ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA

Vol. 92 (2006) 1 1
Psychoacoustics and its Benet for the
Soundscape Approach
Klaus Genuit, Andr Fiebig
HEAD acoustics GmbH, Ebertstr. 30a, 52134 Herzogenrath, Germany. [klaus.genuit][andre.ebig]@head-
acoustics.de
Summary
The increase of complaints about environmental noise shows the unchanged necessity of researching this subject.
By only relying on sound pressure levels averaged over long time periods and by suppressing all aspects of quality,
the specic acoustic properties of environmental noise situations cannot be identied. Because annoyance caused
by environmental noise has a broader linkage with various acoustical properties such as frequency spectrum,
duration, impulsive, tonal and low-frequency components, etc. than only with SPL [1]. In many cases these
acoustical properties aect the quality of life. The human cognitive signal processing pays attention to further
factors than only to the averaged intensity of the acoustical stimulus. Therefore, it appears inevitable to use further
hearing-related parameters to improve the description and evaluation of environmental noise.
A rst step regarding the adequate description of environmental noise would be the extended application of
existing measurement tools, as for example level meter with variable integration time and third octave analyzer,
which oer valuable clues to disturbing patterns.
Moreover, the use of psychoacoustics will allow the improved capturing of soundscape qualities.
PACS no. 43.50.Qp, 43.50.Sr, 43.50.Rq
1. Introduction
The meaning of soundscape is constantly transformed and
modied. The inationary use of this term refers to the
large diversity of interpretations with respect to the content
of the soundscape idea making it impossible to present a
general acknowledged denition. Often, the institutional
and disciplinary backgrounds of the researchers have a
sustainable eect on their soundscape concept. Schafer, a
soundscape pioneer, describes the vital question in this
context: What is the relationship between man and the
sounds of his environment [. . . ]? [. . . ] Only a total appreci-
ation of the acoustic environment can give us the resources
for improving the orchestration of the world soundscape
[2]. A soundscape is not an objectively existing reality
(you cannot overow the soundscape and take a picture),
but it is a culturally-aected environment constituted by
human perception [3].
Today, environmental noise is calculated and depicted
in noise-maps with the A-weighted sound pressure level
(SPL). Those noise maps neglecting the specic charac-
ter of a soundscape are often the basis for discussions and
interpretations regarding noise annoyance. In this context,
it is necessary to reect also the meaning of annoyance.
Annoyance will be used here as an overall evaluation of
Received 1 January 2005,
accepted 1 January 2005.
disturbances and unpleasantness of environmental noise, a
negative feeling evoked by sound. However, annoyance is
sensitive to subjectivity, thus the social and cultural back-
grounds have an important inuence on the subjective at-
titudes of people to noise [4] and they must be consid-
ered besides physical parameters. Therefore, the complex-
ity of noise annoyance and the description of soundscapes,
which means more than only the determination of annoy-
ance, cannot be simply described with a single parame-
ter, because many factors contribute to it. Hence, individ-
ual, contextual or physical variables, causing a deviation
from the law of averages implied by dose-response rela-
tionships, must be determined with respect to an improved
understanding of annoyance as caused by environmental
noise [5].
Psychoacoustics will make a meaningful contribution to
it and will allow the detection of specic soundscape fea-
tures.
2. Psychoacoustics in soundscape research
2.1. Psychoacoustics and soundscapes
Psychoacoustics covers one important eld of the dier-
ent dimensions involved in the environmental noise eval-
uation process. It describes sound perception mechanisms
in terms of several parameters, such as loudness, sharp-
ness, roughness, and uctuation strength as well as further
hearing-related parameters.
