soundscape psychoacoustics

ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICAVol. 92 (2006) 1 – 1

Psychoacoustics and its Benefit for theSoundscape Approach

Klaus Genuit, André FiebigHEAD acoustics GmbH, Ebertstr. 30a, 52134 Herzogenrath, Germany. [klaus.genuit][andre.fiebig]@head-acoustics.de

SummaryThe increase of complaints about environmental noise shows the unchanged necessity of researching this subject.By only relying on sound pressure levels averaged over long time periods and by suppressing all aspects of quality,the specific acoustic properties of environmental noise situations cannot be identified. Because annoyance causedby environmental noise has a broader linkage with various acoustical properties such as frequency spectrum,duration, impulsive, tonal and low-frequency components, etc. than only with SPL [1]. In many cases theseacoustical properties affect the quality of life. The human cognitive signal processing pays attention to furtherfactors than only to the averaged intensity of the acoustical stimulus. Therefore, it appears inevitable to use furtherhearing-related parameters to improve the description and evaluation of environmental noise.A first step regarding the adequate description of environmental noise would be the extended application ofexisting measurement tools, as for example level meter with variable integration time and third octave analyzer,which offer valuable clues to disturbing patterns.Moreover, the use of psychoacoustics will allow the improved capturing of soundscape qualities.

PACS no. 43.50.Qp, 43.50.Sr, 43.50.Rq

1. Introduction

The meaning of soundscape is constantly transformed andmodified. The inflationary use of this term refers to thelarge diversity of interpretations with respect to the contentof the soundscape idea – making it impossible to present ageneral acknowledged definition. Often, the institutionaland disciplinary backgrounds of the researchers have asustainable effect on their soundscape concept. Schafer, a“soundscape pioneer”, describes the vital question in thiscontext: ”What is the relationship between man and thesounds of his environment [. . . ]? [. . . ] Only a total appreci-ation of the acoustic environment can give us the resourcesfor improving the orchestration of the world soundscape”[2]. A soundscape is not an objectively existing reality(you cannot overflow the soundscape and take a picture),but it is a culturally-affected environment constituted byhuman perception [3].

Today, environmental noise is calculated and depictedin noise-maps with the A-weighted sound pressure level(SPL). Those noise maps neglecting the specific charac-ter of a soundscape are often the basis for discussions andinterpretations regarding noise annoyance. In this context,it is necessary to reflect also the meaning of annoyance.Annoyance will be used here as an overall evaluation of

Received 1 January 2005,accepted 1 January 2005.

disturbances and unpleasantness of environmental noise, anegative feeling evoked by sound. However, annoyance issensitive to subjectivity, thus the social and cultural back-grounds have an important influence on the subjective at-titudes of people to noise [4] and they must be consid-ered besides physical parameters. Therefore, the complex-ity of noise annoyance and the description of soundscapes,which means more than only the determination of annoy-ance, cannot be simply described with a single parame-ter, because many factors contribute to it. Hence, individ-ual, contextual or physical variables, causing a deviationfrom the “law of averages” implied by dose-response rela-tionships, must be determined with respect to an improvedunderstanding of annoyance as caused by environmentalnoise [5].

Psychoacoustics will make a meaningful contribution toit and will allow the detection of specific soundscape fea-tures.

2. Psychoacoustics in soundscape research

2.1. Psychoacoustics and soundscapes

Psychoacoustics covers one important field of the differ-ent dimensions involved in the environmental noise eval-uation process. It describes sound perception mechanismsin terms of several parameters, such as loudness, sharp-ness, roughness, and fluctuation strength as well as furtherhearing-related parameters.

© S. Hirzel Verlag · EAA 1

ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA Genuit, Fiebig: Psychoacoustics in soundscape researchVol. 92 (2006)

Soundscape is used as the complex superposition ofnatural, human and technical (emitting from machineryor electroacoustic reproduction devices) noises and theirperception. Soundscapes consist of a number of spatiallydistributed sound sources, which give the soundscapestheir distinctive features. The emitted noise of each sourcecould be measured and analyzed in terms of several pa-rameters. However, the annoyance due to given individ-ual sound sources cannot be transferred to the overall an-noyance of an entire, complex soundscape containing thenoise of different sound sources, because of e.g. maskingeffects [6].

