Double Sloped Decay: Subjective Listening Test to Determine Perceptibility and Preference

Abstract

Can music listeners, both experienced and inexperienced, distinguish a double-sloped decay from a Sabine decay? Do they prefer the double slope? A simulated space, based on an actual built coupled-volume hall, was conceived in room acoustics software to create double sloped and classic Sabine auralizations. The simulated decays were compared with in situ measurements taken in a built coupled volume concert hall for validation. The impulse responses generated were convolved with an anechoic musical recording, grouped in pairs, and played for subjects. Participants listened to the recorded pairs over headphones and were asked to determine (1) if the two recordings sounded different, (2) which recording was more likely to have a double slope or had a more dramatic double slope, and (3) which of the two recordings they prefer. The more a recording diverged from a standard Sabine decay, the more likely the respondents were to identify that recording as having a double slope. When asked to identify a preference, subjects were no more likely to select a recording with a double-sloped decay, than a Sabine decay.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Eyring

C. F.

(1931). “Reverberation Time Measurements in Coupled Rooms,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 3, 181–206.

Kuttruff

(1931) Room Acoustics (Elsevier, New York).

Cremer

, and Müller

(1978). Principles and Applications of Room Acoustics. (Applied Science, London).

Johnson

Kahle

, and Essert

(1995). “Variable Coupled Volume for Music Performance,” Music and Concert Hall Acoustics: Conference proceedings from MCHA (Academic Press).

Xiang

Ning

, and Goggans

Paul M.

(2003). “Evaluation of decay times in coupled spaces: Bayesian decay model selection,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113, 2685–2697.

Atal

B. S.

Schroeder

M. R.

, and Sessler

G. M.

(1965). “Subjective Reverberation Time and its Relation to Sound Decay,” Proc. Fifth Intl. Congress on Acoust.

Bradley

David

, and Wang

Lily

. (2005) “The effects of simple coupled volume geometry on the objective and subjective results form nonexponential decay,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 181, 1480–1490.

Bradley

David

. (2006) “Analysis of parameter effects on sound energy decay in coupled volume systems,” A dissertation submitted to the University of Nebraska.

Knight

Derrick P.

(2003). “Audibility of Non-exponential Energy Decay in Running Reverberation,” A thesis submitted to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Greene Building, 110 8^th St., Troy, NY 12180).

10.

Picard, Delphine. “Audibility of Non-Exponential Reverberation Decays,” A thesis submitted to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Greene Building, 110 8^th St., Troy, NY 12180).

11.

Fidell

Sanford

, and Green

David M.

(1998). “Noise-induced Annoyance of Individuals and Communities,” Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 3rd ed. Harris

Cyril

ed. Melville, NY: Acoustical Society of America. Previous editions published under the title Handbook of Noise Control by McGraw-Hill.

12.

Thurston

L. L.

(1927). “A law of comparative judgment,” Psychological Review 34, 273–286. (Reprint (1994) Psychological Review 101, 266–270.)

13.

Ando

Yoichi

(1983). “Calculation of subjective preference at each seat in a concert hall,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 74, 873–887.

14.

Sato

Ando

, and Ota

(2000). “Subjective preference of cellists for the delay time of a single reflection in a performance,” J. Sound and Vib. 232, 27–37.

15.

Hase

Takatsu

Sato

Sakai

, and Ando

(2000). “Reverberance of an existing hall in relation to both subsequent reverberation time and SPL,” J. Sound and Vib. 232, 149–155.

16.

Noson

Sato

Sakai

, and Ando

(2000). “Singer responses to sound fields with a simulated reflection,” J. Sound and Vib. 232, 39–51.

17.

Ando

Yoichi

, and Kurihara

Yoshitaka

. (1986). “Nonlinear response in evaluating the subjective diffuseness of sound fields,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80, 833–836.

18.

Anderson

J. S.

, and Bratos-Anderson

(1997) “Acoustic Coupling Effects in St. Paul's Cathedral, London,” J. Sound and Vib 236(2), 209–225.

19.

Ricol

, and Junker

(1995). “A Ray Tracing Software: Rayon 2.0,” Proceedings of Euronoise 95, 49–54.

20.

Nijs

Jansens

Vermeir

, and van der Voorden

(2002). “Absorbing surfaces in ray-tracing programs for coupled spaces,” Appl. Acoust. 63, 611–626.

21.

Ayr

Cirillo

, and Martellotta

(2001). “Predicting Room Acoustical Behaviour of Coupled Rooms with Computer Simulation Techniques: A Case Study,” Proc. of the 17^th Intl. Congress on Acoust.

22.

Ermann

, and Johnson

(2004). “Exposure and materiality of the secondary room and its impact on the impulse response of coupled-volume concert halls,” J. Sound and Vib., 284, 915–931.

23.

Ermann

, (2005) “Coupled volumes: Aperture size and the double-sloped decay of concert halls,” Building Acoustics 12, 1–13.

24.

Ermann

, (2005) “Coupled volumes: Secondary room reverberance and the double-sloped decay of concert halls,” Building Acoustics. 12, 165–174.

25.

Beranek

(1996) Concert and Opera Halls: How They Sound. (Acoustical Society of America: Woodbury, NY), p.48.

26.

Farina

(2001). “Acoustic quality of theatres: Correlations between experimental measures and objective measures.” Appl. Acoust. 62, 889–915.

27.

Sakai

Ando

, and Setogughi

(2000). “Individual subjective preference of listers to vocal music sources in relation to the subsequent reverberation time of sound fields.” J. Sound and Vib. 232, 157–169.

28.

Trapenskas

Donatas

, and Johansson

Orjan

(2001). “Localization performance of binaurally recorded sounds with and without training.” Intl. J. of Industrial Ergonomics 27, 405–410.