Evaluations of output from room acoustic computer modeling and auralization due to different sound source directionalities

Lily M Wang, Michelle C. Vigeant

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Evaluations of the predictions and auralizations from the room acoustic modeling program, ODEON, have been run using three directional source types with the same sound power: (a) an omni-directional source; (b) three sources with realistically-directional characteristics based on measurements from real instruments (grand piano, violin, and singing voice); and (c) an artificial, extremely directional beaming source. Objective analyses have been run for nine source/receiver combinations in a simple hall on three acoustic parameters: relative sound pressure level (SPL), reverberation time (T30), and clarity index (C80). Auralizations were subsequently created for two source/receiver combinations and used in subjective testing with 28 subjects. Results show that, objectively, differences in SPL were negligible for the majority of cases. Some differences in T30 and C80 were found between the omni-directional and realistically-directional sources; however, subjects did not perceive any corresponding differences when comparing the auralizations, possibly due to the limited directional octave band data available. Subjects did significantly differentiate between auralizations from the omni-directional source and the extreme beaming source. Subjective results from comparing these two sources in terms of reverberation, clarity and realism were generally consistent with objective data, although source/receiver combination and musical track had some influence on the outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1281-1293
Number of pages13
JournalApplied Acoustics
Volume69
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2008

Fingerprint

rooms
Reverberation
Acoustics
Acoustic waves
acoustics
evaluation
output
Subjective testing
clarity
receivers
reverberation
sound pressure
octaves
predictions

Keywords

  • Auralization
  • Computer modeling
  • Room acoustics
  • Source directivity
  • Subjective testing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Acoustics and Ultrasonics

Cite this

Evaluations of output from room acoustic computer modeling and auralization due to different sound source directionalities. / Wang, Lily M; Vigeant, Michelle C.

In: Applied Acoustics, Vol. 69, No. 12, 01.12.2008, p. 1281-1293.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fa895490559d4efd88872656e5349d14,
title = "Evaluations of output from room acoustic computer modeling and auralization due to different sound source directionalities",
abstract = "Evaluations of the predictions and auralizations from the room acoustic modeling program, ODEON, have been run using three directional source types with the same sound power: (a) an omni-directional source; (b) three sources with realistically-directional characteristics based on measurements from real instruments (grand piano, violin, and singing voice); and (c) an artificial, extremely directional beaming source. Objective analyses have been run for nine source/receiver combinations in a simple hall on three acoustic parameters: relative sound pressure level (SPL), reverberation time (T30), and clarity index (C80). Auralizations were subsequently created for two source/receiver combinations and used in subjective testing with 28 subjects. Results show that, objectively, differences in SPL were negligible for the majority of cases. Some differences in T30 and C80 were found between the omni-directional and realistically-directional sources; however, subjects did not perceive any corresponding differences when comparing the auralizations, possibly due to the limited directional octave band data available. Subjects did significantly differentiate between auralizations from the omni-directional source and the extreme beaming source. Subjective results from comparing these two sources in terms of reverberation, clarity and realism were generally consistent with objective data, although source/receiver combination and musical track had some influence on the outcomes.",
keywords = "Auralization, Computer modeling, Room acoustics, Source directivity, Subjective testing",
author = "Wang, {Lily M} and Vigeant, {Michelle C.}",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.apacoust.2007.09.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "69",
pages = "1281--1293",
journal = "Applied Acoustics",
issn = "0003-682X",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluations of output from room acoustic computer modeling and auralization due to different sound source directionalities

AU - Wang, Lily M

AU - Vigeant, Michelle C.

PY - 2008/12/1

Y1 - 2008/12/1

N2 - Evaluations of the predictions and auralizations from the room acoustic modeling program, ODEON, have been run using three directional source types with the same sound power: (a) an omni-directional source; (b) three sources with realistically-directional characteristics based on measurements from real instruments (grand piano, violin, and singing voice); and (c) an artificial, extremely directional beaming source. Objective analyses have been run for nine source/receiver combinations in a simple hall on three acoustic parameters: relative sound pressure level (SPL), reverberation time (T30), and clarity index (C80). Auralizations were subsequently created for two source/receiver combinations and used in subjective testing with 28 subjects. Results show that, objectively, differences in SPL were negligible for the majority of cases. Some differences in T30 and C80 were found between the omni-directional and realistically-directional sources; however, subjects did not perceive any corresponding differences when comparing the auralizations, possibly due to the limited directional octave band data available. Subjects did significantly differentiate between auralizations from the omni-directional source and the extreme beaming source. Subjective results from comparing these two sources in terms of reverberation, clarity and realism were generally consistent with objective data, although source/receiver combination and musical track had some influence on the outcomes.

AB - Evaluations of the predictions and auralizations from the room acoustic modeling program, ODEON, have been run using three directional source types with the same sound power: (a) an omni-directional source; (b) three sources with realistically-directional characteristics based on measurements from real instruments (grand piano, violin, and singing voice); and (c) an artificial, extremely directional beaming source. Objective analyses have been run for nine source/receiver combinations in a simple hall on three acoustic parameters: relative sound pressure level (SPL), reverberation time (T30), and clarity index (C80). Auralizations were subsequently created for two source/receiver combinations and used in subjective testing with 28 subjects. Results show that, objectively, differences in SPL were negligible for the majority of cases. Some differences in T30 and C80 were found between the omni-directional and realistically-directional sources; however, subjects did not perceive any corresponding differences when comparing the auralizations, possibly due to the limited directional octave band data available. Subjects did significantly differentiate between auralizations from the omni-directional source and the extreme beaming source. Subjective results from comparing these two sources in terms of reverberation, clarity and realism were generally consistent with objective data, although source/receiver combination and musical track had some influence on the outcomes.

KW - Auralization

KW - Computer modeling

KW - Room acoustics

KW - Source directivity

KW - Subjective testing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=52049085292&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=52049085292&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.apacoust.2007.09.004

DO - 10.1016/j.apacoust.2007.09.004

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:52049085292

VL - 69

SP - 1281

EP - 1293

JO - Applied Acoustics

JF - Applied Acoustics

SN - 0003-682X

IS - 12

ER -