No abstract

This study investigates the performance of dodecahedral and impulse sources when measuring acoustic parameters in enclosures according to ISO 3382-1 [Acoustics-Measurement of room acoustic parameters. Part 1: Performance spaces (International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009)]. In general, methods using speakers as a sound source are limited by their frequency response and directivity. On the other hand, getting impulse responses from impulse sources typically involves a lack of repeatability, and it is usually necessary to average several measurements for each position. Through experiments in different auditoriums that recreate typical situations in which the measurement standard is applied, it is found that using impulse sources leads to greater variation in the results, especially at low frequencies. However, this prevents subsequent dispersions due to variables that this technique does not require, such as the orientation of the emitting source. These dispersions may be relevant at high frequencies exceeding the established tolerance criteria for certain parameters. Finally, a new descriptor for dodecahedral sources reflecting the influence their lack of omnidirectionality produces on measuring acoustic parameters is proposed.

Although deviations in the measurement of acoustic parameters should be lower than the subjectively perceivable change in the corresponding parameter measured, this study reflects that directionality of sound sources could cause wide audience areas to break away from this criterion at high frequencies, even when using dodecahedron loudspeakers which meet the requirements of the ISO 3382 standard. The directivity of four different acoustic sources was measured and the influence of its accurate orientation spatially quantified in five enclosures for speech and music. By means of simulation software, the number of receivers affected by uncertainties greater than difference limens was established.

The main objective of this study is to analyze the differences found in the results of noise mapping using two of the most popular software techniques for the prediction of environmental noise. The location selected to conduct the comparative study is an area encompassed by the ring road that surrounds the city of Pamplona and on a grid, with a total of 6 x 10(5) points, approximately. In fact, and as the Environmental Noise Directive points out, it is a major road designated by a Member State (Spain). Configuration of the calculation parameters (discretization of the sources, ground absorption, reflection order, etc.) was as equivalent as possible as far as programs allow. In spite of that, a great number of differences appear in the findings. Although in 95.5% of the points the difference in the noise level calculated from the two programs was less than 3 dB, this general statistic result concealed some great differences. These are due to the various algorithms that programs implement to evaluate noise levels. Most differences pertain to highly screened receivers or remote ones. In the former, the algorithm of visibility is the main cause of such differences. In the latter, differences are mainly brought about by a different implementation of the propagation under homogeneous and favorable atmospheric conditions from both software systems.