Surveys have documented that spatiality plays an im-portant role for physiological reactions and annoyance. Inthe context of industrial noises, a study has investigatedthe influence of the direction of sound incidence (uni-directional, multi-directional) on physiological reactionsand loudness evaluation. It could be observed that the re-action to the multi-directional situation was higher thanthe reaction to the uni-directional situation, although bothnoise situations produced the same SPL at the position ofthe listener [7]. Therefore, the spatial distribution of soundsources as well as the direction and speed of any move-ment of these sources can be relevant for the perceptionand evaluation of environmental noise.

In fact, the determination of noise annoyance caused bycomplex sound situations arising from the superpositionof the emitted sounds by a number of sources is very com-plicated and the (binaural) signal processing involved inhuman hearing has to be considered. The use of aurally-accurate measurements provides the opportunity to con-sider binaural signal processing phenomena.

The fact, that annoyance resulting from the listener’ssurrounding soundscape is also depending on the personalattitude of the listener, further increases the intricacy of thesoundscape approach, which has to integrate important as-pects, such as the physical situation, experience and inter-pretation of the environment into one broad concept [8].Even visual information of the location affects noise eval-uation [9]. Abe et al. concluded that the influence of visualand verbal information on the auditory evaluation of envi-ronmental sounds is considerable [10]. In order to capturethe mentioned difficulties with respect to human sensationand evaluation of environmental noise, the transformationof a sound event (the physical situation) into the perceivedsound event has to be considered. This transformation isinfluenced by different aspects: first of all, the physical as-pect; secondly, the psychoacoustic aspect: the human hear-ing processes sound depending on the time structure andfrequency distribution. And thirdly, the psychological as-pect, including context, the kind of information, the in-dividual expectation and attitude to the sound, is finallyleading to the evaluation of the sound event.

Therefore, a multi-dimensional approach, consideringthese different aspects adequately, is necessary to meet therequirements of the soundscape approach, the “[. . . ] totalappreciation of the acoustic environment” [2].

2.2. The application of psychoacoustics in the con-text of environmental noise

Different calculation methods and models, which, accord-ing to the rule of distance for SPL reduction, and by tak-ing into account propagation properties, reflections againstobjects, damping factors, are an attempt in predicting howA-weighted SPL evolves as a function of distance, how-ever, neglecting time and frequency information. In real-ity though, the calculated LAeq and the expected corre-sponding noise annoyance, often differ widely from theevaluations made by the concerned residents [11]. This ex-plained with the fact that the human hearing, in contrast toa sound level meter, is not an absolute measuring instru-ment. It shows a differentiated sound perception due to itsnon-linearity and adaptivity as well as its signal process-ing characteristics, paying attention to further factors thanonly to the averaged intensity of the sound event [12].

It could be established that the time structure of occur-rence of sound events in the context of traffic noise hasa major influence on the noise annoyance. A high traf-fic load noise can be evaluated as more pleasant than lowtraffic load noise because of the perceivable single vehiclepass-by’s penetrating the quietness, which “startled” per-manently the exposed persons. For example, traffic noisewas measured and analyzed for the understanding of exte-rior vehicle noise perception and resulting effects on manin the European research project “Sound Quality of Exte-rior Vehicle Noise” (SVEN). There, traffic noise recordedin L-shaped and U-shaped streets was analyzed and eval-uated. The noise for the “L-shaped building” street wasjudged by the majority to be a bit or much louder and moredangerous, unpleasant and annoying compared with the U-shaped street. With respect to the general judgements the“L-shaped building” traffic noise was again judged lessfa vourable. Therefore, the street shape – U-shaped, L-shaped – affects also the noise situation (because of dif-ferent reflection patterns and time structure) and the noiseannoyance respectively [13].

Another ongoing European research project is “QuietCity Transport” (QCity), which underlines the endeavourto further explore the connection between urban noise andits perception and evaluation [14]. It was observed thatmany hot-spots regarding complaints cannot be explainedwith data from noise maps alone. The LAeq does not suf-ficiently describe the environmental noise and its percep-tion.

Figure 1 illustrates the behaviour of different parame-ters in dependency on distance in free field. It schemat-ically depicts on the basis of tonal and broadband noisethe behaviour of different parameters in dependency onthe distance. It makes clear the different behaviour of psy-choacoustic parameters compared with the decrease of theSPL.

