Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of different experimental methods for the assessment of the room’s acoustics

  • Room Acoustics. Musical Acoustics
  • Published:
Acoustical Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper presents the acoustics analysis of three different enclosed spaces. These spaces (rooms) have different geometrical shapes and sizes and serve for different purposes. The early decay time, reverberation time, clarity and center time are evaluated with Dirac, WinMLS, Aurora and Caracad software using simple, low-cost equipment. The listed acoustic parameters were determined using linear sine sweep and impulsive sources. Comparisons between experimental measurements, simulations and analytic results were done. The room impulse response measurement proved to be the most reliable method to evaluate the properties of different rooms even if the measurements are perturbed by non-idealities of the low-cost equipment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. H. Kuttruff, Room Acoustics (Spon Press, London, UK, 2009), p. 109.

    Google Scholar 

  2. F. A. Everest, Master Handbook of Acoustics, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, Two Penn Plaza, New York, 2001), p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Kahrs and K. Brandenburg, Applications of Digital Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics (Kluwer Acad., Norwell, MA, 1998), pp. 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  4. ISO 3382, Acoustics—Measurement of the Reverberation Time of Rooms with Reference to Other Acoustical Parameters (Intern. Organization for Standardization, 1997).

  5. A. Farina, in Proceedings of the 23rd Nordic Sound Symposium Training and Information Seminar for Audio People, 27–30 Sept. 2007, pp. 1–31, http://pcfarina.eng.unipr. it/Public/Papers/238-NordicSound2007.pdf.

  6. R. Stewart and M. Sandler, in Proceedings of the 10th Intern. Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFx-07), Bordeaux, France, Sept. 10–15, 2007, pp. 59–62, http://dafx.labri.fr/main/dafx07-proc.pdf.

  7. M. Holters, T. Corbach, and U. Zólzer, in Proceedings of the 12th Intern. Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFx-09), Como, Italy, Sept. 1–4, 2009, pp. 1–5, http://dafx09.como.polimi.it/proceedings/data/DAFx09-Proceedings.pdf.

  8. M. R. Schroeder, Acoust. Phys. 49, 97 (2003).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. A. Pompei, M. A. Sumbatyan, and N. F. Todorov, Acous. Phys. 55, 821 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Yu. Lannie and V. N. Sukhov, Acoust. Phys. 47, 623 (2001).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. S. Cedra, A. Gimenez, J. Romero, R. Cibrian, and J. L. Miralles, Appl. Acoust. 70, 97 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. P. Fausti and A. Farina, J. Sound Vibrat. 232, 213 (2000).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. N. Toma, M. D. opa, I. Muresan, B. S. Kirei, M. Neag, and A. Fazakas, Acta Tehn. Napocensis: Electron. Telecommun. 50(2) (2009).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Dana Ţopa.

Additional information

The article is published in the original.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ţopa, M.D., Toma, N., Kirei, B.S. et al. Comparison of different experimental methods for the assessment of the room’s acoustics. Acoust. Phys. 57, 199–207 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063771011020229

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063771011020229

Keywords

Navigation