EPA 550/9-77-101
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS METHODS
FOR PREDICTING THE LOUDNESS
AND ACCEPTABILITY OF NOISE
AUGUST 1977
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
EPA #550/9-77-101
FOR PREDICTING THE LOUDNESS AND
ACCEPTABILITY OF NOISE
Prepared by
B. Scharf, R. Hellman,* J. Bauer
AUDITORY PERCEPTION LABORATORY
Northeastern University
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
* Also at Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology,
Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
Under Contract No. 68-01^*223
This report has been approved for general availability. The contents of this
report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily reflect
the official views or policy of EPA. This report does not constitute a stan-
dard, specification, or regulation.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people aided us in the preparation of this report,
some aided us with advice, some with unpublished data, some
with both. We thank the members of ANSI Working Group S3-51
on Auditory Magnitude for much wise counsel and, in many cases,
for many useful data. These members are: Paul Borsky, Robert
Gales, Ira Hirsh, John Molino, Tom Northwood, Karl Pearsons,
Irwin Pollack, Richard Wells. Dan Flynn and Simone Yaniv were
also most helpful. We also thank those colleagues who sent us
data (even if we could not use some of those data). Thes0
colleagues are: Ben Bauer, Birgitta Berglund, Gregory Cermak,
David Fishken, Eugene Galanter, Ralph Hillquist, Karl Kryter,
Louis Sutherland, and Simone Yaniv. Several Colleagues also
helped us by sending computer programs of one or more of the
calculation procedures. These colleagues are: Dan Corley of
National Bureau of Standards, Richard Liebich of United
Engineers and Constructors, Inc., and Richard Wells of
General Electric.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. OVERALL RESULTS 1
III. ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO 5 PARAMETERS 16
1. Attribute Judged 16
2. Type of Noise 16
3. Tonal Components 18
4. Mode of Sound Presentation 19
5. Effect of Sound Pressure Level on Standard
Deviation 19
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 27
V. RECOMMENDATIONS 30
VI. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 32
VII. APPENDIX CContains Information on each study
examined and on Individual noises within
each study.)
FIGURES AND TABLES
Table I. Summary of 23 Studies 2
Fig. 1. A Weighting (Spectrum) 4
2. Dl Weighting 5
3. D2 Weighting 6
4. E Weighting ^
Table II. Variability of Calculated Levels of Noise 8
Table III. Mean Differences (Absolute Values) within
Pairs of Subjectively Equal Sounds 11
Table IV. Mean Differences between Calculated and Observed
Subjective Levels 13
iii
-------
Page
Fig. 5. Loudness Function for White Noise 15
Table V. Effect on Standard Deviation of Four Parameters 17
Fig. 6. Variability of A Weighted Levels 20
7. Variability of Dl Weighted Levels 21
8. Variability of E Weighted Levels 22
9. Variability of Levels Calculated by Mark VI 23
10. Variability of Levels Calculated by Zwicker's
Method 24
11. Variability of Levels Calculated by PNL 25
Table VI. Effect on Mean Differences of Two Parameters 26
Table VII. Differences between Mean Standard Deviations
with Levels of Statistical Significance 29
iv
-------
I INTRODUCTION
The objective of this study was to compare commonly employed frequency
weightings and calculation rating schemes with respect to their ability to
predict the subjective effect of sound. Toward this end, it was necessary to
collect, assimilate, and analyze the available data from both the laboratory
and the field. Such data included those published in the open literature, as
well as unpublished laboratory data. Only those studies that contained both
a spectral analysis into third-octave or octave bands and subjective measure-
ments could be incorporated into this evaluation. We did not examine many
published data on the loudness of wholly artificial sounds.in order to give
priority to natural sounds, to simulated sounds, and to noises with tonal
components.
This report presents the results of a detailed examination of 23 studies
in which listeners judged either the loudness or acceptability (annoyance,
objectionability, etc.) of sounds. These studies encompassed a wide variety of
natural and simulated noise stimuli. The following parameters were examined in
detail: (1) subjective attribute judged, (2) type of noise (e.g., aircraft,
industrial, etc.), (3) presence or absence of tonal components, (4) mode of
sound presentation, (5) effect of sound pressure level on observed discrepan-
cies between measurements and predictions. Each of these factors is considered
separately in the body of this report. Included in this final comparative anal-
ysis are computations of absolute mean differences between subjectively equal
sounds, mean differences between calculated and measured levels, and standard
deviations for each frequency-weighting and calculation system.
II OVERALL RESULTS
Table I identifies the 23 studies that were evaluated and summarizes their
relevant characteristics. In most of these studies sounds were matched by
listeners either to each other or to a standard sound. For every study eleven
overall values were calculated based on six different frequency-weighting func-
tions and five different calculation schemes. (The eleven functions and schemes
are listed in the legend of Table II.) Third-octave-band pressure levels at
-------
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF 23 STUDIES
In most of these studies, sounds were matched by listeners to either esch other or to a standard.
LEGEND:
Type of Spectrum
Analysis
T-third-octave-band pressure levels DF»dlffuse field
FF-free field
phones-earphones
Mode of Presentation Attribute Judged
Neg."negative slope
Postpositive slope 0"octave-band pressure levels
Mixed-various spectra
i-loudnes's
A-annoyance,
acceptability, etc.
AUTHOR (S)
Berg Lund et at.
Borsky
Copeland et al.
Fishken
Hlllquist
Jahn
Kryter
Kryter & Pearsons
Little
LUbcke et al.
Molino
Pearsons & Bennett
Pearsons et al.
Pearsons & Wells
Quietzsch
Rademacher
Robinson & Bowsher
Spiegel
Hells (aircraft)
Wells (unpubl.)
Wells (300,400)
Wells (UHv)
Yanlv
YEAR
1976
1974
1960
1971
1967
1965/66
1959
1963
1961
1964
1976
1969
1968
1969
1955
1959
1961
1960
1970
c.1970
1969
1972
1976
NCMBER AND
TYPE OF NOISES
3 aircraft,
jackhaomer,
pi led river
3 aircraft
5 aircraft
13 artificial
21 trucks
10 machine
8 aircraft
9 artificial
2 jet engines
20 machines
5 environmental
50-70 real and
simulated aircraft
72 artificial
19 artificial
37 machines,
motors, etc.
24 motorcycles
5 helicopter
20 artificial
30 aircraft
33 aircraft
102 artificial
25 transmission
lines
11 household
appliances
OVERALL TYPE OF
SPLa SPECTRUM
57-99
75-100
90-103
30-93
80-105
74
80-103
79-91
94-99
40,80
45-80
64-91
59-110
78"-91
47-98
71-87
88-97
45-84
73-83
74-86
70-95
57-78
40,50
60
neg.
neg.
neg. .flat
flat
neg.
mixed
neg. .flat
mixed
flat
flat, mixed
nixed
mixed
mixed
mixed
mixed
neg.
mixed
mixed
mixed, flat
mixed, flat
mixed
flat
mixed
ANALYSIS
T
T
0
T
0
T (0)
0
T
0
T
T
T
T
T
0
0
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
MODE OF
PRESENTATION
phpnea
DF
DF
phones
FF
FF
DF
DF
DF
FF, phones
DF
FF
FF
FF
FF, DF
FF
DF
DF
FF
FF
FF
FF
phones
JUDGED
ATTRIBUTE(S)
L
A
L, A
L
A
L
A
A
A
L
L
A
L, A
A
L
L
L, A
L
A
A
A
A
L
TONAL
COMPONENTS
no
yes
no
yes
no
?
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
-------
frequencies from 25 or 50 Hz to 10,000 Hz were the input. (If a study gave
only octave-band levels, these were converted to third-octave-band levels by
setting each group of three third-octave bands equal and adjusting the level
in each accordingly.) Figures 1 to 4 are computer plots of the A, Dl, D2, and
E frequency weightings. These plots encompass the entire audible spectrum
between 10 and 20,000 Hz. However, in the actual calculations spectral energy
below 25 Hz and above 10,000 Hz were not included.
The computer program for the eleven frequency-weighting and calculation
schemes was a modified version of one furnished by the National Bureau of
Standards. The derived values were compared directly to jury ratings.
Table II shows the standard deviations of the calculated levels for all
those studies for which a meaningful measure of a calculation system's vari-
ability could be derived. Of the 23 studies, 20 are included in this overall
summary. All 20 produced either a known loudness level against which the cal-
culated level could be compared or they contained a large group of sounds that
were judged approximately equal in perceived magnitude. Borsky's (1974) was the
only study that did not require listeners to match sounds to a standard sound,
but his category estimations permitted a determination of which sounds were
approximately equally annoying. The experiments represented in Table II involved
many kinds of sound presented over a wide range of sound pressure levels and
with different instructions and modes of presentation. Nevertheless, at the
bottom of the table, the overall means and their standard deviations as computed
across studies are shown.
Before discussing the results of this analysis, it is first necessary to
explain what information the individual standard deviations convey. Although
the number of observers used in each study varied widely from study to study,
this number did not enter into the computations. The number of experimental
conditions denoted by "N" and the number of different sound spectra denoted by
"n" did influence decisions as to what parts of a study to combine in calculat-
ing the standard deviation.
Standard deviations were first computed from a group of sounds within a
study that were equated either to a common standard or to each other. Within
a group it was possible to have some variation in SPL, in temporal patterns,
in spectra, and in tone-to-noise ratio. Whenever appropriate, the standard
-------
A FREQUENCYUEIGHTING
FRfQ.
' ™""1,
FIGURE 1. A WEIGHTING (NOVEMBER 1976)
-------
01 FREQUENCYUEIGHTING
10
FREO. fHZl
FIGURE 2. D. WEIGHTING (NOVEMBER 1976)
-------
8
§
o
§
Q
ono
Q.O
g
8
P.
o
a
D2 FREQUENCYWEIGHTING
1 IIII 111 I I IT
FREO. fHZl
I I II I ITT
FIGURE 3. D WEIGHTING (NOVEMBER 1976)
-------
§i
s.
8;
o :
7-
SJ
§
E FREQUENCYWEIGHTING
I I I I T
I I
I I I I I
I % I I I 1 I I I
\0»
. fHZO
I 1 1
FIGURE 4. E WEIGHTING (NOVEMBER 1976)
-------
TABLE II. VARIABILITY OF CALCULATED LEVELS OF NOISE.
(Standard deviations in dB computed either from the calculated levels of a group of sounds judged subjectively
equal or from the differences between calculated and judged levels. The smaller the standard deviation, the
closer the scheme comes to predicting the subjective equality of a aet of sounds.)
NUMBER
STUDY N/n OBSERVERS A
Berglund et al. 18/3* 30 4.6
Borsky 13/13* 319 3.6
ITi akl^on fi/i 71*7* 19 *i ^
rlsnicen OH/ 11" 11 j,j
•5 1 / 1* B A R
Zl/J* o 4 . !>
Jahn 10/10 28 1.3
Kryter 17/17* A- 100 2.4
Kryter 6. Pearsons 9/9 13-19 3.5
Lubcke et al. 11/11 12 2.0
20/20 12 2.3
Mollno 18/5* 7 4.4
Pearsons 6. Bennett 30/30 20 4.3
20/20 20 1.7
Pearsons et al. 108/54* 20 6.5
Pearsons & Wells 19/19* 20,30 2.8
Quletzsch 27/27 20 4.2
10/10 20 3.8
Rademacher 24/24 20-25 2.2
Robinson & 10/5* 558 1.9
Bows her
Spiegel 20/20 10 4.7
20/20 10 5.3
Wells (aircraft) 30/30 35 1.6
Wells (unpubl.) 33/33* 30 1.1
Wells 300 42/42 30 3.7
Wells 400 60/60 30 2.5
Wells UHV 25/25 31 1.5
Yaniv 11/11 10 1.6
11/11 10 2.0
11/11 10 2.6
Mean SD 3.08
SD of SDs 1.4
LEGEND:
N « number of conditions (e.g. different SPL
instructions, tone-to-noise ratios)
n - number of different spectra
* = standard deviation based on average of
two or more distinct sets of measurement
A,B,C * standard sound-level meter weightings
Dl - meter weighting adopted by IEC
D2 *• weighting values suggested by K. Kryter
E » weighting values proposed for trial and
study by ANSI
B
4,6
3.0
4f
• O
1.3
5.3
4.8
2.2
2.1
4.6
4.5
4.0
5.1
3.4
4.4
6.3
2.6
2.8
6.2
4.9
2.4
1.7
5.2
4.2
0.9
2.4
1.7
1.2
3.58
1.6
s,
s
C
4.6
2.8
4£
*O
1.4
6.5
5.4
2.3
2.2
5.6
4,7
4.8
5.3
3,6
5,7
7,0
3,2
3,1
6,8
5,1
3,5
2.1
6.6
4.9
1.4
4.2
3.4
2.8
4.19
1.6
Dl
4.6
3.3
1.2
3.4
2.8
1.6
2.6
2.9
3.5
1.4
2.5
1.8
4.0
3.3
1.8
1.4
4.2
3.5
1.2
1.3
2.4
2.5
1.3
2.2
2.4
2.9
2.66
1.1
Mark VI
Mark VII
PNL
PNLC
ZWI
MARK
D2 E VI VII PNL PNLC
4.6 4.6 3.8 3.9 5.6 5.6
3.5 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.8 4.2
1.3 1.2 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.5
2.6 3.7 2.5 2.9 2.8 2.6
3.1 2.8 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.2
1.7 1.5 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.4
2.8 2.6 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.3
2.9 2.9 2.4 1.8 2.5 2.6
3.7 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.2
1.4 1.7 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3
2.8 3.0 2.2 2.2 3.0 2.6
1.8 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.7
4.3 4.2 3.1 3.2 4.0 4.2
2.9 3.8 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8
2.0 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7
1.5 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.4
4.0 4.2 2.4 1.9 3.2 3.7
4.1 3.6 2.6 2.6 2.9 3.2
1.3 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.7
1.3- 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.6
2.7 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
2.0 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.5 1.8
1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.4
2.3 1.6 --- 2.6 4.6 4.9
2.7 1.7 2.7 1.5 2.7 3.2
3.3 2.1 1.7 1.4 2.7 3.1
2.75 2.65 2.30 2.27 2.60 2.69
l.l 1.1 0.9 1.0 I. I 1.1
' ANSI S 3.4 (R1972) procedure for the
computation of noise
» based on modification of Mark VI
(S. S. Stevens, JASA. 1972, 5_1)
* perceived noise level
* PNL with tone correction as per FA A 36
* based on Zwicker's loudness calculation
system. Program from E. Paulus and E.
Zwicker, Acustica, 1972, 27. Free-field
(FF) and diffuse-field (OF) values used
as appropriate. For earphone listening,
FF values used.
ZWI
3.7
3.4
9 ft
L . O
0.8
1.7
3.7
1.5
1.6
2.6
3.7
1.8
2.1
2.6
3.3
2.5
1.6
0.9
2.4
3.0
2.2
1.1
5.3
3.1
0.9
2.0
0.9
1.4
2.37
1.1
-------
deviations from different portions of a single study were combined. For instance,
standard deviations within a study were combined when "n" was smaller than 10.
The studies by Berglund et al. (1976), Molino (1976), and Robinson and Bowsher
(1961) fall into this category. We also combined standard deviations within a
study when the sound spectra were fairly homogeneous as in Borsky (1974), Fishken
(1971), Kryter (1959), and Wells (c.1970). Similarly, the standard deviations
within a study were combined when the attribute judged and the spectra were the
same but two different groups were used as in Pearsons et al. (1968) and Pearsons
and Wells (1969). Large ^N therefore indicates the total number of experimental
conditions for a given study or for a portion of the study. For a complete
breakdown of the standard deviations within a study the reader is referred to
the summary sheets and printouts in the Appendix.
The column labeled ZWI in Table II refers to calculated values based on
Zwicker's system adjusted for either free-field or diffuse-field presentation.
The breakdown of studies into these two categories is listed in Table I. For
the purpose of this analysis the four studies that used earphones were placed
into the free-field category.
In general, the magnitude of the standard deviations shown in Table II
appear to be related to the complexity and heterogeneity of the stimuli. When
the sound spectra are fairly homogeneous as in the studies by Rademacher (1959),
Robinson and Bowsher (1961), and Wells (1970, c.1970, 1972) the standard devia-
tions are quite small. By comparison, the introduction of multiple pure tones
or wide variations in temporal patterns produces large increases in the magni-
tude of the standard deviations (e.g., Fishken, 1971, Pearsons and Bennett,
part 1, 1969, Pearsons et al. 1968, Wells 300-400, 1969). The blank seen in
the Mark-VI column for Yaniv's (1976) data results from a limitation of the
Mark-VI calculation system for noises that contain energy peaks below 40-dB SPL
in the frequency range below 100 Hz.
The overall summary presented in Table II reveals that the differences
among the means and standard deviations of the standard deviations are quite
small when compared across frequency weightings and calculation schemes.
Among the frequency weightings, the B and C weightings produce the largest vari-
ability; the D and E weightings produce the smallest variability, while the A
weighting produces an intermediate value. However, the magnitude of the
-------
10
differences, with the exception of the C weighting, is on the order of 1.0 dB.
On the average, the standard deviation for the D and E weightings are only about
a third of a decibel larger than those for three of the five calculation schemes.
(The same picture emerges if instead of a simple mean of each column of standard
deviations, we compute the RMS values by adding up the squared deviations, divid-
ing by the total n, and taking the square root.)
In contrast to the larger group of experiments shown in Table II, in one
group of five studies members of pairs of noises were subjectively matched to
each other but no large group of sounds was matched to a common standard. This
group of experiments was not amenable to computation of standard deviations.
Parts of the Berglund et al. (1976) and Pearsons et al. (1968) studies in addi-
tion to the experiments of Copeland et al. (1960), Hillquist (1967) and Little
(1961) fell into this category. Analyses of this group of studies are based on
a very simple concept: If two sounds of a pair are judged subjectively equal
with respect to either loudness or acceptability, does the weighting or calcula-
tion system predict this zero difference in perceived magnitude? In order to
answer this question, mean differences between the calculated values of subjec-
tively equal sounds were computed for each study.
Table III presents the results of the calculations of the absolute values
of mean differences. The column labeled N/n does not have the same meaning as
in Table II. The number of different sound spectra is again denoted by "n" but
"N" represents the number of sound pairs within a given experiment rather than
the number of experimental conditions. The value of N was used directly for a
determination of average mean differences for a given experiment and for a
specific weighting or calculation system. For example, the Berglund et al.
(1976) experiment produced seven subjectively equal pairs of sounds but only
two different sound spectra were involved. On the other hand, the Hillquist
(1967) study resulted in 21 equally matched pairs but all 21 sounds had
somewhat different spectra. Thus, in the Berglund et al, study, N is 7 and
in the Hillquist study it is 21.
An explanation also appears in order for the Copeland et al. 0-960) and
Pearsons et al, (1968) analyses. In each study, the same sound spectra were
presented to two groups of listeners with a different set of instructions.
One group pf listeners was asked to match the sound pairs in loudness and the
other group was asked to match the pairs for equal disturbance or acceptability.
Table III considers each series of mean differences separately.
-------
11
TABLE III. MEAN DIFFERENCES (ABSOLUTE VALUES) WITHIN PAIRS OF SUBJECTIVELY EQUAL SOUNDS
STUDY
Berglund et al.
Copeland et al.
Hillquist
Little
Pearsons et al.
N/n
7/2**
4/5**
4/5*
21/21*
1/2*
10/10*
10/10**
A
2.8
1.5
1.6
1.9
5.4
4.7
1.3
B
1.6
3.9
4.9
2.6
5.5
4.6
1.1
C
4.7
5.2
6.2
3.0
5.6
4.6
1.1
Dl
1.3
0.9
1.8
2.2
6.1
4.8
0.9
D2
2.6
0.7
0.9
1.9
6.0
5.0
.9
E
1.7
1.5
2.5
2.1
6.1
4.9
1.0
MARK
VI VII
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
5.9
5.1
1.5
2.4
1.3
2.3
1.7
6.8
5.3
1.2
PNL
1.3
0.9
1.8
1.8
5.9
4.3
0.6
PNLC
1.9
0.8
1.6
5.9
5.3
1.3
ZWI
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.2
5.3
7.0
2.2
N "•• number of pairs
n = number of different spectra
*0bservers judged acceptability or disturbance of sound
**0bservers judged loudness
-------
12
In the study by Copeland et al. (1960), when listeners judged loudness
the absolute mean differences between the calculated values were smaller than
when they Judged disturbance, but the difference is usually less than 1.0 dB.
The Pearsons et al. (1968) study yielded much larger differences between
loudness and acceptability matches. The absolute mean differences between the
calculated values of sound pairs are about 3 to 4 dB larger for acceptability
than for loudness. The mean differences in the Pearsons et al. 0.968) study
for acceptability are about as large as those in the study by Little (1961)
whose listeners judged the two jet sounds for equal annoyance.
Both the Little (1961) and Pearsons et al. (1968) studies involved judg-
ments of auditory magnitudes other than loudness. Further, in contrast to the
aircraft noises used by Copeland et al. (1960), Little (1961) and Pearsons
et al. (1968) introduced tonal components into their stimuli. Although Table
III includes few data, they do suggest that none of the evaluated frequency
weighting or calculation schemes performs well when both the complexity of
the judged attribute and the heterogeneity of the sound spectra are increased.
Table IV presents the mean differences in dB between calculated and mea-
sured loudness levels. Whereas the standard deviations provide information
with respect to a calculation system's variability or reliability, the mean
differences in Table IV tell us about the extent of the disparity between the
perceived and predicted magnitudes. When a calculation system is evaluated, it
is important to know not only how variable it is but also how well it predicts
the perceived magnitude as reported by the typical human observer. The vari-
ability of a given system may be quite small, but it may predict perceived
levels consistently different from what the average listener reports, thereby
decreasing its validity or accuracy. If a frequency weighting or calculation
system is to have validity or meaning in terms of the output of the human
observer, then it is necessary to be concerned with not only the system's
variability but also its ability to predict the judged levels. (Of course, if
the error is a constant, correcting for it is a trivial matter, but as is
shown below, the error is far from being a constant for any of the frequency
weightings or calculation schemes.) For a discussion of the important distinc-
tion between variability or precision and validity or accuracy, see S. S.
Stevens (1972).
-------
TABLE IV. MEAN DIFFERENCES (dB) (CALCULATED MINUS OBSERVED LEVELS)
See Legend for Table II.
MARK
STUDY
Berglund et al.
Fishken
Jahn
Kryter & Pearsons
LUbcke et al.
Mo lino
Quietzsch
Rademacher
Spiegel
Yaniv
Mean .of Mean
SD of Means
N/n
18/3*
84/12*
21/3*
10/10
9/9
11/11
20/20
18/5*
27/27
10/10
24/24
20/20
20/20
11/11
11/11
11/11
diffs.
A
-12.9
-4.8
-1.0
-11.9
-8.9
-18.8
-17.3
-6.5
-14.6
-13.0
-8.8
-12.8
-11.9
-7.3
-10.3
-11.8
-10.8
4.53 .
B
-4.7
-5.1
-1.7
-10.8
-7.6
-16.9
-15.7
-4.8
-13.0
-9.4 "
-4.2
-10.9
-10.0
-3.9
-6.9
-8.4
-8.4
4.36
C
-2.2
-5.1
-1.7
-10.3
-7.0
-16.0
-14.9
-3.1
-11.6
-7.8
-2.4
-10.0
-9.0
-1.3
-4.3
-5.8
-7.0
4.63
Dl
-4.1
2.1
5.8
-5.1
-2.3
-13.0
-11.7
-7.5
-8.3
-6.9
-2.1
-6.7
-5.8
-1.7
-4.7
-6.2
-4.9
4.68
D2
-6.7
2.0
6.0
-5.3
-2.2
-13.3
-11.8
-1.0
-8.6
-7.5
-3.0
-7.0
-6.2
-2.4
-5.4
-6.8
-5.0
4.84
E
-6.3
0.3
2.9
-7.7
-3.7
-14.8
-13.3
-2.4
-10.3
-7.9
-3.7
-7.6
-6.8
-3.6
-6.6
-8.1
-6.2
4.55
VI
2.5
4.9
8.8
-0.3
0.3
-8.6
-6.2
6.4
-3.5
-1.4
1.7
-1.5
-2.8
-
0.2
0.9
-0.13
4.54
VII
-6.0
-1.7
1.3
-7.8
-7.3
-13.3
-14.0
-1.0
-11.0
-7.6
-5.3
-9.4
-10.9
-4.3
-4.9
-6.3
-6.8
4.29
PNL
-0.4
5.5
9.9
1.1
2.1
-9.4
-5.2
5.1
-2.5
-2.9
3.9
-3.9
-2.3
-1.5
-0.9
-0.9
-0.1
4.69
PNLC
-0.6
10.7
15.6
2.3
5.3
-8.2
-3.7
6.3
0.5
-1.0
6.3
-1.8
1.0
-0.1
0.5
0.4
2.1
5.70
ZWI
8.6
7.8
11.2
5.1
4.1
-2.4
-0.7
12.3
1.8
4.7
8.0
1.0
0.7
6.3
6.5
6.2
5.1
4.16
LO
-------
14
Ten of the twenty studies shown in Table II (on variability) are repre-
sented in Table IV. The designation N/n has the same meaning as in Table II.
Hence, individual portions of a given study were combined in the same manner
and for the same reasons as in Table II. All of the ten studies involved
matches against a known calibrated standard from which a loudness level could be
f
determined. Except for the study by Berglund et al. (1976) which used a white-
noise standard, the standard sound was either a 1000-Hz tone or an octave or
1/3-octave band of noise centered at 1000 Hz. The measured loudness levels for
these studies are listed in the computer printouts in the Appendix.
The loudness levels of the white-noise standard in the Berglund et al.
(1976) study were computed from the graph in Fig. 5 which shows how the loudness
level of white noise depends on its overall SPL. Figure 5 covers a range from
56 to 105 dB SPL. The loudness levels for white noise were adopted from a
graph by Scharf (in press) that shows the relationship between the loudness
functions for white noise and a 1000-Hz tone.
According to Table IV, with the exception of the PNLC and Zwicker systems,
all of the calculation and weighting schemes tend to underestimate perceived
magnitude. The overall mean of the mean differences produces the largest dis-
crepancy between calculated and measured loudness levels for the A, B, and C
weightings and the smallest discrepancy for the Mark VI and PNL calculation
schemes. We should note, however, that the means calculated for the Mark VII
system were not adjusted for the 8-dB difference in loudness level produced by
equally loud 1000- and 3000-Hz tones (Stevens, 1972). When this adjustment is
made, the outcome of the Mark VI and Mark VII systems is about the same. Never-
theless, as pointed out with respect to Table II, the shortcoming of Mark VI
is again apparent for the stimuli analyzed by Yaniv (1976), at 40 dB SPL. Whereas
the mean of the mean differences shows a wide variation across frequency-weighting
and calculation schemes, the standard deviation of the mean remains fairly constant.
Moreover, the magnitude of the standard deviations across weighting and calculation
schemes is quite large. It ranges from 4.2 dB for Zwicker's system to 5.7 dB for
PNLC. We shall see in Table V that these large standard deviations may be due to
the fact that four of the ten studies (Fishken (1971), Kryter and Pearsons (1963),
Quietzsch (1955), and Spiegel (I960)) employed either artificial sounds including
tonal components, or a wide assortment of sound spectra that were already shown in
Table II to contribute heavily to overall variability.
-------
15
FIGURE 5. LOUDNESS FUNCTION FOR WHITE NOISE
Uj
110
100
90
80
7°
60
50
40
White Noise
9=0.80
1000 Hz Tone
0 = 1.0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110
OVERALL SPL IN dB
-------
16
III ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO FIVE PARAMETERS
In this section subgroups of the 20 studies summarized in Table II are
compared according to the categories delineated in section I. This type of
analysis was performed to ascertain whether it would reveal more information
about a specific weighting or calculation scheme than the general analysis.
Table V shows the effect on standard deviation of four parameters. For each
parameter, the unweighted mean of the relevant standard deviation is given.
The fifth parameter, effect of sound pressure level on observed discrepancies
between measurements and predictions, is graphically displayed in Figs. 6 to 11.
1. Attribute Judged
For this analysis the studies were subdivided into two broad categories
according to whether listeners were asked to judge loudness or some other
attribute of sounds such as noisiness, disturbance, acceptability, etc.
Acceptability was chosen as the second broad category because acceptability was
commonly used as a verbal description in the instructions presented to the lis-
tener. Nine studies were clearly classified in the loudness category and ten
were placed into the acceptability category. Table V suggests that the relative
reliability of the 11 schemes is the same for the two sets of studies. However,
the standard deviations are larger when the listeners were asked to judge the
loudness than when asked to judge the acceptability of noises. This difference
is probably not meaningful. We believe that several of the studies in which
loudness was judged happened to yield larger standard deviations not because of
the judged attribute, but because of other factors such as greater heterogeneity
of spectra (e.g., Quietzsch, 1955) or levels (e.g., Fishken, 1971).
2. Type of Noise
Part 2 of Table V provides an analysis of standard deviations according to
type of noise. The studies in Table II were subdivided into six groups: air-
craft, industrial, vehicle, household, artificial, and miscellaneous noises. A
study was placed in a given category when most of the stimuli were of the same
type. For example, the study by Kryter and Pearsons (1963) was placed into the
artificial category even though two of the nine sounds were recorded aircraft
noises. In addition, all of the studies that used single and multiple pure tones
were classified as artificial. Only three studies did not fit easily into a
-------
TABLE V. EFFECT ON STANDARD DEVIATION OF FOUR PARAMETERS (Standard Deviations in dB)
See Legend for Table II.
No. of
STUDIES/
VARIABLE SDs A B C Dl D2 E VI VII PNL PNLC ZWI
1. Attribute Judged
Loudness
Acceptability
2 . Type of Noise
Aircraft
Industrial
Vehicle
Household
Artificial
Miscel.