Figure 2 shows the calculation of these parameters ofa vehicle’s pass-by noise recorded in different distancesfrom the moving source. In contrast to the principle of theSPL distance dependency, the psychoacoustic parameters

2

Genuit, Fiebig: Psychoacoustics in soundscape research ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICAVol. 92 (2006)

Figure 1. Relative change of psychoacoustic parameters com-pared with A-weighted SPL as a function of distance (distancevs. percent) for tonal noise and broad band noise (dashed lines).

Figure 2. Analyses of a vehicle pass-by noise recorded at differ-ent distances (7 m, 25 m, 50 m, 100 m); Level (A) vs. time, Loud-ness vs. time; Sharpness vs. time, Hearing Model Roughness vs.time.

are also less dependent from the distance and from the SPLrespectively [15].

The vehicle pass-by noise is further analyzed in Figures3 and 4. The occurrence and the persistence in particularof disturbing patterns in the noise event can be observed,too. The modulation spectra clearly shows the unchangedparticularities of the vehicle’s pass-by noise, although theLAeq decreases with distance (Figure 3, Figure 4).

Moreover, the diagram depicting the “Relative Ap-proach”, a pattern measurement algorithm, underlines thisconclusion. (Figure 4) This calculation method identifieschanges in the short time spectrum with respect to fre-quency and time domain applying the difference calcula-tion between current signal values and estimated values.The estimated value is derived from the signal known upto the current time. The determined difference can be in-terpreted as the short time signal change [12].

The diagrams show that specific acoustic properties(tonal components, pattern in the time and frequency do-main, etc.) attracting attention, remain nearly unchangedin a case of a tenfold increase of the distance and de-crease of LAeq. In case, those properties are not evaluated

Figure 3. Analyses of a vehicle pass-by noise recorded at differ-ent distances (7 m, 25 m, 50 m, 100 m); 1/3Octave ModulationSpectrum.

Figure 4. Analyses of a vehicle pass-by noise recorded at differ-ent distances (7 m, 25 m, 50 m, 100 m); Relative Approach.

as pleasant in the context of environmental noise – pre-sumably the car pass-by noise is rarely evaluated as pleas-ant – the noise annoyance does not decrease in the sameway compared with the decline of the LAeq.

The evaluation of tram noise is also often complex.The next example, recorded in Brussels, shows the insuf-ficiency of averaged SPL descriptions for the understand-ing of noise annoyance. Although the A-weighted Leq isalmost identical, the evaluations, given by a small sam-ple of test subjects, differ widely. Two curves squeal noiseevents were compared. Tram 1 and tram 2 do not consid-erably differ in LAeq (left 80,05 dBA / right 75,0 dBA to80,3 dBA / 73,9 dBA) and loudness (46,2 sone / 30,4 soneto 49,3 sone / 35,0 sone). The difference in the sharp-ness gives first information (3,29 acum / 2,31 acum to4,38 acum / 3,26 acum) about relevant features of thesound events for the evaluation. Tonal components as wellas temporal variations could also be identified. The Rela-tive Approach clearly shows pattern in the time domain,which finally led to the different evaluations (Figure 5).

3


Figure 5. Tram curves squeal noise (left: tram 1, right: tram 2),Relative Approach.

Impressive sound features contribute to overall judgmentsregardless of their sound pressure levels [16].

Figure 6. The Evaluation of Soundscapes.

To sum up, the examples mentioned above point out thenecessity of new approaches, measurement techniques andnew parameters in order to adequately grasp the partic-ularities of a soundscape and to sufficiently consider themechanism of sound perception. Conventional parametersand analysis techniques are not sufficient. A new approachhas to be applied involving aurally-accurate measurementsand psychoacoustic analyses, where the characteristics ofthe human auditory apparatus are taken into account.

3. Evaluation of soundscapes

3.1. “Questions and answers”

Human hearing can classify complex soundscapes intosingle sound events because of its binaural hearing andits consequential directional hearing and selectivity. Singlecontributions to a soundscape can be selected by humanhearing and decisively influence the individual evaluation.Thus, if people are complaining about noise annoyance,the actual reasons for noise objection have to be exploredfirst. Physical, psychoacoustic and binaural signal process-ing as well as cognitive aspects affect the evaluation of en-vironmental noise. (Figure 6)

Relevant questions may be: Which of the existing soundsources causes the noise annoyance? Which kinds of sig-nal attributes like modulation or specific patterns in thetime and frequency domain are creating the annoyance? Isthe time structure responsible for the complaints? Are in-formative features relevant with respect to the annoyance?Is the noise unpleasant or conspicuous due to modulationor are there noticeable patterns in the time or frequencyrange? What kind of attitude and expectation has the lis-tener?

