Subjective Assessment of Concert Halls: a Common Vocabulary for Music Lovers and Acousticians

Open access

Abstract

In recent years we have interviewed members of the audience after musical performances and asked them to evaluate the acoustics of the concert halls. A group of ‘music lovers’ (with a high level of musical training and experience) and ‘acousticians’ (with a wide knowledge of the physical characteristics of sound transmission) also attended each performance and answered the same questions as the general public. This group thereby served as a control group when evaluating surveys of the general public. In this paper, the results obtained when analyzing these control group surveys are presented. This analysis shows that a common vocabulary exists between music lovers and acousticians when rating a hall, although the grouping of the questions for each factor depends on the training of the respondents.

1. Ando Y. (1977), Subjective preference in relation toobjective parameters of music sound fields with a singleecho, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 62, 6, December, 1436-1441.

2. Barron M. (1988), Subjective study of British sym-phony concert halls, Acustica, 66, 1-14.

3. Beranek L. (1962), Music acoustics & architecture, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

4. Beranek L. (1996), Concert halls and opera houses, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

5. Beranek L. (2003), Subjective rank-orderings andacoustical measurements for fifty-eight concert halls, Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 89, 3, May/June, 494-508.

6. Beranek L. (2008), Concert Hall Acoustics, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 56, 7/8.

7. Blankenship J., Fitzgerald R.B., Lane R. (1955), Comparison of objective and subjective observations onmusic rooms, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 27. 774-780.

8. Choi Y-J., Fricke F.R. (2005), Evaluation of the rel-ative acoustic performance of two auditoria using mea-surements and auralization, Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 91, 1051-1062.

9. Cremer L., M¨uller H.A. (1982), Principles and ap-plications of room acoustics, Vol. I, II, Applied Science Publishers, London.

10. Cox T. J., Shiels B.M. (1999), Audience question-naire survey of the acoustics of the Royal Festival Hall,London, England, Acustica united with Acta acustica, 85, 547-559.

11. Fischetti A., Hemin Y., Jouhaneau J. (1992), Re-lations between Subjective Spatialisation, GeometricalParameters and Acoustical Criteria in Concert Halls, Applied Acoustics, 37, 233-247.

12. Gade A.C. (1989a), Investigations of musician’s roomacoustic conditions in concert halls. Part I. Methodsand laboratory experiments, Acustica, 69, 193-203.

13. Gade A.C. (1989b), Investigations of musician’s roomacoustic conditions in concert hall. Part II. Field exper-iments and synthesis of results, Acustica, 69, 249-262.

14. Gade A.C. (2007), Acoustics in halls for speech andmusic. Chapter 9, [in:] Handbook on Acoustics, J. Ross- ing [Ed.], Springer.

15. Gimenez A., Sendra J. J., Vela A., Dau- mal F., Cibrian R., Zamarreńo T., Arana M., Romero J., Giron S., San Martin M. L., Cerda S., Galindo M., Aramendia E., Lacatis R., Bustamante R., San Martin R., Segura J., Muńoz M. S., Miralles J. L. (2006a), Process of de-veloping a test of subjective response of listeners ingeneral and musical experts, as an assessment tool ofmusic perception in concert halls, auditoriums and the-aters [in Spanish], Tecni-Acustica 2006, Gandia, ISBN 84-87985.

16. Gimenez A, Sendra J. J., Vela A., Dau- mal F., Cibrian R., Zamarreńo T., Arana M., Romero J., Giron S., San Martin M. L., Cerda S., Galindo M., Aramendia E., Lacatis R., Bustamante P., San Martin R., Segura J., Muńoz M. S., Miralles J. L. (2006b), Responsesfrom listeners and music experts to a survey to assessthe perception of music in concert halls, auditoriumsand theaters [in Spanish], Tecni-Acustica 2006, Gan- dia, ISBN 84-87985.

17. Gim´enez A., Cibri´an R.M., Girón S., Zamar- reńo T., Sendra J. J., Vela A., Daumal F. (2011), Questionnaire survey to qualify the acoustics of Span-ish concert halls, Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 97, 6, November/December, 949-965.

18. Hawkes R. J., Douglas H. (1971), Subjective acous-tic experience in concert auditoria, Acustica, 24, 235-250.

19. Hidaka T., Beranek L. (2000), Objective and subjec-tive evaluations of twenty-three opera houses in Europe,Japan, and the Americas, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 107, 1, January, 368-383.

20. Lokki T., P¨atynen J., Kuusinen A., Vertanen H., Tervo S. (2011), Concert hall acoustics assessmentwith individually elicited attributes, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 130, 2, 834-849.

21. Martellotta F. (2010), The just noticeable differenceof center time and clarity index in large reverberantspaces, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 128, 2, 654-663.

22. Okano T. (2002), Judgments of noticeable differencesin sound fields of concert halls caused by intensity vari-ations in early reflections, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 111, 1, 217-229.

23. Parkin P.H., Scholes W.E., Derbyshire A.G. (1952), The reverberation times of ten British ConcertHalls, Acustica, 2, 97-100.

24. Schroeder M.R., Gottlob D., Siebrasse K.F. (1974), Comparative study of European concert halls:correlation of subjective preference with geometric andacoustic parameters, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 56, 4, 1195-1201.

25. Sotiropoulou A.G., Hawkes R. J., Fleming D.B. (1995), Concert hall acoustic evaluations by ordinaryconcert-goers: I, multidimensional description of theevaluatios, Acustica, 81, 1-19.

26. Soulodre G.A., Bradley J. S. (1995), Subjectiveevaluation of new room acoustic measures, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 98, 1, 294-301.

27. Yamaguchi K. (1972), Multivariate analysis of subjec-tive and physical measures of hall acoustics, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 52, 1271-1279.

28. Zahorik P. (2009), Perceptually relevant parametersfor virtual listening simulation of small room acoustics, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 126, 2, 776-791.

Archives of Acoustics

The Journal of Institute of Fundamental Technological of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.816
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.835

CiteScore 2016: 1.15

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.432
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.948

Cited By

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 317 265 18
PDF Downloads 92 83 6