Acoustical Renovation of University Multipurpose Halls: The Case of Lala Mustafa Paşa Hall
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The content is minimal and there is no significant contribution to the literature.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required .English language checked.
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
*Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
**Is the research design appropriate? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
***Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
****Are the results clearly presented? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
*****Are the conclusions supported by the results? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The content is minimal and there is no significant contribution to the literature.
*For the introduction part new references added.
1. Cairoli M. Architectural customized design for variable acoustics in a multipurpose auditorium. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 140, 167-177.
2. Kulowski A. The caustic in the acoustics of historic interiors. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 133, 82-90.
**Research design section is developed.
Opera houses, room acoustics sections removed from literature section and this section re-organized.
***Method section is re-organized.
Method section is re-arranged as;
3. Method of the Study
3.1 Measuring Method
3.1.1.Discussion on the Measurement Results
3.2 Simulations
3.2.1 Discussion on the Simulation Results
****Results section is developed.
In this section Figures 5 and 6 combined;
Figure 5. Average (INR) and (SNR) of all the points in the hall. Is the new Figure.
Figures 7, 8 and 9 combined;
Figure 6. Average (RT), (EDT), (C80) and (D50) of all points in the hall. Is the new Figure.
Results for both measurement and simulation are left on existing Table 5.
*****Conclusion section is improved by adding average INR, SNR as Figure 5 and average of RT, EDT, C80 and D50 in Figure 6. In lines 319-323.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses a topic of technical interest. Overall, it is well structured and reasonably well written. Some of the methods ad results need, however, to be checked / revised according to the following comments.
Lines 59-60: "In order to … echoes" The phrase is quite unclear and the effect of "echoes" on "hearing conditions" should be better explained.
Lines 71-72: The balance between specular and diffuse reflections is a crucial issue in auditorium acoustics. At least one literature reference should be mentioned on this topic.
Page 4, line 88: what do you mean by "producing internal noise"?
Page 4, line 99: the definition of RT "It is the time needed for a sound to fall below 60 dB" is not correct and should be rephrased as the time needed to achieve a 60 dB level decay after sound emission is interrupted.
Page 5, line 120: while discussing C80, a a parameter used for music only, reference is made to "listening speech".
Page 5, lines 130-131 (IACC): I suggest to add at this point a reference to the book by Y. Ando "Auditory and Visual Sensation".
Pages 7-8: I recommend to combine the graphs in Figures 5 and 6 into a single graph including both INR and SNR for easier comparison of the two indexes.
Equation at line 190 of page 7: I suggest to indicate the frequencies as subscripts of RT, rather than putting them in parentheses.
Pages 8-9, Figures 7, 8, 9: The optimal values of RT/EDT, C80 and D50 should be included in the graphs for comparison with the corresponding values measured in the hall.
Page 8, Figure 7: I recommend to use "RT, EDT" instead of "TIME" as the y-axis label
Page 8, Figure 8: The significance of space averaged values of C80 should be justified; for example, SD values expressing the spread of C80 values at different positions could be shown in the graph.
Pages 8-9, Figures 7, 8, 9: The y-axis scales of the three graphs should be adjusted according to the corresponding JND values, as specified by ISO 3382 standard.
Page 9, line 223: the 10% difference limit between the RT and EDT should be justified: please insert a literature reference.
Page 10, Table 2. Use the symbol "s" for second.
Page 10, 3.2 Simulations: The calibration process of the simulation model should be better described (For more details, see for example the paper by Shtrepi et al. at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/7/3/224)
Page 11, Table 3: The values of the scattering coefficient should also be included in the table.
Page 11, Table 4: The number of rays (25111) seems low considering the volume of the hall and the detail of the geometrical model. It should be verified with run-to-run tests, increasing the number of rays up to a higher value (e.g. 100,000).