Answers to those questions can already give significantinformation about the actual causes for complaints. Onthe one hand, these answers already allow first successfulmeasures in order to improve the perceived environmentalnoise quality [17]. The phrase sound/noise quality in thecontext of environmental noise is also frequently used byother authors [18].

4


On the other hand, the acoustic analysis of the sound-scape can be carried out in a more goal oriented manner, ifthe exposed persons give reasons for their annoyance.

3.2. Measurement of soundscapes – Aurally-equivalent sound measurement

With conventional one-channel measurements it is notpossible to sufficiently determine environment noise qual-ity and the annoyance caused by a complex environmen-tal sound situation constituted by several spatially dis-tributed sound sources. Important aspects, which influencethe subjective impression, are masking effects, sound im-pression, spatial distribution and complex phase relations.Conventional measurement and analysis technique onlypartly take into account these aspects. The use of binau-ral technology is recommended to bridge this gap. Theartificial head accurately simulates acoustically relevantcomponents, and it is able to obtain aurally-accurate bin-aural recordings of sound events. The playback of binau-ral recordings creates an auditory impression for the lis-tener which is the same as it would have had been ex-perienced if the listener had been present at the originalsound event [19]. The results of listening tests, realisticallyplaying-back the noise situations, are highly valid and re-liable. Measurements with binaural technology are neces-sary if subsequent reproductions of noise are required, e.g.in the case of further examination in laboratories (listeningtests). This insight has become widely accepted; the use ofbinaural technology and psychoacoustic analyses, consid-ering both channels, in acoustic engineering win slowlyrecognition [20] (Figure 7).

3.3. Calculations models and analyses

Generally, environmental noise is perceived by the soundperception mechanisms of human hearing. The perceivedsound event can be described and analyzed in termsof psychoacoustic parameters, such as loudness, sharp-ness, roughness, and fluctuation strength. These parame-ters describe the environmental noise situation better thanthe simple A-weighted SPL and capture relevant, “ear-catching” phenomena of the noise.

Different preliminary calculation models integrating se-veral parameters have been developed to determine annoy-ance. For example, Zwicker calculated the unbiased an-noyance with loudness, sharpness and fluctuation strength[21], Terhardt developed a model for the determinationof “Wohlklang” (pleasantness of noise) using loudness,sharpness, roughness and tonality [22], Preis worked withannoyance loudness (time-averaged value of the differencebetween loudness of the noise and background sound), in-trusiveness including sharpness, and distortion of informa-tional content in order to determine noise annoyance re-ception [23]. Further research must be carried out to deter-mine a model integrating the relevant parameters, whichconsiders the sound perception mechanism and correlateswith annoyance evaluation respectively. Therefore, inter-action effects of different parameters (e.g. psychoacoustic)with respect to annoyance caused by environmental noise

Figure 7. Artificial head technology used for environmental noiserecordings.

have to be studied. The application of further parameters– besides the known psychoacoustic parameters – can behelpful regarding the description and evaluation of envi-ronmental noise as shown in some examples mentionedabove.

3.4. Existing tools for the improved description ofenvironmental noise

The intelligent use of already existing tools and analyseswould be a step forward that would allow an improved

5


Figure 8. Airplane take-off noise; level(A) vs. time (green, red-level(A) vs. time(Fast); blue, pink- level(A) vs. time(0,002 ms)of frequency band(1,4 kHz to 1,6 kHz).

Figure 9. Airplane take-off noise; Level(A) vs. Time (zoom)(green, red- Level(A) vs. Time(Fast); blue, pink- Level(A) vs.Time(0,002 ms) of frequency band (1,4 kHz to 1,6 kHz).

analysis of noise. For example, the application of a thirdoctave analyzer and sound pressure level meter with vari-able integration time is a simple but suitable approach.An integration time of 2 ms, which corresponds with thehuman hearing time resolution, allows the detection ofstrong modulations and apparent variations [24]. In con-trast to constant sound pressure level curves (level vs.time) varying curves in the short-time domain usually leadto a higher level of annoyance. In addition, the comparisonof frequency selected levels to the total A-weighted SPLcurve points out the relevance of prominent spectral bands.An example is given in Figure 8. There, a prominent tonalband was detected in the sound event, which possesses adistinctive time structure in the short time domain. The dif-ferent integration times used in the Figure display the dif-ference of the curves, which possess different explanatorypower for the description and interpretation of the noisesituation. The detected tonal band dominates the soundevent with respect to the SPL and therefore, contributessignificantly to the overall impression. (Figure 9)

The application of these opportunities – frequency fil-tering, variation of integration time – can already help torecognize disturbing patterns without much effort. Unfor-tunately, the legislators and decision makers often do notuse these simple tools in the context of the evaluation ofenvironmental noise.