9/15
10/12
7/8
3/4
1/1
1/3
6/9
3/4
3.3
2.9
2.0
2.7
2.2
2.1
4.3
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.0
2.7
2.6
1.8
4.8
4.1
4.2
4.3
3.5
2.8
3.2
3.5
5.2
4.9
3.1
2.3
1.9
2.7
1.8
2.5
3.4
2.9
3.2
2.3
1.8
2.8
2.0
2.8
3.5
2.9
3.0
2.3
2.0
2.7
1.9
1.8
3.4
3.1
2.6
2.0
1.5
2.5
1.6
2.2**
2.8
2.3
2.5
2.0
1.6
2.4
1.7
1.8
2.9
2.2
3.0
2.3
1.9
2.9
1.6
3.3
3.1
2.6
3.2
2.2
2.0
1.7
1.7
3.7
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.6
1.6
2.1
1.6
1.4
3.3
2.3
3. Tonal Components
Present
Absent
4. Mode of Sound
Free Field
Diffuse Field
Earphones
9/12
10/15
Presentation
11/14
7/8
3/6
3.1
3.2
2.7
3.7
3.1
3.6
3.7
3.1
4.7
3.1
4.0
4.5
3.7
5.3
3.9
2.5
2.9
2.1
3.1
3.5
2.6
3.0
2.2
3.1
3.6
2.5
2.9
2.1
3.3
3.1
2.3
2.4
1.9
2.3
3.4
2.4
2.2
1.9
2.3
3.2
2.4
2.8
2.1
2.6
3.8
2.4
3.0
•
2.1
2.8
4.0
2.7
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.4
** 2 Means
-------
18
specific category and were placed into a miscellaneous classification. These
studies included the five environmental noises used by Molino (1976), the 37
mixed group of noises used by Quietzsch (1955), and the 25 ultra-high voltage
transmission-line noises used by Wells (1972).
The results in Part 2 of Table V confirm the conclusions drawn from the
overall summary of standard deviations in Table II. First, regardless of type
of noise the B and C weightings produce larger standard deviations than either
the D and E weightings or the Mark VI, Mark VII, PNL, and Zwicker calculation
schemes. Although the A weighting fares about the same as the D and E weight-
ings for relatively homogeneous stimuli in the aircraft, industrial, and vehi-
cle categories, it clearly becomes worse for both artificial and miscellaneous
sounds. Second, the size of the standard deviations is related to the complex-
ity and heterogeneity of the stimuli. The categories designated artificial
and miscellaneous show the largest standard deviations across weighting and
calculation schemes but within these categories Mark VI and Mark VII produce
the smallest standard deviations. The system designated PNLC, which includes
a correction for tonal components, does not reduce the variability of these
data.
3. Tonal Components
Part 3 of Table V groups the studies according to the presence or absence
of tonal components. (A study was classified as having tonal components
according to the author's designation.) Broken down this way, the results sug-
gest that those studies in which tones were absent tend to be more variable
than those in which tones were present. This conclus'!.>n, however, may be a bit
misleading because the dual grouping in Part 3 does not take into account the
problem of stimulus complexity and heterogeneity as shown in Pjjrt 2. For
instance, five of the nine studies involving tonal components used fairly homo-
geneous spectra whereas five of the ten studies that did not include tones
employed widely disparate spectra. The study of Wells (1970) is an example of
the former category and the studies of Quietzsch (1955) and Spiegel (1960) are
examples of the latter category. Hence, a proper analysis of the effect of
tonal components on standard deviations requires that the interaction with other
stimulus features be taken into account.
-------
19
4. Mode of Sound Presentation
Part 4 of Table V deals with the effect of mode of sound presentation on
the standard deviations. The same studies were regrouped into three categories:
free-field, diffuse-field, and earphone presentation. This breakdown reveals
that, with the exception of Zwicker's system, all of the weighting and calcula-
tion systems result in the smallest standard deviations under free-field condi-
tions. In a diffuse field, the standard deviations increase somewhat across
calculation systems but the increase is smaller than across weighting schemes.
On the other hand, when earphones were used the standard deviations are large
for both the weighting and calculation schemes. Only Zwicker's system, which
explicitly takes into account the mode of sound presentation, gives approxi-
mately the same standard deviations for all three modes.
5. Effect of Sound Pressure Level on Standard Deviation
The standard deviations for the A, Dl, and E weightings are plotten in
Figs. 6 through 8 as a function of SPL; those for Mark VI, PNL, and Zwicker are
plotted in Figs. 9 through 11.
Figures 6 through 11 show that the A weighting produces the largest scatter
of standard deviations and Mark VI produces the smallest scatter. Moreover, all
three weighting schemes produce an increase in standard deviation with increases
in SPL (e.g., Fishken, 1971; Molino, 1976; Yaniv, 1976). None of the calculation
systems exhibits a clear cut level effect. The dependence of standard deviations
on SPL is a basic weakness of the frequency-weighting schemes. It tends to
obscure the consistent observation persistent in this report that the magnitude
of the standard deviations is directly related to the interaction between the
complexity of the judged attribute and the heterogeneity of the sound spectra.
In homogeneous sound spectra (e.g., Robinson and Bowsher, 1961; Wells (UHV),
1972) and for judgments of loudness (Jahn, 1965/66), the standard deviations
remain small and fairly constant regardless of overall SPL. However, the two
studies by Wells (1969, c.1970) produce standard deviations that differ by 1 to
3 dB despite the fact that the measurements were obtained at about the same overall
SPL of 80 dB. The 1970 Wells study (unfilled diamonds) used a fairly homogeneous
sample of airplane noises and thereby yielded a consistently small standard
deviation, whereas the 1969 Wells study (filled diamonds) introduced multiple
pure tones into narrow- and broad-band noises and thereby substantially increased
the standard deviations.
-------
1
5
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
LEGEND
T
Borsky
Fishken
John
Kryter
Kryter and Pearsons
Lubcke et al.
Molino
Pearsons and Bennett
Pearsons and Wells
Quietzsch
Rademacher
Robinson and Bowsher
Spiegel
Wells (Aircraft)
X
a
Y
A
K
a
A
Wells (Unpublished)
Wells UHV
Yaniv
XY
W
Y
w
tf
a
1
11.11 Uir iru-rmr
A WEIGHTING
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IN dB
FIGURE 6. VARIABILITY OF A WEIGHTED LEVELS AS FUNCTION OF SPL
110
N)
O
-------
So
|
5
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
LEGEND
Borsky O
Fishken x
John •
_ Kryter A
Kryter and Pearsons K
Liibcke et a\. D
Molino A
Pearsons and Bennett •
'
i
30
Y
a
_L
Pearsons and Wells
Quietzsch
Rode mac her
Robinson and Bowsher
Spiegel
Wells (Aircraft)
Wells (Unpublished)
Wells 300-400
V
V
b
a
*
o
40
AY
«
Wells UHV W
Yaniv Y
J_
WEIGHTING
50 60 7O 80 90 100
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IN dB
7. VARIABILITY OF Dl WEIGHTED LEVELS AS A FUNCTION OF SPL
110
-------
7.0-
6.0 -
5.0 -
LEGEND
Borsky
Fishken
John
Kryter
Kryter and Pearsons
Llibcke et al.
Molino
Pearsons and Bennett
'
T
T
K
a
Pearsons and Wells
Quietzsch
Rademacher
Robinson and Bowsher
Spiegel
We I Is (Aircraft)
Wells (Unpublished)
Wells 300-400
V
V
Ci
O
Wells UHV
Yaniv
W
Y
llr-ll
E WEIGHTING
1
S3
5
<0
4.O
3.0
2.0
1.0
A
Y
W
0.0
_L
_L
J_
_L
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IN dB
100
FIGURE 8. VARIABILITY OF E WEIGHTED LEVELS AS A FUNCTION OF SPL
N3
S3
-------
§
Uj
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
LEGEND
1
1
Borsky
Fishken
John
Kryter
Kryter and Pearsons
Llibcke et al.
Molino
Pearsons and Bennett
Pearsons and Wells
Quietzsch
Rademacher
Robinson and Bowsher
Spiegel
Wells (Aircraft)
O
X
•
A
K
D
A
Wells (Unpublished)
Wells 300-400
Wells UHV
Yaniv
X
A
I
W
Y
x
AA
W
i
i
MADI/ WT
MAKK VI
i
l
30
40
100
50 60 70 80 90
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IN dB
FIGURE S, VARIABILITY OF LEVELS CALCULATED BY MARK VI AS A FUNCTION OF SPL
110
NJ
Co
-------
7.0
6.0
Q
^ 5.0
"*s.
Co
^
£ 4.0
^
Uj
Q 3.0
§
^
§
^ 2.0
r*s.
CO
1.0
on
i
LEGEMD
Borsky
Fishken
John
~ Kryter
Kryter and Pearsons
LUbcke et al.
Molino
— Pearsons and Bennett
Pearsons and Wells
Quietzsch
Rademacher
*- Robinson and Bowsher
Spiegel
Wells (Aircraft)
__ X
X
Y
a
—
i i
I i I i i 1 i
O Wells (Unpublished) O
X Wells 300-400 *
• weiu imv w ZWICKER
A Yaniv Y ~
K
D
A
V
T
Q
Q + -
®
%
T °
A A ^ x
X V
^^V A V
x A O ^x
—
x
DD A
Y
O
Y w 9 a
i i i i t i i
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IN dB
100
110
FK3DRE 10, VARIABILITY OP LEVELS CALCULATED BT ZWICKER'S METHOD AS A FUNCTION OF SPL
ho
-------
7.0
6.0
5.0
LEGEND'
Borsky O
Fishken X
John •
. Kryter A
Kryter and Pearsons K
Lubcke et al. D
Molino A
Pearsons and Bennett •
'
1
Pearsons and Wells V
Quietzsch V
Rademacher Q
Robinson and Bowsher O
Spiegel
Wells (Aircraft) *
Wells (Unpublished) O
Wells 300-400 *>
Wells UHV
Yoniv
W
Y
PNL
g
5
1
s
4.0
3.0
2.0
Y
A
K
1.0
w
0.0
_L
L
_L
i
i
30
40
100
110
bO 60 70 80 90
SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL IN dB
FIGURE II. VARIABILITY OF LEVELS CALCULATED BY PNL METHOD AS A FUNCTION OF SPL
NJ
Ln
-------
TABLE VI. EFFECT ON MEAN DIFFERENCES OF TWO PARAMETERS (Calculated minus observed levels in dB)
See Legend
VARIABLE
1. Type of
Aircraft
Industrial
Vehicle
Household
Artificial
Miscel.
2. Mode of
Free Field
for Table II.
No. of
STUDIES/
MEANS
Noise
1/1
3/4
1/1
1/3
3/5
2/3
A
-12.8
-15.0
-8.8
-9.8
-7.9
-11.9
B
-10.2
-11.6
-4.2
-6.4
-7.1
-9.1
C
-8.7
-9.6
-2.4
-3.8
-6.6
-7.5
Dl
-5.1
-8.4
-2.1
-4.2
-1.4
-5.3
D2
-5.5
-9.4
-3.0
-4.9
-1.5
-5.7
E
-7.3
-10.5
-3.7
-6.1
-3.0
-6.9
MARK
VI VII
1.0 -6.5
-3.1 -10.2
1.7 -5.3
0.6** -5.2
1.9 -5.6
0.5 -6.5
PNL
1.4
-3.6
3.9
-1.1
2.3
-0.1
PNLC
-3.2
6.3
0.3
5.8
2.0
ZWI
6.1
2.7
8.0
6.3
9.5
6.3
Stimulus Presentation
4/5
Diffuse Field 4/5
Earphones
3/6
-14.3
-10.6
-8.0
-12.1
-8.5
-5.1
-11.0
-7.4
-2.7
-8.0
-4.5
-1.5
-8.4
-4.8
-2.2
-10.0
-5.7
-3.6
-3.4 -10.3
0.2 -7.2
3.5 -3.7
-2.4
-0.4
2.0
-0.6
2.0
4.4
2.4
4.6
7.8
**
2 means
ro
-------
27
Groups of similar sounds or similar studies were also analyzed to determine
whether the mean differences shown in Table IV depend on the type of sound or
mode of stimulus presentation. Fewer studies than in Table V were available
for this analysis. The results are shown in Table VI.
Part 1 of Table VI presents the mean differences for the same six cate-
gories of noise as used in Table V. The trend of the data is consistent with
the overall analysis of mean differences in Table IV. Table VI shows that the
largest discrepancy between calculated and measured loudness levels is for the
A, B, and C weightings and the smallest discrepancy for the Mark VI and PNL
calculation schemes. (Note that the Mark VII means are unadjusted values.)
Furthermore, the mean difference produced by the various weighting and calcu-
lation schemes is clearly not a constant but rather varies substantially across
types of noises. For example, the mean differences produced by the A weighting
range from -8 dB for artificial noises to -15 dB for industrial noises. Simi-
larly, the mean differences produced by the Dl weighting range from about -1.4
dB for artificial noises to -8.4 dB for industrial noises. Of the six weight-
ing schemes the Dl weighting produces the smallest mean differences for the
six types of noises. Too few studies were involved, however, to determine
whether the mean differences between the Dl, D2 and E weightings are meaningful.
Equally important, insufficient data were available to assess the validity or
accuracy of a specific system when multiple pure tones are introduced into a
band of noise.
The effect of mode of presentation on mean differences is indicated in
Part 2 of Table VI. These data show that none of the weighting schemes appears
able to predict perceived levels in a free field. The mean differences between
calculated and observed levels decrease somewhat across weighting schemes in a
diffuse field. However, regardless of mode of presentation, the calculation
systems appear to have greater validity than the weighting scheme. Mark VI
and PNL predict perceived levels best in a diffuse field whereas Zwicker's
system predicts perceived levels best in a free field.
IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This project was concerned with the ability of 11 frequency-weighting and
calculation systems to predict the perceived magnitude of sounds. In general,
-------
28
with respect to both variability and mean differences between calculated and
observed levels, the B and C frequency weightings fare less well than the D
and E weightings and the five calculation schemes. The A weighting is less
variable than either B or C, and more variable than Dl and E by less than a
1/2 dB. Further, the standard deviations produced by the frequency weightings
tend to be level dependent, whereas those produced by the calculation systems
are not. The level dependency is such that the expected error in the frequency
weightings tends to increase with level, so that predictions are worse at the
t
higher levels, which are of prime importance with respect to environmental
sounds. The data also suggest that none of the frequency-weighting schemes is
valid (without a correction) for free-field presentations, i.e., none gives
a reading close to the judged level.
To determine whether the differences in standard deviations produced by
the weighting and calculation schemes are indeed statistically significant,
a preliminary analysis was carried out in which simple t-tests were performed
between the mean standard deviations in Table II. These results are indicated
in Table VII. A positive value in Table VII means that the weighting and cal-
culation schemes listed horizontally in the row produce larger standard devia-
tions than the weighting and calculation schemes listed in the vertical column.
The opposite is true for a negative value. The number of asterisks indicates
the level of statistical significance of the t-tests. No asterisk means the
difference was not statistically significant. For example, the first line shows
that the B and C weightings produce significantly larger standard deviations
than the A weighting whereas the Dl and E weightings and the Mark VI, Mark VII,
PNL and Zwicker calculation schemes produce significantly smaller standard
deviations than the A weighting.
Table VII's important implications can be summarized as follows:
1) Of the six frequency-weighting schemes, the standard deviations
produced by the A, Dl, D2, and E weightings are significantly smaller
than the standard deviations produced by the B and C weightings.
2) The standard deviations produced by the Dl and E weightings are
not significantly different from each other but are significantly
smaller than that produced by the A weighting.
3) The D2 weighting does not appear to be significantly better than
either the Dl or E weightings. It is also not statistically different
from the A weighting.
-------
TABLE VII. DIFFERENCES1 IN dB BETWEEN MEAN STANDARD DEVIATIONS IN TABLE II.
B C Dl
A .50* 1.11*** -.41*
B _.6i*** -.91***
C -1.52***
Dl
D2
E
VI
VII
PNL
J» 41 U
PNLC
Results of t-tests (N=28)
blank = not significant
* = significant at .05
** = significant at .01
*** = significant at .001
D2 E VI
-.33 -.43* -.83***
-.83** -.93*** -1.31***
1.44*** -1.54*** -1.89***
.08 -.02 -.39**
or better
or better
or better
-.10 -.46***
-.38**
VII
-.81**
-1.31***
-1.92***
-.40**
-.48**
- . 38**
-.04
PNL
-.48*
- . 98**
-1.59***
-.07
-.15
-.05
.22*
.33*
PNLC
-.38
-.89**
-1.50***
.02
-.06
.04
.31*
.42*
-.10
ZWI
-.71**
-1.21***
-1.82***
-.30
-.38*
-.29
.08
.10
-.23
-.32
Standard deviation for a given calculation scheme listed in the row of this matrix is subtracted from the
deviation for the calculation scheme, with which it is paired, listed in the column. Thus B minus A = .50,
Dl minus A = -.41, etc. Thus, a positive value means the deviation listed in the column was larger than the
deviation listed in the row, and a negative value means the opposite.
Legend:
standard sound-level meter weightings
meter weighting adopted by IEC
weighting values suggested by K. Kryter
A,B,C
Dl
D2
E
weighting values proposed for trial and
study by ANSI
Mark VII
PNL
PNLC
ZWI
Mark VI ANSI S3.4 (R1972) procedure for the
computation of the loudness of noise
based on modification of Mark VI (S. S.
Stevens, JASA. 1972, 51)
perceived noise level
PNL with tone correction as per FAA36
based on Zwicker's loudness calculation system.
Program from E. Paulus and E. Zwicker, Acustica,
1972, 2T_. Free-field (FF) and diffuse-field
(DF) values used as appropriate.
IV)
\O
-------
30
4) Whereas the Mark VI, Mark VII, PNL, and Zwicker systems all
exhibit significantly smaller standard deviations than the A, B,
and C weightings, only Mark VI and Mark VII show significantly
smaller standard deviations than the Dl and E weightings.
5) The standard deviations produced by PNL and PNLC are signifi-
cantly larger at the 0.05 level than the standard deviations pro-
duced by Mark VI and Mark VII.
This analysis of standard deviations does not address itself to the
important question of validity that was raised in the discussion of Tables IV
and VI. The available evidence (e.g., Little, 1961; Pearsons et al., 1968)
suggests that, when single and multiple tones are introduced into bands of noise
at tone-to-noise ratios of +15 dB and greater, the sounds become more annoying
than the perceived levels predicted by any frequency-weighting or calculation
scheme. To help solve this problem, the extent of the disparity between calcu-
lated and perceived magnitudes needs to be measured with a known, calibrated
standard.
Overall consideration of the results leads to the following conclusions:
1.) More data are needed to assess the contribution of pure tones in noise.
Without tones, loudness and acceptability in this survey produce essentially the
same results, but none of the frequency-weighting or calculation schemes performs
well when the complexity of the judged attribute and the heterogeneity of the
sound spectra are simultaneously increased.
2.) More research is also needed to assess adequately the effects of
duration, especially durations longer than one second, and intermittency on per-
ceived magnitude of noises.
3.) Additionally, a finer analysis of the present data is needed to evalu-
ate the effects of type of spectra on both standard deviations and mean differ-
ences between calculated and observed levels. Such an analysis is necessary
because noises of a given type, for example household and artificial sounds,
can vary widely in spectra. This analysis requires a regrouping of studies
across types of noises, and across investigations.
4.) To decrease the variability of matching data for broad-band noise, a
calibrated broad-band noise should be used as a common standard. One such
possibility is white noise for which many data are available; however, the more
-------
31
natural spectrum of pink noise may be a more suitable standard. More exten-
sive laboratory measurements of the subjective magnitude of pink noise are
needed before such a standard could be agreed upon.
Although the calculation schemes are clearly superior to the frequency
weightings, we cannot conclude that a particular calculation scheme is prefer-
able for predicting the subjective effects of noise; the differences among our
measures of variability are so small (usually under IdB) as to require a cost-
benefit analysis far beyond the scope of this project. These differences may
turn out to be larger and more meaningful when more data on the effects of tonal
components are available for analysis, and a more detailed analysis of the effects
of level and spectral shape can be performed.
With the exclusion of the B and C weightings, the differences among the
other four frequency weightings that were examined are all less than 0.5 dB.
The A weighting thus assesses subjective magnitude (with due allowance for its
constant error—see Table IV) with nearly as little variability as more recently
proposed weightings. To achieve a significant improvement in prediction of
subjective magnitude from objective sound measuremnts, it will probably be nec-
essary to use a calculation scheme. As additional information is accumulated,
it should become possible to adopt a refined calculation system; eventually
integrated circuitry will make it possible to incorporate such a system into
a sound-level meter.
-------
VI. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
APRIL, 1977
CODES:
SUBJECTIVE DATA OBJECTIVE DATA TYPE OF SOUND MODE OF PRESENTATION MISCELLANEOUS
M = matching data 0 = octave-band analysis A = Aircraft FF = Free Field T = tonal components
E = estimations T = third-octave analysis V = Vehicle DF = Diffuse Field D = duration or
C = complaints N = not in report H = Household P = Earphones intermittency
N = not in report appliances F = non-auditory
S = Artificial factors
sounds C = calculation
M = Miscellaneous procedures reviewed
I = Industrial
Blanks in a column mean we do not have the information.
10
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Anderson, C.M.B., &
Robinson,. D. W.
Andrews, B., &
Finch, D.M.
Aylor, D., &
Marks, L.
Bauer, B.,- Torrick,
E.L., & Allen, R.6. .
Bauer, B., &
Torrick, E.L.
Beranek, L'.L.
Berglund, B. ,
Berglund, U. , &
Lindvall, T.
Berglund, B.,
Berglund, U. , &
Lindvall, T.
Bishop, D.E.
Boeing Company
Bo r sky, P.
TITLE
The effect of interruption rate
on the annoyance of an inter-
mittent noise.
Truck noise measurement
Perception of noise trans-
mitted through barriers
The measurement of loudness
Researches in loudness
measurement
Criteria for office quieting
based on questionnaire rating
studies
Scaling loudness, noisiness and
annoyance of community noises
A study of response criteria in
populations exposed to aircraft
noise
Judgments of the relative and
absolute acceptability of air-
craft noise
Development and validity of the
noise unit called effective
perceived noise level
A comparison of a laboratory and
field study of annoyance and
; acceptability of aircraft noise
' exposures
SOURCE
NPL Report
10-71, Ac 53
Proc. Hgwy
-Research Brd
1951, 456-
JASA, 1976,
59, 397-400
Arden Wrkshp
1971, JASA,
50,405
IEEE Trans
(1966) 14,
No. 3
JASA, 1956
28, 833-52
JASA, 1976
60,1119-1125
J of S&V
1975, 41,
33-39.
JASA, 1966
40, 108-122
Jan., 1968
NASA, 1976
1-67
SUBJ.
Meth
E
E
M
M
E
M.E
E
•
E
E
E
DATA
#of Os
21
9-10
30
1400-
3200
OBJ.
Anal
0
N
0
0
0
T,0
N
N
N
T.
DATA
# &Type
of Snd
2, I
V
1, S
S
7.A.I
145, A
A
A
MODE OF
PRSNTN.
DF
FF
DF
DF
P
DF
DF
DF
MISCEL.
D, F
F
C
C
F
F
F
T,D
F
OJ
GJ
-------
r
AUTHOR (S)
Borsky, P.
Borsky, P., &
Leonard, S.
Botsford, J.
Bowsher, J.,
Johnson, D. , &
Robinson, D.W.
Broadbent, D.E., &
Robinson, D.W.
BUrck, W.
Bryan, M.
Cermak, G. , &
Corn! lion, P.
Clark, W.
Clarke, F. , &
Kryter, K.
-2-
TITLE
Annoyance and acceptability judge-
ments of noise produced by three
types of aircraft by residents
living near JFK airport
Annoyance judgments of aircraft
with and without acoustically
treated nacelles
Using sound levels to gauge
human response to noise
A further experiment on Judging
the Noisiness of Aircraft in
Flight
Subjective measurements of the
relative annoyance of simulated
sonic bangs and aircraft noise
On the problem of annoyance caused
by noise, its determination and
its judgment with special refer-
ence to aircraft noise
A tentative criterion for accep-
table noise levels in passenger
vehicles
Multidimensional analyses of
judgments about traffic noise
Reaction to aircraft noise
The methods of paired compar-
isons and magnitude estimation
in judging the noisiness of air-
craft
SOURCE
NASA, 1974
1-50
Nat'l Aero
& Sp. Admin. ,
1973
J of S&V
1969,16-28
Acustica,
1966, 17,
245-267
J of S&V
1964,1, No. 2,
162-174
Rhode &
Schwarz-
Mittelungen,
1965,19,199-
205
J of S&V
1976,48,
525-535
JASA.1976
59,1412-20
ASD Tech Rep
1961
NASA, 1972
SUBJ.
Meth
E
E
N
E
E
E
E
M,C
1,E
DATA
;os
19
118
148
79
3-4
20
48
22
OBJ.
Anal
*
T
0
N
0
0
0
0
N
DATA
Snds
18.A
3, A
I.M.V
A
3,A
A
4,V
13, V
A
22, A
MODE OF
PRSNTN.
DF
DF
•
DF.FF
DF
DF
FF
P
FF
MISCEL.
F
F
C
F
D
D
C
£
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Cope land, W. ,
Davidson, I., &
Robinson, D.
Cops, A., Myncke,
H. , & van Pa erne 1, 0.
Edwards, R.M.
Eld red, K.
Evans , M. J . , &
Tempest, W.
Fldell, S.,
Pearsons, K. ,
Grignette, M. , &
Green, D.M.
Flshken, D.
Fletcher, J., &
Gunn, W.
Flynn, D., &
Yaalv, S.
Ford, R. D.,
Hughes, G.M. , &
Saunders, D.J
-3-
TITLE
A controlled experiment on the
subjective effects of jet engine
noise
Subjective and objective
measurements on the loudness
level of impulsive noise
signals
A social survey to examine the
variance of aircraft noise
annoyance
Assessment of community noise
Some effects of infrasonic
noise in transportation
The noisiness of impulsive
sounds
Loudness summation between
tones and noise
Annoyance of Aircraft Flyover
Noise as a Function of the Pre-
sence of Strangers
List of Household and Consumer
Appliances
The measurement of noise inside
cars
SOURCE
J. Royal
Aero. Soc.,
1960,64, 33-36
Cath U at
Leuven,1971
1-81
J of S&V
1975, 41,
41-51
J of S&V
1975, 43,
137-146
J of S&V
1972,22,
19-24.
JASA.1970
48,1304-1310
Unpub Doct
Dlss- North-
eastern U.1971
Final Tech.
Rep.NASA,1974
Unpub. NBS
1976
App. Acous.,
1970,3,69-84
SUBJ. DATA
Meth #0s
M
M
E,C
N
C
M
M
E
N
E
1,578
N
10,8
1-12
[1-8
108
12
OBJ.
Ana
0
N
N
N
N
0
T
N
0
N
DATA
Snds
5, A
A
M
S
S
13, S
A
78.H
6.V
MODE OF
PRSNTN.
DF
FF
FF
P
DF
DF
MISCEL.
C
D,C
C
T,F
D
T,C
F
C
co
01
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Fuller, H. C., &
Robinson, D.W.
Fuller, H.C., &
Robinson, D.W.
Goulet, P., &
Northwood, T.D.
Griffiths, I.D., &
Langdon, F.J.
Gunn, W. , &
Fletcher, J.
Gunn, W., Shepherd,
L.J. , & Fletcher, J.
Hargest, T. , &
Pinker, R.
Hart, F.D., Reiter,
W.F. , & Roy star, L.H
Hecker, M. , &
Kryter, K.
Hillquist, R.
Hillquist, R.
-4-
TITLE
Subjective reactions to steady and
varying noise environments
Temporal variables in the assess-
ment of an experimental noise
environment
Subjective rating of broad-band
noises containing pure tones
Subjective response to roed
traffic noise
The effect of number of flights
prior to judgment on annoyance to
aircraft flyover noise
Effects of three activities on
annoyance responses to recorded
flyovers
The influence of added narrow
band noises and tones on the
subjective response to shaped
"white" noise
A .community noise problem
resolution
Comparisons between subjective
ratings of aircraft noise and
various objective measures
An experiment for relating
objective and subjective
assessments of truck tire noise
Motorcycle noise tests
OURCE
NFL Acous.
Rep. 1973
IFL Acous.
Rep. 1975
JASA, 1973
53, 356 (A)
J of S&V
1968, 8,
16-32
Semi-Annu
Status Rep.
NASA, 1974
NASA Rep.
1975
J.Roy. Aero.
Soc. 1967,71
428-430.
Inter-Noise
1972, 44-48
Dept. Transp
Tech Rep 1968
1-78
Soc. of Auto-
motive Engnr
1972
Unpub.1969
SUBJ.
Meth
E
E
M
E,C
E
E
E
E
E
M
DATA
tt)s
1200
108
800
23
8
OBJ.
Anal
N
N
T
N
M
N
N
0
N
N
N
DATA
Snds
S
V
A
A
3
4,1
A
V
12, V
MODE OF
PRSNTN.
DF
DF
DF
DF
DF
DF
FF
DF
FF
FF
MISCEL.
D.F
D
T
F,C
D,F
T
C
£
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Hlllquist, R.K.
Hinter,Keuser, &
Sternfeld
ISO/TC43/SC 1
ISO/TC43/SC1/SGA
John, H.
Jenkins, M.A., &
Pahl, J.
Johnson, D. , &
Robinson, D.
Karplus, H. , &
Bonvallet, G.
Kerrick, J.S.,
Nagel, D.C. &
Bennett, R.L.
Kitamura, 0.,
Sasaki, H. ,
Saito, M.
Kllmuhin, A. A., &
Ossipov, G.L.
