Abstract In room acoustics, many objective parameters to quantify subjective impressions have been introduced. These quantities can be measured by using a wide variety of powerful tools and equipment. The results can be influenced by the measurement techniques and instruments used. Furthermore, the results also depend on the measurement positions and on the condition of the hall (full, empty, etc.). The aim of this work is to define a tightly standardized measurement procedure for the collection of a complete objective description of an opera house's acoustics. In this paper some of the results obtained by the authors after measurements made in three different halls are presented. Comparisons were made both between different hardware and software tools (real-time analyzer, DAT, PC-board, source, microphones, post-processing software) and between different measurement methods (interrupted stationary noise, true-impulse, pseudo-random white noise with impulse–response doconvolution, sine sweep) as well as between different positions in the halls, with and without the presence of musicians and audience. The results have shown that the differences obtained when using different measurement techniques and equipment are not of significant importance. The only effective differences were found regarding the recording techniques, as the monaural measurements give appreciably different results from the average of left and right channel of binaural measurements. Slightly different results were alsofound between true impulsive sources (pistol shots, balloons) and omni-directional (dodecahedral) loudspeakers. Attention must be paid to the signal-to-noise ratio, as this can influence the correct calculation of some acoustical parameters. Some differences, not as great as expected, were found in the results with and without the musicians in the orchestra shell and with and without the audience in the hall. This is probably due to the high sound absorption that is typical in Italian opera houses even without an audience. However, important differences were found in the calculation of some acoustical parameters, particularly clarity C 80, by changing positions in the hall.
[1]
Angelo Farina,et al.
Software Implementation of an MLS Analyzer with Tools for Convolution, Auralization and Inverse Filtering
,
1997
.
[2]
Dana S. Hougland,et al.
Concert and Opera Halls: How They Sound
,
1996
.
[3]
Domenico Stanzial,et al.
Energetic properties of acoustic fields
,
1994
.
[4]
Wing T. Chu.
Impulse-response and reverberation-decay measurements made by using a periodic pseudorandom sequence
,
1990
.
[5]
M. Schroeder.
New Method of Measuring Reverberation Time
,
1965
.
[6]
Angelo Farina,et al.
Subjective Comparison Between Stereo Dipole and 3D Ambisonic Surround Systems for Automotive Applications
,
1999
.
[7]
Mark A. Poletti,et al.
Linearly Swept Frequency Measurements, Time-Delay Spectrometry, and the Wigner Distribution
,
1988
.
[8]
M. Schroeder.
Integrated‐impulse method measuring sound decay without using impulses
,
1979
.
[9]
John Vanderkooy.
Another Approach to Time Delay Spectrometry
,
1986
.
[10]
H. Sabine.
Room Acoustics
,
1953,
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Human Communication Sciences and Disorders.
[11]
John Vanderkooy,et al.
Transfer-Function Measurement with Maximum-Length Sequences
,
1989
.
[12]
Heinrich Kuttruff,et al.
Room acoustics
,
1973
.
[13]
Michael Barron,et al.
Auditorium Acoustics and Architectural Design
,
1993
.
[14]
Yoichi Ando,et al.
Concert Hall Acoustics
,
1985
.
[15]
Mark A. Poletti,et al.
The application of linearly swept frequency measurements
,
1988
.