Page 12, Table 5: In order to make the comparison between measured and simulated parameters really meaningful, both measured and simulated impulse responses should be analysed using the same SW (DIRAC in this case). Following this approach, simulated values at 8 kHz and 16 kHz could also be obtained.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required. English language checked.( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
**Is the research design appropriate? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
***Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
****Are the results clearly presented? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the conclusions supported by the results? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
**reserach design improved as;
Opera houses, room acoustics sections removed from literature section and this section re-organized.
***Method section is developed as;
Method section is re-arranged as;
3. Method of the Study
3.1 Measuring Method
3.1.1.Discussion on the Measurement Results
3.2 Simulations
3.2.1 Discussion on the Simulation Results
****results improved as;
In this section Figures 5 and 6 combined;
Figure 5. Average (INR) and (SNR) of all the points in the hall. Is the new Figure.
Figures 7, 8 and 9 combined;
Figure 6. Average (RT), (EDT), (C80) and (D50) of all points in the hall. Is the new Figure.
Results for both measurement and simulation are left on existing Table 5.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper addresses a topic of technical interest. Overall, it is well structured and reasonably well written. Some of the methods ad results need, however, to be checked / revised according to the following comments.
Lines 59-60: "In order to … echoes" The phrase is quite unclear and the effect of "echoes" on "hearing conditions" should be better explained.
New referance added; Lines 62-63.
6. Sakamoto, S.; Cui, Z.; Miyashita, T.; Morimoto, M.; Suzuki, Y.; Sato, H. Effects of inter-word pauses on speech intelligibility under long-path echo conditions. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 140, 263-274.
...will stop echoes [5], adding pause of 200 ms between words will avoid echo on hearing conditions and improve intelligibility for older adults [6]. Added.
Lines 71-72: The balance between specular and diffuse reflections is a crucial issue in auditorium acoustics. At least one literature reference should be mentioned on this topic.
New 2 referances added for this point. Line 73.
1.Cairoli, M. Architectural customized design for variable acoustics in a multipurpose auditorium. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 140, 167-177.
2. Long, M. Architectural acoustics. 2nd ed. Academic press, CA, USA, 2014.
Page 4, line 88: what do you mean by "producing internal noise"?
As shown in Figure 4; Omnidirectional Loudspeakes gives various types of sound that are controlled by DIRAC on PC.
Page 4, line 99: the definition of RT "It is the time needed for a sound to fall below 60 dB" is not correct and should be rephrased as the time needed to achieve a 60 dB level decay after sound emission is interrupted.
It is rephrased. Line 100.
Page 5, line 120: while discussing C80, a a parameter used for music only, reference is made to "listening speech".
C80 for Listening speech is deleted from the article.
Page 5, lines 130-131 (IACC): I suggest to add at this point a reference to the book by Y. Ando "Auditory and Visual Sensation".
New referance added. Line 128.
20. Ando, Y. Auditory and Visual Sensations, Springer-Verlang New York, 2010
Pages 7-8: I recommend to combine the graphs in Figures 5 and 6 into a single graph including both INR and SNR for easier comparison of the two indexes.
New combined figure added, Line 175.
Figure 5. Average (INR) and (SNR) of all the points in the hall.
Equation at line 190 of page 7: I suggest to indicate the frequencies as subscripts of RT, rather than putting them in parentheses.
New formula added. Line 185.
RT125Hz+250Hz/RT500Hz+1000Hz
Pages 8-9, Figures 7, 8, 9: The optimal values of RT/EDT, C80 and D50 should be included in the graphs for comparison with the corresponding values measured in the hall.
New combined figure added. Line 199.
Figure 6. Average (RT), (EDT), (C80) and (D50) of all the points in the hall.
Page 8, Figure 7: I recommend to use "RT, EDT" instead of "TIME" as the y-axis label
It is corrceted and shown in Figure 6. Line 199.
Page 8, Figure 8: The significance of space averaged values of C80 should be justified; for example, SD values expressing the spread of C80 values at different positions could be shown in the graph.
Figure 8 is combined as Figure 6. Line 199.
Pages 8-9, Figures 7, 8, 9: The y-axis scales of the three graphs should be adjusted according to the corresponding JND values, as specified by ISO 3382 standard.