However, questions concerning annoyance of environ-mental noise cannot be satisfactorily answered by the pre-sented parameters alone. Both, the nature of the informa-tion in the acoustic environment and the attitude of ex-posed persons greatly affect the subjective impression andmust be added to the (psycho-) acoustic analyses.

4. Conclusions

Conventional noise-maps listing only SPL values aver-aged over different time intervals cannot describe environ-mental noise quality adequately. Inevitably, such averag-ing measures are crude and hide the substantial exposurevariation relevant for individual annoyance reactions [1].

One necessary measure is the increased application ofartificial head technology in the environmental noise con-text. Only binaural recording technology, analog to humanhearing, allows an objective sound recording and can reg-ister sound in relation to direction of the sound incidence.The binaural recordings allow the aurally-accurate repro-duction of acoustic scenarios, which are directly compara-ble with respect to pleasantness or annoyance by listeners.

To sum up, the soundscape approach can help to bridgethe explained gaps, which cannot be overcome with con-ventional methods alone. In order to achieve the commonpurpose of improving soundscapes with respect to pleas-antness and reduced annoyance, “environmental sound de-sign” with a multi-dimensional understanding must be car-ried out. This implies that the ultimate causes for com-plaints and high annoyance have to be identified, e.g. spe-cific noise features caused by a certain sound source. Then,promising measures as a kind of sound design are feasibleand, if possible, the modification of the responsible source.

Thus, physical aspects, psychoacoustic aspects, takinginto account the human (binaural) signal processing, andcognitive, psychological aspects, regarding variables likeinformation content, acceptance of sound sources, atti-tude of the listener, have to be adequately considered.“From acoustics and psychoacoustics we will learn aboutthe physical properties of sound and the way sound isinterpreted by the human brain. From society we willlearn how man behaves with sounds and how sounds af-fect and change his behaviour. From the arts, [. . . ] wewill learn how man creates ideal soundscapes [. . . ]” [2].Only the elaborate combination of those disciplines willallow the identification of promising measures against un-wanted sound or better against unwanted sound features.The first step to meet this claim regarding the aspects ofphysical properties of the sound will be the extension fromaveraging energy descriptions (based on SPL values) toa more detailed acoustic description taking into account

6


acoustic properties of the sound events. To achieve an im-proved description of the soundscape, psychoacoustic pa-rameters have to be applied. The use of psychoacousticparameters and the detection of temporal and spectral pat-terns will advance soundscape evaluations as exemplarilyshown and will considerably improve perceptually-relatedassessments of the environmental sound quality and its ex-pected annoyance impact. Furthermore, new parameters,like the Relative Approach, must be developed to charac-terize the noise situation further. The use of simple tools,e.g. third octave analyzer, level meter with variable inte-gration time, already give an improvement and the oppor-tunity to identify disturbing components without much ef-fort. Moreover, the idea of creating psychoacoustic mapsintegrating further parameters in conventional noise mapswill allow, as a starting point, the application of the sound-scape approach with psychoacoustics to the environmentaland community noise context [25]. The demand and chal-lenge is to “put some quality into environmental criteria”[26].

References

[1] B. Berglund: Theory and method in perceptual evaluationof complex sound. – In: Recent Trends in Hearing Re-search. H. Fastl, S. Kuwano, A. Schick (eds.). Oldenburg,BIS Verlag, 1996.

[2] R. M. Schafer: The soundscape: our sonic environment andthe tuning of the world. Destiny Books, Rochester, 1977.

[3] A. M. Lorenz: Klangalltag–Alltagsklang. Evaluation derSchweizer Klanglandschaft anhand einer Repräsentativ-befragung bei der Bevölkerung. Zentralstelle der Studen-tenschaft, Zürich, 2000.

[4] Z. Darui: Noise exposure. – In: Recent Trends in HearingResearch. H. Fastl, S. Kuwano, A. Schick (eds.). Olden-burg, BIS Verlag, 1996.

