Predicting the Interaction Between Structure-Borne Sound Sources and Receiver Structures from Independently Measured Quantities: Case Study of a Washing Machine on a Wooden Joist Floor

Lievens, Matthias; Höller, Christoph; Dietrich, Pascal; Vorländer, Michael

doi:10.3813/aaa.918688

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The discussed revision of the method to characterise sound insulation properties of building elements and buildings is not only intended to lead to a simplification by minimizing the existing large number of single number quantities, but it has also been suggested to take the extended frequency range between 50 Hz and 100 Hz into account by default, rather than only as an option. Several researchers have therefore been working on the development of suitable measuring [12,13,14] and prediction methods [15,16,17,18], others have focused on the subjective assessment of sound insulation and on ways to perform listening tests [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Loudness of Neighbour Sounds Heard Through Heavy and Light-Weight Walls with Equal Rw + C50–5000

Rychtáriková¹,

Muellner²,

Chmelik³

et al. 2016

Acta Acustica united with Acustica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThis article presents a perceptual comparison of the loudness of a large range of 64 different typical "living room" sounds transmitted through two different walls: (1) a light-weight wall, composed of gypsum boards mounted on metal "C" studs and (2) a heavy-weight wall, built out of lime sand bricks plastered on one side. The two walls had different (laboratory measured) sound insulation spectra, but their Rw + C50−5000 rating was the same: 52 dB. Compared to the heavy-weight wall, the massspring-mass-type light-weight wall had better sound insulation properties in the middle frequency range and worse at low frequencies below 100 Hz and above 3150 Hz. Listening subjects had to choose the loudest stimuli between a pair of sounds (as transmitted through the lightweight and the masonry wall) presented through headphones in random order with one repetition, following a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) procedure. Two sets of listening tests were conducted in this study, playing stimuli at realistic sound level and on artificially overall increased level. The listening experiments revealed significant differences in subjective assessment between the two types of acoustic insulation. The results also infer that the discussed single number rating does not adequately correspond with people's perception.

show abstract