband absorber panels (full coverage)
Side wall A6.5 × 2.818.2100 mm mineral wool panels (60%) + 2 mm hardwood (40%)
Side wall B6.5 × 2.818.2100 mm mineral wool panels (60%) + hardwood (40%)

Front wall breakdown: foam = 0.80 × 14.0 = 11.2 m²; hardwood = 0.20 × 14.0 = 2.8 m² Side walls each: mineral wool = 0.60 × 18.2 = 10.9 m²; hardwood = 0.40 × 18.2 = 7.3 m²

Absorption Coefficients

Material125 Hz250 Hz500 Hz1000 Hz2000 Hz4000 Hz
Hardwood floor (25 mm on battens)0.150.110.100.070.060.07
Fabric-wrapped 100 mm mineral wool (ceiling)0.550.800.950.980.980.95
50 mm studio foam panels0.150.350.700.920.970.96
150 mm broadband absorber (rear wall)0.750.950.980.990.990.98
100 mm mineral wool panels0.450.750.950.980.970.95
2 mm hardwood sheet (reflective)0.100.080.060.050.040.03

Step 1 — Calculate Total Absorption Area A

For each surface, compute Si × αi at each octave band.

At 500 Hz (Key Band)

SurfaceArea (m²)Materialα (500 Hz)Si × αi
Floor32.5Hardwood0.103.25
Ceiling32.5100 mm mineral wool0.9530.88
Front wall — foam11.250 mm studio foam0.707.84
Front wall — hardwood2.82 mm hardwood0.060.17
Rear wall14.0150 mm broadband0.9813.72
Side A — mineral wool10.9100 mm mineral wool0.9510.36
Side A — hardwood7.32 mm hardwood0.060.44
Side B — mineral wool10.9100 mm mineral wool0.9510.36
Side B — hardwood7.32 mm hardwood0.060.44
Total A (500 Hz)129.477.46 m²

Average absorption coefficient: ᾱ = A/S = 77.46 / 129.4 = 0.599

This is a highly absorptive room.

Full Octave-Band A Values

Applying the same calculation at all bands:

Band (Hz)A (m²)ᾱ = A/S
12538.970.301
25060.900.471
50077.460.599
100083.970.649
200084.250.651
400082.260.636

Step 2 — Sabine Calculation

Per ISO 3382-2:2008 §A.1: RT60 = 0.161 × V / A

V = 91.0 m³

Band (Hz)A (m²)RT60 Sabine (s)
12538.970.161 × 91.0 / 38.97 = 0.376 s
25060.900.161 × 91.0 / 60.90 = 0.241 s
50077.460.161 × 91.0 / 77.46 = 0.189 s
100083.970.161 × 91.0 / 83.97 = 0.174 s
200084.250.161 × 91.0 / 84.25 = 0.174 s
400082.260.161 × 91.0 / 82.26 = 0.178 s

Mid-frequency Sabine RT60 = (0.189 + 0.174) / 2 = 0.182 s

Step 3 — Eyring Calculation

Per ISO 3382-2:2008 §A.2: RT60 = 0.161 × V / (−S × ln(1 − ᾱ) + 4mV)

For rooms below 500 m³, air absorption (4mV) is negligible and set to zero.

The only change from Sabine is replacing A (= S × ᾱ) with −S × ln(1 − ᾱ).

Let's work through 500 Hz:

  • ᾱ = 0.599
  • 1 − ᾱ = 0.401
  • ln(0.401) = −0.913
  • −S × ln(1 − ᾱ) = −129.4 × (−0.913) = 118.1 m²
  • RT60 = 0.161 × 91.0 / 118.1 = 14.65 / 118.1 = 0.124 s
Versus Sabine's 0.189 s — a difference of 0.065 s, or 34% less than Sabine's prediction.

Full Octave-Band Eyring Results

Band (Hz)1 − ᾱln(1 − ᾱ)−S × ln(1 − ᾱ)RT60 Eyring (s)RT60 Sabine (s)Difference
1250.3010.699−0.35846.320.316 s0.376 s−16%
2500.4710.529−0.63682.300.178 s0.241 s−26%
5000.5990.401−0.913118.10.124 s0.189 s−34%
10000.6490.351−1.047135.50.108 s0.174 s−38%
20000.6510.349−1.052136.10.108 s0.174 s−38%
40000.6360.364−1.011130.80.112 s0.178 s−37%

Mid-frequency Eyring RT60 = (0.124 + 0.108) / 2 = 0.116 s

The Sabine prediction of 0.182 s is 57% higher than the Eyring prediction of 0.116 s.