S. Hirzel Verlag EAA 1
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA Genuit, Fiebig: Psychoacoustics in soundscape research
Vol. 92 (2006)
Soundscape is used as the complex superposition of
natural, human and technical (emitting from machinery
or electroacoustic reproduction devices) noises and their
perception. Soundscapes consist of a number of spatially
distributed sound sources, which give the soundscapes
their distinctive features. The emitted noise of each source
could be measured and analyzed in terms of several pa-
rameters. However, the annoyance due to given individ-
ual sound sources cannot be transferred to the overall an-
noyance of an entire, complex soundscape containing the
noise of dierent sound sources, because of e.g. masking
eects [6].
Surveys have documented that spatiality plays an im-
portant role for physiological reactions and annoyance. In
the context of industrial noises, a study has investigated
the inuence of the direction of sound incidence (uni-
directional, multi-directional) on physiological reactions
and loudness evaluation. It could be observed that the re-
action to the multi-directional situation was higher than
the reaction to the uni-directional situation, although both
noise situations produced the same SPL at the position of
the listener [7]. Therefore, the spatial distribution of sound
sources as well as the direction and speed of any move-
ment of these sources can be relevant for the perception
and evaluation of environmental noise.
In fact, the determination of noise annoyance caused by
complex sound situations arising from the superposition
of the emitted sounds by a number of sources is very com-
plicated and the (binaural) signal processing involved in
human hearing has to be considered. The use of aurally-
accurate measurements provides the opportunity to con-
sider binaural signal processing phenomena.
The fact, that annoyance resulting from the listeners
surrounding soundscape is also depending on the personal
attitude of the listener, further increases the intricacy of the
soundscape approach, which has to integrate important as-
pects, such as the physical situation, experience and inter-
pretation of the environment into one broad concept [8].
Even visual information of the location aects noise eval-
uation [9]. Abe et al. concluded that the inuence of visual
and verbal information on the auditory evaluation of envi-
ronmental sounds is considerable [10]. In order to capture
the mentioned diculties with respect to human sensation
and evaluation of environmental noise, the transformation
of a sound event (the physical situation) into the perceived
sound event has to be considered. This transformation is
inuenced by dierent aspects: rst of all, the physical as-
pect; secondly, the psychoacoustic aspect: the human hear-
ing processes sound depending on the time structure and
frequency distribution. And thirdly, the psychological as-
pect, including context, the kind of information, the in-
dividual expectation and attitude to the sound, is nally
leading to the evaluation of the sound event.
Therefore, a multi-dimensional approach, considering
these dierent aspects adequately, is necessary to meet the
requirements of the soundscape approach, the [. . . ] total
appreciation of the acoustic environment [2].
2.2. The application of psychoacoustics in the con-
text of environmental noise
Dierent calculation methods and models, which, accord-
ing to the rule of distance for SPL reduction, and by tak-
ing into account propagation properties, reections against
objects, damping factors, are an attempt in predicting how
A-weighted SPL evolves as a function of distance, how-
ever, neglecting time and frequency information. In real-
ity though, the calculated LAeq and the expected corre-
sponding noise annoyance, often dier widely from the
evaluations made by the concerned residents [11]. This ex-
plained with the fact that the human hearing, in contrast to
a sound level meter, is not an absolute measuring instru-
ment. It shows a dierentiated sound perception due to its
non-linearity and adaptivity as well as its signal process-
ing characteristics, paying attention to further factors than
only to the averaged intensity of the sound event [12].
It could be established that the time structure of occur-
rence of sound events in the context of trac noise has
a major inuence on the noise annoyance. A high traf-
c load noise can be evaluated as more pleasant than low
trac load noise because of the perceivable single vehicle
pass-bys penetrating the quietness, which startled per-
manently the exposed persons. For example, trac noise
was measured and analyzed for the understanding of exte-
rior vehicle noise perception and resulting eects on man
in the European research project Sound Quality of Exte-
rior Vehicle Noise (SVEN). There, trac noise recorded
in L-shaped and U-shaped streets was analyzed and eval-
uated. The noise for the L-shaped building street was
judged by the majority to be a bit or much louder and more
dangerous, unpleasant and annoying compared with the U-
shaped street. With respect to the general judgements the
L-shaped building trac noise was again judged less
fa vourable. Therefore, the street shape U-shaped, L-
shaped aects also the noise situation (because of dif-
ferent reection patterns and time structure) and the noise
annoyance respectively [13].
