• Volume/Page
  • Keyword
  • DOI
  • Citation
  • Advanced
   
 
 
 
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America / Volume 121 / Issue 1 / JASA EXPRESS LETTERS

On the potential limitations of conventional sound metrics in quantifying perception of nonlinearly propagated noise

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 121, Issue 1, pp. EL1-EL7 (2006); (7 pages)

Kent L. Gee1, S. Hales Swift1, Victor W. Sparrow2, Kenneth J. Plotkin3, and J. Micah Downing4

1Department of Physics and Astronomy, N319 ESC, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602
2Graduate Program in Acoustics, 201 Applied Science Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
3Wyle Laboratories, 2001 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 701, Arlington, Virginia 22202
4Blue Ridge Research and Consulting, LLC, 13 1/2 West Walnut Street, Asheville, North Carolina 28801

Full Text: Read Online (HTML) | Download PDF FREE | View Cart
The use of conventional metrics to quantify the perception of nonlinearly propagated noise has been studied. Gaussian noise waveforms have been numerically propagated both linearly and nonlinearly, and from the resulting waveforms, several metrics are calculated. These metrics are overall, A-, C-, and D-weighted sound pressure levels, perceived noise level, Stevens Mark VII perceived loudness, Zwicker loudness, and sharpness. Informal listening demonstrations indicate that perceived differences in annoyance between linearly and nonlinearly propagated waveforms are substantial. Because the metrics studied seem inadequate in representing the perceived differences, rigorous subjective testing is encouraged to properly quantify and understand these differences.

© 2007 Acoustical Society of America

Acknowledgment

This work was supported in part by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.

Article Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Metrics considered
  3. Test case description and results
    1. Test case description
    2. Waveform playback
  4. Metric calculations and discussion
  5. Conclusion

RELATED DATABASES

Web of Science

View this record in Web of Science

View Web of Science related articles

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords

hearing, noise pollution, loudness, acoustic intensity, aeroacoustics, aircraft, acoustic wave propagation, Gaussian noise, nonlinear acoustics

PACS

  • 43.50.Ba

    Noisiness: rating methods and criteria

  • 43.66.Lj

    Perceptual effects of sound

  • 43.25.Cb

    Macrosonic propagation, finite amplitude sound; shock waves

ARTICLE DATA

History
Received 14 Aug 2006
Accepted 20 Oct 2006
Revised 19 Oct 2006
Published online 08 Dec 2006
Digital Object Identifier
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2401193

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN

0001-4966 (print)  