TITLE
Objective and Subjective measure-
ment of truck noise
Subjective response to synth-
esized flight noise signatures
of several types of V/Stol
Aircraft
Procedure for Describing Air-
craft Noise Heard on the Ground
Preliminary Report: International
Round Robin Test on Measurements
and Calculations on the Magnitude
of Auditory Sensation of Sounds
Subjektive und Objektive Bewer-
tung von Maschinengeratischen
Measurement of freeway noise
and community response
The subjective evaluation of
sonic bangs
A noise survey of manufactur-
ing industries
Multiple ratings of sound
stimuli
On judging the noise from high
speed road
Measurement and evaluation of
aircraft noise in flight
SOURCE
J of S&V
'67, 1, 8-14
Boeing Co.
NTIS 1968
Draft Propos,
1973
1974, 1-49
Acustica, 65,
16, 175-185
JASA, '75, 58
1222-1231
Acustica, %67(
18, 241T258
Am.Ind.Hyg.
Assoc. Quart.
1953, 14, 235-
263.
JASA, 1969,45
1014-1017
6th Interntl
C on Acous^S,
28, 45-48.
6th Intemtl
C on Acous.68.
SUBJ.
Meth
M,E
M
M
M
E.C
E
N
E '
E
E
DATA
*0s
20
82
28
562
61
10
OBJ.
Anal
N
0
T
T
N
0
0
N
N
N
DATA
Snds
100, V
S
A
16, S
10,1
V
4, A
I, 580
V
A
MODE OF
PRSNTN.
FF
DF
FF
DF
DF
DF
FF
M1SCEL.
T
T
C
D
C
F
u>
**i
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Kryter, K.D.
Kryter, K.D.
Kryter, K.D.
Kryter, K.D. ,
Johnson, P.J. , &
Young, J.R.
Kryter, K. ,&
Pearsons, K.
Kryter, K.D. , &
Pearsons, K.S.
Langdon, L. ,
Gabriel, R., &
Creamer, L.
Little, J.W.
Little, J.W., &
Mabry, J.E.
Little, J.W., &
Mabry, J.E.
TITLE
Scaling human reactions to the
sound from aircraft
Psychological reactions to
aircraft noise
The meaning and measurement of
perceived noise level
.Judgment tests of flyover noise
from various aircraft
Judged noisiness of a band of
random noise containing an
audible pure tone
Some effects of spectral con-
tent and duration on perceived
noise level
Judged acceptability of noise
exposure during television
viewing
Human response to jet engine
noise
Sound duration and its effects
on judged annoyance
Empirical comparisons of calcu-
lation procedures for estimat-
ing annoyance of jet aircraft
flyovers
-6-
SOURCE
JASA, 1959,
31,1415-1429
Science, 1966,
151,1346-1355
No. 3716
Noise Control
1960,6, 12-27
No. 5
NASA, 1969
JASA, 1965,
38, 106-112
JASA, 1963,
35, 866-883
JASA, 1974,
56, 510-515
Noise Control
1961, 7, 11-1
J of S&V, '69(
9, 247-262
J of S&V. '69,
10,59-68.
SUBJ.
Meth
M
M,E
M
M
M
E,C
M
C,M
M
DATA
K)s
36 , 100
4-13
20-21
0-19
80
65
94
OBJ.
Anal
0
N
0
0
0,T
T
0
N
N
DATA
Snds
8,A
A
A
5.S
13.S.A
1,S
2, A
A
MODE OF
PRSNTN.
DF
DF.P
DF.FF
'
P,FF
DF,P
FF
DF
P
DF
MISCEL.
C
C
C
T,C
T.D.C
D
T,C
D
T,D
u>
00
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Lubcke, von E. ,
Ml t tag, G., & Port, E
Meister, F.J.
Mendel, M. , Sussman,
H. , Merson, R. ,
Nasser, M. , & Mini fie
F.D.
Mills, C.H.G.
Molino, J.
Moreira, N., &
Bryan, M.
Mullen, J.L.
Niese, H.
Niese, H.
Notbolm, K.
-7-
TITLE
Subjektive und Objective Bewertung
von MaschinengerHuschen
Comparison of several sound-
evaluation methods for aircraft
noises
Loudness judgments of speech
and non-speech stimuli
The measurements of noise
emitted by motor vehicles.
Noise annoyance susceptibility
Assessment of annoyance due to
varying noise levels with part-
icular reference to aircraft
noise
Beitrag zur Relation Zinschen
Lautstgrke und Ltfstigkeit von
BerBuachen
Vorshlag fiir einen Lautstark-
messer zur gehorrichtigen
Anzeige von Spitzenhaltigen
Gerguschen bei beteiboger
Schallfeldform
Die LautstSrke von Impulsen
unter BerUckstchtigung der
HUllkurvenform und des Spektrums
SOURCE
Acustica, 1964
14, 105-114
Luftfahrttech-
nik, 1961, 7,
178-181
JASA, 1969, 46
1556-1561.
Motor Ind Res
Aasoc rep,
1960, 1060-3
Unpub., NBS
1976
J of S&V, '72,
21, 449-462
J of S&V, '71,
19, 287-298
Acustica, '65,
15, 236-243
Elektroakust.
58, 66, 125-39
Elektroakust.
70, 65-74.
SUBJ.
Meth
M
N
E
M
M
E
N
M
M
M
DATA
#08
10,12
17
7
34
OBJ.
Anal
T
0
M
N
T
N
N
T
0
N
DATA
Snds
20,1
A
3,S
V
5.M
3.V.A.I
A
M
MODE
FF,P
DF
DF
DF
DF
DF
MISCEL.
C
T
F
D,C
D
u>
vO
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Ollerhead, J.B.
•
Ollerhead, J.B.
Olynyk, D., &
Northwood, T.D.
Parry, H. J. , &
Parry, J.K.
Pearsons, K.S.
Pearson* K. , &
Bennet, R.
Pea rsons , K . S . ,
Bishop, D.E. , &•
Horonjeff, R.D.
Pearsons, K.S., &
Wells, R.J.
Perera, T.B.,
Galanter, E. ,
& Popper, R.
Powell, C., &
Rice, C.
TITLE
Scaling aircraft noise perception
Sub-jective evaluation of general
aviation aircraft noise
Subjective judgments of footstep-
noise transmission through floors
The interpretation and meaning of
laboratory determinations of the
effect of duration on the judged
acceptability of noise
Assessment of the validity of
pure tone corrections to per-
ceived noise level
Effects of temporal and spectral
combinations on the judged
noisiness of aircraft sounds
Judged noisiness of modulated and
multiple tones in broad-band noise
Judged noisiness of sounds contain
ing multiple pure tones
A comparison of psychophysical
judgments of single and multiple
stimuli
Judgments of aircraft noise in a
traffic noise background
-8-
SOUilCE
J of S&V '73 ,
3, 361-388
Techn Rep
Wyle Labs
68', 1-80
JASA, '65 ,38,
1035-1039
J of S&V, *71
20, 51-57
Bolt, Ber. &
Newman, Inc
1968
JASA, 1971,
49, 1076-82
FAA report '69
JASA, '69 ,45
74? -50
NASA report
'68
Paper Pres.
78th ASA, '69,
JASA 47:89A
(1970)
1976, unpubl.
J of S&V '75,
38, 39-50
SUBJ.
Meth
M
M
M
N
M
M
M
E
E
DATA
Os
32
20
20
20,30
OBJ. DATA
Anal nds
N
N
T
T
T
N .
N
19, A
20,A
-
70.S.A
.00,5
IB.S
MODE
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
MISCEL
T, D, C
D,C
D
D.C
T.D.C
T,D
T,D,C
T,C
D,F
F
o
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Quietzsch, G.
Rademacher, H.J.
& Venzke, G.
Rademacher, H.
Relchardt, W.
Reichardt, U.
Relchardt,. W.
Reichardt, W. ,
Notbolm, K. , &
Jursch, H.
Rice, C.G., &
Zepler, E.E.
Robinson, D.W.
Robinson, D.W. ,
& Bowsher, J.M.
Robinson, D.W.,
Copeland, W.C. ,
& Ronnie, A.J.
TITLE
Objective and subjective loudness
neasurements
He Subjektive und Objektive Bew-
ertung des Schalleschutzes von
CrennwHnden und Decken
)ie Lautst&rke von Kraftfahr-
zeuggerSuschen
Lautstifrke und LSstlgkeit
temerkungen zu der Arbeit von E.
teicker: Ein Beitrag zur Laut-*
star kernes sung impulshaltiger
Jchalle
Subjective and objective measure-
nent of the loudness level of
single and repeated impulses
Verbesserung des Lautstgrkebev-
echningsverfahrens nach Niese
Loudness and pitch sensation of
an impulsive sound of very short
duration
lee en t advances in the sub jec li-
ve measurement of noise
subjective experiment with
lelicopter noises
btor vehicle noise measurement
-9
SOURCE
Acustica,
1955, 1-44
Acustica,
1959, 409-18
Acustica,
1959, 93-108
LHrmbekHmpfung
1966, 95-103
Acustica, '67
18, 118-121
JASA, 1970, 47
1557-1562
Acustica, '69
21, 134-143
Jof S&V, '67,
5, 285-289
4th Intrntl C
Acous. 1962
J. Roy. Aero.
Soc., 1961,
65, 635-637
Engineer, 1961
211, 493
'SUBJ.
Meth
M
M
M
H
M
N
M
M
M
E
DATA
#0s
20
20-25
50
558
19
OBJ.
Anal
0
0
0
N
N
T
N
T
N
DATA
Snds
37.M
M
24, V
H
5.A
225,V
MODE
DF.FF
FF
FF
P
DF
FF
MISCEL
T,D
D
D.F.C
C
D
C
C
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Rosinger, G. ,
Nixon, C., &
Gierke, H.
Rule, S.J.
Rule, S., &
Little, J.
Rule, S., &
Little, J.
Rylander, R. ,
Scfrensen, S., &
Kajland, A.
Rylander, R. ,
Sorensen, S.,
Alexander, A., &
Gilbert, P.H.
Scharf, B.
Shepherd, K.
Shepherd, L.J., &
Sutherland, W.W.
Shipton, M.S. ,
Evans, D.H. , &
Robinson, D.W.
TITLE
Quantification of the noisiness
of approaching and receding
sounds
Effect of instructional set on
responses to complex sounds
The design and construction of
an annoyance scale for jet eng-
ine noise
Effect of a composite instruct-
ional set on responses to com-
plex sounds
Annoyance reactions from air-
craft exposure
Determinants for aircraft noise
annoyance - A comparison be-
tween French and Scandinavian
data
Loudness and noisiness - same
or different?
Annoyance due to noise from
off-road vehicles
Relative annoyance and loudness
judgments of various simulated
sonic boom waveforms
An investigation of the loud- -
ness of noises with impulsive
characteristics
10-
30URCE
JASA, 1970, 48
843-855
JEP, 1964, 67
215-220
Boeing Company
1963
J . Exper . Psyc .
1966, 71, 200-2
J of S&V, 1972
24, 419-444
J of S&V, 1973
Inter-noise,
1974
Proc., 1st
Interntl C on
Noise -Recr.
off-road Veh.
NASA, 1968,
1192
NFL Acoust.
Rep., 1971 1-11
SUBJ.
Meth
M
N
E
M
E
C
H
C
DATA
Os
24
100
309
OBJ.
Anal
N
0
N
N
N
N
N
DATA
Snds
9,S
5
A
5
A
A
7,V
S
MODE
FF
DF
DF
DF.FF.P
DF
MISCEL
T
T
F
F
D
D
D
ro
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Spiegel, M.
Stevens, S.S.
Sutherland, L.S.,
Lee, M.C., &
Burke, R.E.
Tempest, W.
Tempest, h;,,&
Bryan, M.
Webster, J.C., &
Lepor, M.
Wells, R.J.
Wells, R.J.
Wells, R.J.
Wells, R.J.
Wells, R.J.
-11
TITLE
PrUfung verschiedener Lautsta'r-
keberechnungsmethoden bei diff-
user Beschallung
Perceived level of. noise by
by Mark VII and decibels (E)
Annoyance, loudness and measur-
ment of impulsive noise sources
Loudness and annoyance due to
low frequency sound
Low frequency sound measure-
ment in vehicles
Noise, you can get used to it
Jury ratings of complex air-
craft noise spectra vs. calcu-
lated ratings
A new method for computing
the annoyance of steady state
noise versus perceived noise
level and other subjective
measures
Noise complain potential:
ambient noise versus intrusive
noise
A subjective study of ultra
high voltage transmission
line noise
SOURCE
1960
JASA, 1972
51, 575-601
Wyle Res. Rep.
WR 76-77
Acustica, 1973,
29, 205-209
App. Acoust.
1973, 5, 133-39
JASA, 1969, 45
751-757, 330(A)
JASA, 1971, 49:
100 (A)
ASA, 1969
7th Intrntl C
Acoust., Buda-
pest, 1971
Arden Hse. ,
1972
Unpub., 1970
SUBJ.
Meth
M
M
M
E,C
N
E,C
M
M
E
M
M
DATA
/Os
3
OBJ.
Anal
T
T
T
0
0
0
T
T
N
T
T
DATA
Snds
M
9.V.I
4,V
M
30, A
102, S
25, UHV
53, A
MODE
DF
DF,FF,P
FF
DF
DF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
MISCEL
D,C
D,C
F
F
T
T
C
T
OJ
-------
AUTHOR (S)
Williams, C.E.,
Stevens, K. N., &
Klatt, M.
Yaniv, S.
Zepler, E.E., &
Harel, J.R.P.
Zepler, E.E.,
Sullivan., Rice ,
Griffin, Oldman,
Dickinson, Shep-
herd, Ludlow, &
Large
Zwicker, E.
ADDENDUM
Berglund, B.,
Berglund, U. and
Lindvall, T.
Scharf, B.
-1
TITLE
Judgments of the acceptability
of aircraft noise in the pres-
ence of speech
Equal loudness contours for
household appliances
The loudness of sonic booms
and other impulsive sounds
Human response to transport-
ation noise and vibration
Ein Beitrag zur Unterscheidung
von Lautstatrke und LHstigkeit
Scaling loudness, noisiness am
annoyance of aircraft sounds
Loudness. In E.G. Carterette
land M.P. Friedman (Eds.) Hand-
Ibook of Perception. Vol. 4.
(earing. New York: Academic
Press, in press.
SOURCE
J of S&V., 1969
9, 263-275
unpubl., NBS
1976
J of S&V. , 1965
2, 249-256.
J of S&V., 1973
28, 375-401
Acustica, 1966
17, 22-25
JASA, '75, 57,
930-934.
SUBJ.
Meth
M
E,M
M.
E
N
DATA
#0s
10
28
OBJ.
T
N
T
N
DATA
i
11, H
A
V.A
14, A
MODE
P
FF
P
MISCEL
F
C
D
D.F
*
-------
APPENDIX (Contains information on each study examined and
on individual noises within each study.)
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E2L3
SOURCE Author(s): Berglund, B., Berglund, U.,
" and LindvalL, T.
Title: Scaling loudness, noisiness, and annoyance of community noises.
Reference: JASA, 1976, 60, 1119-1125.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 3 noises - .Tackhammer, piledriver, and aircraft>
plus a white noise 20 - 20,000 Hz wide
Levels: 58 - 103 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: Earphones - listening to tape recorded sounds
Analysis: One octave and third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Loudness
Psychophysical procedure: Loudness matching using the white noise as
standard (white noise varied)
Number of observers: 30
OTHER
Special features: Some of the same stimuli were also used to obtain magnitude
estimation functions for loudness, annoyance, and noisiness.
Comments: Loudness levels were determined by comparing, over the experimental
stimulus range covered, the white noise loudness function of Scharf
(in press) against the standard 1000-Hz loudness function.
A-l
-------
£T AL 197$ NOISE 1 AT 83 OB SPL NRS + STAf 3-3-77
NO
1
^ERGLUNO ET
NO.
1
"3ERGLUNO ET
NO.
1
3ERGLUNO ET
. £ NO.
1
0-A
83.0
AL 197£
0-A
80.0
AL 197$
0-A
67.5
AL 197^
0-A
57.5
A
78.7
NOISE
A
75.7
NOISE
A
63.2
NOISE
A
53.2
B
81.3
1 AT 80
8
78.3
1 AT 67.
B
65.3
1 AT 57.
B
55.8
C
82.
01
8 86. <*
OB SPL NBS +
C
79.8
5 OB
C
67.3
5 08
C
57.3
01
83.<+
SPL NBS
01
70.9
SPL NBS
01
60.9
02
86.0
STAT
02
83.0
E#
8<*.2
3-3-77
£*
81.2
+ STATS 3-3-
02
70.5
+ STAT
02
60.5
E*
68.7
MK6
91.1
MK6
38.5
77
MK6
77.6
MK7
83.
MK7
80.8
MK7
70.2
3-3-77
E*
58.7
MK6
68.5
MK7
61.
-------
JNG E.T AL. tiOlSES
L£VtL 1
NO.
1
6
0-A A B
96.6 84.2 91.8
99.1 78.8 90.4
!LUNG ET AL. NOISES 1+6,
NO.
1
6
HUNG ET
NO.
1
6
*GLUNO ET
NO.
tO
6
RLUNG ET
NO.
1
6
ALUNG ET
NO.
1
6
?GLUNO ET
NO.
i
6
0-A A
91.6 79.2
96.1 75.8
AL. NOISES 1+6 t
0-A A
82.6 70.2
67.1 66.8
AL. 1976 NOISE
0-A A
75.6 63.2
81.1 60.6
AL. NOISES 1+6*
0-A A
7C.6 58.2
77.1 56.8
AL. NOISES 1+6,
0-A A
68.6 56.2
73.1 52.6
AL 1976* NOISES
0-A A
64.6 52.2
69.1 48.8
C 01
96.2 92.0
98.3 89.2
02 E* MK6
90.2 90.2 97.1
85.0 86.3 95.1
MK7
89.7
86.1
PNL
99.3 1
96.2
PNLC ZWCKFF ZWCKDF LL
00.5 103.1 103.7 87.0
96.7 1C1.0 101.8 87.0
LEVEL 2 NBS+STATS 3-9-77
B
86.8
87.4
LEVEL
B
77.8
78.4
1 + 6
B
70.8
72.4
LEVEL
B
65.8
68.4
LEVEL
B
63.8
64.4
C 01
91.2 87.0
95.3 86.2
3 NBS+STATS
C 01
82.2 78.0
86.3 77.2
LEVEL 4 NBS
C 01
75.2 71.0
6C.3 71.2
5 NBS+STATS
C 01
70.2 66.0
76.3 67.2
6 NBS+STATS
C 01
68.2 64.0
72.3 63.2
02
85.2
82.0
3-9-77
02
76.2
73.0
+ STATS
02
69.2
67.0
3-9-77
02
64.2
63.0
3-9-77
02
62.2
59.0
1+6, LEVEL 7 NBS + STATS
B
59.8
60.4
C 01
64.2 60.0
66.3 59.2
02
58.2
55.0
E*
65.2
83.3
E*
76.2
74.3
3-8-77
E*
69.2
68.3
E*
64.2
64.3
E#
62.2
60.3
MK6
92.5
92.2
MK6
84.7
83.7
HK6
78.5
77.8
KK6
73.7
73.9
HK6
71.8
69.8
MK7
84.7
83.0
MK7
76.5
73.9
MK7
70.2
67.9
MK7
65.6
63.9
MK7
63. d
60. a
PNL
94.2
93.2
PNL
84.7
83.2
PNL
77.1
76.3
PNL
71.6
71.6
PNL
69.5
67.0
PNLC
95.3
93.7
PNLC
65.9
83.7
PNLC
78.2
76.8
PNLC
72.8
72.1
PNLC
70.6
67.5
ZWCKFF ZWCKDF
98.8 99.4
98.3 99.1
ZWCKFF ZWCKDF
90.9 91.5
9C.1 9u.9
ZWCKFF ZWCKOF
84.5 85.1
84. «» 85.3
ZWCKFF ZWCKDF
79.7 8C.4
80.6 81.5
ZWCKFF ZWCKDF
77.8 78.5
76.5 77.5
LL
83.5
83.5
LL
79.5
79.5
LL
77.:
77. C
LL
7«*..
74. :
LL
71. r
71.5
3-10-77
E*
58.2
56.3
MK6
67.7
65.4
MK7
60.0
55.9
PNL
65.1
62.1
PNLC
66.2
62.6
ZWCKFF ZWCKDF
73.8 7«*.5
72.4 73. t
LL
68.5
68.5
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Borsky, P.
Title: Annoyance and acceptability judgments of noise produced by three
types of aircraft by residents living near JFK airport.
Reference: NASA report, 1974, 1-50.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: Three aircraft noises»studied at three different
approach and departure distances.
Levels: 75 - 100 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: laboratory living room (diffuse field)
Analysis: Third octave •
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Annoyance
Psychophysical procedure: 0-4 rating scale
Number of observers: 319
OTHER
Special features:
Comments:
A-4
-------
BORSKY GROUP 1 BY ANNOYANCE N8S * STATS 3-15-77
NO.
1
4
7
8
11
1*
17
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,M-1
T
Ol
0-A
99.9
88. 0
86.?
83.6
83. *
86.2
58.0
86.5
6.4
2.33
A
75.5
71.9
70.7
70. 4
70.0
79.*
76.4
73.4
9.4
3.64
8
82.7
81.7
78.0
76.1
76.2
82.3
81.9
80.1
6.6
2.63
C
88.9
87.3
85.4
83.0
82.9
85.8
87.1
85.8
6.0
2.24
01
82.3
80.6
79.3
78.4
77.3
86.1
84.6
81.2
8.8
3.26
02
80.2
77.7
77.5
77.2
75.1
85.3
83.5
79.5
10.2
3.71
E#
80.7
78.9
76.5
75.4
76.1
83.4
81.8
79.0
8.0
3.09
MK6
87.5
85.9
86.1
83.1
81.0
90.0
88.6
86.0
9.0
3.13
HK7
79.8
77.4
76.8
74.7
73.4
82.5
80.5
77.9
9.1
3.24
PNL
88.4
66.8
86.6
84.7
61.0
92.8
91.2
87.4
11.8
3.95
PNLC
92.8
91.3
88.8
91.3
86.0
97.4
97.9
92.2
11.9
4.32
ZWKFF
95.0
91.0
92.7
90.9
86.3
97.3
95.3
92.6
11.0
3.65
ZNKOF
95.8
91.7
93.3
9i.3
87.4
97.6
95.8
93.3
1C. 2
3.48
-------
BORSKY GROUP 2 BY ANNOYANCE NBS + STATS 3-15-77
NO.
2
5
9
12
15
18
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SO«N-1
0-A
64.9
80.3
74.9
79.6
80.8
82.7
80.5
10.0
3.35
A
65.6
64.8
57.8
63.7
67.0
67.9
64.5
10.1
3.59
B
75.8
72.6
66.9
73.5
74.3
75.9
73.2
9.0
3.34
C
83.8
79.3
73.9
78.9
79.9
81.9
79.6
9.9
3.35
01
74.9
72.0
66.4
72.4
73.6
75.2
72.4
8.8
3.21
02
71.3
69.5
63.6
69.6
71.4
72.8
69.7
9.2
3.22
E*
72.4
7Q.3
64.2
70.8
72.3
73.7
70.6
9.5
3.37
MK6
60.5
77.4
72.4
75.8
78.0
79.3
77.2
8.1
2.85
MK7
71.5
69.4
64.2
67.5
70.3
71.2
69.0
7.3
2.76
PNL
79.8
76.4
70.1
75. 3
77.6
79.3
76.4
9.7
3.56
PNLC
84.5
80.9
74.6
80.5
83.4
86.0
»
81.6
11.4
4.t)3
ZWKFF
87.3
8U.6
79.6
80.8
8^.6
86.5
8^.0
8.2
3.21
ZWKDF
68.6
85.5
8G.2
81. S
85.9
67. b
8t.9
8.4
3.26
Ov
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Copeland, W.C.T., Davidson,
I.M., Hargest, T. J. and
Robinson, D. W.
Title: A controlled experiment on the subjective effects of jet
engine noise.
Reference: J. Royal Aeronautical Soc.. 1960, 64, 33-36.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: Five jet engine noises
Levels: OASPL's of reference stimuli ranged from 90 - 103 dB
Mode of presentation: Loudspeakers in a small, soundproofed cinema. Diffuse field
Analysis: One octave (frequencies adjusted).
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: loudness and disturbance
Psychophysical procedure: paired comparisons
Number of observers: 1,578
OTHER
Special features:
Comments: Loudness and disturbance produce very similar results.
A-7
-------
COPELANO ET AL NBS+STATS 3-3-77
,
ri
oo'
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SO.H-1
0-A
103*0
97.3
102.9
93.8
89.5
97.3
13.5
5.84
A
91.5
95.2
97.3
91.5
68.3
92.7
9.0
3.54
B
99.7
96.7
101.6
92.7
88.6
95.6
13.0
5.26
C
102.7
97.2
102.9
93.6
89.2
97.1
13.7
5.90
01
99.0
101.1
101.9
98.8
96.6
99.5
5.3
2.10
02
96.9
101.0
101.5
98.7
96.4
98.9
5.1
2.30
£*
98.0
99.0
101.4
96.6
93.9
97.8
7.5
2.81
MK6
102.0
104.2
106.2
1JJ2.4
99.3
102.8
6.9
2.58
MK7
95.8
97.7
100.4
95.6
92.3
96.4
8.1
2.96
PNL
104. 8
1C7.4
108.8
105.5
102.4
105.8
8. 8
2.47
PNLC
107.7
110.8
112.2
108.8
105.8
lag. c
12.2
2.52
ZWKFF
135.8
109. 7
110.7
137.5
1G4. 3
1C7.6
10.7
2.66
ZWKOF
106.6
110.3
lil.H
ise.2
1C4.8
108.3
11.4
2.68
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
ft. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Flshken, D.
Title: Loudness summation between tones and noise
Reference: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University, 1971.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: six broadband noise with single and two tone components
added
Levels: Three T/N ratios: -5, +5, +15 dB
seven SPLs from 30 - 90 dB overall
Mode of presentation: earphones
Analysis: Third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Loudness
Psychophysical procedure: Adjustment using a counterbalanced procedure
Number of observers: Exp. I - 12 Os; Exp. II - 8 Os.
OTHER
Special features: Single and multiple tonal components - 63 sound
combinations studied in both Exps. I and II.
Comments: Loudness levels determined by loudness matches between broadband
noise and a 1000-Hz tone. Comparison sound used for this study was
a band of noise about two octaves wide centered at 1000 Hz.
A-9
-------
FISHKEN EXP 1 AT 30 OB SPL NBS * STATS 3-7-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
Kk. 1
T
£ HE AN LEVEL
j RANGE
SO.N-1
HEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO,N-1
0-A
30.1
30.6
30.9
29.8
29.8
30.4
30.4
31.5
31.9
29.8
29.8
29.9
30.4
2.1
.70
.8
10.7
3.24
A
29.8
28.5
27.8
30.2
30.0
31.1
31.1
32.4
32.9
30.2
30.0
29.9
30.3
5.1
1.42
.7
7.2
2.23
B
29.6
30.3
30.6
29.4
29.7
29.8
29.8
30.8
31.2
29.4
29.7
29.9
30.0
1.8
.56
.4
10.8
3.25
C
29.7
30.5
30.9
29.4
29.7
29.7
29.7
30.7
31.1
29.4
29.7
29.9
3G.O
1.7
.59
.4
11.1
3.35
01
38.2
34.6
31.4
36.1
34.3
40.
-------
FISHKEN £XP 1 AT 40 OB SPL NBS + STATS 3-7-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
JL MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SOfN-1
HE AN OIFF
RANGE
SO,N-1
0-A
40.1
40.6
40.9
39.6
39.8
40.4
40.4
41.5
41.9
39. §x
39.6
39.9
40.4
2.1
.69
-4.0
7.9
2.70
A
39.8
38.5
37.8
40.2
40.0
41.1
41.1
42.4
42.9
40.2
40.0
39.9
40.3
5.1
1.42
-4.1
7.5
2.47
B
39.6
40.3
40.6
39.4
39.7
39.6
39.6
40.8
41.2
39.4
39.7
39.9
40.0
1.8
.58
-4.4
8.3
2.75
C
39.7
40.5
40.9
39.4
39.7
39.7
39.7
40.7
41.1
39.4
39.7
39.9
40.0
1.7
.59
-4.4
8.3
2.79
01
46.2
44.6
41.4
48.1
44.3
50.4
50.4
52.3
52.9
46.1
44.3
40.8
47.2
12.1
4.05
2.8
10.0
3.48
02
48.1
44.6
41.6
48.1
44.3
50.3
50.3
52.2
52.6
48.1
44.3
40.8
47.1
12.0
3.99
2.7
9.9
3.44
E*
45.9
43.2
41.4
45.8
42.7
48.0
48.0
49.9
50.5
45.8
42.7
40.4
45.4
10.1
3.33
.9
9.2
3.13
MK6
52.5
48.9
45.1
52.3
50.0
54.7
54.7
54.8
53.0
52.3
50.0
46.7
51.2
9.7
3.17
6.8
8.8
2.54
HK7
46.9
44.0
40.1
46.7
43.5
48.3
48.3
47.7
45.4
46.7
43.5
39.4
45.0
8.9
3.02
.6
8.2
2.24
PNL
51.7
47.4
43.9
51.6 -
46.6
54.4
54.4
55.1
53.8
51.6
46.6
43.1
50.0
12. C
4.28
5.6
11.2
3.52
PNLC
56.1
54.0
53.6
54.9
53.0
57.7
57.7
60.3
60.5
54.9
53. C
49.7
55.2
10.8
3.43
1C. 8
9.6
3.18
ZWCKFF
56.2
52.5
46.0
56.0
52.2
56.1
56.1
53.6
49.8
56.0
52.2
45.5
52.7
10.7
3.64
8.3
9.3
2.51
ZHCKDF
56.7
53.2
*7.1
56. 7
53.3
56.5
56. »
53.5
49.1
56.7
53.3
47.5
53.4
9.6
3.63
8.9
9.4
2.44
UL
47.0
43.2
41.9
47.8
45.2
41.8
46.7
45.9
43.8
45.8
44.6
40. 0
-------
FISHKEN EXP 1 AT 50 OB SPL NBS + STATS 3-7-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,L MEAN LEVEL
NJ
RANGE
SO,N-1
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO.N-1
0-A
50.1
50.6
50.9
49.8
49.8
50.4
50.4
51.5
51.9
49.8
49.8
49.9
50.4
2.1
.69
-6.0
9.2
2.69
A
49.8
48.5
47.6
50.2
50.0
51.1
51.1
52.4
52.9
50.2
50.0
49.9
50.3
5.1
1.42
-6.1
8.8
2.90
3
49.6
50.3
50.6
49.4
49.7
49.8
49.8
50.3
51.2
49.4
49.7
49.9
50.0
1.8
.56
-6.4 •
9.6
2.96
C
49.7
50.5
50.9
49.4
49.7
49.7
49.7
50.7
51.1
49.4
49.7
49.9
50.0
1.7
.60
-6.4
9.6
2.97
01
58.2
54.6
51.4
58.1
54.3
60.4
60.4
62.3
62.9
58.1
54.3
50.8
57.2
12.1
4.05
.8
10.1
3.56
02
58.1
54.6
51.6
58.1
54.3
60.3
60.3
62.2
62.8
56.1
54.3
50.8
57.1
12.0
3.99
.7
10.0
3.54
E*
55.9
53.2
51.4
55.8
52.7
58.0
58.0
59.9
60. 5
55.8
52.7
50.4
55.4
10.1
3.33
-1.0
9.1
3.25
MK6
62.8
59.9
56.5
62.7
60.7
64.7
6<».7
64.9
62.9
62.7
60.7
57.7
61.7
8.4
2.73
5.3
8.6
2.50
MK7
56.3
53.5
49.8
56.1
53.1
57.3
57.3
56.7
55.0
56.1
53.1
49.2
54.5
3.1
2.76
-1.9
7.6
2.11
PNL
62.4
58.5
55.3
62.3
57.9
6&.G
65.0
65.7
64.5
62.3
57.9
54.6
60.9
11.1
3.95
4.5
10.4
3.35
PNLC
66.8
65.1
62.0
65.7
6
-------
FISHKEN EXP 1 AT 60 08 SPL MBS * STATS 3-7-77
NO.