Another ongoing European research project is Quiet
City Transport (QCity), which underlines the endeavour
to further explore the connection between urban noise and
its perception and evaluation [14]. It was observed that
many hot-spots regarding complaints cannot be explained
with data from noise maps alone. The L
Aeq
does not suf-
ciently describe the environmental noise and its percep-
tion.
Figure 1 illustrates the behaviour of dierent parame-
ters in dependency on distance in free eld. It schemat-
ically depicts on the basis of tonal and broadband noise
the behaviour of dierent parameters in dependency on
the distance. It makes clear the dierent behaviour of psy-
choacoustic parameters compared with the decrease of the
SPL.
Figure 2 shows the calculation of these parameters of
a vehicles pass-by noise recorded in dierent distances
from the moving source. In contrast to the principle of the
SPL distance dependency, the psychoacoustic parameters
2
Genuit, Fiebig: Psychoacoustics in soundscape research ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
Figure 1. Relative change of psychoacoustic parameters com-
pared with A-weighted SPL as a function of distance (distance
vs. percent) for tonal noise and broad band noise (dashed lines).
Figure 2. Analyses of a vehicle pass-by noise recorded at dier-
ent distances (7 m, 25 m, 50 m, 100 m); Level (A) vs. time, Loud-
ness vs. time; Sharpness vs. time, Hearing Model Roughness vs.
time.
are also less dependent fromthe distance and fromthe SPL
respectively [15].
The vehicle pass-by noise is further analyzed in Figures
3 and 4. The occurrence and the persistence in particular
of disturbing patterns in the noise event can be observed,
too. The modulation spectra clearly shows the unchanged
particularities of the vehicles pass-by noise, although the
L
Aeq
decreases with distance (Figure 3, Figure 4).
Moreover, the diagram depicting the Relative Ap-
proach, a pattern measurement algorithm, underlines this
conclusion. (Figure 4) This calculation method identies
changes in the short time spectrum with respect to fre-
quency and time domain applying the dierence calcula-
tion between current signal values and estimated values.
The estimated value is derived from the signal known up
to the current time. The determined dierence can be in-
terpreted as the short time signal change [12].
The diagrams show that specic acoustic properties
(tonal components, pattern in the time and frequency do-
main, etc.) attracting attention, remain nearly unchanged
in a case of a tenfold increase of the distance and de-
crease of L
Aeq
. In case, those properties are not evaluated
Figure 3. Analyses of a vehicle pass-by noise recorded at dier-
ent distances (7 m, 25 m, 50 m, 100 m); 1/3Octave Modulation
Spectrum.
Figure 4. Analyses of a vehicle pass-by noise recorded at dier-
ent distances (7 m, 25 m, 50 m, 100 m); Relative Approach.
as pleasant in the context of environmental noise pre-
sumably the car pass-by noise is rarely evaluated as pleas-
ant the noise annoyance does not decrease in the same
way compared with the decline of the L
Aeq
.
The evaluation of tram noise is also often complex.
The next example, recorded in Brussels, shows the insuf-
ciency of averaged SPL descriptions for the understand-
ing of noise annoyance. Although the A-weighted L
eq
is
almost identical, the evaluations, given by a small sam-
ple of test subjects, dier widely. Two curves squeal noise
events were compared. Tram 1 and tram 2 do not consid-
erably dier in L
Aeq
(left 80,05 dBA / right 75,0 dBA to
80,3 dBA / 73,9 dBA) and loudness (46,2 sone / 30,4 sone
to 49,3 sone / 35,0 sone). The dierence in the sharp-
ness gives rst information (3,29 acum / 2,31 acum to
4,38 acum / 3,26 acum) about relevant features of the
sound events for the evaluation. Tonal components as well
as temporal variations could also be identied. The Rela-
tive Approach clearly shows pattern in the time domain,
which nally led to the dierent evaluations (Figure 5).