These Figures combined as Figure 6. Line 199.
Page 9, line 223: the 10% difference limit between the RT and EDT should be justified: please insert a literature reference.
Referance number 9 added new. Line 217.
Page 10, Table 2. Use the symbol "s" for second.
It is changed. Line 229.
Page 10, 3.2 Simulations: The calibration process of the simulation model should be better described (For more details, see for example the paper by Shtrepi et al. at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/7/3/224)
New explanations added for receiver and sound source locations. Line 253.
Page 11, Table 3: The values of the scattering coefficient should also be included in the table.
Table 3 is left as showing sound absorption coefficients for the surfaces with new referance.
34. Absorption coefficients. Available online: www.acoustic.ua/st/web_absorption_data_eng.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2019).
Page 11, Table 4: The number of rays (25111) seems low considering the volume of the hall and the detail of the geometrical model. It should be verified with run-to-run tests, increasing the number of rays up to a higher value (e.g. 100,000).
It is changed.
Page 12, Table 5: In order to make the comparison between measured and simulated parameters really meaningful, both measured and simulated impulse responses should be analysed using the same SW (DIRAC in this case). Following this approach, simulated values at 8 kHz and 16 kHz could also be obtained.
For real measurements DIRAC provides max. until 16000 Hz frequency but for simulations ODEON provides max. until 4000 Hz frequency results. This is the reason I used them with their own max. provided frequency.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “Acoustical Renovation of a Multipurpose Hall with conflicting Functions” describes the acoustic evaluation of a multipurpose hall (a sports space) that is in occasions adapted as an auditorium for the development of events and ceremonies. As expected, acoustic conditions of the space in the present state are not suitable for speech and music, so that the study proposes a series of solutions in order to analyse the most appropriate acoustical renovation whose results reflect adequate acoustics. The article has some merits and the topic is of interest, mainly due to the importance of acoustic quality in large spaces such as auditoriums, whose purpose is speech or the performance of musical events. However, it should be taken into account that the space under study is a sports center, and the acoustic characteristics are not those required in an auditorium.
The article exposes the onsite measurements, simulations and evaluation of the results, but no significant novelty is observed in relation to other studies of acoustic conditioning of spaces. In addition, the development of the sections is sometimes confused and somewhat disorganized. This is in principle an interesting study, however unfortunately I can not recommend publication in the journal Sustainability because whole manuscript should be completely rewritten in order to upgrade it to cope with publication.
Some general observations are explained below:
- In the "Literature review" there are a mix of concepts, solutions, coefficients and data ... The section is a little scattered and the reference works are not clearly exposed. Sometimes a kind of conclusions are even given (pg 3. Line 72: "There should be a balance ... ") instead of providing purely objective information. In other cases different sentences in the same paragraph presents a completely different topic and reference that is not related between them. A large number of parameters are described, but only some of them will be discussed later. There is even talk of subjective parameters that are not analysed in this paper. It would be advisable to omit the information that is not linked to the analysis.
This reviewer recommends reelaborate this section, trying to differentiate music and speech, as well as the different works that investigate each topic, the usual problems that may arise, etc., but in an organized way.
- It would be advisable to incorporate a section of Methodology, in which the process to be followed in the study will be clearly explained. This section could be subdivided in turn into other subsections. The "Measurig methods" section collects a variety of information that is dispersed and disorganized: on the one hand, it refers to the measurement process, although is missing the description of the characteristics of the sound source, the receiver microphones, the height of both, etc. This section also discusses the acoustic parameters, and the optimal values of each parameter. What do you mean by most practical values? The most usual? The range provided are too big, obviously a small classroom is not the same as a big cathedral, so I considered that this information is unnecessary.
As for the recommended values, these are not the same for word or music, so it is difficult to generalize and establish such specific ranges. Are these values based on a certain formula that is related to the volume? Please, specify.
Graphs 5 and 6 are unnecessary, since they simply determine that the measurements have been carried out correctly.