1
2
3
.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!
g MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
S0,N-1
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO,N-1
0-A
60.1
60.6
60.9
59.8
59*8
60.%
60.4
61.5
61.9
59.8
59.8
59.9
60.%
2.1
.69
-6.1
8.1
2.63
A
59.8
56.5
57.6
60.2
60.0
61.1
61.1
62.%
62.9
60.2
60.0
59.9
60.3
5.1
1.42
-6.2
7.5
2.56
B
59.6
60.3
60.6
59.4
59.7
59.8
59.8
60.8
61.2
59.4
59.7
59.9
60.9
1.8
.58
-6.5
8.3
2.68
C
59.7
60.5
60.9
59.4
59.7
59.7
59.7
60.7
61.1
59.%
59.7
59.9
60.0
1.7
.60
-6.5
8.5
2.71
01
68.2
64.6
61.4
68.1
64.3
70.4
70.4
72.3
72.9
68.1
64.3
60.8
67.2
12.1
4.05
.7
10.4
3.56
02
68.1
64.6
61.6
68.1
64.3
70.3
70.3
72.2
72.8
68.1
64.3
60.8
67.1
12.0
3.99
.6
10.3
3.52
E*
65.9
63.2
61.4
65.8
62.7
68.0
68.0
69.9
70.5
65.8
62.7
60.4
65.4
10. *
3.33
-1.1
9.5
3.19
HK6
72.0
69.3
66.3
72.0
70.1
74.0
74.0
74.1
72.3
72.0
70.1
67.5
71.1
7.8
2.54
4.6
7.4
2.21
MK7
65. a
62.3
58.8
64.9
61.9
66.1
66.1
65.9
64.4
64.9
61.9
58.2
63.3
7.9
2.74
-3.1
6.6
1.99
PNL
72.6
68.9
65.9
72.6
68.3
75.2
75.2
76.0
74.8
72.6
68.3
65.2
71.3
10.8
3.82
4.8
9.1
3.22
PNLC
77. C
75.5
72.6
75.9
74.6
78.5
78.5
81.1
81.5
75.9
74.6
71.8
76.5
9.7
3.02
10. C
10.4
3.08
ZHCKFF
77.3
74.4
69.1
77.1
74.0
77.2
77.2
75. 4
72.1
77.1
74.0
68.5
74.4
8.8
3.13
6.0
6.5
1.75
ZWCKDF
77.8
75.0
69.8
77.7
75.1
77.6
77.6
75.2
71.5
77.7
75.1
70.1
75.0
8.C
2.99
6.5
fa. 7
1.72
LL
68.0
67.3
63.0
69.0
65.8
64.6
68.4
67.6
65.2
70.3
66.3
62.2
-------
FISHKEH EXP1 AT 70 OB SPL NBS + STATS 3-7-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
HEAN DIFF
RANGE
SO,N-1
n-A
70.1
70.6
70.9
69.8
69.8
70.4
70.4
71.5
71.9
69.8
69.8
69.9
70.4
2.1
.69
-5.7
10.2
2.85
A
69.8
66. 5
67.8
70.2
70.0
71.1
71.1
72.4
72.9
70.2
70.0
69.9
70.3
5.1
1.42
-5.8
9.7
2.76
8
69.6
70.3
70.6
69.4
69.7
69.8
69.8
70.8
71.2
69.4
69.7
69.9
70.0
1.8
.58
-6.1
10.3
2.85
C
69,7
70.5
70.9
69.4
69.7
69.7
69.7
7C.7
71.1
69.4
69.7
69.9
70.0
1.7
.60
-6.1
10.6
2.48
01
76.2
74.6
71.4
78.1
74.3
80.4
eo.v
82.3
82.9
78.1
74.3
70.8
77.2
12.1
4.05
1.1
12.2
4.15
02
78.1
74.6
71.6
78.1
74.3
80. 3
80.3
82.2
82.8
78.1
74.3
70.8
77.1
12.0
3.99
1.0
12.1
4.12
E*
75.9
73.2
71.4
75.8
72,7
78. Q
76.0
79.9
80. 5
75.8
72.7
70.4
75.4
10.1
3.33
-.7
11.7
3.76
MK6
81. 1
78.4
75.4
81.0
79.1
82.9
82.9
83.1
81.5
81.0
79.1
76.5
80.2
7.7
2.51
4.1
9.9
2.74
MK7
73.6
71.0
67.9
73.5
70.6
74.9
74.9
75.3
74.0
73.5
70.6
67.3
72.2
8.0
2.73
-3.8
9.4
2.83
PNL
62.7
79.0
76.1
82.7
78.4
85.2
85.2
86*0
84.9
82.7
78.4
75.4
81.4
10.6
3.76
5.3
11.4
3.81
PNLC
87,1
85.7
82.8
86. u
84. 8
38.6
83.6
91.2
91.6
86. C
84.8
82.1
86.6
9.5
2.97
10.5
12.6
3.61
ZWCKFF
86.6
83.9
79.1
86.4
83.6
36.6
86.6
35.3
82.2
86.4
83.6
78.6
84.1
Si'1
• U
2.86
8.C
6.6
2.32
ZWCKOF
07.1
84.5
79.6
87.1
64.6
86.9
4i6.9
85. Q
61.7
87.1
84.6
60.1
84.6
7.3
2.71
8.5
7.8
2.14
LI
76,7
76.8
72.1
77.6
75.0
73.2
77.8
76,9
74.2
81.2
77.8
73.8
-------
FISHKEN EXP 1 AT 80 OB SPL NBS * STATS 3-7-77
NO*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
HE AN 01 FF
RANGE
SOvN-1
0-A
80.1
80.6
80.9
79.8
79.8
80.4
60.4
81.5
81.9
79.8
79.8
79.9
80.4
2.1
.69
-5.8
1C. 5
2.96
A
79.8
78.5
77.8
60.2
80.0
81.1
81.1
62.4
82.9
80.2
60.0
79.9
60.3
5.1
1.42
-5.8
10.5
2.85
B
79.6
80.3
80.6
79.4
79.7
79.8
79.8
80.6
81.2
79.4
79.7
79.9
60.0
1.8
.58
-6.2
10.6
2.93
C
79.7
80.5
80.9
79.4
79.7
79.7
79.7
80.7
81.1
79.4
79.7
79.9
60.0
1.7
.60
-6.1
10.9
2.96
01
88.2
84.6
81.4
88.1
64.3
90.4
90.4
92.3
92.9
88.1
84.3
80.6
67.2
12.1
4.05
1.0
13.3
4.44
02
68.1
8
-------
FISHKEN EXP 1 AT 90 08 SPL NBS * STATS 3-7-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(if MEAN LEVEL
£ RANGE
SO«N-1
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO.N-i
0-A
90.1
90.6
90.9
89.8
89.6
90.4
90. 4
91.5
91.9
89.8
89.8
89.9
90.4
2.1
.69
-6.2
10.7
3.20
A
89.8
88.5
87.8
90.2
90.0
91.1
91.1
92.<»
92.9
90.2
90.0
89.9
90.3
5.1
1.42
-6.2
11.3
3.10
B
89.6
90.3
90.6
89.4
89.7
89.8
99.6
90.8
91.2
89.4
89.7
89.9
90.0
1.8
.58
-6.6
10.5
3.15
C
89.7
90.5
90.9
89.4
89.7
89.7
89.7
90.7
91.1
89.4
89.7
89.9
90.0
1.7
.60
-6.5
10.6
3.18
01
98.2
94.6
91.4
98.1
94.3
100.4
100.4
102.3
102.9
98.1
94.3
90.8
97.2
12.1
4.05
.6
14.8
4.81
02
98.1
94.6
91.6
98.1
94.3
100.3
100.3
102.2
102.8
98.1
94.3
90.8
97.1
12.0
3.99
.6
14.7
4.78
E#
95.9
93.2
91.4
95.8
92.7
98.0
96.0
99.9
100.5
95.8
92.7
90.4
95.4
10.1
3.33
-1.2
13.5
4.37
MK6
99.5
96.6
94. C
99.5
97.6
101.9
101.9
102.9
101.9
99.5
97.6
95.4
99.0
8.9
2.65
2.5
12.5
3.7fl
MK7
92.6
ga.i
87.4
92.5
89.5
95.0
95.0
95.6
94.2
92.5
39.5
86.6
91.7
9.3
3.04
-4.8
12.7
3.98
PNL
102. 3
99.1
96.2
1G2.7
98.6
105.3
1C5. 3
106. G
104. 9
102.7
96.6
95.5
101.5
13.5
3.71
4.9
14.0
4.45
PNLC
107.2
105.6
102.9
106. 1
104.9
108.6
1C8.6
111.2
111.6
106.1
104.9
102.2
106.7
11.6
2.93
10.1
14.1
4.18
ZWCKFF
1G4.3
1C 1.9
97.7
104.2
1C1.6
lt'4.4
1C4.4
103.6
1 j 1 . 3
1C4.2
101.6
97.1
1C2.2
7.3
2.58
5.6
11.5
3.09
ZWCKDF
104.8
102.5
98.5
IUH. 3
102.6
1J4.6
1C- 4. 6
103.3
lOu.4
1C4.8
102. fa
SJ6.7
1L2.7
6.3
2.3<+
6.1
10.1
2.60
LL
97.3
95.2
93.3
97.0
95.2
92.3
97.8
98.0
93.6
102. H
99.5
96.5
-------
FISHKEN EXP II S/N=-5 08 NBS + STATS 3-8-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO.N-1
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SD.N-1
0-A
91.3
81.0
70.8
60.9
51.0
41.4
32.0
61.2
59.3
21.35
t
-5.4
11.6
4.26
A
91.8
81.4
71.2
61.3
51.3
41.7
32.3
61.6
59.5
21.43
-5.0
11.5
4.19
B
90.8
80.4
70.3
60.4
50.4
40.9
31.6
60.7
59.2
21.33
-5.9
11.8
4.28
C
90.8
80.4
70.3
60.4
50.4
40.9
31.6
60.7
59.2
21.32
-5.9
11.8
4.29
01
99.4
89.1
79.0
69.0
59.0
49.3
39.8
69.2
59.6
21. 5u
2.6
11.3
4.09
02
99.6
89.3
79.1
69.1
59.1
49.4
39.9
69.4
59.7
21.53
2.8
11.2
4.09
£*
97.1
86.9
76.8
66.8
56.8
47.0
37.4
67. 0
59.7
21.50
.4
11.1
4.06
MK6
101.8
91.7
82.7
73.8
64.5
54.7
41.9
73.0
59.9
21.02
6.4
10.9
4.22
MK7
94.3
83.8
74.8
66.4
57.7
48.6
38.3
66.3
56.0
19.71
-.3
15.1
5.66
PNL
104.7
94.3
83.9
73.8
63.5
53.3
41.5
73.6
63.2
22.53
7.0
7.8
2.90
PNLC
108.1
97.7
87.3
77.5
67.3
57.6
46.2
77.4
61.9
22.06
10.8
9.1
3.39
ZWCKFF
105.3
96.5
87.4
78.2
68.4
57.7
45.3
77.0
60. 0
21.37
10.4
10.8
3.82
ZWCKOF
105. d
97.1
66.0
78.8
69.1
53.4
45.9
77.6
59.9
21.33
11.0
1C. 9
3.86
LL
99.8
89.6
79.1
68.0
56.3
44.3
29.0
-------
FISHKEN EXP II S/N= 5 DB NBS + STATS 3-8-77
NO.
8
9
10
11
12
13
1*
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SOtN-1
HEAN OIFF
• RANGE
M: SO,N-1
0-A
.92.8
62.1
71.7
61.9
52.1
43.2
34.4
62.6
58.4
21.05
t
-.6
13.7
4.91
A
93.4
82.5
72.0
62.1
52.2
43.3
34.6
62.9
56.8
21.23
-.3
13.6
4.82
B
92.6
81.9
71.4
61.6
51.8
42.9
34.2
62.3
58.4
21.05
-.9
13.8
4.92
C
92.6
81.9
71.4
61.6
51.9
43.0
34.2
62.4
58.4
21.03
-.8
13.8
4.93
01
100.2
89.3
78.8
68.8
58.9
49.8
41.1
69.6
59.1
21.32
6.4
13.3
4.73
02
100.3
89.4
78.9
69.0
59.0
50.0
41.2
69.7
59.1
21.32
6.5
13.3
4.73
E*
96.9
86.2
75.8
65.9
55.9
46.8
38.0
66.5
58.9
21.26
3.3
13.2
4.71
MK6
1C2.3
91.8
82.2
73.3
64.1
54.6
<+3. 3
73.1
59.0
20.81
9.9
12.8
4.54
MK7
94.5
83.6
73.7
65.0
56.3
47.9
37.9
65.5
56.6
19.98
2.3
15.6
5.61
PNL
105. «f
94.7
84.2
74.1
63.8
53.9
43.9
74.3
61.5
22.03
11. 1
10.7
3.82
PNLC
111.9
101.2
90.7
8G.7
70.4
60.6
50.6
80.9
61.3
22. C2
17.7
10.9
3.85
ZWCKFF
1G4.0
94.9
35.7
76.3
66.4
55.9
44.3
75. 4
59.7
21.35
12.2
11.6
3.87
ZWCKDF
iu4.4
93. t
86.2
76.9
66.9
56.5
44.7
75.8
59.7
21.33
12.6
11.6
3.86
LL
95.3
85.8
75.5
64.6
54.0
42.2
24.5
-------
FISHKEN EXP II S/N= + 15 OB NBS + STATS 3-8-77
NO.
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
MEAN 'OIFF
RANGE
SO.N-1
0-A
93.4
82.6
72.1
62.3
52.6
43.8
35.2
63.1
56.2
20.99
1.9
12.6
4.47
A
94.0
83.1
72.5
62.6
52.7
43.9
35.3
63.4
56.7
21.19
2.2
12.3
4.35
B
93.3
82.5
71.9
62.2
52.4
43.6
35.0
63.0
56.3
21.00
1.7
12.6
4.46
C
93.2
82.5
72.0
62.2
52.5
43.7
35.0
63.0
58.2
20.96
1.7
12.5
4*. 48
01
100.5
69.5
78.9
68.9
59.0
50.2
41.6
69.8
58.9
21.26
8.5
12.2
4.29
02
100.7
89.6
79.0
69.0
59.1
50.3
41.7
69.9
59.0
21.27
8.7
12.2
4.29
E*
96.9
86.0
75.4
65.5
55.7
46.8
36.2
66.4
58.7
21.18
5.1
12.3
4.34
MK6
100.9
89.9
80.0
71.1
61.6
52.4
42.7
71.2
56.2
20.69
10.0
12.2
4.52
MK7
92.7
81.7
71.5
62.5
53.6
44.9
34.6
63.1
58.1
20.54
1.8
12.6
4.76
PNL
103.9
93.1
82.5
72.4
62.1
52.5
42.6
72.8
61.1
22.00
11.5
9.8
3.40
PNLC
110.6
99.8
89.2
79.1
68.7
59.1
49.5
79.4
61.1
22.03
18.2
9.6
3.40
ZHCKFF
101.5
92.1
82.5
73.0
62.6
52.6
42.0
72.3
59.5
21.43
11.1
9.0
3.51
ZHCKOF
101.7
92.4
62.9
73.3
63.1
52.8
42.1
72.6
59.6
21.45
11.4
6.9
3.45
LL
93.5
64.0
74.5
62.9
5G.5
38.4
25.0
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Hillquist, R.
Title: Objective and subjective measurement of truck noise
Reference: j. Sound and Vibration. 1967, _1, 8-14.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 100 trucks
Levels: 80 - 105 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: Free Field
Analysis: One octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Preference
Psychophysical procedure: Ranking in order of decreasing preference from
1 - 100 and paired comparisons
Number of observers: 20
OTHER
Special features: Energy concentrated below 1000 Hz.
Comments: No choice (equal preference) votes were allowed.
A-20
-------
HILQUISTTRUCK NOISES 1-25 NBS+STATS 3-2-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•>K
0-A
80.6
80.4
86.0
82.7
86.3
84.0
85.6
85.9
90.3
85.5
92.3
85.7
84.4
90.4
86.0
86.7
83.9
90.5
86.5
87.9
89.1
89.8
93.9
90.7
ftp. 3
A
74. D
76.2
76.2
77.5
77.7
75.9
75.9
78.5
77.5
78.2
78.1
79.0
79.6
78.1
80.4
79.2
79.5
80.5
80.6
78.4
81.6
81,7
60.0
80.8
82.0
8
78.0
78.7
82.4
80.9
83.4
81.5
81.5
82.7
85.9
82.5
88.2
83.3
82.9
66.5
85.7
83.7
82.4
87.0
84.3
64.0
86.4
86.4
89.9
87.3
86.6
C
80.5
80.2
85.8
82.5
66.1
83.8
85.2
85.6
90.0
85.3
92.0
85.6
84.4
90.2
87.9
86.4
83.8
90.3
66.4
87.6
88.9
89.5
93.7
90.5
69.1
01
78.8
80.2
82.3
81.5
83.4
81.6
81.4
83.2
85.2
83.4
87.1
83.6
84.0
65.8
85.6
84.2
83.7
66.6
65.5
63.9
86.5
86.6
88.9
87.0
86.7
02
78.1
79.8
80.7
81.1
82.0
80.4
80.1
82.3
83.0
82.6
84.2
82.7
83.5
83.5
84.5
83. k
83.3
65.0
84.8
82.6
85.6
85.7
86.1
85. k
85.6
E*
77.5
78.6
81.0
80.7
82.3
80.6
60.4
82.0
83.7
81.9
85.5
82.6
82.9
84.4
84.8
83.1
82.5
85.4
84.0
82.7
85.6
85.6
87.4
85.8
85.7
HK6
85.2
86.6
86.2
87.5
88.6
87.3
87.4
89.0
90.5
88.9
91.0
89.1
69.5
90.9
90.3
89.7
89.4
91.7
90.7
89.7
91.6
91.7
92.9
92.1
91.6
MK7
77.6
73.5
83.2
79.8
81.1
79.6
79.8
81.4
82. 4
81.4
82.9
81.5
81.9
83.0
83.2
82.2
81.6
84.0
63.1
81.6
84.1
8<*.5
85.1
84.5
64.2
PNL
85.5
86.9
89.0
88.0
69.8
86.2
88.1
89.8
91.8
90.4
92.4
69.6
90.6
92.3
91.9
90.8
90.5
93.2
92.4
90.8
92.9
93.4
94.6
93.7
93.1
PNLC
87.1
88.5
90.6
89.5
91.3
89.6
89.5
91.4
93.4
92.1
93.8
91.2
92.4
93.6
93.3
92.4
92.0
94.6
94.0
92.3
94.8
95.1
95.9
95.2
94.6
ZWKFF
91.6
92.6
94.0
93.7
94.7
93. C
93.6
95.6
96.3
95.6
95.8
95.2
95.6
96.0
96.1
96.3
95.7
97. &
97.1
96.2
98.0
98.4
97.3
97.8
96.1
ZWKOF
92.5
93.5
94.3
94. &
95.5
93.6
94.7
96.4
97.0
96.3
96.4
96.1
96.6
96.7
96.9
97.1
96.5
96.3
97.9
96.9
98.7
99.3
97.8
98.5
98.9
-------
HILQUISTTRUCK NOISES 1-25 NBS+STATS 3-2-77
NO.
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
0-A
87.1
13.5
3.40
A
78.7
8.0
2.06
B
84.1
11.9
2.89
C
86.8
13.5
3.39
01
84.3
10.1
2.44
02
83.0
8.0
2.13
E*
83.1
9.9
2.40
HK6
89.6
7.7
1.90
HK7
82.0
7.5
1.95
PNL
90.8
9.1
2.30
PNLC ZHKFF ZHKDF
92.3 95.7 96.5
8.8 6.8 £>• ti
2.30 1.80 1.7
to
10
-------
HILQUIS7 TRUCK NOISES 26-50 N9S+STATS 3-2-77
NO.
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
111
12
13
£'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0-A
85.1
92.2 .
87.2
92.6
95.2
88.2
94.1
88.9
86.5
97.8
88.4
92.5
89.0
94.5
88.6
89.2
94.4
93.0
92.7
97.0
94.4
94.8
93.0
92.5
96.4
A
81.2
81.1
81.4
85.5
84.3
82.1
84.4
62.6
79.4
63.6
81.0
60.0
83.5
61.6
62.5
81.6
82.0
85.9
64.2
85.7
64.2
85.3
67.1
80.4
79.4
B
63.5
88.5
65.2
90.0
91.8
65.8
91.1
87.0
84,0
93.7
86.2
68.6
87.2
90.6
86,6
65.5
90.3
91.3
69.6
93.5
90.7
91.5
91.2
86.5
88.6
C
84.9
92,0
87.0
92.4
95.0
88.0
93.9
88.7
86.3
97.6
88.3
92.3
88.9
94.3
68.5
88.8
94.1
92.9
92.5
96.8
94.1
94.5
92.6
91. e
95.6
01
84.9
87.9
65.8
90.1
91.1
86.3
5(0.6
87.5
84.7
92.7,
86.5
86.0
87.9
89.8
67.0
66.1
69.6
91.4
89.6
92.8
90.5
91.2
91.7
85.9
87.8
02
84.6
85.9
85.2
89.4
89.2
85.7
68.9
86.6
63.9
89.7
85.4
85.7
87.4
87.3
66.5
85.4
67.3
90.4
88.3
90.7
88.8
89.7
91.0
84.1
84.7
E*
83.7
86.5
84.9
89.5
90.1
85.4
89.6
86.6
63.5
91.1
85.5
86.4
66.9
86.3
86.2
85.0
68.1
90.7
88.4
91.6
89.1
90.0
90.9
84.6
85.7
MK6
90*8
92.9
91.1
95.0
95.2
91.7
94.6
92.5
90.2
95.9
91.2
93.0
92.6
94.0
92.2
91.7
94.5
95.6
94.3
96.7
95.4
95.6
96.2
91.7
93.6
HK7
82.5
85.2
83.7
87.7
88.0
84.2
87.5
85.3
82.9
68.4
84.1
85.1
85.4
86.4
84.9
64.0
86.8
88.9
87.0
89.6
87.9
80.7
89.3
83.7
85.1
PNL
91.6
94.5
92.3
96.7
97.2
93.0
96.6
94.4
91.5
97.9
93.0
94.6
94.3
95.9
93.7
93.0
96.3
98.0
96.2
98.9
97.4
98.0
98.5
92.9
95.0
PNLC
93.3
96. 0
94.3
98.5
98.8
94.6
98.1
96. 6
93.2
99.3
94.5
96.3
96.3
97.8
95.8
94.8
98.0
10C.O
97.9
100.5
99.8
99.7
100.6
94.2
96.4
ZWKFF
96.9
98.5
97.7
ICO. 9
100.1
98.2
99.8
96.6
96.9
100. 0
97. C
98.3
99.0
98.9
98.3
96.5
IDO'.C
ICO. 9
100.3
1C1.2
101.5
1C1.6
102.3
96.2
99.4
ZWKQF
97.8
99.2
98.4
101.7
IOC. 8
99.1
ICG. 6
99.6
97.6
100.5
97.8
96.9
99.8
99,5
99,1
99.4
100.6
101.6
101.0
101.9
102.1
102.3
103. 1
99.1
100.3
-------
HILQUIST TRUCK NOISES 26-50 NBS+STATS 3-2-77
NO. 0-A A B C 01 02 £# MK6 MK7 PNL PNLC ZWKFF ZWKOF
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SD,N-1
91.9
12.7
3.46
82.8
7.7
2.16
88.7
10.2
2.88
91.7
12.7
3.1+1
68.7
8.1
.2.45
87.3
7.1
2.20
87.5
6.1
2.47
93.5
6.5
1.91
86.1
7.1
2.12
95.3 97.0
7.4 7.k
2.26 2.33
99.3 100.1
5.4 5.5
1.52 1.52
-------
HILQUIST TRUCK NOISES 51-75 NBS+STATS 3-2-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
r
K> It
Wi **
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0-A
99.5
98.9
96.6
93.5
95.2
96.1
93.7
98.5
92.6
96.7
92.8
95.6
97.4
97.5
97.5
96.3
9<».l
97.5
96.6
98.9
96.1
98.0
95.3
99.0
96.1
A
86.2
66.5
65.6
67.0
67.5
87.6
87.9
69.8
89.1
65.1
86.5
90.3
66.5
85.4
85.4
89.4
90.2
90.7
87.7
88.6
69.6
89.9
69.3
91.2
85.6
8
95.7
94.8
91.3
91.1
93.1
94.6
91.8
95.8
91.3
91.6
91.1
94.3
93.4
92.1
92.4
95.7
93.1
95.8
93.6
95.4
94.3
95.5
93.3
96.6
92.8
C
99.3
96.6
96.0
93.3
95.1
97.9
93.6
98.2
92.5
96.1
92.6
95.5
97.1
96.9
97.0
96.1
94.0
97.4
96.4
98.7
96.0
97.8
95.2
96.9
95.9
01
94.7
94.0
91.2
91.5
93.2
94.3
92.7
95.6
93.0
91.2
92.7
94.6
93.2
91.9
92.1
95.5
93.6
95.8
93.6
95.1
94.7
95.7
94.0
96.7
92. <»
02
92.1
91,6
89.7
90.8
92.1
92.4
92.0
94.6
92.9
89.6
92.5
94.0
91.
-------
HILQUIST TRUCK NOISES 51-75 NBS+STATS 3-2-77
NO. 0-A A B C 01 02 E* MK6 MK7 PNL PNLC ZWKFF ZHKuF
MEAN LEVEL 96*6 08.0 93.6 96.3 93.7 92.5 92.7 97.9 91.1 100.4 102.3 103.6 1G4.3
RANGE 6.9 6.1 5.7 6.8 5.5 6.0 6.1 4.5 5.3 4.9 5.5 5.2 b.u
SO,N-1 2.01 1.87 1.75 1.99 1.55 1.69 1.7Q 1.31 1.53 1.45 1.52 1.01 1.01
•fi
o\i
-------
HILQUIST TRUCK NOISES 76-100NBS+STATS 3-2-77
NO.
1
2
3
4' •
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0-A
95.9
96.2
97.0
95.6
100.6
96.3
96.5
102.1
101.9
99.6
*96.4
96.3
100.3
98.9
95.6
100.4
98.6
100.6
102.2
96.5
99.8
105.1
105.1
99.6
99.3
A
88.5
90.7
69.4
68.4
93.1
90.4
92.2
93.9
92.5
92.4
89.9
92.3
92.6
92.6
91.1
92.5
91.8
93.0
94.5
94.7
94.4
97.9
96.0
94.4
90.3
3
93.3
96.0
93.6
92.5
99.2
94.0
96.5
100.2
99.4
97.7
93.2
94.8
98.2
97.2
93.9
98.3
96.3
98.8
100.4
97.4
98.7
103.8
103.8
98.5
96.6
C
95.7
98.0
96.8
95.5
100.6
96.1
96.3
102.0
101.8
99.7
96.0
96.1
100.1
98.6
95.4
100.3
98.4
100.5
102.2
98.4
99.7
1C5.1
105.1
99.6
99.2
01
93.5
96.0
94.2
93.6
99.2
95.0
96.7
99.?