3
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA Genuit, Fiebig: Psychoacoustics in soundscape research
Vol. 92 (2006)
Figure 5. Tram curves squeal noise (left: tram 1, right: tram 2),
Relative Approach.
Impressive sound features contribute to overall judgments
regardless of their sound pressure levels [16].
Figure 6. The Evaluation of Soundscapes.
To sum up, the examples mentioned above point out the
necessity of new approaches, measurement techniques and
new parameters in order to adequately grasp the partic-
ularities of a soundscape and to suciently consider the
mechanism of sound perception. Conventional parameters
and analysis techniques are not sucient. A new approach
has to be applied involving aurally-accurate measurements
and psychoacoustic analyses, where the characteristics of
the human auditory apparatus are taken into account.
3. Evaluation of soundscapes
3.1. Questions and answers
Human hearing can classify complex soundscapes into
single sound events because of its binaural hearing and
its consequential directional hearing and selectivity. Single
contributions to a soundscape can be selected by human
hearing and decisively inuence the individual evaluation.
Thus, if people are complaining about noise annoyance,
the actual reasons for noise objection have to be explored
rst. Physical, psychoacoustic and binaural signal process-
ing as well as cognitive aspects aect the evaluation of en-
vironmental noise. (Figure 6)
Relevant questions may be: Which of the existing sound
sources causes the noise annoyance? Which kinds of sig-
nal attributes like modulation or specic patterns in the
time and frequency domain are creating the annoyance? Is
the time structure responsible for the complaints? Are in-
formative features relevant with respect to the annoyance?
Is the noise unpleasant or conspicuous due to modulation
or are there noticeable patterns in the time or frequency
range? What kind of attitude and expectation has the lis-
tener?
Answers to those questions can already give signicant
information about the actual causes for complaints. On
the one hand, these answers already allow rst successful
measures in order to improve the perceived environmental
noise quality [17]. The phrase sound/noise quality in the
context of environmental noise is also frequently used by
other authors [18].
4
Genuit, Fiebig: Psychoacoustics in soundscape research ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
On the other hand, the acoustic analysis of the sound-
scape can be carried out in a more goal oriented manner, if
the exposed persons give reasons for their annoyance.
3.2. Measurement of soundscapes Aurally-
equivalent sound measurement
With conventional one-channel measurements it is not
possible to suciently determine environment noise qual-
ity and the annoyance caused by a complex environmen-
tal sound situation constituted by several spatially dis-
tributed sound sources. Important aspects, which inuence
the subjective impression, are masking eects, sound im-
pression, spatial distribution and complex phase relations.
Conventional measurement and analysis technique only
partly take into account these aspects. The use of binau-
ral technology is recommended to bridge this gap. The
articial head accurately simulates acoustically relevant
components, and it is able to obtain aurally-accurate bin-
aural recordings of sound events. The playback of binau-
ral recordings creates an auditory impression for the lis-
tener which is the same as it would have had been ex-
perienced if the listener had been present at the original
sound event [19]. The results of listening tests, realistically
playing-back the noise situations, are highly valid and re-
liable. Measurements with binaural technology are neces-
sary if subsequent reproductions of noise are required, e.g.
in the case of further examination in laboratories (listening
tests). This insight has become widely accepted; the use of
binaural technology and psychoacoustic analyses, consid-
ering both channels, in acoustic engineering win slowly
recognition [20] (Figure 7).
