The effects of different test methods on the just noticeable difference of clarity index for music.

The just noticeable differences (JNDs) of room acoustics metrics are necessary for research and design of performing arts venues. The goal of this work was to evaluate the effects of different testing methods on the measured JND of clarity index for music (C80). An initial study was conducted to verify the findings of other published works that the C80 JND is approximately 1 dB, as currently listed in ISO 3382:2009 (International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland, 2009), however, the results suggested a higher value. In the second study, the effects of using two variations of the method of constant stimuli were examined, where one variation required the subjects to evaluate the pair of signals by listening to each of them in their entirety, while the second approach allowed the participants to switch back and forth in real-time. More consistent results were obtained with the latter variation and the results indicated a C80 JND greater than 1 dB. In the final study, an extensive training period using the first variation was required, based on the second study, and the data were collected using the second variation. The analysis revealed that for the conditions used in this study (concert hall and chamber music hall) that the C80 JND is approximately 3 dB.

[1]  Florian Wickelmaier,et al.  Perceptual Audio Evaluation - Theory, Method and Application , 2006 .

[2]  Wj Davies,et al.  The sensitivity of listeners to early sound field changes in auditoriums , 1993 .

[3]  Tapio Lokki,et al.  Anechoic recording system for symphony orchestra , 2008 .

[4]  F Martellotta,et al.  The just noticeable difference of center time and clarity index in large reverberant spaces. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[6]  Toshiyuki Okano,et al.  Judgments of noticeable differences in sound fields of concert halls caused by intensity variations in early reflections. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Gerald Kidd,et al.  Informational masking and musical training. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Søren Bech Selection and Training of Subjects for Listening Tests on Sound-Reproducing Equipment , 1992 .

[9]  Felix Wichmann,et al.  The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  John S. Bradley,et al.  A just noticeable difference in C50 for speech , 1999 .

[11]  Michael Vorländer,et al.  About just noticeable differences for aspects of spatial impressions in concert halls , 2005 .

[12]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  G. B. Wetherill,et al.  SEQUENTIAL ESTIMATION OF POINTS ON A PSYCHOMETRIC FUNCTION. , 1965, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[14]  Floyd E. Toole Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener Performance , 1985 .

[15]  Yoichi Ando,et al.  The running autocorrelation function of different music signals relating to preferred temporal parameters of sound fields , 1989 .

[16]  A. Oxenham,et al.  Influence of musical and psychoacoustical training on pitch discrimination , 2006, Hearing Research.