99.0
97.6
95.3
96.8
96.3
97.6
95.6
96.3
96.7
98.7
IOC. 2
98.5
98.9
103.6
103.6
98.9
96.3
02
92.6
95.0
93.2
92.8
97.9
94.5
96.2
98.6
97.4
96.6
94.8
96.6
97.1
96.8
95.3
97.1
95.9
97.5
99.0
98.1
98.3
102.4
102.5
98.4
94.8
E*
92.7
95.4
92.9
92.0
98.6
93.9
96.1
99.3
96.2
96.9
93.5
95.2
97.6
96.8
94.3
97.4
95.8
96.1
99.6
97.5
98.5
1G3.1
103.1
98.4
95.5
MK6
98.0
1CO.O
93.9
98.1
101.7
98.8
101.1
103.3
101.8
100.8
99.3
100.5
102.2
101.5
99.4
102.0
1D0.6
102.1
103.6
102.6
102.5
106.1
106.1
102.7
99.9
MK7
91.4
93.7
91.7
90.9
15. «
9*..
94. H
97.3
95.8
94.8
92.3
93.6
96.0
95.4
92.5
95.9
94.2
96.0
97.8
95.5
96.2
100.6
100.5
96.5
93.6
PNL
100.6
10-2.8
101.1
101.0
104.6
1G1.5
103. 3
106.2
1C4.6
103.6
102.7
103.7
105.1
104.4
102.4
104.9
103.2
105.0
106.7
104.6
105.1
109. C
106.9
105.4
102.6
PNLC
102.2
104.5
103.0
103.1
106.5
103.9
105.4
107.9
106.3
105.4
104.8
105.9
106.7
106.6
104.8
107.1
105.4
106.4
108.2
106.6
107.3
110.9
110.7
107.8
104.4
ZWKFF
103.9
1C5.1
105.2
1C4.6
105.1
105.3
1C6.?
Io7.0
105.6
105.9
106.0
1G6.5
137.0
106.9
lu5.9
1G6.8
106.5
106.2
107.7
107.8
107.5
108.9
108.8
107.9
1Q4.6
ZWKDF
IQt. 7
106. i.
106.0
1G5.3
105. 6
106.0
107.1
107.8
106.4
106.6
106.7
1-7.2
127. 6
107.6
106.6
107.5
1 C 7 . 3
1C7.1
108.5
108.6
1C8.3
1C9.8
109.7
1C8.7
105.5
-------
HILQUIST TRUCK NOISES 76-100NBS+STATS 3-2-77
NO. 0-A A B C 01 02 E* MK6 MK7 PNL PNLC ZWKFF ZWKOF
HEAN LEVEL 99.3 92.5 97.3 99.2 97.7 96.8 96.8 101.4 95.0 104.1 106.1 106.4 1C7.1
RANGE 9.5 9.6 11.3 9.7 10.1 9.9 11.1 8.1 9.7 9.0 10.9 8.9 9.6
SO.N-1 2.66 2.43 3.02 2.73 2.60 2.48 2.86 2.13 2.51 2.16 2.11 1.29 1.31
oo
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Jahn, M.
Title: Subjektive und objektive berwertung von Maschinengera*uschen
Reference: Acustica. 1965/1966, Jj>, 175-185.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: Ten machine noises
Levels: Overall SPLs constant at 74 dB
Mode of presentation: Free field
Analysis: Third octave, one octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Loudness
Psychophysical procedure: Tracking - the standard sound was a noise band
200 Hz wide centered on 1000 Hz
Number of observers: 28
OTHER
Special features:
Comments: The.standard sound was varied.
A-29
-------
JAHN THIRD OCTAVE NOISES - NBS * STATS 2-28-77
NO.
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
NEAN LEVEL
RANGE
f SD,N-1
0
HEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO,N-1
0-A
74.4
74.2
73.8
7*. 2
74.3
'4.2
74.0
74.4
73.2
74.0
74.1
1.2
.36
•10.1
4.2
1.33
A
71,6
73.7
73.5
71.9
70.7
74.3
71.4
69.8
72.6
73.4
72.3
4.5
1.47
-11.9
4.6
1.30
B
73.0
74.0
73.0
73.6
72.9
73.7
73.1
73,3
72.9
73.5
73.3
1.1
.36
-10.8
4.3
1.32
C
74.2
74,1
73,3
74.2
74.1
73.8
73,9
74,4
73.1
73.9
73.9
1.3
•^
-10.3
4.6
.1.43
01
79.3
79.1
81.0
78.0
77.8
81.9
78.9
75.4
78.5
80.2
79.0
6.5
1.83
-5.1
3.4
1.22
02
79.0
79.1
81.0
77.8
77.4
81.8
78.5
74.9
78.4
80.1
78.8
6.9
1.94
-5.3
3.5
1.31
E*
76.*
76.8
78.8
75.7
75.3
79.3
75.8
73.8
75.8
77.2
76.5
5.5
1.63
-7.7
3.4
1.22
MK6
84.2
64.1
85.9
63.4
83.1
65.8
83.3
60.6
83.3
84.9
83,9
5.1
1.48
-.3
2.4
.92
NK7
76.7
76.7
77.9
76. C
75.5
78.2
75.2
74.2
75.8
77.0
76.3
4.Q
1.23
-7.8
2.5
.89
PNL
85.6
85.5
86.7
84.7
34.1
87.6
85.3
61.6
84.7
86.6
85.2
6.0
1.66
1.1
2.5
l.OH
PNLC
87.3
86.5
87.7
85.7
85.7
87.6.
86.5
82.2
84.7
88.9
86.5
6.7
2.00
2.3
4.8
1.51
ZWCKFF
89.7
89.8
9C.6
89.0
88.8
9C.9
86. C
87.1
98.8
90.1
89.3
3.6
1.21
5.1
2.6
.84
ZWCKUF
9C.3
9C.6
91.5
69.7
89.4
91.6
86.4
87.7
69.5
90.6
69.9
3.9
1.25
5.6
2.6
.93
LL
85.5
83.0
85.0
84.5
84. G
&5. 0
83.5
81.5
84.5
85.0
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Mailman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Kryter, K. D.
Title: Scaling human reactions to the sound from aircraft.
Reference: J. Acoust. Soc. Amer.. 1959, 3J., 1415-1429.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: Eight aircraft noisesvjudged in various combinations!
Levels: EXP. I - 85-96 dB SPL overall; EXP. II - 80-95 dB SPL overall;
EXP. Ill - 85-103 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: via loudspeaker in conference room (diffuse field)
Analysis: one octave (frequencies adjusted)
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Acceptability and disturbance
Psychophysical procedure: adjustment and paired comparisons
Number of observers: EXP. 1-36; EXP. II - 100; EXP. Ill - 4-13
OTHER
Special features:
Comments: EXP.. I used four "indoor" filtered aircraft noises,
EXP. II used seven "indoor" filtered aircraft noises.
EXP. Ill used six unfiltered aircraft noises.
A-31
-------
u>
N)
KRYTER EXPER1 NBS+STATS 3-3-77
COMET
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
10.
1
2
4
EL
0-A
94.fi
96.0
88.0
65.0
90.7
11.0
5,11
A
81.7
82.6
82.9
60.3
61.9
2.6
1.20
B
89.5
91.9
86.1
83.3
87.7
8.6
3.77
C
93.6
95.6
87.8
84.8
90.4
10.8
5.01
01
88.8
91.1
86.3
84.9
87.7
6.2
2.74
02
86.6
88.7
85.9
84.7
86.5
4.0
1.67
E*
87.7
89.9
65.6
83.6
86.8
6.3
2.65
MK6
92.1
93.2
91.3
89.3
91.5
3.9
1.64
MK7
85. 0
86.6
83.7
32.1
84.3
4.5
1.91
PNL
94.1
95.8
92.4
91.4
93.4
4.4
1.92
PNLC
99.5
IOC. 3
98.7
98.1
99.2
2.2
.99
ZWKFF
97.6
97.7
97.7
96.7
97.4
1. C
.49
ZWKOF
96.3
98.3
98.6
97. t
98,1
1.4
.59
-------
KRYTER EXPER.2 N8S+STATS 3-3-77
NO.
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SD,N-1
0-A
9<*.0
95,1
86.5
8
-------
KRYTER EXPER 3 NBS+STATS 3-11-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,M-1
Y
U)
JS-
0-A
100.0
103.0
93.0
89. 0
85.0
88.0
93.0
16.0
7.13
A
91.9
92,4
88.2
67.3
84.9
86.3
88.5
7.5
3.03
B
97.6
100.3
91.0
88.3
84.6
87.5
91.5
15.7
6.15
C
99.9
102. 9
92.8
88.9
84.7
87.9
92.8
18.2
7.16
01
97.6
99.7
92.8
91.9
91.9
91.6
94.3
8.1
3.48
02
96.5
97.7
92.6
92.0
91.8
91.6
93.7
6.1
2.69
E*
96.8
98.8
91.3
89.9
89.4
89.7
92.6
9.4
4.09
MK6
101.7
102.5
97.3
95.8
94.7
95.3
97.9
7.8
3.39
MK7
95.5
96.3
90.0
88.3
87.4
88.3
91. 0
8.9
3.93
PNL
104.5
105.3
ICO. 2
98.6
97.4
98. 0
ICG. 7
7.9
3.43
PNLC
107.9
107.7
103.2
L01.8
100.7
101. 4
103.8
7.9
3.22
ZWKFF
107.1
1C6.2
1C3.5
Iu2.3
100.5
101.9
103.6
7.1
2.57
ZWKOF
107.9
107.0
104.1
1C2.6
101.2
1C2.7
104.3
7.9
2. OH
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Kryter, K. D. and Pearsons, K
Title: Some effects of spectral content and duration on perceived noise level.
Reference: JASA. 1963,3_5, 866-883.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: EXP.II -nine noises -vseveral noise bands that varied
In width and spectral distribution of energy plus
engine and aircraft noises
Levels: 79-92 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: Loudspeaker in semi-diffuse room.
Analysis: third octave - standard frequencies
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: noisiness (acceptability)
Psychophysical procedure: adjustment
Number of observers: 13 - 19
OTHER
Special features: Duration was held constant at 4 sees.
Comments: In EXP.II an octave band 600-1200 Hz wide was used as a standard.
Hence, despite the fact that Os were asked to judge the noisiness
of sounds, it was possible to perform a statistical analysis in
: terms of both noisiness and loudness.
A-35
-------
KRYTER+PEARSON 1963 NBS+STATS 3-3-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO, N-l
T
£ MEAN 01 FF
RANGE
SO , N- 1
0-A
91.8
90.1
78.6
79.1
60.6
81.5
82.6
87.3
80.1
83.5
13.2
4.95
-6.5
13.2
4.95
A
61.5
89.9
79.6
76.6
80.5
82.2
78.7
78.7
79.8
81.1
11.3
3.54
-8.9
11.3
3.54
B
89.8
90.1
78,0
76.8
80.2
80.7
61.6
84.7
79.3
32.4
13.3
4.84
-7.6
13.3
4.84
C
91.
90.
77.
76.
80.
80.
82.
87.
79.
83.
15.
5.
-7.
15.
5.
8
1
9
7
3
6
8
1
7
0
1
42
0
1
42
01
89.2
90.7
89.5
86.4
87.5
91.1
82.7
84.4
87.9
87.7
8.4
2.83
-2.3
8.4
2.83
02
87.1
90.8
89.3
87.1
87.5
91.2
82.1*
82.9
87.7
87.3
8.8
3.06
-2.7
8.8
3.06
E*
38.3
90.4
86.6
86.6
85.3
89.2
81.8
83.5
84.9
86.3
8.6
2.75
-3.7
8.6
2.75
MK6
90.1
93.6
87.2
89.7
90.7
92.8
86.1
88.9
91.4
90.3
6.4
2.1Q
.3
6.4
2.10
MK7
83.5
85.3
80.3
80.7
83.2
85.1
30.9
81.6
83.it
82.7
5.0
1.87
-7.3
5.0
1.87
PNL
92.8
93.8
90.8
89.4
93.0
91*. 8
89.1
90.7
94.1
92.1
5.7
2.13
2.1
5.7
2.13
PNLC
95.9
95.6
96.8
96.0
95.8
98.2
90.9
92.6
95.8
95.3
7.3
2.19
5.3
7.3
2.19
ZWCKFF
92.2
95.9
86.8
86.5
96.3
95.8
94.
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E2L3
SOURCE Author(s): Little, J. W.
Title: Human response to jet engine noises.
Reference: Noise Control 1961, 7_, 11-13.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: two jet engine noises^
Levels: 94 and 99 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: via loudspeakers in a large demonstration room
Analysis: one octave (non-standard frequencies)
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: annoyance
Psychophysical procedure: paired comparisons
Number of observers: 65
OTHER
Special features: tone correction procedure proposed
Comments: Little introduced the 1/24 octave-band analysis which revealed the
effect of tone spikes in the 1200-2400 Hz frequency range.
A-37
-------
LITTLE JET NOISES NBS+STATS 3-3-77
NO.
1
2
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SO ,N-1
0-A
99.2
93.6
96.4
5.6
4.03
A
98.9
93.5
96.2
5.4
3.81
B
98.5
93.0
95.8
5.5
3.88
C
98.9
93.3
96.1
5.6
3.97
01
105.6
99.5
102.6
6.1
4.26
02
105.6
99.6
102.6
6.0
4.21
E*
103.1
97.0
100.1
6.1
4.35
MK6
108.5
102.6
105.5
8.5
4.22
MK7
101.9
95.1
98.5
6.6
4.75
PNL
111.4
105.5
108.4
11.4
4.16
PNLC
114.7
108.8
111.8
14.7
4.1
ZWKFF ZWKOF
112.6 113.3
1C7.4 108.0
110.0 110.b
12.6 13.3
3.72 3.71
to
oo
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): LUbcke, E., Hittag, G., and
" Port, E.
Title: Subjektive und objektive Bewertung von Maschinengerauschen.
Reference: Acustica. 1964, 14, 105-114.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 21 machine noises
Levels: 40 and 80 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: free field (Stuttgart), earphones (Berlin)
Analysis: third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: ioudness
Psychophysical procedure: tracking - 1/3 octave band 900-1050 Hz wide used as
the standard
Number of observers: 10 (Berlin); 12 (Stuttgart)
OTHER
Special features:
Comments: Noises measured at SPLs of 40 and 80 dB in Stuttgart and at 80 dB SPL
only in Berlin. The standard sound was varied.
A-39
-------
LUBCKE,MITTAG,+PORT 40 OB SPL NBS +STATS 3-1-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
T
1-, SO.N-l
°!
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO.N-l
0-A
40.0
39.5
39.6
40.1.
40.0
40.0
40.1
39.8
39.7
40.2
39.6
39.9
.7
.23
-15.8
6.9
2.1*
A
38.8
35.2
40.0
35.1
37.3
37.5
34. 8
37.4
36.9
33.7
38.4
36.8
6.3
1.91
-18.8
6.0
2.04
B
39.7
38.3
39.1
38.1
39.2
39.3
38.3
38.6
38.6
38.4
38.6
38.8
1.6
.51
-16.9
6.7
2.17
C
39.9
39.4
39.1
39.9
39.9
39.9
40.0
39.6
39.6
40.1
38.9
39.7
1.2
.38
-16.0
7.5
2.31
01
43.4
39.7
47.3
41.8
41.7
42.1
41.0
44.6
41.7
4Q.4
44.9
42.6
7.6
2.23
-13.0
4.7
1.57
02
43.5
39.4
47.3
41.4
41.5
42.0
40.4
44.4
41.6
39.7
44.9
42.4
7.9
2.4C
-13.3
5.1
1.70
£*
41.5
38.6
44.7
39.6
40. 2
40.6
39.2
42.3
40.1
38.9
43.2
40. 8
6.1
1.92
-14.8
4.4
1.52
MK6
48.4
42.6
52.9
44.4
47.2
46.6
44.0
49.5
47.6
42.1
52.4
47.1
1G.8
3.63
-8.6
6.9
2.49
MK7
43.4
39.9
46.4
41.3
41.4
41.9
39.4
44.9
41.8
39.5
45.7
42.3
7.0
2.46
-13.3
6. 0
1.77
PNL
47.3
42.8
51.1
45.6
45.1
45.9
43.7
49.0
45. t
43.4
49.3
46.2
8.3
2.65
-9.4
5.6
1.77
PNLC
47.3
44.2
52.6
47.1
46.7
46.6
45.8
49.6
46.8
45.2
50.7
47.5
8.4
2.48
-8.2
4.8
1.43
ZWCKFF
54.4
50.6
56.3
52.2
53.0
53.4
51.6
55.1
53.2
5C.4
55.6
53.3
5.9
1.96
-2.4
4.8
1.51
ZWCKOF
55.5
51.6
57.2
53.1
5^.3
5»».fa
5£.8
56.2
54.6
51.5
5>6.9
54.4
5.7
1.98
-1.3
4.7
1.49
LL
54.0
52. 0
56.0
56.0
5<». 0
55.0
56. G
57.0
57. 0
54. C
59. 0
-------
LUBCKE.MITTAG + PORT AT 80 OB SPL N8S * STATS 3-2-77
NO,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SO«N-1
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO,N-1
0-A
80.0
79.9
80.1
79.5
79.9
79.6
80.3
80.0
80.0
80.0
79.8
80.1
80.1
79.6
79.8
84.0
79.7
8C.2
80.0
79.8
80.1
4.5
.94
-14.7
7.5
2.14
A
78.8
78.5
75.9
75.2
74.8
80.0
75.6
78.9
77.3
77.5
78.4
77.2
74.8
78.8
77.4
83.8
76.9
73.7
77.4
78.7
77.5
10.1
2.23
-17.3
8.6
2.25
B
79.7
79.3
79.1
78.3
78.8
79.1
78.4
79.8
79.2
79.3
78.9
79.3
78.3
79.0
78.6
82.6
78.6
78.4
79.5
78.9
79.2
4.5
.97
-15.7
7.4
2.08
C
79.9
79.8
80.1
79.4
79.9
79.1
80.1
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.3
80.0
60.0
79.2
79.6
63.1
79.6
80.1
80.0
79.4
79.9
*-0 .
.81
-14.9
7.8
2.21
01
83.4
83.8
81.8
79.7
79.6
87.3
82.0
82.1
81.7
82.1
85.0
62.0
81.0
85.5
84.6
92.6
81.7
80.4
81.3
85.6
63.2
13.0
3.04
-11.7
11.3
2.61
02
83.5
33.7
81.3
79.4
79.0
87.3
81.5
82.2
81.5
82.0
85.0
81.9
80.4
85.5
64.4
92.9
81.6
79.7
81.3
85.7
83.0
13.9
3.23
-11.8
11.7
2.75
E*
81.5
81.6
79.9
78.6
76.7
84.7
79.8
80.8
80. 2
8C.6
83.2
80.6
79.2
83.4
82.3
91.4
80.1
78.9
80.4
84.1
81.5
12.8
2.92
-13.3
11.2
2.60
KK6
88.1
86.7
86.9
86.2
85.2
90,4
87.2
87.9
87.9
87.5
91.1
87.9
87. C
90.4
69.5
96.2
66.6
86.4
87.2
91.3
68.6
11. C
2.44
-6.2
9.0
2.08
MK7
80.7
81.1
79.3
78.5
78.0
82.5
79.8
79.8
60.0
60.1
8 2. "3
80.6
79.3
62.4
81.9
87.8
80.4
79.0
79.4
62.7
80.6
9.6
2.15
-14. Q
6.4
1.95
PNL
89.7
93.6
88.5
86.5
86.1
92.6
88.8
88.3
88.3
66.6
91.4
89.1
87.9
91.8
91.4
97.6
88.7
87.5
87.7
91.7
69.6
11.5
2.62
-5.2
9.9
2.22
PNLC
89,7
93.0
90.3
87.9
87.2
94.8
90.3
89.6
89.8
89.3
92.5
9u.<*
89.9
92.3
91.9
98. S
9Q.1
89.3
90.1
95.0
91.1
11.7
2.73
-3.7
6.8
2*28
ZWCKFF
94.2
94.7
92.8
91.8
91.1
95.5
93.3
93.1
93.4
93.7
95.7
94.0
92.9
95.7
95.1
99. C
94.1
92.3
93.3
96. C
94.1
7.9
1.78
-.7
5.7
1.59
ZHCKDF
95.0
95.5
93.4
92.5
91.9
96.1
94.0
94.Q
94.3
94.5
96.6
^4.9
93.7
96.5
95.8
99.6
95. C
93. G
94.2
96.9
94.9
7.9
1.79
.1
5.0
1.58
LL
95.0
97.0
93.0
93.5
92. 0
96.0
91. Q
91.5
94.0
93. Q
98.0
95.5
95.0
97.0
97.0
96.0
95.5
9**. 5
96. 0
9b. 0
-------
LUBCKE ET AL 15 BERLI^I NOISES (EARPHONES) 80 OB 3-15-77
NO.
1
2
3
%
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
ISJ
20
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO.N-1
HE AN OIFF
RANGE
SO.N-1
0-A
80.0
79.9
80.1
79.5
79.9
79.6
80.3
80.0
ao.o
80.0
79.8
60.1
80.1
79.6
79.8
79.9
• 8
.21
-12*9
6.0
1.66
A
78.8
7J8.5
7:5.9
7J5.2
7%.«
8JO.O
75.6
78. 9
77.3
77.5
7^.%
77.2
74.6
78.8
7^.7
77.%
t*z
1.70
-i£.%
7.2
fc.1%
B
79.7
79.3
79.1
78.3
78.8
79.1
78.%
79.8
79.2
79.3
78.9
79.3
78.3
79.0
78.9
79.0
1.5
.%5
-13.8
5.9
1.68
C
79.9
79.8
80.1
79.%
79.9
79.1
80.1
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.3
80.0
80.0
79.2
79.%
79.7
• 1.0
.3%
-13.1
6.2
1.75
01
83.%
83.8
81.8
79.7
79.6
87.3
82.0
82.1
81.7
82.1
85.0
82.0
81.0
85.5
85.6
82. 8
7.7
2.23
-10.0
8.7
2.38
02
83.5
33.7
81.3
79.%
79.0
87.3
81.5
82.2
81.5
82.0
85.0
81.9
80.%
85.5
85.7
82.7
8.3
2.39
-10.1
9.3
2.51
E*
81.5
81.6
79.9
78.6
78.7
8%. 7
79.8
80.8
80.2
80.6
83.2
80.6
79.2
83.%
8%.l
81.1
6.1
1.93
-11.7
7.6
2.05
MK6
88.1
88.7
86.9
86.2
85.2
90. %
87.2
87.9
87.9
87.5
91.1
87.9
87.0
90.4
91.3
88.2
6.1
1.81
-%.6
6.%
1.81
MK7
80.7
81.1
79.3
78.5
78.0
82.5
79.8
79.3
80.0
aa.i
82.3
80.6
79.3
82.%
82.7
30.5
%.7
l.%7
-12.3
5.9
1.68
PNL
89.7
90.6
88.5
36.5
86.1
92.6
88.8
88.3
88.3
88.6
91.%
39.1
87.9
91.8
91.7
89.3
6.5
1.9%
-3.5
7.5
2.13
PNLC
89.7
93.0
90.3
87.9
87.2
9%. 8
*
90.3
89.6
89.3
89.3
92.5
90.%
89.9
92.3
95.0
90.3
7.8
2.28
-2.0
9.0
2.3%
ZWCKFF
9%. 2
9%. 7
92.8
91.8
91.1
95.5
93.3
93.1
93.%
93.7
95.7
9%.C
92.9
95.7
96. 9
93.9
%.9
l.%7
1.1
5.%
1.65
ZWCKDF
95.0
95.5
93. ^
92.5
91.9
96.1
9%.Q
y*i.C
9H.3
9%.->
96.6
9%. 9
93.7
96.5
96.9
9%. 7
5.0
1.50
1.9
5.2
1.62
LL
91.5
92. 3
92.0
91.0
92.5
91.5
9C.5
91. 0
9%. 3
95.0
9%.Q
93.5
93.5
9%. 0
96.3
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman,' J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Molino, J.
Title: NBS Study
Reference: Unpublished, 1976
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: five noises - octave band at 1 KHz, computer
noise, ambient, Phi and cafeteria noise
Levels: Standard stimuli set at 3 OASPLs: 50, 60, and 70 dB.
Mode of presentation: Loudspeaker, reverberant room
Analysis: Third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: loudness
Psychophysical procedure: tracking
Number of observers; 7
OTHER
Special features: Small corrections were made to the loudness levels to adjust
for the difference between the observed matches and those of the ideal
average listener.
Comments: Two standards used for the analysis: 1) Octave-band noise centered
at 1 KHz
2) Phi noise
Loudness levels determined from matches to the octave-band noise. For this
evaluation we assumed that at the same overall SPL an octave-band noir.e is
as loud as a tone at 1000 Hz.
A-43
-------
.0 OCTAVE AT 50 09 NBS+STATS 3-2-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
NEAN OIFF
RANGE
1 SO,N-1
>
i
0-A
58.5
45.3
50.0
46.3
45.*
49.5
13.2
5.43
-.5
13. 2
5.43
A
4)6.9
413.6
510.0
413.7
*!%..*
i»|5,7
fc.O
2.75
-*.3
6.«»
2.75
3
52.5
43.6
50.0
46.6
44.4
47.4
8.9
3.76
-2.6
8.9
3.76
C
57.7
44.7
50.0
46.2
l&£ft> Q
f* Q K 1
13.0
5.32
-.9
13.0
5.32
01
54.3
50.6
51.7
49.3
51.5
51.5
5.0
1.85
1.5
5.0
1.85
02
53.2
50.7
52.0
48.9
51.6
51.3
4.3
1.59
1.3
4.3
1.59
E*
52.3
48.9
50.6
47.8
49.6
49.8
4.5
1.72
-.2
4.5
1.72
MK6
62.7
57.9
57.7
56.4
58.9
58.7
6.3
2.39
8.7
6.3
2.39
MK7
55.3
51.9
50.9
50.7
52.8
52.3
4.6
1.87
2.3
4.6
1.87
PNL
60.5
56.1
54.6
54.8
57.4
56.7
5.9
2.41
6.7
5.9
2.41
PNLC
62.3
57.7
54.6
56. G
58.7
57.9
7.7
2.94
7.9
7.7
2.94
ZWCKFF
69.0
62.2
60.0
62.9
62.6
63.4
9.0
3.37
13.4
9.0
3.37
ZWCKOF
69.9
63.3
61.4
63.9
63.6
64*4
8.5
3.24
14.4
6.5
3.24
LL
50.0
50. 0
50. C
50.0
50. 0
-------
MOLINO OCTAVE AT 60 06
NBS+STATS 3-2-77
>
i
tn
NO.
1
2
3
k
5
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
HE AN DIFF
RANGE
SO»N-1
0-A
.65.0 5
A
3.%
53.8 5l'?.l
60.0 6
55.1 5
51.8 5
57.1 5
13.2
5.35
-2.9 -
< 13.2
5.35
0.0
0.5
0.9
3.%
9.5
5.88
fr.6
3.5
3.88
I
B
59.0
52.1
60.0
53.4
50.9
55.1
9.1
4.15
-4.9
9.1
4.15
C
64.3
53.2
60.0
55.0
51.4
56.8
12.9
5.28
-3.2
12.9
5.28
01
60.9
59.1
61.7
56.1
58.0
59.1
5.6
2.24
-.9
5.6
2.24
02
59.8
59.2
62.0
55.7
58.1
58.9
6.3
2.28
-1.1
1
6.3
2.28
E*
58.9
57.4
60.6
54.6
56.1
57.5
6.0
2.34
-2.5
6.0
2.34
MK6
69.5
66.7
67.3
64.1
65.7
66.7
5.4
1.99
6.7
5.4
1.99
MK7
61.5
59.8
59.5
57.9
58.7
59.5
3.6
1.35
-.5
3.6
1.35
PNL
67.6
65.2
65. C
62.3
64.3
64.9
5.3
1.93
4.9
5.3
1.93
PNLC
69.5
66.8
65. 0
63.5
65.6
66.1
6.0
2.24
6.1
6.0
2.24
ZHCKFF
75.8
71.5
70.2
70.3
69.7
71.5
6.1
2.50
11.5
6.1
2.50
ZWCKDF
7o.7
72.4
71.5
71.3
7Q.6
72.5
6.1
2.42
12.5
6.1
2.42
LL
6G.Q
60. 0
6C.O
6G.Q
60. 0
-------
MOLING OCTAVE AT 7fl OB NBS+STATS 3-2-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO*N-1
NEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO',N-1
•I
0-A
74.2
63.3
70.0
62.6
61.7
66-
12
5.49
-3.6
12.5
5.49
A
62.6
61.6
7^0.0
5*eQ
f o.r
62.6
U2.9
*>.%»
-17.4
1(2.0
4.48
B
68.2
61.6
70.0
60.9
60.8
64.3
9.2
4.44
-5.7
9.2
4.44
C
73.5
62.7
70.0
62.5
61.3
66.0
12.2
5.42
-4.0
12.2
5.42
01
70.1
68.6
71.7
63.6
67.9
68.4
8.1
3.04
-1.6
8.1
3.04
02
69.0
68.7
72.0
63.2
66.0
68.2
8.6
3.15
-1.8
a. s
3.15
E*
68.1
66.9
70.6
62.1
66.0
66.7
8.5
3.12
-3.3
8.5
3.12
MK6
78.0
75.7
76.4
71.6
75.1
75.4
6.4
2.37
5.4
6.4
2.37
MK7
69.8
68.0
68.1
64.3
67.3
67.6
5.0
1.82
-2.4
s.'d
1.82
PNL
77.3
75.2
75.2
70.1
74.6
74.5
7.2
2.65
4.5
7.2
2.65
PNLC
79.2
76.8
75.2
-71.4
76.0
75.7
7.8
2.84
5.7
7.8
2.84
ZWCKFF
84.7
60.8
79.8
77.9
79.6
80.5
6.8
2.54
10.5
6.8
2.54
ZWCKDF
85.4
81.7
81.0
76.7
8G.3
81.4
6.7
2.48
11.4
6.7
2.43
LL
70.0
70. 0
7C.O
70.0
70. 0
-------
HOLINO PHI AT 56 OB NGtS+STATS 3-2-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO.N-1
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO*N-1
0-A
64.9
49.8
60.0
55.0
51.1
56.2
15.1
6.31
-1.8
15.1
6.31
A
93.3
4(8. 1
69.0
5J0.4
50.2
5|2.%
1,1.9
V.65
-5.6
1^.9
•..65
B
58.9
48.1
60.0
53.3
50.2
54.1
11.9
5.24
-3.9
11.9
5.24
C
6 it. 2
49.2
60.0
54.9
50.7
55.8
15.0
6.29
-2.2
15.0
6.29
01
60.8
55.1
61.7
56.0
57.3
58.2
6.6
2.91
.2
6.6
2.91
02
59.7
55.2
62.0
55.6
57. if
58.0
6.8
2.85
0.0
6.8
2.85
E*
58.8
53.4
60.6
54.5
55.4
56.5
7.2
3.03
-1.5
7.2
3.03
MK6
69.4
62.6
67.3
64.0
65.0
65.7
6.8
2.68
7.7
6.8
2.68
MK7
61.4
56.2
59.5
57.8
58.1
53.6
5.2
1.97
.6
5.2
1.97
PNL
67.5
6G.9
65.0
62.1
63.6
63.8
6.6
2.57
5.8
6.6
2.57
PNLC
69.4
62.5
65. C
63.4
64.9
65. '0
6.9
2.64
7.C
6.9
2.64
ZWCKFF
75.7
67.2
70. 2
70.2
69.0
70.5
8.5
3.18
12.5
8.5
3.18
ZWCKDF
76.6
68.3
71.5
71.1
69.9
71.5
e.3
3.11
13.5
6.3
3.11
LL
56.0
56. 0
56.0
58.0
58.0
*>
•vj
-------
MOLINO PHI AT 68 08 NBS+STATS 3-2-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SD,N-1
HEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO»N-1
0-A
71.5
59.8
70.0
61.6
59.3
64.4
12.2
5.86
-3.6
12.2
5.86
A
5(9.9
518.1
710.0
«^7.0
5(6.4
6|0.7
1;3.0
/5.32
-17.3
ip.o
|5. 32
8
65.5
58.1
70.0
59.9
58.4
62.4
11.9
5.19
-5.6
11.9
5.19
C
70.8
59.2
70.0
61.5
58.9
64.1
11.9
5.86
-3.9
11.9
5.86
01
67.4
65.1
71.7
62.6
65.5
66.4
9.1
3.36
-1.6
9.1
3.38
02
66.3
65.2
72.0
62.2
65.6
66.2
9.8
3.55
-1.8
9.8
3.55
E#
65.4
63.4
70.6
61.1
63.6
64.8
9.5
3.58
-3.2
9.5
3.58
NK6
75.5
72.5
76.4
70.6
72.8
73.6
5.8
2.35
5.6
5.8
2.35
HK7
67.4
65.0
68.1
63.9
65.2
65.9
4.2
1.76
-2.1
4.2
1.76
PNL
74.5
71.5
75.2
S9.1
72.1
72.5
6.1
2.46
4.5
6.1
2.46
PNLC
76.3
73.2
75.2
70.3
73.4
73.7
6.0
2.29
5.7
6.G
2.29
ZWCKFF
82.1
77.5
79.8
76.9
77. 2
78.7
5.2
2.23
10.7
5.2
2.23
ZHCKOF
82.9
76.4
81. G
77.6
78.1
79.6
5.1.