3.3. Calculations models and analyses
Generally, environmental noise is perceived by the sound
perception mechanisms of human hearing. The perceived
sound event can be described and analyzed in terms
of psychoacoustic parameters, such as loudness, sharp-
ness, roughness, and uctuation strength. These parame-
ters describe the environmental noise situation better than
the simple A-weighted SPL and capture relevant, ear-
catching phenomena of the noise.
Dierent preliminary calculation models integrating se-
veral parameters have been developed to determine annoy-
ance. For example, Zwicker calculated the unbiased an-
noyance with loudness, sharpness and uctuation strength
[21], Terhardt developed a model for the determination
of Wohlklang (pleasantness of noise) using loudness,
sharpness, roughness and tonality [22], Preis worked with
annoyance loudness (time-averaged value of the dierence
between loudness of the noise and background sound), in-
trusiveness including sharpness, and distortion of informa-
tional content in order to determine noise annoyance re-
ception [23]. Further research must be carried out to deter-
mine a model integrating the relevant parameters, which
considers the sound perception mechanism and correlates
with annoyance evaluation respectively. Therefore, inter-
action eects of dierent parameters (e.g. psychoacoustic)
with respect to annoyance caused by environmental noise
Figure 7. Articial head technology used for environmental noise
recordings.
have to be studied. The application of further parameters
besides the known psychoacoustic parameters can be
helpful regarding the description and evaluation of envi-
ronmental noise as shown in some examples mentioned
above.
3.4. Existing tools for the improved description of
environmental noise
The intelligent use of already existing tools and analyses
would be a step forward that would allow an improved
5
ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA Genuit, Fiebig: Psychoacoustics in soundscape research
Vol. 92 (2006)
Figure 8. Airplane take-o noise; level(A) vs. time (green, red-
level(A) vs. time(Fast); blue, pink- level(A) vs. time(0,002 ms)
of frequency band(1,4 kHz to 1,6 kHz).
Figure 9. Airplane take-o noise; Level(A) vs. Time (zoom)
(green, red- Level(A) vs. Time(Fast); blue, pink- Level(A) vs.
Time(0,002 ms) of frequency band (1,4 kHz to 1,6 kHz).
analysis of noise. For example, the application of a third
octave analyzer and sound pressure level meter with vari-
able integration time is a simple but suitable approach.
An integration time of 2 ms, which corresponds with the
human hearing time resolution, allows the detection of
strong modulations and apparent variations [24]. In con-
trast to constant sound pressure level curves (level vs.
time) varying curves in the short-time domain usually lead
to a higher level of annoyance. In addition, the comparison
of frequency selected levels to the total A-weighted SPL
curve points out the relevance of prominent spectral bands.
An example is given in Figure 8. There, a prominent tonal
band was detected in the sound event, which possesses a
distinctive time structure in the short time domain. The dif-
ferent integration times used in the Figure display the dif-
ference of the curves, which possess dierent explanatory
power for the description and interpretation of the noise
situation. The detected tonal band dominates the sound
event with respect to the SPL and therefore, contributes
signicantly to the overall impression. (Figure 9)
The application of these opportunities frequency l-
tering, variation of integration time can already help to
recognize disturbing patterns without much eort. Unfor-
tunately, the legislators and decision makers often do not
use these simple tools in the context of the evaluation of
environmental noise.
However, questions concerning annoyance of environ-
mental noise cannot be satisfactorily answered by the pre-
sented parameters alone. Both, the nature of the informa-
tion in the acoustic environment and the attitude of ex-
posed persons greatly aect the subjective impression and
must be added to the (psycho-) acoustic analyses.
4. Conclusions
Conventional noise-maps listing only SPL values aver-
aged over dierent time intervals cannot describe environ-
mental noise quality adequately. Inevitably, such averag-
ing measures are crude and hide the substantial exposure
variation relevant for individual annoyance reactions [1].
One necessary measure is the increased application of
articial head technology in the environmental noise con-
text. Only binaural recording technology, analog to human
hearing, allows an objective sound recording and can reg-
ister sound in relation to direction of the sound incidence.
