The impact of Sensory Evaluation of Sound - past, present and future

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Concert hall attributes Sabine Beranek Wilkens Lavandier Kahle ~1900 1962 1975 1989 1995 Loudness Reverberance small – large Distortion of complex sounds: interference and resonance Loudness pleasant – unpleasant Confusion: reverberation, echo and extraneous sounds Spaciousness unclear – clear Clarity Intimacy Warmth Hearing of stage soft – hard brilliant – dull rounded – pointed vigorous – muted appealing – unappealing blunt – sharp diffuse – concentrated overbearing – reticent light – dark muddy – clear dry – reverberant weak – strong emphasized treble – treble not emphasized emphasized bass – bass not emphasized beautiful – ugly soft – loud absent – présent puissance (absent – present) (strength) faible – énergique révébérance (weak – strong) (reverberance) brouillé – net balance générale (muddy – clear) (overall balance) lointain – proche contraste (far – near) (contrast) sec – révébérant puissance dans les graves (dry – reverberant) (low frequency strength) plat – contrasté puissance dans les aiguës (flat – contrasted) (high frequency strength) coulant – heurté pâteux (flowing – halted) (pasty ) dur – doux heurté (hard – soft) (halted) neutre – intime (neutral – intimate) sec – vivant (dry – lively) creux – chaud (hollow – warm) pauvre – brillant (weak – bright) impressioni d’espace (spatial impression) largeur de la source (source width) Sensory Evaluation of Sound, Sensometrix 2012, Rennes, France 20
Staffeldt (1974) • Early application to loudspeaker sound quality • Aimed to subjectively and objectively characterize the (single) loudspeaker sound quality • Quite unique work at this time • Applied non-parametric statistics for the subjective data analysis • Bradley-Terry y model • Subjective-Objective correlation was less successful Sensory Evaluation of Sound, Sensometrix 2012, Rennes, France
Page 1 and 2: The Impact of Sensory Evaluation of
Page 3 and 4: Domains of Sound
Page 5 and 6: The audio application • Is a fair
Page 7 and 8: Product sound • Product sound is
Page 9 and 10: Short historical i overview Some ke
Page 11 and 12: And for sound.. • Things started
Page 13 and 14: Reverberation • Understanding the
Page 15 and 16: 1975 - 1995 • More concert hall s
Page 17 and 18: A spa rse timeline of perceptua l e
Page 19: Summary of early concert hall works
Page 23 and 24: Nakayama (1971) • Early MDS based
Page 25 and 26: Gabrielsson (1974) • Analysis of
Page 27 and 28: Toole (1985) • Further analysis o
Page 29 and 30: Letowski (1989) • A good understa
Page 31 and 32: Zacharov (2001) • Adaption of des
Page 33 and 34: Zacharov (2001) - (3) • Preferenc
Page 35 and 36: Mattila (2001) - (2) Nr. Attribute
Page 37 and 38: Lorho (2005-2010) Sensory Evaluatio
Page 39 and 40: Lorho (2005-2010) - (2) Sensory Eva
Page 41 and 42: Lorho (2005-2010) - (4) Parafac 2 s
Page 43 and 44: Lokki (2011) • Latest and most de
Page 45 and 46: Lokki (2011) - (3) Sensory Evaluati
Page 47 and 48: Sensory Evaluation of Sound, Sensom
Page 49 and 50: So what have we learnt 49
Page 51 and 52: Observations about CVP • CVP work
Page 53 and 54: What do we know about analysis tool
Page 55 and 56: Making this easier • Significant
Page 57 and 58: Conclusion • Sensory science has
Page 60 and 61: References (1) 1. W. Sabine, “Rev

The impact of Sensory Evaluation of Sound - past, present and future

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?