2.25,
11.6
2.25
LL
68.0
68.0
58.0
66.0
68. 0
-------
MOLINO PHI AT 78 08 N0S+STATS 3-2-77
i
\o
NO.
1
2
3
it
5
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
WEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO.N-1
0-A
. 80.5
69.8
79.0
69. 4*
71.0
73.9
11.1
5.37
-4.1
' 11.1
5.37
A
68.9
68.1
tg.o
64.8
7jfl.l
70.2
1%.2
5.31
r7.8
14.2
5.31
8
74.5
68.1
79.0
67.7
70.1
71.9
11.3
4.80
-6.1
11.3
4.80
C
79.8
69.2
79.0
69.3
70.6
73.6
10.6
5.35
-4.4
10.6
5.35
01
76.4
75.1
80.7
70.4
77.2
75.9
10. -3
3.74
-2.1
10.3
3.74
02
75.3
75.2
81.0
70.0
77.3
75.7
11.0
3.96
-2.3
1
11.0
3.96
E*
74.4
73.4
79.6
68.9
75.3
74.3
1C. 7
3.85
-3.7
1C. 7
3.85
MK6
83.6
81.7
84.3
77.7
83.4
82.1
6.6
2.65
4.1
6.6
2.65
MK7
75.4
73.6
75.8
70.7
75.2
74.1
5.1
2.10
-3.9
5.1
2.10
PNL
83.9
81.8
84.4
77.2
84.1
82.3
7.2
3.02
4.3
7.2
3.32
PNLC
85.8
83.5
84.4
78.4
85.5
83.5
7.H
2.97
5.5
7.4
2.97
ZrfCKFF
9G.4
36.9
88.0
84.3
88.2
87.6
6.1
2.23
9.6
6.1
2.23
ZWCKDF
91.1
87.7
b9.2
85.1
88.5
88.4
6.0
2.22
ID .H
b. u
2.22
LL
78.0
7ti.Q
78.0
70.3
78. 0
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Pearsons, K.S., and Bennett,
R. L.
Title: The effects of temporal and spectral combinations on the judged noisiness
of aircraft sounds.
Reference: FAA report, 1969. Also, JASA. 1971, 49, 1076-1082.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 70 recordings of simulated and real aircraft
spectra with and without tonal components.
Levels: 64-91 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: free field
Analysis: third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: noisiness (acceptability)
Psychophysical procedure: PEST
Number of observers: 20
OTHER
Special features: EXP.I: duration 10 dB down from Max. was constant at 10 sec.
Five -spectra and six temporal patterns were used in
30 different combinations. Two spectra contained single
Comments: pure tones.
EXP.II: Both duration and type of spectra were varied in 20
different combinations. Durations 10 dB down from Max.
ranged from 1-100 sees. Some spectra contained single
pure tones.
EXP.III: Twenty real aircraft sounds that varied in spectra,
duration and temporal patterns.
A-50
-------
PEARSONS+BENNETTESTl ^BS+STATS 3-3-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0-A
82.7
78.0
80.8
71.1
78.2
82.9
76.7
80.0
71.0
77.7
81.4
75.1
80.0
71.1
77.8
80.8
75.6
80.2
69.0
76.8
81.1
76.6
79.4
69.5
78.6
77.8
73.2
72.9
I
7
7
7
7
a
7
7
7
7
8
7
7
7
7
8
7i
7'
7
7
8
T
71
7
7:
7'
74
6<
A
2.3
8.8
4.4
2.1
4.1
2.5
7.5
3.7
2.0
1.8
0.9
5.9
3.5
2.1
2.8
1.3
>.4
».o
1.0
!.2
1.6
'.4
.3
1.5
.5
.4
.1
i^
B
82.7
77.2
79.1
70.4
75.1
82.8
75.9
78.3
70.4
73.7
81.3
74.4
78.1
70.5
74.3
80.7
74.8
76.6
68.4
73.5
81.0
75.8
78.0
68.9
75.2
77.7
72.5
71.2
C
82.7
77.1
80.8
70.3
77.7
82.9
75.8
79.9
70.3
77.1
81.3
74.3
79.9
70.4
77.3
80.8
74.7
80.2
68.3
76.3
61.0
75. .7
79.3
68.8
78.1
77.8
72.4
72.8
01
84.7
87.9
. 79.4
82.0
82.5
84.9
86.7
78.5
81.9
8C.2
83.4
85.1
78.3
82.0
81.1
82.8
85.6
78.6
79.9
8C.6
83.1
86.5
78.5
80.4
81.6
79.8
83.2
71.4
02
85.1
87. 8
78.7
81.9
82.4
85.3
86.6
77.9
81.8
80.0
83.7
85.0
77.6
81.9
81.0
83.2
85.5
78.2
79.8
83.4
83.4
86.4
78.0
80.3
81.6
80.2
83.1
70.7
E*
83.5
85.5
78.8
79.5
80.4
83.7
64.2
78.0
79.5
78.1
62.1
82.6
77.7
79.6
79.0
61.5
63.1
78.3
•77.5
78.4
61.6
84.1
77.8
78.0
79.7
78.6
80.8
70.8
MK6
88.0
68.4
85.0
62.7
87.9
88.5
67.0
84.4
82.7
86.2
86.9
85.6
84.2
82.9
86.9
86.4
66.0
84.7
60.8
86.3
86.7
87.0
84.8
81.2
87.6
84.2
83.9
77.8
MK7
80. 0
80.8
77.7
74.9
79.6
80.2
79.5
77.0
74.8
?7.9
78.8
78.1
76.8
75. 0
78.6
78.5
78.6
77.3
72.8
78.1
78.7
79.6
76.9
73.3
79.3
76.2
76.4
70.6
PNL
89.7
90.7
85.7
85. 5
89.0
89.8
89.5
85.0
85.5
86.9
88.3
88. C
84.7
85.7
87.6
87.9
88.5
85.2
83.4
87.2
88. 0
89.5
84.8
83.9
88.5
85.1
36.3
77.4
PNLC
90.3
91.8
90.5
90.7
89.5
90.5
90.7
89.8
90.8
87.5
8-8.9
68.9
89.4
90.8
88.2
88.4
89.6
90.1
88.9
87.2
88.6
90.7
89.6
89.3
89.2
85.8
87.0
82.3
ZHKFF
93.1
91.5
91.2
84.5
93.1
93.3
90.3
90.2
84.3
91.6
91.9
88.8
90. C
84.7
92.3
91.5
89.3
90.5
82.4
91.6
91.7
90.2
90.6
82.9
92.9
89.3
87.1
83.6
ZWKDF
94.1
91.8
91.9
64.1
93.7
94.3
90.5
90.9
83.9
92.2
92.9
89.2
9u.7
d%.3
92.9
92.5
<>9.&
91.3
82. C
92.2
92.7
9C.5
91.5
82.5
93.5
90.3
87.5
8^.3
-------
PEARSONS+BENNETTEST1 IJIBS+STATS 3-3-77
NO. 0-A
29 65.6 e
30 74.0 €
MEAN LEVEL 76,5 7
RANGE 17.3 1
SO.N-1 4.42
ft B C Dl 02 E# MK6 MK7 PNL PNLC
6.6 64.9 64.9 76.5 76.4 74.0 77.9 69.7 80.1 85.2
8.1 70.1 73.4 76.4 76.2 74.2 82.8 74.8 83.1 83.6
4.5 75.2 76.1 81.5 81.3 79.7 84.9 77.0 86.3 88.8
6.1 17.9 18.0 16.5 17.1 14.7 10.7 11.1 13.3 9.5
4.27 4.53 4.67 3.51 3.71 3.25 2.81 2.76 2.94 2.21
ZWKFF ZWKOf
79.2 7o.9
88.3 88.9
89.1 89.b
14.1 15.k
3.7U *».!<
Ul
to
-------
PEARSONS+BENNETT TEST^ N8S+STATS 3-3-77
MEAN
NO.
i
2
3
fc.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
LEVEL
RANGE
SO,
N-l
0-A
86.1
90.3
88.0
83.6
82.0
82.1
81.8
82.1
78.8
78.0
73.6
78.5
75.5
75.4
73.6
71.8
v67.0
64.1
88.6
75.3
78.8
26.2
6.97
I
e
«
7
7
7
7
y
7
7
6
7
6
6
6
A
9.0
3.%
1.0
6.5
5.5
5.2
5.0
5.0
1.9
1.0
6.5
1.4
5.3
5.4
M
64.9
60.0
5J7.0
82.3
6«.2
i
71.8
2$. 4
if. 07
B
81.6
88*4
86.1
81.6
77.7
80.3
79.9
77.6
76.9
76.1
71.6
73.9
73.5
73.4
69.1
69.9
65.1
62.1
86.9
73.3
76.3
26.3
6.94
C
85.5
90.2
87.9
83.5
81.4
82.0
81.7
81.5
78.7
77.9
73.5
77.9
75.4
75.3
73.0
71.7
66.9
64.0
88.5
75.2
78.6
26.2
6.95
01
87.3
89.0
86.6
82.0
84.0
80.7
80.5
83.3
77.5
76.6
72.0
79.8
73.9
73.9
74.8
70.5
65.6
62.5
87.5
73.7
78.1
26.5
7.33
02
87.0
88.2
85*8
81.2
83.7
79.9
79.8
83. 0
76.7
75.8
71.2
79.5
73.1
73.2
74.5
69.7
64.8
61.7
36.8
72.8
77.4
26.5
7.41
E#
85.2
88.2
85.8
81.2
81. 8
80.0
79.7
81.2
76.7
75.8
71.2
77.7
73.1
73.1
72.7
69.7
64.8
61.7
86.5
72.9
77.0
26.5
7.14
MK6
92.6
92.9
90.9
87. C
89.6
85.8
85.6
89.1
82.9
82.2
78.1
85.9
79.8
80.1
81.7
76.5
72.2
69.2
91.9
79.5
83.7
23.7
6.69
MK7
84.6
do. 2
83.9
79.6
81.2
78.5
78,4
83.9
75.7
74.9
70.9
77.3
72.7
73. 3
73.6
69.6
65.2
62.4
85.1
72.4
76.3
23.8
6.52
PNL
94.6
95.2
92.6
88.0
91.3
86.7
86.6
90. 4
83.4
82.5
77.6
86.7
79.7
33. a
81.7
76.1
71.0
67.6
93.9
79.3
64.2
27.6
7.76
PNtC
94.6
IOC. 8
98.4
93.5
91. C
92.3
92.2
90.4
89. C
88.1
83.1
38.2
85.3
83.9
81.7
81.7
76.6
73.1
95.1
84.6
88.2
27.7
7.C2
ZWKFF
98.3
99.4
97.2
93.1
94.9
92. C
91.9
94.8
o9.1
3d. 3
64.0
91.4
85.9
66.3
87.2
82.6
77.9
74.9
98.1
85.5
39.6
24.5
6.76
ZWKDF
98.9
1 C C . 0
97.6
93.7
95.5
92. fc
92.5
95.4
89.7
88.9
84.7
92. C
66.5
86.9
87.6
83.3
7d.6
75.6
98.7
86.2
9c .3
24.4
6.72
-------
PEARSONS+BENNETT TEST^S N3S+STATS 3-3-77
NO.
1
2
3
. 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
!(
•f-! 13
ml .
:*•; 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
0-A
79.7
78.2
74,7
75.7
75.6
78.2
78.2
83.7
85.5
88.0
i 86.4
86.2
82.8
82.2
87.5
83.6
82.5
90.5
86.2
87.0
82.6
15.8
4.66
*
?7.6
1
1
1
<•
«
i
'i
5.7
5.3
6.3
6.1
8.5
5.6
7.5
7^7.7
81.9
i
7)9.4
77.3
i
79.1
j
78.2
60.2
77.0
77.5
79.1
79.4
79.2
77.9
6.6
1.71
B
78.8
77.3
74.1
75.2
75.1
77.5
76.8
82.0
83.1
86.5
83.8
83.8
81.6
81.0
85.8
81.3
81.1
87.5
84.3
84.9
81.1
13.4
4.02
C
79.6
78.1
74.2
75.3
75.2
77.8
77.9
33.6
65.4
87.9
86.2
86.1
82.7
82.1
87.4
83.5
82.4
90.4
86.1
86.9
82.4
16.2
4.76
01
83.8
82.5
84.6
85.0
84.4
87.0
63.8
82.8
83.2
86.7
83.7
83.6
84.4
83.3
85.7
84.2
81.8
86.7
85.1
84.9
84.4
5.2
1.41
02
83.7
82.3
34.2
84.7
34.2
86.8
33.6
82.1
32.3
86.0
i
82.9
82.1
34.2
33.3
84.6
83.5
81.4
84.6
84.2
83.7
83.7
5.4
1.35
E*
81.5
80* 0
81.1
81.3
81.0
83.4
81.5
81.7
82.3
66.1
83.1
82.6
82.7
81.6
85.0
82.1
8C.9
85.7
83.9
84.0
82.6
6.1
1.67
MK6
36.6
87.4
86.2
87. C
37.2
89.2
83.6
87.8
88.2
91.1
89.2
88.8
89.9
66.4
89.8
88.9
66.7
90.6
90.3
69.6
88.7
4.9
1.34
HK7
81.1
79,5
78.3
78.9
79.1
31.2
30.5
80.3
80.8
84.1
81.6
81.0
82.3
80.3
82.6
31.4
79.5
83.0
82.9
82. 1^
81.1
5.8
1.51
PNL
90. 4
89.5
38.8
39.3
89.9
92.2
90.3
89.0
39.5
93.1
90.3
90.4
91.6
90. 2
91.7
91.0
87.7
92.2
91.7
91.1
90.5
5.4
1.32
PNLC
90.9
91.3
91.2
91.2
92.4
94.3
93.3
90.3
91. C
93.1
91.7
91.3
93.2
91.3
92.2
92.9
88.5
92.9
92.4
92.3
91. B
5.8
1.28
ZHKFF ZWKDF
94.7
93.0
89.9
9C.7
91.1
92.6
93.6
94.0
93.9
96.8
94.8
93.9
95.9
94.4
94.9
95. C
92.6 "
94.2
96.0
94.6
93.8
6.9
1.77
95.3
93.5
9G.2
9u.8
91.4
92.9
94.2
94.7
94.5
97.6
95.7
94.6
96.6
95. 0
95.6
95.4
93.5
94.3
96.7
95.3
94.4
7.4
1.92
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Pearsons, K.S., Bishop, D.E.
and Horonjeff, R.D.
Title: Judged noisiness of modulated and multiple tones in broad-band noise.
Reference: JASA. 1969, 4_5, 742-750. Also NASA report, 1968.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: over 10° ~ octave band noises plus tones, single
and multiple tones in broad-band noise, and single
tones
Levels: 59-110 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: free field
Analysis: third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Test I - loudness and noisiness or acceptability
Tests II and III - acceptability
Psychophysical procedure: constant stimuli - standard sounds were either a
jet, Noy, or octave-band noise
Number of observers: Test I - two groups of 20 Os each
Tests II and III - 20 Cs each
OTHER
Special features:
Comments: Tests conducted with stimuli containing relatively strong discrete
frequency components, i.e., S/N at +25 dB as measured in 1/3 octave
bands.
A-55
-------
RANGE
SD,N-1
ET AL. SER=I,
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
0-A
INST=L, NOISE=NOY 3-8-77
A
90.1 61.6
88.0 64.6
87. l» 67.1
82.9 63.0
76.4 75.6
VEL 85.0 62.4
1
13.7 J
5.45
LI. 5
4.31
B
88.8
87.6
87.3
82.4
75.2
84.2
13.6
5.62
C
90.1
88.0
87.4
82.7
75.9
84.8
14.2
5.67
01
88.6
87.7
87.4
89.7
85.4
87.7
4.3
1.59
02
87.2
87.9
87.3
89.7
85.2
87.5
4.5
1.61
E*
87.9
88.Q
87.3
86.0
83.0
86.4
5.0
2.06
MK6
90.9
92.9
93.8
92.5
88.3
91.7
5.5
2.16
HK7
33.4
85.4
84.4
83.7
79.8
33.3
5.6
2.11
PNL
93.1
94.4
93.4
95.1
90.6
93.3
4.5
1.72
PNLC
96.4
101.1
100.1
.101.8
96.2
99.1
5.6
2.64
ZHKFF
93.8
95.8
95.1
94.5
90.7
94.0
5.1
1.99
ZWKOF
94.it
96.7
97.0
94. d
9G.7
94.7
6.3
2.51
a\
-------
PEARSON ET AL. SE«=IW, INST=A, NOISE=NOY 3-8-77
NO.
2
3
4
5
6
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SD,N-1
0-A
80.1
73.5
66.9
62.4
58.9
66.4
21.2
6.53
i*
71.6
70.1
66.6
$2.5
i
65.8
13.5
5.53
B
78.8
73.1
66.8
61.9
57.7
67.6
21.1
8.48
C
80.1
73.5
66.9
62.2
58.4
68.2
21.7
8.71
01
78.6
73.2
66.9
69.2
67.9
71.1
11.7
4.80
02
77.2
73.4
66.8
69.2
67.7
70.9
10.4
4.33
E*
77.9
73.5
66.8
65.5
65.5
69.8
12.4
5.60
MK&
81.5
79.6
74.8
73.8
72.4
76.4
9.1
3.93
HK7
73.4
71.1
64.6
64.2
63.3
67.3
10.1
4.58
PNL
82.9
79.6
72.4
74.3
72.8
76.4
10.5
4.62
PNLC
86.2
86.3
79.1
81.0
78.4
82. 2
7.9
3.83
ZWKFF
84.7
82.5
75.7
75.1
73.7
78.3
11.0
4.91
ZWKOF
85.3
83.6
77.6
75.5
74. Q
79.2
11.3
4.98
*
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Pearsons, K. S. and Wells? R.J,
Title: Judged noisiness of sounds containing multiple pure tones.
Reference: Paper presented at 78th ASA, 1969
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 28 broadband and multiple tone stimuli
(19 used in analyses)
Levels: GE: 78-92 dB SPL overall; BBN: 81-90 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: free field
Analysis: third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged; noisiness
Psychophysical procedure: adjustment - standard stimulus was a broadband noise.
The comparison sounds were varied.
Number of observers: two groups: BBN - 20
GE - 30
OTHER
Special features: multiple tonal components
Comments: The .stimuli were constructed sounds'that were representative of high
by-pass ratio turbofan engine noises. GE and BBN data were in good
agreement.
A-58
-------
PfctttfbO/vo f
HELLS, 1969
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r 13
• .
15
16
17
16
19
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SO.N-i
CBBN) NOIS
0-A
68.7
87.5 1
86.1 1
66.0 (
85.6 (
86.7 1
86.0 t
90.3 t
87.1 8
67.2 8
63.6 a
62.4 6
61.5 8
63.8 8
81.7 6
61.4 8
62.4 8
62.4 8
60.9 8
84.8 6
9.4
2.82
1-19
A
8.4
7.1
5.5
5.7
5.8
6.2
5.5
7.9
5.2
5.1
2.8
2.3
1.5
4.1
2.0
1.7
2.6
2.7
1.2
t.3
r.2
J. 22'
B
88.1
86.7
85.3
85.3
85.0
85.9
85.2
89.3
86.2
66.2
82.2
81.6
80.6
83.0
80.9
80.6
81.4
81.4
79.9
84.0
9.4
2.63
C
88.6
67.3
85.9
85.6
85.7
86.5
85.6
90.2
86.9
87.0
82.7
82.1
81.2
63.3
61.2
80.9
81.8
61.8
80.3
64.5
9.9
2.96
01
93.1
91.9
90.3
90.7
69.1
91.3
90.5
91.7
89.2
89.0
90.2
89*8
89.3
91.8
89.7
89.5
91.5
91.5
89.9
90.5
4.1
1.16
02
93.3
92.1
90.4
90.8
89.2
91.5
90.7
92.2
89.6
89.5
89.9
89,5
89.0
91.9
69.7
89*5
91.3
91.3
89.7
90.6
4.3
1.22
E*
90.5
69.3
87.7
86.0
86.9
88.7
87.9
90.3
67.4
87.4
86.6
66.4
85.9
89.5
87.2
87.0
68.5
88.4
86.6
87.9
4.6
1.27
HK6
96.7
95.6
94.4
94.5
93.6
95.2
94.6
97.6
95.0
94.9
92.8
92.5
91.9
94.5
92.5
93.3
92.7
92.6
91.2
94.0
6.4
1.72
MK7
86.4
87.4
85.9
66.0
64.6
86.8
66.1
89.3
86.5
86.4
85.2
84.9
84.2
86.3
84.2
83.9
85.2
85.2
83.6
85. a
5.7
1.49
PNL
99.1
98.1
96.5
96.7
95.1
97.5
96.8
99.9
97.2
97.1
95.9
95.6
95.0
96.5
94.4
94.1
95.7
95.6
94.1
96.4
5.8
1.53
PNLC
99.1
98.1
97.1
96.7
95.6
98.5
96.8
103.2
100.2
100.3
99.0
96.3
98.2
99.9
97.5
97.5
97.7
97,6
96.2
98.3
7.6
1.77
ZWKFF
101.8
1C1.0
99.7
99.8
99.1
100.7
1CO.O
102.3
99.8
99.8
97.7
97.3
96.4
98.7
96.9
96.6
97.0
97.0
95.7
96.8
6.6
1.95
ZMKOF
102.4
101.6
100. 4
ICG. 4
99.8
101.3
100.6
103.2
IOC. 7
lOC.b
96.0
97.6
96.6
98.9
97.1
96.6
97.3
97.3
95.9
99.3
7.3
2.16
-------
HELLS GE NOISES NBS >• STATS 3-10-77
o\
o
NO.
1
2
3
%
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1?
16
17
18
19
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SD,N-1
0-A
.90.
8
84.4
84.
84.
83.
83.
83.
92.
87,
86.
1 85.
83*
83.
81.
78.
78.
83.
78.
77.
83.
14.
3.
1
5
2
9
5
2
8
3
1
1
0
6
7
2
7
8
9
8
3
95
j*
• 0.5
«3. 8
83.%
84.0
82.5
83.5
82.9
89.1
87.0
87.5
85.6
83.5
83.2
fi 2. 3
79.3
78.8
8%.%
7J9.5
78.6
8S.6
11.9
5.30
3
90.2
83.6
83.2
83.8
82.3
83.4
82.8
91.3
87.2
87.8
84.7
82.7
82.5
81.1
78.1
77.7
83.0
78.1
77.2
83.2
14.1
3.95
C
90.6
84.2
83.8
84.3
83.0
83.8
83.3
92.1
87.6
88.2
84.9
82.9
82.8
81.2
78.2
77.8
83.1
78.2
77.3
83.5
14.8
4.09
01
95.3
89.5
89.0
89.8
87.9
89.1
88.5
92.7
90.8
91.4
92.9
91.0
90.4
90.1
67.1
66.6
93.1
86.2
87.3
90.0
8.7
2.32
02
95.4
89.5
89.1
89.8
86.0
89.1
88.5
93.0
91.5
92.1
I
92.7
90.8
90.2
90.1
87.2
86.6
92.9
86.1
87.2
90.1
6.8
2.36
E*
92.7
86.6
86.4
87.2
85.3
86.3
85.9
91.9
66.7
69.3
89.5
87.6
87.0
87.6
84.7
84.0
90.2
85.4
84.6
87.4
8.7
2.43
MK6
98.6
92.9
92.7
93.1
91.8
92.6
92.1
98.1
96.7
97.2
95.0
93.3
92.9
92.3
89.7
&9.G
93.7
69.2
68.3
93.1
10.3
2.97
MK7
90.6
85.0
84.6
85.1
33.5
64.6
84.1
90.5
88.1
66.6
87.7
85.8
85.4
64.1
81.3
60.6
86.2
61.6
80.7
85.2 •
10.2
3.01
PNL
101.4
95.2
94.6
95.2
93.8
95.0
94.3
ICO. 5
98,9
99.5
98.4
96.5
96.0
94.3
91.4
90.7
96.6
91.9
90.9
95.5
10.7
3.15
PNLC
101.4
95.2
94.6
96.5
95. C
96.1
95.5
103.2
102.6
133.4
101.9
100.3
99.6
98.1
95.1
94.0
98.3
92.8
92.3
97.7
11.1
3.62
ZWKFF
104.0
99.1
96.6
99.3
97.9
96.7
98.3
1C3.7
100.6
101.1
99.4
97.8
97.7
96.6
94.0
93.6
97.3
93.5
92.6
98.1
11.4
3.13
ZWKOF
104.6
99.6
99. H
99.6
98.5
99.3
96.9
104.6
1G1.4
101.9
99.6
98. u
97.9
9fc.7
94.1
93.7
96.o
93.7
92.9
98.6
11.7
3.35
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Quietzsch, G.
Title: Objektive und Subjektive Lautstarkernessungen.
Reference: Acustica. 1955, Akust.Beih. 1, 49-66.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 37 noises recorded from a variety of sources
Levels: 47 - 98 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: 27 noises in free field; 10 noises through loudspeakers
in diffuse field
Analysis: one octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: loudness
Psychophysical procedure: constant stimuli or adjustment
Standard: 1 KHz tone or a band of noise 900-1120 Hz
wide
Number of observers: 20
OTHER
Special features:
Comments: Observers varied only the loudness of the 1 KHz tone or the narrow band
of noise. The SPLs of the 37 comparison stimuli remained fixed.
A-61
-------
QUIETZSCH NOISES FREE FIELD NBS * STATS 3-15-77
NO.