The binaural recordings allow the aurally-accurate repro-
duction of acoustic scenarios, which are directly compara-
ble with respect to pleasantness or annoyance by listeners.
To sum up, the soundscape approach can help to bridge
the explained gaps, which cannot be overcome with con-
ventional methods alone. In order to achieve the common
purpose of improving soundscapes with respect to pleas-
antness and reduced annoyance, environmental sound de-
sign with a multi-dimensional understanding must be car-
ried out. This implies that the ultimate causes for com-
plaints and high annoyance have to be identied, e.g. spe-
cic noise features caused by a certain sound source. Then,
promising measures as a kind of sound design are feasible
and, if possible, the modication of the responsible source.
Thus, physical aspects, psychoacoustic aspects, taking
into account the human (binaural) signal processing, and
cognitive, psychological aspects, regarding variables like
information content, acceptance of sound sources, atti-
tude of the listener, have to be adequately considered.
From acoustics and psychoacoustics we will learn about
the physical properties of sound and the way sound is
interpreted by the human brain. From society we will
learn how man behaves with sounds and how sounds af-
fect and change his behaviour. From the arts, [. . . ] we
will learn how man creates ideal soundscapes [. . . ] [2].
Only the elaborate combination of those disciplines will
allow the identication of promising measures against un-
wanted sound or better against unwanted sound features.
The rst step to meet this claim regarding the aspects of
physical properties of the sound will be the extension from
averaging energy descriptions (based on SPL values) to
a more detailed acoustic description taking into account
6
Genuit, Fiebig: Psychoacoustics in soundscape research ACTA ACUSTICA UNITED WITH ACUSTICA
Vol. 92 (2006)
acoustic properties of the sound events. To achieve an im-
proved description of the soundscape, psychoacoustic pa-
rameters have to be applied. The use of psychoacoustic
parameters and the detection of temporal and spectral pat-
terns will advance soundscape evaluations as exemplarily
shown and will considerably improve perceptually-related
assessments of the environmental sound quality and its ex-
pected annoyance impact. Furthermore, new parameters,
like the Relative Approach, must be developed to charac-
terize the noise situation further. The use of simple tools,
e.g. third octave analyzer, level meter with variable inte-
gration time, already give an improvement and the oppor-
tunity to identify disturbing components without much ef-
fort. Moreover, the idea of creating psychoacoustic maps
integrating further parameters in conventional noise maps
will allow, as a starting point, the application of the sound-
scape approach with psychoacoustics to the environmental
and community noise context [25]. The demand and chal-
lenge is to put some quality into environmental criteria
[26].
References
[1] B. Berglund: Theory and method in perceptual evaluation
of complex sound. In: Recent Trends in Hearing Re-
search. H. Fastl, S. Kuwano, A. Schick (eds.). Oldenburg,
BIS Verlag, 1996.
[2] R. M. Schafer: The soundscape: our sonic environment and
the tuning of the world. Destiny Books, Rochester, 1977.
[3] A. M. Lorenz: KlangalltagAlltagsklang. Evaluation der
Schweizer Klanglandschaft anhand einer Reprsentativ-
befragung bei der Bevlkerung. Zentralstelle der Studen-
tenschaft, Zrich, 2000.
[4] Z. Darui: Noise exposure. In: Recent Trends in Hearing
Research. H. Fastl, S. Kuwano, A. Schick (eds.). Olden-
burg, BIS Verlag, 1996.
[5] S. M. Taylor: Noise annoyance research: purpose and
progress. In: Recent Trends in Hearing Research. H.
Fastl, S. Kuwano, A. Schick (eds.). Oldenburg, BIS Ver-
lag, 1996.
[6] R. Guski: Interference of activities and annoyance by noise
from dierent sources. In: Contributions to psychologi-
cal acoustics. Results of the 7th Oldenburg symposium on
psychological acoustics. A. Schick, M. Klatte (eds.). BIS
Verlag, Oldenburg, 1997.