Step 4 — Millington-Sette Calculation

The Millington-Sette equation (also called the Millington equation) uses:

RT60 = 0.161 × V / (−Σ(Si × ln(1 − αi)))

Instead of using a single average ᾱ, it applies the logarithm to each surface's individual absorption coefficient before summing. This matters when surfaces have very different absorption levels.

At 500 Hz:

SurfaceArea (m²)α1 − αln(1 − α)−Si × ln(1 − α)
Floor (hardwood)32.50.100.90−0.1053.42
Ceiling (100 mm MW)32.50.950.05−2.99697.37
Front — foam11.20.700.30−1.20413.48
Front — hardwood2.80.060.94−0.0620.17
Rear wall14.00.980.02−3.91254.77
Side A — MW10.90.950.05−2.99632.66
Side A — hardwood7.30.060.94−0.0620.45
Side B — MW10.90.950.05−2.99632.66
Side B — hardwood7.30.060.94−0.0620.45
Sum235.43 m²

RT60 Millington-Sette (500 Hz) = 0.161 × 91.0 / 235.43 = 14.65 / 235.43 = 0.062 s

The three predictions at 500 Hz:

  • Sabine: 0.189 s
  • Eyring: 0.124 s
  • Millington-Sette: 0.062 s

Full Octave-Band Millington-Sette Results

Band (Hz)−Σ(Si × ln(1−αi))RT60 M-S (s)RT60 Eyring (s)RT60 Sabine (s)
12554.160.271 s0.316 s0.376 s
250133.80.110 s0.178 s0.241 s
500235.40.062 s0.124 s0.189 s
1000283.60.052 s0.108 s0.174 s
2000285.10.052 s0.108 s0.174 s
4000274.90.053 s0.112 s0.178 s

Why the Results Diverge So Dramatically

The mathematical divergence stems from Jensen's inequality: for a concave function f(x) = −ln(1−x), the function value at the mean is less than the mean of the function values.

In plain terms: mixing near-perfect absorbers (α = 0.95–0.98) with reflective surfaces (α = 0.06–0.10) in the same room produces a much lower effective absorption than you get by averaging the coefficients first.

In this studio:

  • The ceiling alone has α = 0.95 at 500 Hz. Millington-Sette treats this as −ln(0.05) = 3.00 per unit area.
  • Eyring uses ᾱ = 0.599, giving −ln(0.401) = 0.913 per unit area of total surface.
  • That 3.3× difference in the log term for the most absorptive surface drives the large gap.

Which Equation to Use?

Room TypeAverage ᾱRecommended EquationError if Wrong
Bare concrete room< 0.05Sabine< 5%
Office with standard ceiling tiles0.10–0.20Sabine (acceptable)5–15%
Open-plan with carpet + ceiling0.20–0.35Eyring preferred15–25%
Well-treated meeting room0.35–0.50Eyring20–30%
Recording control room0.50–0.70Millington-Sette50–100%
Anechoic chamber> 0.90Millington-Sette or measurementSabine fails

Practical Implications for This Studio

If the designer had used Sabine and specified treatment to achieve a target mid-frequency RT60 of 0.15 s, they would have under-specified the treatment. The room, built to Sabine's prediction, would actually measure closer to 0.11–0.12 s (Eyring) — drier than intended.

Conversely, if a studio designer targets a specific "live end, dead end" RT60 profile and measures 0.12 s at 500 Hz while Sabine predicts 0.19 s, the discrepancy is expected and correct — it is not a measurement error.

The lesson is straightforward: Sabine is a conservative predictor in highly absorptive rooms. It always overestimates RT60 when ᾱ > 0.2. For recording studios, vocal booths, and any space where controlling the lower limit of RT60 is the design goal, use Eyring at minimum and Millington-Sette where surfaces have widely varying absorption coefficients.

Related Articles

Run This Analysis Yourself

AcousPlan calculates RT60, STI, and compliance using the same standards referenced in this article. Free tier available.

Start Designing Free