Publisher

$abstract.society.value is a Member of CrossRef Acoustical Society of America

  1. D. F. Pernet and R. C. Payne, “Non-linear propagation of signals in air,” J. Sound Vib. 17, 383–396 (1971).
  2. D. A. Webster and D. T. Blackstock, “Experimental investigation of outdoor propagation of finite-amplitude noise,” NASA Contractor Report 2992 (Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin, 1978).
  3. K. L. Gee, V. W. Sparrow, M. M. James, J. M. Downing, C. M. Hobbs, T. B. Gabrielson, and A. A. Atchley, “Measurement and prediction of noise propagation from a high-power jet aircraft,” AIAA Pap. 2006–2931 (2006).
  4. B. J. Iklheimer, “Advanced simulation noise model for modern fighter aircraft,” in CD-ROM: Proceedings of Noise-Con 05, edited by J. S. Bolton, P. Davies, and G. C. Maling, Jr. (Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA, Washington D.C., 2005), Paper No. nc05_209.
  5. S. N. Gurbatov and O. V. Rudenko, “Statistical phenomena,” in Nonlinear Acoustics, edited by M. F. Hamilton and D. T. Blackstock (Academic, San Diego, 1998), Chap. 13, pp. 377–398.
  6. D. G. Crighton, “Nonlinear acoustic propagation of broadband noise,” in Recent Advances in Aeroacoustics, edited by A. Krothapalli and C. A. Smith (Springer, New York, 1986), pp. 411–454.
  7. K. D. Kryter, “Concepts of perceived noisiness, their implementation and application,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 43, 344–361 (1968)JASMAN000043000002000344000001. [ISI] [MEDLINE]
  8. “Frequency weighting for the measurement of aircraft noise (D-weighting),” IEC 537 (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland, 1976).
  9. K. D. Kryter, “Scaling human reaction to sound from aircraft,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 31, 1415–1429 (1959)JASMAN000031000011001415000001. [ISI]
  10. K. D. Kryter and K. S. Pearsons, “Some effects of spectral content and duration on perceived noise level,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 35, 866–883 (1963)JASMAN000035000006000866000001. [ISI]
  11. S. S. Stevens, “Perceived level of noise by Mark VII and decibels (E),” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 51, 575–601 (1972)JASMAN00005100002B000575000001.
  12. “Acoustics—Method for calculating loudness level,” ISO 532 (International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1975).
  13. J. D. Leatherwood, B. M. Sullivan, K. P. Shepherd, D. A. McCurdy, and S. A. Brown, “Summary of recent NASA studies of human response to sonic booms,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111, 586–598 (2002)JASMAN000111000001000586000001. [ISI] [MEDLINE]
  14. E. Zwicker and H. Fastl, Psychoacoustics: Facts and models, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, 1999).
  15. G. von Bismarck, “Sharpness as an attribute of the timbre of steady state sound,” Acustica 30, 159–172 (1974). [Inspec] [ISI]
  16. W. Aures, “Berechnungsverfahren für den sensorischen Wohlklang beliebiger Schallsignale,” Acustica 59, 130–141 (1985).
  17. A. Marui and W. L. Martens, “Predicting perceived sharpness of broadband noise from multiple moments of the specific loudness distribution,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119, EL7–EL13 (2006).
  18. K. L. Gee, “Prediction of nonlinear jet noise propagation,” Ph.D. thesis, Graduate Program in Acoustics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 2005.
  19. M. F. Hamilton and C. L. Morfey, “Model equations,” in Nonlinear Acoustics, edited by M. F. Hamilton and D. T. Blackstock (Academic, San Diego, 1998), Chap. 3, pp. 41–63.
  20. K. L. Gee, T. B. Gabrielson, A. A. Atchley, and V. W. Sparrow, “Preliminary analysis of nonlinearity in military jet aircraft noise propagation,” AIAA J. 43, 1398–1401 (2005).
  21. K. L. Gee and V. W. Sparrow, “Quantifying nonlinearity in the propagation of noise from military jet aircraft,” in CD-ROM: Proceedings of Noise-Con 05, edited by J. S. Bolton, P. Davies, and G. C. Maling, Jr. (Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA, Washington D.C., 2005), Paper No. nc05_194.
  22. “Quantities and procedures for description and measurement of environmental sound—Part 4: Noise assessment and prediction of long-term community response,” ANSI S12.9-2005/Part 4 (American National Standards Institute, Washington, DC, 2005).
  23. S. Fidell, K. S. Pearsons, M. Grignetti, and D. M. Green, “The noisiness of impulsive sounds,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 48, 1304–1310 (1970)JASMAN00004800006A001304000001.


Figures (1) Multimedia (4) Tables (1)

Figures (click on thumbnails to view enlargements)

FIG.1
(a) Input power spectral density at 10 m and predicted power spectral densities at 1000 m. (b) Short segments of the nonlinearly and linearly predicted waveforms at 1000 m as a function of retarded time, τ. Note the shock-like steepness of the nonlinearly predicted waveform at approximately 1.107 and 1.114 s.

FIG.1 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

Multimedia

Tables

Table I. Calculated metrics and difference for the nonlinearly and linearly predicted waveforms. L denotes overall sound pressure level and the subscripts signify the type of weighting applied. PNL, PL, ZL, and S, respectively, represent perceived noise level, Stevens Mark VII perceived loudness, Zwicker loudness, and sharpness.

View Table


Close

Your Recent History Recent History Help

Recently Viewed

  1. On the potential limitations of conventional sound metrics in quantifying perception of nonlinearly propagated noise
  2. Microbubble spectroscopy of ultrasound contrast agents
  3. Objectively measured and subjectively perceived distortion in nonlinear systems
  4. Modal decomposition method for acoustic impedance testing in square ducts
  5. The role of sound masking treatment in the value engineering of office designs

Home Publications Meetings Contact ASA Site Map Back to Top

Copyright © Acoustical Society of America

close