[7] K. Genuit, J. Blauert, M. Bodden, G. Jansen, S. Schwarze,
V. Mellert, H. Remmers: Entwicklung einer Messtech-
nik zur physiologischen Bewertung von Lrmeinwirkungen
unter Bercksichtigung der psychoakustischen Eigenschaf-
ten des menschlichen Gehrs. Schriftenreihe der Bundes-
anstalt fr Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, Forschung
Fb 774, Wirtschaftsverlag NW, 1997.
[8] H. U. Werner: Soundscapes zwischen Klanglandschaften
und Akustik Design. Welt auf tnernen fen. die tne und
das hren. Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepub-
lik Deutschland, 1994.
[9] S. Viollon: Two examples of audio-visual interactions in an
urban context. Euro-Noise 2003, Naples, Italy, 2003.
[10] K. Abe, K. Ozawa, Y. Suzuki, T. Sone: Comparison of
the eects of verbal versus visual information about sound
sources on the perception of environmental sounds. Acta
Acustica united with Acustica 92 (2006) 5160.
[11] K. Genuit: The problem of predicting noise annoyance as a
function of distance. 17. ICA, Rome, Italy, 2001.
[12] K. Genuit: Objective evaluation of acoustic-quality based
on a relative approach. Inter-Noise 1996, 25th Anniver-
sary Congress Liverpool Liverpool, England, 1996, Con-
ference Proceedings.
[13] EU Project: Sound quality of vehicle exterior noise. G6RD-
CT-1999-00113.
[14] EU Project: Quiet City Transport. Project Ref. No. 516420.
[15] K. Genuit, A. Fiebig: Prediction of psychoacoustic param-
eters. Noise-Con 2005, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2005.
[16] S. Kuwano, N. Seiichiro, T. Kato, J. Hellbrck: Memory of
the loudness of sounds and its relation to overall impres-
sion. Forum Acusticum Sevilla 2002, Sociedad Espanola
de Acustica, Sevilla, Spain, 2002.
[17] B. Schulte-Fortkamp: The impact of road surfaces on peo-
ples mind about the distinction between soundscapes.
Euro-Noise 2003, Naples, Italy, 2003.
[18] D. Dubois, C. Guastovino, V. Maolo: The meaning of
city noises: Investigating sound quality in Paris (France).
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115 (2004) 2592.
[19] K. Genuit: A special calibratable articial-head-measure-
ment-system for subjective and objective classication of
noise. Inter-Noise 1986, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA,
1986, 13131318.
[20] J. Blauert, K. Genuit: Evaluating sound environments with
binaural technology some basic consideration. J. Acoust.
Soc. Jpn. (E) 14 (1993) 3.
[21] E. Zwicker: A proposal for dening and calculating the
unbiased annoyance. In: Contributions to Psychological
Acoustics. A. Schick et al. (eds.). BIS Verlag, Oldenburg,
1991.
[22] E. Terhardt, G. Stoll: Skalierung des Wohlklangs (der sen-
sorischen Konsonanz) von 17 Umweltschallen und Unter-
suchung der beteiligten Hrparameter. Acustica 48 (1981)
247253.
[23] A. Preis: Environmental approach to noise. In: Contribu-
tions to psychological acoustics. Results of the 7th Olden-
burg symposium on psychological acoustics. A. Schick, M.
Klatte (eds.). BIS Verlag, Oldenburg, 1997.
[24] E. Zwicker, H. Fastl: Psychoacoustics. Facts and models.
Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, New York, 1990.
[25] K. Genuit: Sound quality in environment: psychoacoustic
mapping. ASA 2004, San Diego, CA, USA, 2004.
[26] Editorial, sound quality the contradiction. In: Noise and
Vibration worldwide, 32. Multi-Science Publishing, UK,
June 2001.
7