2
3
5
7
9
10
11
12
0-A
98.5
62.5
97.1
86.3
A
19.4
'6.9
13.1
8.6
82.9 82.5
92.0 69.6
95.5 «
K.I
77.5 67.6
14 69.9 69*7
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
36
37
98.6 67.6
69.8 69.1
95.8 92.6
61.5 60.6
94.7 88.0
94.1 66.2
61.9 60.6*
63.6 61.0
62.1 61.7
65.5 63.1
j
74.7 <
rfc.7
71.0 7)1.0
55.6 5£.5
54.9 54.6
52.8 5?. 3
70,5 71.3
65.9 6$. 3
75,2 7$.fl
B
92.6
61.3
95.2
81.7
82.3
90.4
95.0
73.4
69.6
95.0
69.4
95.0
61.0
92.1
83.2
60.7
61.8
60.9
63.4
73.0
71.0
55.2
54.1
52.5
70.4
65.5
73.3
C
97.5
82.4
96.8
85.7
82.7
91.6
95.4
77.0
69.7
98.3
69.7
95.8
61.3
94.4
92.8
61.6
63.2
61.6
65.0
72.9
71.0
55.2
t
54.5
52.8
70.3
65.6
73.2
01
93.7
83.6
99.2
83.9
88.1
96.2
100.0
73.3
75.4
94.6
73.4
97.5
66.1
94.4
82.2
68.0
67.9
7C.1
69.2
83.1
74.4
63.9
61.7
56.3
76.6
69.7
83.2
02
93.2
83.5
99.1
83.5
88.2
96.1
100.0
72.0
75.4
92.6
73.6
97.4
66.3
93.8
76.7
67.8
67.9
, 69.9
69.2
33.6
74.7
63.9
61.6
56.6
76.9
70.1
33.9
E*
92.2
62.0
97.4
61.8
85.4
93.8
97.9
72.3
73.2
93.5
71.2
96.0
64.2
92.8
78.4
65.1
66.0
67.2
67.1
32,7
72,4
61.0
58.8
54.0
73.5
69.2
83.2
MK6
98.5
88.6
103.5
89,9
92.0
99.9
103.2
89.4
79.8
99.1
79.4
101.6
72.3
98.8
87.1
73.8
75.3
74.8
75.9
85.7
78.8
66.2
67.0
62.4
79.4
77.1
86.0
HK7
91.3
81.0
96.7
81.3
84.9
92.9
96.6
72.9
72.9
92.5
71.5
94.7
65.9
92.1
76.9
66.4
67.7
67.2
68.5
77.3
70.9
59.3
60.3
55.2
71.1
69.1
77.0
PNL
101.4
90.6
106.5
91.7
94.4
102.9
106.3
79.8
80.4
1C1.8
80.0
104.6
72.0
101.7
87.6
7J.5
74.2
74.9
75.1
86.2
79.7
66.2
66.4
61.8
81.1
75.7
86.3
PNLC
104.1
93.1
109.8
' 94.4
97.7
106.2
109.6
82.0
83.3
105.1
82.2
108.0
74.5
105.3
9C.5
75.9
76.8
77.5
77.8
89.6
83.1
72.3
68.3
64.9
84.8
78.7
89.6
ZHCKFF
1G5.6
95.4
109.2
96.8
97.8
105.8
108.7
86.3
86.1
1D4.&
85.0
107.3
78.4
105.3
94.2
79.4
30.8
79.9
82.1
86.0
84.0
69. 8
72.5
67.4
83.4
61.7
85.3
ZWCKOF
106.4
96.0
110.0
97.4
98.4
1C6.4
1U9.5
87.7
86.9
105. 4
85.7
1C6.Q
79.3
106.0
94.9
8C. Q
61.7
8C.4
63.0
87.0
84.6
7G.1
73.2
68.1
83.7
83.0
66.5
LL
98.0
88.0
103.0
91.5
92.5
101.0
105.0
84.5
82.0
1C3.0
83.0
1C5.5
76.0
104.0
92.0
78.0
80.5
79.5
32.0
32.0
86.0
69.0
73.5
71.0
66. 0
37.0
87.5
-------
QUIETZSCH NOISES FREEJ FIELD NBS + STATS 3-15-77
LL
NO.
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SD,N-1
0-A
76.7
45.8
15.01
-11.1
23.2
5.83
A
^3.2
ii.8
j.2.77
-1.4.6
n
4-6.5
4.15
B
74.8
42.7
13.99
-13.0
16.1
4.39
C
76.2
45.5
14.97
-11.6
22.2
5.69
01
79.5
43.7
12.67
-8.3
18.4
4.00
02
79.2
43.4
12.52
-8.6
18.5
4.25
E*
77.5
43.9
12. 9C
-1C. 3
18.5
4.21
MK6
84.3
41.1
12.07
-3.5
13.6
3.07
MK7
76.8
41.5
12.17
-11.0
12.9
3.16
HNL
85.3
44.7
13.41
-2.5
15.5
4.04
KNLU
88.4
44.9
13.46
.5
15.9
4.24
/ HONr r
69.6
4i. e
12.51
1.8
12.9
3.28
tn C/MJr
9C.4
41. y
12.52
2.5
12.4
3.23
-------
QUIETZSCH NOISES NBS+
NO.
1
4 .
6
8
13
16
24
25
34
35
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SD.N-1
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO,N-1
0-A
75.0
5 ^. 8
53.0
53.6 t
49.2 <
48.9 3
49.1 «
57.3 !
51.9 5
47.4 *
54.0 A
27.6 2
7.99
-7.5 -1
17.7 1
6.72
»TATS 3-11-77
A B
>5.6 72.1
0.0 53.8
>3.6 50.1
>9.1 52.9
>2.9 47.7
7.7 45. 4
4.7 47.7
7.2 56.5
2.1 50.6
2.6 44.5
6.5 52.1
7.9 27.6
6.19 7.96
3.8 -9.4
1.0 15.6
3.76 6.27
C
74.8
54.7
52.8
53.8
49.1
48.7
tf 9.1
56.7
50.5
46.9
53.7
27.9
6.03
-7.8
18.1
6.99
01
71.6
54.1
49.6
53.1
47.5
45.0
49.2
65.0
60.5
49.9
54.6
26.6
8.52
-6.9
9.7
3.32
02
70.2
53.9
48.2
52.3
46.8
^ 3.1
48.9
65.1
6G.8
49.7
54.0
27.1
8.70
-7.5
8.5
2. SO
E*
7C.9
53.7
^8.9
52. S
47.2
43.8
47.9
63.1
59.4
47.8
53.6
27.1
6.47
-7.9"
11.1
3.77
MK6
76.4
61. C
54.2
39.4
52.2
46.9
56.0
71.3
66.4
56.9
60.1
29.5
9.01
-1.4
7.5
2.50
MK7
69.2
54.7
48.5
53.3
47.3
42.2
50.1
63.9
58.6
50.8
53.9
27.0
8.12
-7.6
6.7
2.53
PNL
75.9
59.0
52.2
57.5
50.7
46.6
54.5
69.9
64.5
55.2
58.6
29.3
9.07
-2.9
8.7
2.58
PNLC
78. P
61.3
53.6
59.3
52.0
48.1
55.9
72.5
67. u
56.8
60.5
30.4
9.55
-1,0
9.7
2.83
ZUCKFF
31.8
65.9
59.5
63.9
57.4
54.5
62.2
75.7
68.3
62.5
65.2
27.3
8.32
3.7
7.3
2.48
ZWCKOF
£2.7
66.9
6C.7
65. u
58.7
55.4
63.1
76.5
69.3
63.4
66.2
27.3
8.23
4.7
7.3
2.52
LL
74.5
60.5
53.5
60.0
53.0
49.0
61.0
74.5
66.5
62.5
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Rademacher, H.
Title: Die Lautsta'rke von Kraf tfahrzeuggera'uschen.
Reference: Acustica. 1959, £> 93-108
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 24 motorcycle noises
Levels: 71-87 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: outdoors in open air (free field)
Analysis: one octave (non-standard frequencies)
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: loudness and annoyance
Psychophysical procedure: category estimations of loudness and a rating scale
from 1-8.
Number of observers: 20 - 25
OTHER
Special features:
Comments: Loudness and annoyance produce very similiar results.
A-65
-------
RAOEMACHER NOISES N8S+STATS 3-3-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^2
23
24
0-A
81*0
79.1
84.1
67.2
68.9
83.7
69.6
83.0
91.0
95.8
'89.6
94.6
82.0
89.4
84.4
91.9
67.4
92.0
66.2
94.2
84.7
78.9
87.0
92.8
A
77.2
76,2
78.7
80.1
60.3
79.6
81.7
82.2
66.1
90.1
85.2
89.8
79.5
80.9
79.7
78.6
79.5
79.9
83.3
65.6
70.3
72.7
,81.6
83.0
B
80.4
78.3
82.8
85.0
85.9
81.9
87.3
82.3
89.4
94.7
87.7
93.6
81.1
86.9
83.0
87.%
85.3
88.3
85.1
90.9
80.0
77.4
64.8
90.6
C
81.0
79.0
84.1
87.0
88.7
83.6
89.6
82.8
90.9
95.8
89.5
94.5
81.6
89.3
84.3
91.6
87.3
91.8
86.0
93.9
84.4
76.6
86.8
92.8
01
82.2
82.6
84.8
86. 2
87.1
85.1
88.0
90.2
92.7
94.9
92.8
94.5
87.8
87.3
66.2
86.9
86.2
87.5
91.2
91.3
79.4
78.2
87.1
90.4
02
32.0
82.4
84.2
85.4
86.1
34.8
86.9
89.9
92.3
94.5
1
92.4
94.2
87.4
86.2
85.7
34.7
85.0
85.4
90.9
90.4
76.8
77.6
86.7
38.6
t#
81.2
80.5
83.3
84.9
85.5
83.2
87.2
87.1
90.8
94.6
90.2
93.9
85.0
86.2
84.2
85.3
84. a
86.4
88.5
90.2
77.6
77.3
85.4
89.3
MK6
86.6
37.2
88.5
9D.6
91.3
89.6
91.4
92.5
95.9
98.2
95.9
98.3
90.0
91.6
89.7
91.6
90.5
91.0
94. C
95.8
84.8
83.5
91.0
94.0
MK7
79.2
79.9
81.6
83.5
84.4
82.3
84.6
85.1
89. 0
91.9
88.9
92.9
82.5
84.8
82.6
84.1
83.4
34.2
86.7
89.2
76.6
76.3
84.1
87.1
PNL
87.8
88.9
90.5
92.3
93.4
91.6
93.7
95.3
99. C
103.7
99.0
100.9
92.7
93.8
92.0
93.4
92.6
93.1
96.9
98.1
85.5
84.1
93.4
96.5
PNLC
89.9
91.6
92.5
94.5
95.6
93. S
95.9
98.4
101.5
102.8
102. u
103.3
95.6
95.8
94.6
95.6
94.6
95.1
100.0
100.5
87.0
86.5
96.7
98.3
ZWCKFF
92.8
93.7
95.8
97.4
98.5
96.7
97.4
98.4
'102.8
103.0
102.3
103.8
96.1
98.1
96.9
97.2
97.1
96.3
10C.C
102.5
9C.2
89.6
98.6
99.3
ZWCKDF
93.3
94.3
96.3
97.8
98.9
97.2
97.8
98.6
1J3.1
103.6
102.5
104.3
96.2
9a.5
97.2
97.6
'97.5
96.9
ICG. 2
103.0
9C.6
99.0
99.8
LL
83. 6
83. 0
86. C
86. C
89. 0
69.0
88.0
88.0
96.3
9fa.C
96.0
96.0
89. 0
89.0
91.0
91.0
90.0
90. 0
94.0
94.0
83. 2
83.0
91. 0
91.0
-------
RAO EM AC HER NOISES NBSjtSTATS 3-3-77
NO. 0-A A B C
01
02
MK6
MK7
PNL
PNLC ZWCKFF ZWCKOF
HE AN LEVEL
RANGE
SO.N-1
HEAN OIFF
RANGE
SD.N-1
67. *
16.9
4.85
-2.2
9.8
3.19
50.9
9.8
4.56
-a. a
6.9
2.15
85.4
17.3
4.55
-4.2
8.7
2.64
87.3
17.0
4.84
-2.4
9.8
3.18
87.5
16.7
4.31
-2.1
7.0
1.77
86.7
17.7
4.52
-3.Q
8.2
2.02
85.9
17.3
4.36
-3.7
6.0
1.90
91.4
14.8
3.81
1.7
5.9
1.63
84.3
15.7
4.10
-5.3
5.9
1.68
93.6
16.8
4.35.
3.9
6.3
1.62
95.9
16.3
4.48
6.3
6.9
1.65
97.7
14.2
3.71
8.0
5.5
1.63
96.1
14.2
3.70
8.4
5.6
1.67
LL
1
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Robinson, D. W. and Bowsher,
J. M.
Title: A subjective experiment with helicopter noises.
Reference: J. Royal Aeron. Sgc.. 1961, 65, 635-637.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: five helicopter and jet noises
Levels: 88 - 97 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: Loudspeaker listeining in a moderately reverberant room
(diffuse field).
Analysis: third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Loudness and disturbance
Psychophysical procedure: paired comparisons
Number of observers: 558
OTHER
Special features:
Comments: loudness and disturbance produce very similar results.
A-68
-------
ROBINSON + BOHSHER EQUALLY
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SD,N-1
>
-------
OBINSON+BOM
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
SHER ECU At
0-A
93.3 8
95.7 9
88.6 8
94.1 8
90.7 8
LY LOUD NBS + STAT 3-1-77
A B C 01
7.6 91.2 93.2 92.1
0.0 94.0 95.5 94.1
5.6 87.3 88.4 91.6
S.O 92.0 94.0 93.0
1.9 90.1 90.6 94.0
92.5 88. 0 90.9
7.1 4.4 6.7
2.82 1.66 2.46
92.4
7.1
2.82
93.0
2.5
1.11
02
91.6
94.0
91.5
92.3
94.1
92.7
2.6
1.26
E#
90.9
93.9
89.6
91.7
91.7
91.5
4.3
1.57
MK6
97.1
98.4
95.7
96.6
97.3
97.0
2.7
.99
MK7 PNL PNLC ZWKFF ZWKOF
89.8 99.3 101.0 1C3.3 104. C
92.2 101.1 102.6 103.5 1C4.3
68.6 93*6 99.9 101.8 102.3
89.8 99.3 100.3 1C3.0 103.5
89.8 100.1 102.3 103.1 103.5
90.0
3.6
1.28
99.7 101.2 102.9 103.5
2.3
.89
2.7
1.18
3.5
.65
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Spiegel, M.
Title: Prtifung verschiedener Lautsta*rkeberechnungsmethoden bei
diffuser Beschallung.
Reference: Unpublished (apparently), 1960
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 20 noises, type .of sound unspecified
Levels: Overall * 45-67 dB SPL; LL = 64 phons
Overall " 70-84 dB SPL; LL - 85.5 phons
Mode of presentation: Diffuse Field
Analysis: thlrd octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Loudness
*
Psychophysical procedure: Adjustment-Matching noises in loudness to a
critical band of noise centered on 1 kHz.
(Noises Varied)
Number of observers: 10
OTHER
Special features:
Comments:
A-71
-------
SPIEGEL AT 64PHONS N3S STATS 3-1-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SD,N-i
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SD,N-1
0-A
66.7
58.4
51.4
66.1 ,
59.8
56.6
47.3
48.4
59.0
49.1
56.
-------
SPIEGEL AT 85.PHONS NBS * STATS 3-3-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
• 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
HE AN OIFF
RANGE
SD,N-i
0-A
81.2
83.9
75.4
62.6
82.8
75.6
69.3
70.0
78.7
75.6
79.9
82.0
71.9
80.1
78.4
73.8
70.5
80.6
72.7
75.1
77.0
14.6
4.62
-8.5
14.6
4.62
A
69.6
83.4
75,9
70.8
82.9
76.2
67.4
69.5
67.2
75.4
79.6
65.4
71.5
78.8
78.8
71.5
66.9
74.0
73.3
72.9
73.6
18.0
5.28
-11.9
18.0
5.28
B
78.7
83.9
74.2
60.1
82.8
74.5
68.4
67.8
75.0
75.6
79.8
76.4
69.8
80.0
78.4
73.0
67.5
79.2
72.0
73.6
75.5
16.4
4.85
-10.0
16.4
4.85
C
81.2
83.9
74.1
82.5
82.8
74.4
69.0
67.7
78.4
75.6
79.9
81.6
69.7
80-.1
78.4
73.6
69.4
60.6
71.9
74.4
76.5
16.2
•
5.13
-9.0
16.2
5.13
01
77.9
84.3
85.4
79.4
83.5
85.3
74.3
77.6
74.4
78.2
79.9
75.2
79.4
79.8
82.0
80.1
74.8
78.6
81.2
81.7
79.7
11.5
3.46
-5.8
11.5
3.46
02
75.6
84.6
85.5
76.8
83.6
85.9
74.3
76.0
72.5
78.4
80.1
72.0
79.8
80.2
82.2
79.8
75.1
78.0
81.2
82.0
79.3
13.9
4.09
-6.2
13.9
4.09
E*
76.9
84.1
83.8
78.3
83.0
84.4
72.6
77.2
73.4
76.8
79.9
73.5
79.0
80.1
60.1
77.3
74.5
76.6
79.1
8fl.'9
78.7
11.8
3.55
-6.8
11.8
3.55
MK6
77.7
86.1
84.6
79.0
85.7
64.5
61.1
82.7
79.8
63.7
83.1
77.1
84.7
83.2
65.6
82.7
83.3
81.4
83.9
84.1
82.7
9.0
2.60
-2.8
9.0
2.63
MK7
70.1
78.5
77.7
71.6
77.2
77.0
73.4
73.6
71.6
75.4
74.6
68.7
75.5
75.8
77.0
75.4
73.4
74.2
75,8
76.0
74.6
9.8
2.59
-10.9
9.3
2.59
PNL
79.1
86.8
87.6
61.0
65.5
87.2
80.8
60.9
80.0
83.5
82.7
77.1
82.9
84.0
86.1
84.8
80.7
82.5
84.9
85.2
83.2
10.5
2.90
-2.3
10.5
2.90
PNLC
81.9
88.9
90.7
.87.6
87.9
92.1
62.0
83.7
83.7
87.2
85.3
81.2
86.3
89.9
68.4
86.1
83.0
85.2
68.8
89.8
86.5
10.9
3.17
1.0
10.9
3.17
ZWCKFF
80.2
88.9
85.5
82.3
86.4
82.9
86.2
82.1
34.1
88.9
84.0
80.5
83.6
87.1
89.6
37.9
84.3
85.7
86.8
86.5
85.2
9.4
2.72
-.3
9.4
2.72
ZHCKQF
8u.5
90.6
66.0
82.7
68.5
63.1
87.0
63.3
84.8
89.9
66.3
81.1
84.7
66.8
90.6
86.1
85.2
87.0
87.5
87.4
86.2
1G.1
2.95
.7
10.1
2.95
LL
85.5
35.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
35.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
85.5
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Wells, R. J.
Title: Jury ratings of complex aircraft noise spectra versus calculated
ratings.
Reference: Paper presented at 80th Meeting of ASA, November, 1970
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 30 Jet Aircraft sounds: 15 actual engine noises
15 filtered engine noises
Levels: 73_83 dB SPL overaii
Mode of presentation: Free Field
Analysis: third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Annoyance
Psychophysical procedure: Adjustment - standard only adjusted
Number of observers: 35
OTHER
Special features: Noises contained single and multiple tonal components.
Comments: RC filter depressed the high frequency region, centered at about
3000 Hz, by as much as 15 decibels.
A-74
-------
HELLS,1970 NOISES 1-30
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0-A
77.1
77.8
74.8
77.4
74.8
77.5
77.9
76.2
73.8
73.4
72.8
72.6
72.6
74.6
77.7
80.4
83.1
79.9
82.7
76.0
78.2
77.6
79.4
74.0
73.0
72.6
73.3
73.3
A
75.8
74.6
73.5
74.5
75.1
78.0
77.7
76.2
74.3
74.0
73.2
73.3
72.9
73.4
72.7
74.8
74.8
73.1
73.8
73.4
75.7
73.6
74.3
72.3
72.4
71.8
71.9
72.5
B
76.0
75.7
73.2
75.0
74.2
77.1
77.2
75.4
72.8
72.5
71.7
71.9
71.3
72.9
73.9
77.6
79.2
76.1
78.1
73.9
76.1
75.2
76.3
71.6
71.1
70.7
71.3
71.3
C
76.8
77.4
74.2
76.8
74.4
77.2
77.6
75.8
72.9
72.4
71.7
71.9
71.3
73.8
77.0
80.1
82.7
79.4
82.2
75.5
77.8
77.2
79.0
72.9
71.4
71.1
72.3
71.6
01
82.8
81.7
81.7
82.5
81.8
63.5
83.8
83.2
83.2
82.5
82.1
83.0
81.2
80.7
81.2
80.6
81.1
80.6
81.2
79.9
81.4
79.3
81.1
80.7
80.4
80.1
80.7
80.4
02
82.7
81.7
81.7
82.5
82.1
34.1
83.9
93.2
83.1
82.6
82.0
82.6
81.5
80.9
81.0
80.4
80.7
80.5
80.8
80.1
81.8
79.2
81.0
80.8
80.6
80.2
80.6
80.8
E*
80.4
79.9
79.6
8C.6
79.5
81.1
81.6
80.1
80.6
80.3
79.7
79.6
80.2
79.1
78.9
79.2
80.1
79.3
79.9
78.1
79.5
77.8
79.0
79.2
79.4
78.7
78.5
79.9
HK6
87.8
88.0
86.8
88.0
86.4
68.6
88.4
88. C
85.6
85.2
85.1
85.2
85.4
87.2
87.1
87.9
89.0
88.0
88.6
86.5
38.3
87.1
88.3
86.6
86.7
86.0
85.7
86.4
MK7
79.9
79.7
78.4
79.6
77.5
79.4
80.2
79.0
77.5
77.0
77.1
77.4
76.8
78. 0
78.5
80.1
80.7
79.5
80.1
77.9
79.1
78.5
79.2
77.2
77.2
76.7
77.3
77.0
PNL
89.4
83.6
88.1
89.3
87.5
90.1
89.9
89.8
87.8
87. 0
87.0
87.9
36.4
87.0
87.8
88.4
88.7
33.4
88.9
87.1
89.4
86.7
39.3
86.2
35.3
85.6
87.2
86.2
PNLC
91.0
89.7
89.6
90.3
90.9
94.1.
91.3
93.6
90.2
89.8
89.0
91.9
88.9
89.8
89.6
89.7
88.7
89.3
90.1
93.2
93.1
88. C
93. 0
88.4
88.0
87.4
90.4
83.6
ZWKFF
93.5
93.4
91.5
93.2
90.7
92.1
93.9
91.3
88.8
38. 2
83.4
*7.8
87.3
91.0
91.8
93.9
94.5
93.2
94.2
91.5
92.8
92.3
92.6
89.2
88.3
88.6
89.4
86.3
ZWKDF
94.1
94.1
92.1
93.9
91.4
92.7
94. b
91.9
89.3
33.3
89.0
38.1
ae.o
91.8
92.5
94.7
95.4
93.9
95.1
92.3
93.5
93.2
93.4
9G.C
39.2
89.4
9D.1
89.3
-------
WELLS,1970 NOISES 1-30
NO.
29
30
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SD.N-1
0-A
78.5
63.2
76.5
10.6
3.2%
A
72.9
71.6
73.9
6.4
1.59
B
74.7
77.7
74.4
8.5
2.4%
C
77.7
82,7
75.8
11.6
3.52
01
79.7
79.8
81.4
4.5
1.23
02
79.7
78.9
81.4
5.2
1.30
E#
78.9
78.4
79.6
3.8
.86
HK6
88.7
88.1
87.2
3.9
1.19
HK7
79.1
79.2
78.5
4.0
1.20
PNL
87.1
87.2
87.8
4.8
1.32
PNLC
89.6
88.3
90.1
6.7
1.68
ZWKFF ZWKOF
92.1 93.1
92.7 93.5
91.2 92.0
7.2 7.4
2.22 2.27
T
-j
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Wells, R. J,
Title:
Reference: Unpublished (about 1970)
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 33 aircraft
Levels: 74-86 dB
Mode of presentation: free field (?)
Analysis: third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: annoyance
Psychophysical procedure: adjustment
Number of observers: approximately 30
OTHER
Special features: spectra in 3 graphs; each group has equally
annoying spectra
Comments:
A-77
-------
HELLS,UNPUBL 1 NBS+STATS 3r3-77
NO.
1
2
3
4 .
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
wi MEAN LEVEL
T
£ RANGE
SD,N-1
0-A
86.0
78.4
81.0
81.7
80.8
78.5
82.8
76.8
79.7
76.3
79.6
80.1
9.7
2.77
A
77.5
76.7
77.3"
77.4
76.4
76.9
78.1
75.8
76.5
76.7 ,
79.3
77.1
3.5
.93
B
82.6
77.0
78.7
79.9
78.9
77.2
80.8
75.7
78.5
75.6
79.1
78.6
7.0
2.13
C
85.7
77.8
80.4
81.5
80.6
78.0
82.6
76.4
79.5
75.7
79.3
79.8
10.0
2.86
01
83.5
83.8
84.1
83.5
83.2
83.6
84.0
82.1
82.9
85.8
85.5
83.8
3.7
1.06
02
82.5
84.0
84.2
83.2
83.1
83.9
83.7
'82.2
42.8
85.7
85.5
83.7
3.5
1.11
E*
82.2
82.3
82.9
81.9
81.8
82.2
82.4
80.4
81.3
83.2
83.1
82.1
2.8
.85
MK6
89.9
90.5
91.5
90. C
89.9
90.7
90.6
87.9
88.4
89.1
89.5
89.8
3.6
1.04
HK7
82.5
31.6
82,5
82.2
81.7
81.7
82.8
79.4
30.9
80.9
81.8
81.6
3.4
.97
PNL
90.7
90.7
91.3
91.2 '
90.6
90.9
91.5
88.2
89.7
91.4
91.6
90.7
3.4
.98
PNLC
90.7
91.5
91.3
91.2
91.5
92. 0
91.5
91.8
90.8
94.2
93.2
91.3
3.5
1.04
ZWKFF
96.3
94.6
95.8
95.8
95.1
94.7
96.5
92.8
94.5
92.7
95.4
94.9
3.8
1.25
ZWKOF
97.0
95.4
96.7
96.6
95.9
95.5
97.3
93.7
95.1
93. a
96.1
95.7
H.3
1.33
-------
HELLS,UNPU8L 2 NBS+STATS 3-3-77
i MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,M-1
NO.
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
VEL
1
0-A
77.8
76.0
77.9
77.6
74.7
74.6
75.0
75.0
75.1
74.8
76.2
79.8
76.2
- 5.2
1.69
A
76.5
75.9
78.2
77.9
75.2
75.1
74.5
74.4
75.3
75.2
76.8
75.7
75.9
3.8
1.23
B
77.6
75.1
77.8
77.5
74.2
74.1
74.4
74.3
74.2
73.9
75.6
77.7
75.5
3.9
1.62
C
77.8
75.5
77.8
77.5
74.2
74.1
74.5
74.5
74.3
73.9
75.7
79.5
75.8
5.6
1.88
01
80.8
84.0
82.8
82.5
83.5
83.5
81.0
81.3
84.6
84.6
86.7
81.8
83.1
5.9
1.74
02
80.9
84.0
82.8
82.5
83. <»
33.4
81.0
81.3
84.5
84.6
86.2
81.7
83.0
5.3
1.63
E*
79.3
81.4
80.6
8G.3
81.1
81.1
79.4
79.6
82.6
82.5
83.0
80.2
80.9
3.7
1.27
MK6
86.1
87.6
87.2
86.9
67.3
87.2
86.5
86.3
88. <+
88.1
88.8
88.4
87.4
2.7
.87
MK7
78.5
79.2
78.6
78.3
79.1
79.Q
78.3
78.4
83. 1
79.8
80.9
83.6
79.2
2.6
• 92
PNL
86.8
89.3
87.9
87.5
89.4
89.3
86.7
87.2
90.4
90. 2
91.6
89.3
88.8
4.9
1.57
PNLC
89.3
91.5
91.0
90.6
92.3
92.6
88.2
88.3
92.9
93.5
96.5
89.3
91.3
8.3
2.43
ZWKFF
91.9
92.0
91.3
91.0
9C.9
90.9
91.3
91.3
91.0
90. 3
91.4
94.4
91.5
4.1
1.03
ZHKOF
92.7
92.5
92.2
91.9
91.5
91.4
92.3
92.3
91.6
90.6
91.6
95.2
92.2
4.4
1.10
-------
WELLS,UNPU8L 3 NBS+STATS 3-3-77
§
RANGE
SD,N-1
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Y£L
1
0-A
77.1
77.8
78.1
76.3
79.3
76.9
76.8
74.1
76.9
77.0
77.0
5.2
1.33
A
77.7
78.4
78.4
76.6
78.4
77.5
75.6
74.6
76.4
76.2
77.0
3.8
1.32
B
76.3
77.2
77.5
76.0
79.0
76.4
75.4
73.3
75.7
75.9
76.3
5.7
1.50
C
76.3
77.2
77.6
76.0
79.2
76.5
76.1
73.3
76.0
76.3
76.4
5.9
1.48
01
36.2
86.0
86.2
83.3
83.3
84.8
83.3
83.7
84.6
83.7
84.5
2.9
1.24
02
86.1
86.0
86.1
83.2
83.3
84,8
83.5
83.6
84.7
83.8
84.5
2.9
1.20
E*
83.8
83.4
83.3
80.9
81.5
81.7
81.6
81.4
82.8
81.9
82.2
2.9
1.00
MK6
68.6
38.5
89.4
87.1
87.7
88.8
88.8
87.4
39.4
89.1
38.5
2.3
.€3
MK7
80.8
80.7
81.3
79.2
8C.3
80.2
80.2
79.2
80.9
80.6
8Q.3
2.1
.70
PNL
90.6
91.0
91.7
88.6
39.1
90.9
89.3
89.5
93.6
90. C
90.1
3.1
.99
PNLC
93.6
93.8
93.6
90. Q
92.2
95. C
91.5
92.5
92.1
92. u
92.3
5.0
1.51
ZWKFF
93. Q
92.8
93.9
92.1
93.7
92. C
92.9
9C.4
93.4
93.7
92.8
3.5
1.G5
ZWKOF
93.6
93.6
94.5
93. u
94.6
92.7
93.7
90.9
94.2
94.5
93.5
3.7
1.12
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Wells, R. J.
Title: A new method for computing the annoyance of steady state
noise versus perceived noise level and other subjective measures.
