On the assessment of subjective response to tonal content of contemporary aircraft noise
On the assessment of subjective response to tonal content of contemporary aircraft noise
The Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) is the primary metric used for assessing subjective response to aircraft noise. The EPNL comprises calculation of the Perceived Noise Level (in PNdB), and takes into account flyover duration and the presence of pure tones to arrive at an adjusted EPNL value. With the presence of a single significant tone, EPNL has been found to be reasonably effective for the assessment of aircraft noise annoyance. Several authors have, however, suggested that EPNL is not capable of quantifying the subjective response to aircraft noise that contains multiple complex tones. The noise source referred to as “Buzz-saw” noise is a typical example of complex tonal content in aircraft noise with an important effect on both cabin and community noise impact. This paper presents the results of a series of listening tests where a number of participants were exposed to samples of aircraft noise with six variants of aircraft engines, assumed representative of the contemporary twin engine aircraft fleet. On the basis of the findings of these listening tests, the Aures tonality method significantly outperforms the EPNL tone correction method when assessing the subjective response to aircraft noise during take-off with the presence of multiple complex tones. The participants reported ‘high pitch’ as one of the least preferable aircraft noise characteristics, and consequently, the psychoacoustics metric Sharpness was found to be another important contributor to subjective response to the noise of two specific aircraft engine groups (out of the six considered). The limitations of Aures tonality are discussed, in particular for aircraft noise with both a series of complex tones spaced evenly across the frequency spectrum with relatively even sound levels and less subjectively dominant single frequency tones (compared to broadband noise). In line with these limitations, further work is proposed for more effective assessment of subjective response to aircraft noise containing significant tonal content in the form of numerous closely spaced or other complex tones.
Aircraft noise, complex tones, tonality methods, sharpness, subjective response, listening tests
190-203
Torija, Antonio J.
6dd0d982-fcd6-42b6-9148-211175fd3287
Roberts, Seth
bf1697b7-3cdf-4f2a-beed-9e2b954e2a70
Woodward, Robin
d4a229a2-23ba-4c1e-9389-6dd5a8ade108
Flindell, Ian
15073ec6-75dd-4f54-bca1-6f8a0693944d
McKenzie, Andrew
700970e3-3f2d-454c-959f-10bbc15c9c5a
Self, Rod H.
8b96166d-fc06-48e7-8c76-ebb3874b0ef7
March 2019
Torija, Antonio J.
6dd0d982-fcd6-42b6-9148-211175fd3287
Roberts, Seth
bf1697b7-3cdf-4f2a-beed-9e2b954e2a70
Woodward, Robin
d4a229a2-23ba-4c1e-9389-6dd5a8ade108
Flindell, Ian
15073ec6-75dd-4f54-bca1-6f8a0693944d
McKenzie, Andrew
700970e3-3f2d-454c-959f-10bbc15c9c5a
Self, Rod H.
8b96166d-fc06-48e7-8c76-ebb3874b0ef7
Torija, Antonio J., Roberts, Seth, Woodward, Robin, Flindell, Ian, McKenzie, Andrew and Self, Rod H.
(2019)
On the assessment of subjective response to tonal content of contemporary aircraft noise.
Applied Acoustics, 146, .
(doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.11.015).
Abstract
The Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) is the primary metric used for assessing subjective response to aircraft noise. The EPNL comprises calculation of the Perceived Noise Level (in PNdB), and takes into account flyover duration and the presence of pure tones to arrive at an adjusted EPNL value. With the presence of a single significant tone, EPNL has been found to be reasonably effective for the assessment of aircraft noise annoyance. Several authors have, however, suggested that EPNL is not capable of quantifying the subjective response to aircraft noise that contains multiple complex tones. The noise source referred to as “Buzz-saw” noise is a typical example of complex tonal content in aircraft noise with an important effect on both cabin and community noise impact. This paper presents the results of a series of listening tests where a number of participants were exposed to samples of aircraft noise with six variants of aircraft engines, assumed representative of the contemporary twin engine aircraft fleet. On the basis of the findings of these listening tests, the Aures tonality method significantly outperforms the EPNL tone correction method when assessing the subjective response to aircraft noise during take-off with the presence of multiple complex tones. The participants reported ‘high pitch’ as one of the least preferable aircraft noise characteristics, and consequently, the psychoacoustics metric Sharpness was found to be another important contributor to subjective response to the noise of two specific aircraft engine groups (out of the six considered). The limitations of Aures tonality are discussed, in particular for aircraft noise with both a series of complex tones spaced evenly across the frequency spectrum with relatively even sound levels and less subjectively dominant single frequency tones (compared to broadband noise). In line with these limitations, further work is proposed for more effective assessment of subjective response to aircraft noise containing significant tonal content in the form of numerous closely spaced or other complex tones.
Text
APAC 2018 562 Revision 1 V0
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
Total Content of Aircraft Noise Torija et al
- Version of Record
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 14 November 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 24 November 2018
Published date: March 2019
Keywords:
Aircraft noise, complex tones, tonality methods, sharpness, subjective response, listening tests
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 426176
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/426176
ISSN: 0003-682X
PURE UUID: a4e80d39-705a-4273-ad85-29bfd4c64db9
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 16 Nov 2018 17:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 07:17
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Antonio J. Torija
Author:
Seth Roberts
Author:
Robin Woodward
Author:
Ian Flindell
Author:
Andrew McKenzie
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics