Mismatches between objective parameters and measured perception assessment in room acoustics: A holistic approach

Abstract

Psychoacoustic research in the field of concert halls has revealed that many aspects concerning listening perception have yet to be totally understood. On the one hand, the objective room acoustics of performance spaces are reflected in parameters, some standardized and some not, but these are related to a limited number of perceptual attributes of human response. In general, these objective parameters cannot accurately Secondly, hierarchical clustering produces the classification of survey questions in 7 hierarchical classes. On the other hand, a lack of tuning between objective parameters and perceptual responses is observed on applying MDS analysis to the ordination of the venues from a subjective assessment and a subjective-objective assessment. Finally, although the results show the mismatch between objective parameters and subjective responses, a model of subjective global evaluation of the acoustics of the room from data of three orthogonal acoustic parameters is implemented, revealing a reasonably good fit.

Subjective ranking of concert halls substantiated through orthogonal objective parameters

“…22 Table I shows the orthogonal parameter mean value for each room, and compares the variability of the results of these parameters in the halls, in terms of their respective just noticeable differences (JNDs) (relative 5% for T mid , 0.075 for IACC E3 according to the ISO standard, 7 and 1 dB for LEV parameter), with respect to the best subjectively valued room (TM) by means of question C21 of the questionnaire. These variations are calculated as ½par ¼ ðpar -par best hall Þ=JND:…”

“…In the work by Gim enez et al, 22 the agglomerate hierarchical technique and multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) analysis are performed in order to relate subjective valuations and objective parameters. These statistical procedures have provided similar results to those attained by Lokki et al 14,15 under different methodological conditions (virtual orchestra, a group of assessors, attributes elicited by the experts, and assessment under laboratory conditions).…”

“…In each hall, orthogonal objective parameters of acoustic quality descriptors (T mid , IACC E3 , and LEV) 19 and other correlated acoustic parameters are determined and are spectrally averaged at each reception point; for the octave bands involved in the spectral averages, see Appendix A of the work by Gim enez et al 22 The spatial averaging is achieved over the spectrally averaged values for each receiver position, and all measurements are accomplished in the unoccupied room. 22 Table I shows the orthogonal parameter mean value for each room, and compares the variability of the results of these parameters in the halls, in terms of their respective just noticeable differences (JNDs) (relative 5% for T mid , 0.075 for IACC E3 according to the ISO standard, 7 and 1 dB for LEV parameter), with respect to the best subjectively valued room (TM) by means of question C21 of the questionnaire.…”

“…20 This collection of data analyzed by statistics procedures has enabled models to be obtained for the relationships between objective parameters and subjective responses. 21,22 As a result of these investigations, various models have been attained of the subjective assessment of sound quality of the rooms using a reduced number of objective parameters. These models have been a) Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.…”

Preferred positions for solo, duet, and quartet performers on stage in concert halls: In situ experiment with acoustic measurements

“…There are also considerable logistical problems in conducting controlled laboratory studies involving more than one or two musicians. A hybrid approach, drawing on laboratory methods, but conducted in real auditoria, can ensure realism while providing more specific information than the more usual questionnaires and interviews, similar to previous studies on audience areas [31,32], would be the most effective way to evaluate the performer's stage impressions. While none of these methods provides a complete solution, understanding of the effects of stage acoustics can be advanced by research following these methods, interpreted by considering the advantages and limitations of each.…”