[5] S. M. Taylor: Noise annoyance research: purpose andprogress. – In: Recent Trends in Hearing Research. H.Fastl, S. Kuwano, A. Schick (eds.). Oldenburg, BIS Ver-lag, 1996.

[6] R. Guski: Interference of activities and annoyance by noisefrom different sources. – In: Contributions to psychologi-cal acoustics. Results of the 7th Oldenburg symposium onpsychological acoustics. A. Schick, M. Klatte (eds.). BISVerlag, Oldenburg, 1997.

[7] K. Genuit, J. Blauert, M. Bodden, G. Jansen, S. Schwarze,V. Mellert, H. Remmers: Entwicklung einer Messtech-nik zur physiologischen Bewertung von Lärmeinwirkungenunter Berücksichtigung der psychoakustischen Eigenschaf-ten des menschlichen Gehörs. Schriftenreihe der Bundes-anstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, ForschungFb 774, Wirtschaftsverlag NW, 1997.

[8] H. U. Werner: Soundscapes – zwischen Klanglandschaftenund Akustik Design. Welt auf tönernen füßen. die töne unddas hören. Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepub-lik Deutschland, 1994.

[9] S. Viollon: Two examples of audio-visual interactions in anurban context. Euro-Noise 2003, Naples, Italy, 2003.

[10] K. Abe, K. Ozawa, Y. Suzuki, T. Sone: Comparison ofthe effects of verbal versus visual information about soundsources on the perception of environmental sounds. ActaAcustica united with Acustica 92 (2006) 51–60.

[11] K. Genuit: The problem of predicting noise annoyance as afunction of distance. 17. ICA, Rome, Italy, 2001.

[12] K. Genuit: Objective evaluation of acoustic-quality basedon a relative approach. Inter-Noise 1996, 25th Anniver-sary Congress Liverpool„ Liverpool, England, 1996, Con-ference Proceedings.

[13] EU Project: Sound quality of vehicle exterior noise. G6RD-CT-1999-00113.

[14] EU Project: Quiet City Transport. Project Ref. No. 516420.

[15] K. Genuit, A. Fiebig: Prediction of psychoacoustic param-eters. Noise-Con 2005, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2005.

[16] S. Kuwano, N. Seiichiro, T. Kato, J. Hellbrück: Memory ofthe loudness of sounds and its relation to overall impres-sion. Forum Acusticum Sevilla 2002, Sociedad Espanolade Acustica, Sevilla, Spain, 2002.

[17] B. Schulte-Fortkamp: The impact of road surfaces on peo-ple’s mind about the distinction between soundscapes.Euro-Noise 2003, Naples, Italy, 2003.

[18] D. Dubois, C. Guastovino, V. Maffiolo: The meaning ofcity noises: Investigating sound quality in Paris (France).J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115 (2004) 2592.

[19] K. Genuit: A special calibratable artificial-head-measure-ment-system for subjective and objective classification ofnoise. Inter-Noise 1986, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA,1986, 1313–1318.

[20] J. Blauert, K. Genuit: Evaluating sound environments withbinaural technology – some basic consideration. J. Acoust.Soc. Jpn. (E) 14 (1993) 3.

[21] E. Zwicker: A proposal for defining and calculating theunbiased annoyance. – In: Contributions to PsychologicalAcoustics. A. Schick et al. (eds.). BIS Verlag, Oldenburg,1991.

[22] E. Terhardt, G. Stoll: Skalierung des Wohlklangs (der sen-sorischen Konsonanz) von 17 Umweltschallen und Unter-suchung der beteiligten Hörparameter. Acustica 48 (1981)247–253.

[23] A. Preis: Environmental approach to noise. – In: Contribu-tions to psychological acoustics. Results of the 7th Olden-burg symposium on psychological acoustics. A. Schick, M.Klatte (eds.). BIS Verlag, Oldenburg, 1997.

[24] E. Zwicker, H. Fastl: Psychoacoustics. Facts and models.Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, New York, 1990.

[25] K. Genuit: Sound quality in environment: psychoacousticmapping. ASA 2004, San Diego, CA, USA, 2004.

[26] Editorial, sound quality – the contradiction. – In: Noise andVibration worldwide, 32. Multi-Science Publishing, UK,June 2001.

7

soundscape psychoacoustics

Documents