Reference: Paper presented at 77th Meeting of ASA, 1969.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 119 broad-band noises
with tones, pure tones, octave bands, etc,
(plus one standard noise)
Levels: 70-95 dB
Mode of presentation: anechoic room (Free Field)
Analysis: third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: annoyance
Psychophysical procedure: adjustment; all sounds adjusted to match
16-noy contour noise
Number of observers: 30
OTHER
Special features: single and multiple tonal components
Comments:-12500-Hz tone and l/10th octave band omitted from analysis
-some sounds with significant energy greater than 10,000 Hz should
be omitted
A-81
-------
HELLS 300 SERIES NOISES 1-20 NBS*STATS 3-10-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SD,N-1
0-A
93.6
89.8
83. *
81.5
85.2
8C.1
72.7
73.8
71,6
9C.O
85.6
83.2
83.0
80.5
79. 4
74.0
74.3
86.6
86.8
81.9
61.9
22.0
6.20
A
65.6
71,2
78.4
80.7
74.6
81.1
73.9
73.9
69.1
71.7
74.6
78.6
81.9
81.4
80.5
75.1
74.3
74.9
74.2
79.6
75.8
16.3
4.43
B
82.9
84.4
82.8
81.5
83.3
80.1
72.3
72.1
67.3
84.6
83.3
82.6
82.9
80.5
79.3
73.6
72.5
83.4
82.4
81.3
79.7
17.3
5.09
C
92.5
89.5
83.4
81.5
85.2
80.0
72.2
72.0
67.2
89.7
85.5
83,2
83.0
80.4
79.2
73.5
72.4
86.4
d6.4
81.8
8.1.3
25.3
6.76
01
81.6
82.8
82.9
81.1
82.8
85.4
84.1
82.2
75.1
83.2
82.6
82.7
82.6
85.6
86.7
84.8
82.6
82.7
81.8
82.0
82.8
11.6
2.32
02
75.6
79.1
83.1
81.6
80.6
86.2
83.6
83.1
74.7
79.4
80.4
82.6
83.0
86.1
87.0
84.5
83.3
80.5
79.6
82.1
81.8
12.3
3. 20
e*
77.5
80.7
83.0
81.6
81.8
82.4
80.2
82.3
75.4
81.1
81.7
82.8
83.0
82.7
83.0
81.2
62.6
81.6
80.5
81.6
81.3
7.6
1.90
HK6
82.7
82.7
82.9
84.5
82.3
85.3
81.8
83.9
81.2
83.1
81.8
82.4
34.6
85.5
85.1
82.0
83.9
-------
WELLS.300 SERIES NOISES 21-42 N8S*STATS 3-10-77
00
u>
NO.
1
2
3
'4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO.N-1
0-A
79.5
74.5
77.6
93.0'
80.8
82.0
84.4
90.7
83.4
79.6
' 66.2
76.2
77.6
71.1
80.5
73.3
74.0
74.3
74.1
71.5
75.3
80.9
79.1
21.9
5.86
A
76.3
7fc.4
74.3
74.5
76.0
81.1
73.5
71.7
78.9
78.8
75.0
77.2
78.7
72.3
81.4
74.5
75.2
74.3
73.0
71.4
73.9
69.6
75.3
11.8
3.07
B
78.0
73.9
75.9
87.6
80.3
82.0
82.4
85.1
82.9
79.6
64.0
76.2
77.5
70.7
80.5
73.2
73.7
72.5
71.2
69.6
72.1
75.7
77.5
18.0
5.13
C
79.3
74.2
77.4
92,7
80.8
82.0
84.4
90.4
83.4
79.6
86.1
76.1
77.4
70.6
80.4
73.1
73.6
72.4
71.1
69.5
72.0
80.3
76.5
23.2
6.35
01
8G.4
81.4
79.6
86.1
80.4
81.6
81.8
8 3 . 5
83.0
79.0
83.3
81.2
85.0
82.7
85.3
81.2
85.2
82.5
79.6
79.1
8C.6
76.1
61.7
10.0
2.42
02
3C.4
81.4
79.5
82.3
80.8
82.1
79.4
79.7
83.2
79.6
1
81.0
82.2
85.2
82.1
86.1
81.3
84.7
83.4
80.1
80.4
81.0
74.7
81.4
11.4
2.39
E*
79,0
76.7
77.7
84.0
60.5
82.1
80.8
81,3
83.1
79.6
82.3
76.4
81.2
78.7
82.6
77.3
81.3
82.7
80.6
79.8
81.4
74.6
80.3
9.4
2.22
MK6
87.3
85.7
86.3
86,4
80.7
85.1
80.8
63.6
83.5
82.5
83.1
81.6
83.9
80.2
86.4
80.5
83.0
84.9
85.2
62.0
85.9
84.0
63.6
7.1
2.15
HK7
79.4
78.0
78.7
78.4
74.6
77.1
73.7
75.4
77.7
74.2
76.2
72.6
75.8
73.4
77.6
72.1
76.3
76.3
75.5
73.2
76.4
76.5
75.9
7.3
2.04
PNL
87.5
87.2
86.8
88.4
83.2
65.5
83.3
85.6
66.0
82.6
85.6
34.3
87.1
84.2
39. 0
83.7
86.9
85.1
81.6
82. 0
82.8
83.2
85.1
7.2
2.11
PNLC
87.5
87.2
86.8
92.1
86.2
89.5
86.8
89.8
90.0
88.2
89.7
90.5
90.3
90.6
92.3
88.3
93.6
91.0
87.0
86.7
89.1
83.2
86.9
10.4
2.41
ZHKFF
93.4
91.2
92.4
90.3
81.7
«?6.7
83.7
87.5
84.9
63.3
65.8
80.8
85.2
8C.2
86.6
79.5
84.1 "
80.4
73.9
75.8
76.5
90.3
84.3
19.5
5.4C
ZhKOF
94.3
91.8
93.2
90. *
62.6
68.6
84.3
87.6
85.9
85.5
86. <+
61.4
84.9
79.0
87. i
79.2
63.2
81.9
76.6
77.8
76.9
91.2
65.1
17.7
5. It
-------
HELLS P^OO SERIES NOISES 1-30 NBS+STATS3-10-77
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
> 13
I
£ 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0-A
81.8
81.5
86.6
77.4
76.6
79.0
79.3
79.1
73.8
82.7
81.6
83.3
80.7
81.6
82.0
81.1
81.2
79.1
82.3
77.9
85.9
71.8
68.7
74.7
73.3
75.8
69.9
80.1
A
70.5
72.4
70.1
71.1
66.7
72.5
68.4
69.3
69.4
71.1
72.3
71.8
71.6
71.5
73.2
71.7
71.8
69.9
71.3
71.8
67.5
68.4
61.0
70.5
62.1
67.5
69.5
68.2
8
78.4
77.6
81.0
73.4
71.3
75.1
73.9
73.5
70.2
77.9
77.4
78.5
76.7
77.1
78.1
77.3
77.3
74.9
80.1
76.3
80.2
68.7
63.6
72.1
67.0
69.9
68.5
75.6
C
81.5
81.0
86.2
76.9
76.0
78.5
78.7
78.2
73.3
82.2
31.2
82.9
80. 3
f
31.1
81.6
80.7
80.8
78.6
82.2
77.7
85.5
71.3
•
68.1
74.3
72.5
74.6
69.5
79.7
01
78.1
77.7
79.9
75.9
75.1
74.9
75.0
75.5
76.0
77.9
77.9
78.5
77.5
77.9
78.5
77.7
77.9
76.1
79.5
76.4
78.7
72.6
70.6
71.6
69.2
73.5
76.2
75.4
02
76.0
77.3
76.8
76.1
74.2
74.5
74.3
74.5
76.0
76.2
77.0
76.9
76.6
76.7
77.5
76.6
76.7
75.2
77.2
76.6
75.1
73.4
69.8
71.7
69. 1
72.8
76.2
73.5
E*
76.9
77.1
77.9
73.6
72.2
74.5
73.9
74.9
72.5
76.5
76.7
77.0
76.0
76.4
77.4
76.6
76.8
74.4
76.5
76.3
76.6
69.9
67.0
71.7
68.7
73.3
72.3
74. C
MK6
85.0
85.5
87.1
84.0
82.2
84.2
84.4
86.6
81.8
85.7
85.8
86.7
85.4
85.7
86.5
85.8
67.0
84.1
62.8
82.5
83.9
79.4
76.2
80.3
79.5
84.7
78.4
83.4
MK7
76.0
77.0
77.6
74.2
73.4
74.7
75.3
75.4
71.9
77.3
78.0
78,1
77.5
77.9
78.5
77.9
77.9
75.9
74.0
74.1
74.2
63.9
67.0
70.2
69.5
72.3
68.6
74.5
PNL
85.8
86.2
87.7
34.4
82.9
83.4
83.4
83.7
82.7
86.0
85.9
36.8
35.4
85.4
86. 0
85.2
85.3
84.2
84.0
53.1
84.5
79.5
76.5
78.9
77.7
31. C
30.0
83.5
PNLC
88.2
86.5
90.4
• 89.0
87.8
88.9
86.2
86.6
88.8
87.0
86.7
87.9
87. Q
87.2
87.6
86.1
86.2
86.8
87.4
86.5
87.8
86.1
83.2
35.6
81. G
84.4
86.6
85.2
ZWKFF
90.2
90.7
91.8
68.3
87.6
36.9
39.4
33.3
65.2
91.5
91.9
92.1
91.3
91.8
92.4
91.4
91.4
89.8
87.0
86.3
88.5
62.5
80. 6
34. C
83.3
84.7
80.1
88.9
ZWKOF
91.0
91.6
92.4
89.2
68.2
90.1
90.4
89.4
65.8
92.4
92.9
93.0
92.2
92.6
93.3
92. «+
92.3
9G.6
87.7
87.2
69.0
83.4
81.1
85.4
84.5
85.8
8C.4
89.6
-------
HELLS P*»00 SERIES NOISES 1-30 NBS+STATS3-10-77
RANGE
SO.N-1
NO.
29
30
VEL
1
0-A
90.2
85.0
79.1
17.9
«».<*
A
69.9
70.1
69.8
12.2
2.78
B
75.5
79.3
7i>. 9
17. <»
<».30
C
79.6
8^.5
78.6
18.1
**.53
01
75.6
78. «»
76.2
10.7
2.61
02
7<».8
75.9
75.2
8.%
2.12
£#
7
-------
WELLS *00 SERIES NOISES 31-60 NBS+STATS 3-10-77
NO.
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t ^
a? 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0-A
78.9
79.3
80.2
79.7
81.4
75.2
74.3
68.5
77.1
71.0
74. -0
69.7
76.8
75.5
80.5
80.2
81.4
79.0
75.9
73.1
77.4
73.6
71.0
66.8
72.0
68.2
81.7
81.3
A
68.6
67.6
70.6
67.7
69.3
68.1
73.3
66.3
70.3
68.4
72.4
68.1
69.7
67.0
71.5
69.0
70.2
68.8
75.0
71.2
71.8
72.1
70.5
67.8
69.7
68.8
71.5
70.1
3
73.4
73.5
75.2
73.9
75.4
70.6
74.1
67.0
75.3
70.1
73.5
68.3
74.9
73.6
76.7
75.9
78.9
76.6
75.9
72.6
76.0
73.3
70.8
66.4
73.9
67,8
78.7
78.2
C
78.3
78.7
79.7
79.1
80.7
74.7
74.2
68.2
77.0
70.9
74.0
69.4
76.7
75.5
80.2
79.8
81.3
78.9
75.9
73.1
77.4
73.6
70.9
66.4
71.9
67.9
81.5
81.1
01
74.3
74.8
75.1
74.3
75.8
74.8
73.7
74.2
75.8
72,5
74.3
77.1
76.0
74.4
76.0
76.8
78.3
76.2
75.4
75.4
76.1
73.4
74.8
77.9
76.7
78.4
78.0
77.8
02
73.6
73.5
74.0
73.0
74.3
74.5
74.3
73.7
74.7
72.2
74.5
76.6
75.0
72.9
74.7
75.3
76.0
74.2
76.0
75.2
75.2
73.7
74.9
77.4
76.5
77.8
76.1
75.8
E*
72.4
72.7
74.0
72.9
74.5
71.6
74.2
71. C
74.7
71.0
73.9
73.6
74.6
72.9
75.3
75. C
77.3
75.2
75.9
73.8
75.4
73.4
73.0
74. <]
74.1
74.6
77.1
76.7
MK6
82.9
82.5
84.2
82.9
85.8
81.7
80.8
79.9
83.2
79.1
83.1
81.8
83.3
79.2
83.7
82.9
83.3
81.8
82. C
81.0
82.5
8Q.6
81.6
79.3
81.7
80.2
82.7
83.1
MK7
73.3
74.5
75.3
74.7
76.0
72.1
71.3
71.3
74.7
70. 1
73.8
73.2
74.8
70.3
74.8
7^.8
74.4
72.7
73.0
73.4
74.3
71.6
73. ti
71.2
74.2
72.1
74.6
74.9
PNL
32.8
82.7
83.2
81.7
83.3
82.3
60. u
80.8
63.6
78.2
82.4
83.3
83.7
79.6
82.9
83.6
84.3
82.4
31.6
81.9
83.0
79.9
30.8
81.7
82.5
82.5
83.2
83.4
PNLC
86.3
86.4
86.5
83.5
85.2
88. G
86.6
86.0
86.2
33.2
87.3
88.5
86.3
85.1
87.6
38.8
36.3
87.3
87.0
86.9
85.7
84.6
85.3
87.8
85.5
88.5
88.1
88. C
ZWKFF
88.3
38.9
89.6
86.9
89.9
85.9
83.1
34.4
-------
WELLS <»00 SERIES NOISES 31-60 NBS+STATS 3-10-77
NO.
29
30
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO,N-1
0-A
65.8
8 it. 8
76.5
19.0
«».97
A
7*».9
7k. 1
•
70.1
8.7
2.29
B
83.8
82.8
7<».l
17.
oo
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Wells, R. J.
Title: A subjective study of ultra .high' voltage transmission line noise.
Reference: Paper presented at the Second Arden House Workshop on Noise
Control Engineering, January 1972.
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 25 ultra high voltage 'transmission line noise
Levels: 58 - 78 dB SPL overall
Mode of presentation: free field
Analysis: third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: annoyance
Psychophysical procedure: adjustment - broadband pink noise matched to various
transmission line noises
Number of observers: 31
OTHER
Special features: spectral energy peaks in frequencies below 250 Hz
Comments: decibel levels are unspecified
A-88
-------
HELLS UHV NOISES NBS * STATS 3-15-77
00
SO
NO.
1
2
3
-------
:>
«o
o
WELLS UHV NOISES NBS * STATS 3-15-77
NO. 0-A A B '
01 02 E* MK6 MK7 PNL
PNLC ZWCKFF ZWCKDF LL
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SD,N-1
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SO.N-1
69.4
21.1
6.45
5.1
4.7
1.22
66.2
25.6
7.26
1.9
6.6
1.48
67.1
21.5
6.65
2.3
3.4
• as
68.7
21.6
6.43
4.4
5.4
1.43
73.6
24.9
7.24
9.3
6.3
1.31
73.6
25.9
7.33
9.3
7.1
1.49
72.3
25.4
7.22
8.0
6.2
1.32
81.4
22.8
6.34
17.1
k.7
1.07
72.5
21.5
6.10
8.2
4.5
.95
79.5
25.3
7.28
15.2
6.0
1.34
81.8
25.4
7.40
17.5
6.1 %
1.36
35.1
21.9
6.43
20.8
5.1
.91
86. u
21.9
6.42
21.7
5.1
.94
-------
Evaluation of Data on Subjective Effects of Noise
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
EPA Contract WA 76-E213
SOURCE Author(s): Yaniv, S.
Title: Equal loudness contours for household appliances.
Reference: Unpublished, 1976
STIMULI
Number and type of noises: 11 Household appliances
Levels: standard stimuli set at three overall SPLs; 40, 50, and 60 dB.
Mode of presentation: Earphones
Analysis: third octave
JUDGMENTS
Attribute judged: Loudness
Psychophysical procedure: Adjustment - 1/3 octave band of noise at 1000 Hz
served as a common reference to determine the loudness levels of the
appliances.
Dumber of observers: JQ
OTHER
Special features:
Comments: Both the comparison noises and the 1/3 octave band of noise
were used as standard stimuli.
A-91
-------
YANIV CELCHA) 11 NOISES AT 40 OB SPL, N8S + STATS 3-15-77
NO.
1
2
4
5
6
7
5
9
19
11
12
HEAN LEVEL
> RANGE
IS . SO.N-1
HEAN OIFF
RANGE
SD,N-1
0-A
40.0
39.9
40.0
39.9
40.0
40.0
40.0
39.9
39.9
4C.O
39. 9-
40.0
.1
.03
-.8
12.5
4.55
A
31.7
t»0.6
30.8
26.0
40.5
36.2
30.4
37.2
34.0
26.1
34.1
33.4
14.6
5.03
-7.3
4.6
1.61
B
36.2
39.7
35.3
33.9
39.7
38.7
33.9
39.4
37.7
32.8
37.6
36.3
6.9
2.54
-3.9
7.0
2.42
C
39.2
39.7
39.0
38.8
39.8
39.9
38.7
39.9
39.6
39.2
39.7
39.4
1.2
.45
-1.3
11.6
4.21
01
36.2
47.4
36.5
33.4
46.8
41.9
34.7
41.7
39.3
32.6
38.7
39.0
14.8
5.01
-1.7
5.7
2.16
02
35.4
47.3
35.6
31.2
46.8
41.7
34.1
41.6
38.9
30.8
38.3
38.3
16.5
5.62
-2.4
6.4
2.27
E*
35.5
43.6
34.7
31.8
43.3
39.7
33.4
40.2
37.7
30.6
37.5
37.1
12.8
4.32
-3.6
4.8
1.64
MK6
31.3
49.7
30.6
0.0
50.7
44.9
30.3
44.5
38.9
0.0
38.7
32.7
50.7
17.68
-8.0
39.2
13.66
MK7
34.4
44.9
33.1
25.7
45.3
41.6
32.9
41.1
37.9
26.6
36.9
36.4
19.6
6.63
-4.3
7.2
2.62
PNL
36.1
50. 2
36.6
25.4
50.9
45.8
34.4
44.5
41.7
25.9
40.5
39.3
25.5
8.61
-1.5
13.5
4.59
PNLC
36.8
51.9
39.5
26.5
52.4
48.5
35.6
46.1
42.5
26.9
40.5
40.7
25.9
8.89
-.1
14.0
4.91
ZWCKFF
44.4
52.7
44.8
38.2
53.7
51.7
43.6
51.4
48.9
36.6
49.0
47.0
15.5
5.46
6.3
6.6
2.03
ZWCKDF
46. 2
53.1
46. C
39.8
54.2
52.6
45.3
52.3
5J.ti
40.5
50.3
46.2
14.4
5.00
7.5
6.1
1.81
LL
40.5
46.0
37.5
33.5
46.0
43.5
39.0
46.0
43.0
34.5
38.5
-------
VANIV CELCHA) 11 NOISES AT 50 OB SPL NBS + STATS 3-15-77
vO
U>
NO.
1
2
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
MEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SOtN-1
MEAN OIFF
RANGE
SOtN-1
0-A
50.0
49.9
50.0
if 9. 9
50. 0
50.0
50.0
49.9
49.9
50.0
49.9
50.0
.1
.03
-3.6
10.4
3.84
A
41.7
50.6
*
40.6
36.1
50.5
46.2
40.4
47.2
44.0
36.1
44.1
43.4
14.5
5.02
-10.3
6.6
2.02
3
46.2
49.7
45.3
43.9
49.7
48.7
43.9
49.4
47.7
42.8
47.6
46.6
6.9
2.54
-6.9
5.7
1.67
C
49.2
49.7
49.0
48.6
49.8
49.9
48.7
49.9
49.6
49.2
49.7
49.4
1.2
.45
-4.3
9.5
3.44
01
46.2
57.4
46.5
43.5
56.8
51.9
44.7
51.7
49.3
42.7
46.7
49.0
14.7
4.99
-4.7
8.1
2.40
02
45.4
57.3
45.6
41.4
56.8
51.7
44.2
51.6
48.9
40.9
1
48.3
48.4
16.4
5.58
-5.4
8.4
2.66
E*
45.6
53.6
44.7
41.9
53.3
49.7
43.5
50.2
47.7
40.9
47.5
47.1
12.7
4.30
-6.6
5.9
1.69
MK6
51.2
61.3
52.1
44.4
62.0
58.7
50.8
58.2
55.7
44.0
55.2
54.0
18.0
6.12
.2
8.8
2.71
MK7
47.3
54.3
46.4
41.5
55.0
52.5
45.9
52.7
50.1
41.5
49.7
48.8
13.5
4.72
-4.9
4.3
1.47
PNL
50.0
61.0
50.7
* 4.1
61.6
57.4
48.5
56.2
54.5
43.9
53.6
52.9
17.7
6.06
-.9
8.6
2.72
PNLC
50.7
62.8
53.5
45.2
63.1
60.2
49.8
57.8
55.2
44.8
53.6
54.2
18.3
6.36
.5
9.5
3.19
ZWCKFF
58.1
64.2
58.7
53.4
65.2
63.8
58.0
63.2
61.7
54.5
61.9
6C.3
11.8
3.98
6.5
3.0
.85
ZWCKOF
59. 4
64.7
59.7
54.7
65.7
64.6
59.3
64.1
62.6
£>5.d
63. C
61.2
11.0
3.72
7.5
3.1
.81
LL
52.3
57.0
51.0
47.5
58.0
57.5
51.0
56.0
57.0
43.5
55.5
-------
YANI¥ fELCHAl 11 NOISES AT 60 08 SPL NBS * STATS 3-15-77
t
NO.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
• 10
11
12
NEAN LEVEL
RANGE
SO.N-1
NEAN OIFF
RANGE
SD.N-1
0-A
60.0
59.9
60.0
59.9
60.0
60.0
60.0
59.9
59.9
60.0
59.9
60.0
• 1
.03
-5.3
9.2
3.13
A
51.7
60.6
50.8
46.1
60.5
56.2
50.4
57.2
54.0
46.1
54.1
53.4
14.5
5.02
-11.8
8.5
2.64
B
56.2
59.7
55.3
53.9
59.7
58.7
53.9
59.4
57.7
52.8
57.6
56.8
6.9
2.54
-8.4
4.2
1.18
C
59.2
59.7
59.0
58.8
59.8
59.9
58.7
59.9
59,6
59.2
59.7
59.4
1.2
.45
-5.8
8.7
2.77
01
56.2
67.4
56.5
53.5
66.8
61.9
54.7
61.7
59,3
52.7
58.7
59.0
14.7
4.99
-6.2
9.6
2.89
02
55.4
67.3
55.6
51.4
66.8
61.7
54.2
61.6
58.9
50.9
58.3
58.4
16.4
5.58
-6.8
9.9
3.29
E#
55.6
63.6
54.7
51.9
63.3
59.7
53.5
60.2
57.7
50.9
57.5
57.1
12.7
4.30
-8.1
7.4
2.08
MK6
64.2
71.0
64.5
60.9
71.6
68.8
64.1
68.2
67.0
60.3
67.0
66.1
11.3
3.72
.9
5.5
1.66
NK7
57.7
63.0
57.5
53.3
63.7
61.5
56.7
61.7
60.1
53.3
60.0
59.0
10.4
3.57
-6.3
4.4
1.39
PNL
61.7
71.4
62.3
57.6
71.9
68.0
60.6
66.8
65.4
56.8
64.7
64.3
15.1
5.04
-.9
7.8
2.69
PNLC
62.4
73.1
65.1
58.7
73.4
70.7
61.8
68.4
66.2
57.8
64.7
65.7
15.6
5.35
.4
8.4
3.13
ZMCKFF
69.5
74.4
70.1
65.9
75.4
74.3
69.6
73.6
72.5
67.1
72.8
71.4
9.5
3.13
6.2
4.3
1.41
ZWCKDF
70. b
74.8
70.9
66.9
75.8
75.0
70.7
74.4
73.3
68.2
73.7
72.2
8.9
2.95
7.0
4.4
1.3d
LL
64.5
67.5
63.0
. 61.5
68.5
67. 0
63.0
68.5
69.0
59.9
65.0
-------
.t
VO
in
s
81
83
O.
CO
§1
o
o
8
JflHN KU THIRD 0CTRVE
s
si
o.
CM
I I I I I III
I II I I I I I
FREO. (HZ)
i i ii
i i i i i i i T
-------
i i n 1 1 nri rn ; ni . n ri in (
i n n n .
I vi
n i m nn ri n r r* ri
HMWMHMWMWHWMWMHMWMWMWMWMMMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW
0.0
63.0
63.5
C.O
54.0
63.5
0.0
57.5
64.0
0.0
59.5
62.5
0.0
61.5
61.5
0 .0
51.0
66.0
0.0
58.0
66.5
0.0
61.0
57.5
0.0
54.5
63.0
0*0
57.0
65.5
0.0
65.0
62.5
0.0
51.5
59.0
0.0
60.5
62.5
3.0
62.0
59.5
J.O
58.5
59.5
0.0
56.0
64.0
G.O
56.5
55.5
0. 0
68.0
54.0
0.0
56.5
58.0
0.0
63.0
61.5
0.0
61.0
57.5
0.0
57.0
56.5
0.0
59.0
61.0
0.0
61.5
53.5
C.O
69.5
57.5
Q.O
59.0
62.5
0.0
70.5
51.0
0. 0
67.5
48.5
u. 0
56.0
55.0
C.O
60.5
59.0
0.0
59.5
54.5
0.0
59.5
56.0
0.0
58.0
63.5
o.o
64.5
50.5
0.0
62.0
52.0
0.0
59.0
61.5
a.o
60.5
53.0
n. 0
61.5
45.5
0.0
60.0
52.0
3.0
59.0
54.0
0.3
6^.0
55.0
C.O
64.5
54.5
0.0
58.0
60.0
C • 3
66.5
5C.5
0.0
55.0
51.5
0.0
59.5
60.0
0.0
59.0
44.5
C.O
65.5
44.0
0.0
62.5
52.0
u. D
57.5
53.5
0.0
58.5
52. 0
0.0
61.0
52.0
0.3
60.5
58.0
0*0
65.5
47.5
0.0
56.0
51.5
G.O
59.5
59.0
0.0
60.0
40.0
0.0
63.5
40.0
0.0
63.0
49.0
0.0
62.5
51.0
J • u
62.5
49.5
0.0
63.0
46.5
0.0
56.0
61. 0
C.O
64.5
46.5
0.0
58.0
49.0
2.0
60.0
57.5
0.0
59.0
34.0
O.C
61.0
37.0
0.0
64.0
43.0
C.O
62.0
47. 0
C.O
56.5
O.G
O.C
65. 0
C.G
0.0
60.3
O.C
C.G
60.5
O.C
0.0
54.0
O.G
0.0
60.0
O.C
O.G
56.2
0.0
0.0
57.5
C.G
O.C
60. C
0.0
0.0
60.5
0.0
0.0
59.0
0.0
0.0
66.5
c.a
0 .3
62.0
0.0
C.O
61.5
C.O
C.O
57.5
C . 0
0.0
63.0
O.C
o.o
60.0
C .0
Q .0
58.5
C.O
0.0
62.5
o.o
0.0
62.5
0.0
34.0
57.0
0.0
29.5
65.5
0.0
35.0
62.0
0 .0
40.0
60.0
0.0
34. y
63.0
C.O
35.0
64.0
O.C
34.0
59.0
0 .C
35.0
59.5
0.0
31.0
63.5
0.0
40.0
65.0
0.0
58.5
58.5
44.5
61.5
46. 3
61.5
47,0
56.5
57.5
58.5
42.0
63. 0
5C.5
57.5
48.0
56.0
41.0
62.5
58. C
62.5
67.
%1.
50.
62.
52.
63 «
59.
59.
66.
59.
<+8.
63.
54,
58.
60.
56.
51.
63.
48.
63.
5JAH30C
OJAH30C
JAH30C
5JAH30C
OJAH30C
JAH30C
3JAH30C
OJAH30C
JAH30C
5JAH30C
5JAH30C
JAH30C
5JAH30C
OJAH30C
JAH30C
5JAH30C
CJAH30C
JAH30C
5JAH30C
OJAH30C
JAH30C
OJAH30C
5JAH30C
JAH30C
5JAH33C
5JAH30C
JAH30C
OJAH30C10
CJAH30C1Q
JAH30C10
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA 550-9-77-101
RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Comarison of Various Methods for Predicting
the Loudness and Acceptability of Noise.
REPORT DATE
August 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
B. Scharf, R. Hellman, J. Bauer
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Auditory Perception Laboratory
North Eastern University
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-4223
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/ONAC
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT " • " ~~ " " ~~
The objective of this investigation was to compare commonly employed frequency
weightings and calculation rating schemes with respect to their ability to predict
the subjective effect of sound. This report presents the results of a detailed
examination of 23 studies in which listeners judged either the loudness or acceptabili
of sound. These studies included data available from both the laboratory and the
field, and encompassed a wide variety of natural and simulated noise stimuli. The
following parameters were examined: (1) subjective attribute judged, (2) type of
noise, (3) presence or absence of tonal components, (4) mode of sound presentation,
and (5) effect of sound pressure level on observed discrepancies between measurements
and predictions. Included in this analysis are computations of absolute mean
differences between subjectively equal sounds, mean differences between calculated
and measured levels, and standard deviations for each frequency-weighting and
calculation system.
Among the overall findings were that:
a.
the standard deviations produced by the A, Dl, D2, and E frequency
weighting schemes are significantly smaller than the standard deviations
Produced by *•->»«» B and C weiyht.inys . -- .
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Noise, Annoyance, Loudness,
Subjective Response, Noise Ratings
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Limited Supply Available at EPA/ONAC
(AW-471) Washington D.C. 20460
Available at NTIS
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (ntspage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
(Continued)
b. the standard deviations produced by the Dl and E weightings are
not significantly different from each other but are significantly
smaller than that produced by the A weighting.
c. the D2 weighting does not appear to be significantly better
than either the Dl or E weightings, nor is it statistically
different from the A weighting.
d. only the Mark VI and Mark VII calculation systems show significantly
smaller standard deviations than the Dl and E weightings, although
the Mark VI, Mark VII, PNL, and Zwicker systems all exhibit
significantly smaller standard deviations than the A, B, and C
weightings.
------- |