This paper describes six new experiments involving subjective ratings of the listener envelopment, LEV, and the apparent source width, ASW, of simulated sound fields. Previous work has identified LEV and ASW as the principal components of spatial impression in concert halls and has shown that ASW is primarily influenced by the level of early lateral reflections and LEV by late-arriving lateral reflections. The new results in this paper show that LEV can result from nonlateral late-arriving sounds and demonstrate the conflicting effects of early- and late-arriving lateral sound on ASW and LEV when both are present, as would occur in real halls. While it is possible to create simulated sound fields with only either LEV or ASW, in typical concert halls, the balance between early- and late-arriving lateral sound will determine the relative importance of LEV and ASW. LEV and ASW are shown to be perceived when the critical components of the sound field are salient relative to other components. The results of the new subjective studies were used to estimate expected ASW and LEV in 16 halls. In these halls LEV is predicted to be the stronger component of spatial impression.

1.
W.
Kuhl
, “
Spaciousness (spatial impression) as a component of total room impression
,”
Acustica
40
,
167
181
(
1978
).
2.
A. H.
Marshall
, “
A note on the importance of room cross-section of concert halls
,”
J. Sound Vib.
5
(
1
),
100
112
(
1967
).
3.
M.
Barron
, “
The subjective effects of first reflections in concert halls: The need for lateral reflections
,”
J. Sound Vib.
15
(
4
),
475
494
(
1971
).
4.
M. Morimoto and Z. Maekawa, “Auditory spaciousness and envelopment,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Acoustics, Belgrade, 1989 (SAVA Centar), pp. 215–218.
5.
M.
Morimoto
and
K.
Iida
, “
A new physical measure for psychological evaluation of a sound field; front/back energy ratio as a measure of envelopment
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
93
,
2282
(A) (
1993
).
6.
J. S.
Bradley
and
G. A.
Soulodre
, “
The influence of late-arriving energy on spatial impression
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
97
,
2263
2271
(
1995
).
7.
M.
Barron
and
A. H.
Marshall
, “
Spatial impression due to early lateral reflections in concert halls: The derivation of a physical measure
,”
J. Sound Vib.
77
(
2
),
211
232
(
1981
).
8.
M. Moromoto and K. Iida, “Relation between auditory source width in various sound fields and degree of interaural crosscorrelation,” International Symposium on Computer Modelling and Prediction of Objective and Subjective Properties of Sound Fields in Rooms, Copenhagen, August, 1991 (unpublished).
9.
J. S.
Bradley
and
G. A.
Soulodre
, “
Objective measures of listener envelopment
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
98
,
2590
2597
(
1995
).
10.
P. Evjen, J. S. Bradley, and S. G. Norcross, “The effect of late reflections from above and behind on listener envelopment,” Appl. Acoust. (to be published).
11.
“Anechoic orchestral music recording,” Denon CD PG-6006, 1988.
12.
J. S. Bradley, R. Reich, and S. G. Norcross, “A just noticeable difference in C50 for speech,” Appl. Acoust. (submitted).
13.
T. J.
Cox
,
W. J.
Davies
, and
Y. W.
Lam
, “
The sensitivity of listeners to early sound field changes in auditoria
,”
Acustica
79
,
27
41
(
1993
).
14.
W. M. Hartmann, B. Rakerd, J. B. Gaalaas, T. vander Velde, W. R. Thorpe, and M. M. Oh, “Localization of sound in rooms: Broadband noise,” Michigan State University, Psychoacoustics Report 97, February 1999.
15.
J. S. Bradley, “The sound field for listeners in concert halls and auditoria,” in Computational Architectural Acoustics (WIT, Southampton, United Kingdom, 1999).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.