Figure 4
Similar publications
Citations
... In contrast, the digital simulations allow acoustic predictions in all points of a space; however, the calculations cannot take into consideration the phonemes, along with the nonstationary sound source that represents a voice [36], which leads to a simplification and optimization of the results compared to the measurements [37,38]. In addition, the listening tests to which the students were subjected may be limited to the selection of the adopted criteria [39,40]. ...
... Three sets of measurements were conducted to evaluate the acoustics of the Paradise cave known as the Ear of Dionysius [39]: ...
The Ear of Dionysius cavern has frequently been explored for its unique acoustic properties. According to legend, it amplifies whispers and soft sounds so that they can be heard through a narrow tunnel 35 m above the ground. The legend refers to Dionysius, who ruled Syracuse between 432 and 376 BC and was supposedly able to hear the whispered secrets of prisoners chained in the cave. Acoustic measurements, simulations, and intelligibility listening tests were conducted to investigate the validity of this legend. The results were analyzed and compared to evaluate the definition (D50) and speech transmission index at different locations in the cave. The results show that speech intelligibility in the Ear of Dionysius cavern is rated “fair” overall according to the ISO 9921 criteria, with better values in the central zone of the space. This fair rating suggests that the legend of the tyrant Dionysius eavesdropping on prisoners’ conversations may not be based in reality.
... A similar study was shown by Gomez et al. [7], who performed a measurement of the ticket hall of London's Heathrow Terminal. Comparison of results obtained with two measurement techniques was shown. ...
... It is commonly used for measuring the intelligibility of public address (PA) systems in airports and railway stations. According to studies conducted by Gomez et al. (2007) and Zhu et al. (2014a) there are no substantial differences between the STI and STIPA metrics regardless whether the direct or indirect STI measurement method is used. The difference between values seldom exceeds 0.03, equivalent to 1 "just noticeable difference" (JND) for STI scores (Bradley et al. 1999). ...
Speech communication can be assessed in many ways. The objective of this review and analysis is to compare the common methods of evaluating the quality and intelligibility of speech, and detail the merits and limitations of each. The standard speech intelligibility rating scales, perceptual speech intelligibility tests (based on human performance), and technical speech intelligibility predictors (based on the input signal transmitted through a communication system or medium) measurement methods are described and compared. To establish a basis for comparison between the results of these measures, a common intelligibility scale is described. Its use in the comparison of scores obtained for different measures of speech intelligibility is discussed, as well as its use to determine which test is optimal for a given environment. This analysis is intended to serve as a resource for users of standard speech intelligibility measurement methods.
... This measuring technique configuration is not normally allowed to be utilized in London underground stations by the relevant health and safety regulations since it requires very long and hazardous cables runs to close the loop. However for comparison purposes special permission was obtained to utilize this technique in several London underground stations with an omni-directional sound source in a comparative exercise against other measuring techniques [14]. ...
