Perceived suitability of reverberation in large coupled volume concert halls.

Abstract

Reverberation in coupled volume concert halls can be modified by changing the coupling surface connecting the main hall and the control chamber(s). This study aims at investigating how trained listeners evaluate subtle changes in reverberation of coupled spaces for different musical excerpts. Previous research has focused on acoustical parameters and perceptual limits in coupled volumes. The present study relies on a previously validated architectural parameter describing the sound field behavior before relating it to acoustical parameters. In a listening test, 23 participants were asked to rate the suitability of different reverberation decays for various musical samples. The stimuli were generated by convolving anechoic recordings of solo cello and timpani, choir, and symphony orchestra with impulse responses based on the statistical model of nonexponential energy decay by Cremer-Müller, with the only variable element being the coupling surface area. The linear reverberation (simple exponential) decay was rated more suitable for the symphony orchestra, whereas the coupled reverberations (double-slope decays) were rated more suitable than the linear decay for the solo instruments and choir.

Perception of reverberation length in rooms with Active Acoustics Enhancement Systems

“…To align with the latest research in this field, the experiment included two modes of reverberation: "running" and "stop-chord". As shown in previous studies, the late part of IRs is associated with reverberation length perception for "stop-chord" while the EDT is more associated with the sense of reverberation length for "running reverberation" [20]. Moreover, Lokki [21] obtained two distinctly different assessments of reverberation length depending on the musical excerpt used during the test and suggested that one measure (EDT) cannot predict the difference between "running" and "stop-chord" reverberances.…”

Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue on “performance spaces for music: Acoustical and psychological measurements and their interactions” honoring Dr. Leo Beranek.

“…In their study of listener preferences for halls, “Relationships Between Perceived Room Acoustic Quality and Perceived Reverberance, Listener Envelopment, and Tonal Quality,” Acadia Kocher and Michelle Vigeant (2015) investigate how preference judgments for a performance space depend on an interaction between different acoustical attributes of the hall and the particular musical work being heard. Paul Luizard et al (2015; “Perceived Suitability of Reverberation in Large Coupled Volume Concert Halls”) investigate the listener preference for different temporal reverberation characteristics that exist in special concert hall designs where the reverberation can be controlled by operating doors that couple secondary volumes to the concert hall’s main volume. The final paper by Anne Minors and Carlo Harvey (2015; “Influence of Active Listening on the Eye Movement While Viewing Images of Different Concert Halls”) literally looks at a wider picture of concert hall acoustics.…”

Perceptual Evaluation and Analysis of Reverberation in Multitrack Music Production

“…Several of these studies involved only a single, simple, and potentially unpleasant and unfamiliar reverberator [22,29] [25] [15,16], sometimes without the use of early reflections [2,17] or stereo capabilities [6,18]. In some cases, the number of reverberator parameters were limited, often taking a restricted range or set of values [19][20][21], and applied to a single (type of) source sample [22][23][24]. In [3,25] the parameter values considered were set by unskilled participants using unfamiliar tools and inferior listening environments.…”

“…Very little work is available on novel, more intuitive interfaces for reverb [13,14] and mapping terms to its parameters [4,5]. A number of studies have looked at perception of reverberation in musical contexts [2,6,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32], see Table 1.…”