In the simulation section, it is implied that a calibration process of the model has been carried out, adjusting the coefficients until the differences between measured and simulated are minimal. However, the explanation of the process is not clear. Which was the unit of measurement that determines that the differences between measured and simulated are large or small? The Just Noticeable Difference (JND) is usually used in this term, but it is not mentioned in this work.
- As for the absorption coefficients used, it would be advisable to provide references.
- When it comes to show the results, both measurement and simulation, it would be advisable to incorporate a graph with a spacial average of the values, depending on each of the frequencies between 125-4k (32Hz, 63Hz, 8k and 16k could be omitted). In addition, both the average value (500Hz-1k) and the recommended values could be represented in a Table in order to establish a comparison between the different simulations. In this way, it will be possible to show all the information in a single graph: the differences between simulations and with respect to the optimal values.
It would be highly recommendable to clearly describe what each simulation consists of, justifying on a table which element is incorporated in the model.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required. English language changes are done.
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
*Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
**Is the research design appropriate? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
***Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
****Are the results clearly presented? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
*****Are the conclusions supported by the results? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
*Introduction section developed as;
*For the introduction part new references added.
1. Cairoli M. Architectural customized design for variable acoustics in a multipurpose auditorium. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 140, 167-177.
2. Kulowski A. The caustic in the acoustics of historic interiors. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 133, 82-90.
**Research design section improved as;
Opera houses, room acoustics sections removed from literature section and this section re-organized.
***Method developed as;
Method section is re-arranged as;
3. Method of the Study
3.1 Measuring Method
3.1.1.Discussion on the Measurement Results
3.2 Simulations
3.2.1 Discussion on the Simulation Results
****Results section improved as;
In this section Figures 5 and 6 combined;
Figure 5. Average (INR) and (SNR) of all the points in the hall. This is the new Figure.
Figures 7, 8 and 9 combined;
Figure 6. Average (RT), (EDT), (C80) and (D50) of all points in the hall. This is the new Figure.
Results for both measurement and simulation are left on existing Table 5.
*****Conclusion improved as;
By adding average INR, SNR as Figure 5 and average of RT, EDT, C80 and D50 in Figure 6. In lines 319-323.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript entitled “Acoustical Renovation of a Multipurpose Hall with conflicting Functions” describes the acoustic evaluation of a multipurpose hall (a sports space) that is in occasions adapted as an auditorium for the development of events and ceremonies. As expected, acoustic conditions of the space in the present state are not suitable for speech and music, so that the study proposes a series of solutions in order to analyse the most appropriate acoustical renovation whose results reflect adequate acoustics. The article has some merits and the topic is of interest, mainly due to the importance of acoustic quality in large spaces such as auditoriums, whose purpose is speech or the performance of musical events. However, it should be taken into account that the space under study is a sports center, and the acoustic characteristics are not those required in an auditorium.
The article exposes the onsite measurements, simulations and evaluation of the results, but no significant novelty is observed in relation to other studies of acoustic conditioning of spaces. In addition, the development of the sections is sometimes confused and somewhat disorganized. This is in principle an interesting study, however unfortunately I can not recommend publication in the journal Sustainability because whole manuscript should be completely rewritten in order to upgrade it to cope with publication.
Some general observations are explained below:
- In the "Literature review" there are a mix of concepts, solutions, coefficients and data ... The section is a little scattered and the reference works are not clearly exposed. Sometimes a kind of conclusions are even given (pg 3. Line 72: "There should be a balance ... ") instead of providing purely objective information. In other cases different sentences in the same paragraph presents a completely different topic and reference that is not related between them. A large number of parameters are described, but only some of them will be discussed later. There is even talk of subjective parameters that are not analysed in this paper. It would be advisable to omit the information that is not linked to the analysis.
This reviewer recommends reelaborate this section, trying to differentiate music and speech, as well as the different works that investigate each topic, the usual problems that may arise, etc., but in an organized way.
Opera houses, room acoustics sections removed from literature section and this section re-organized.
- It would be advisable to incorporate a section of Methodology, in which the process to be followed in the study will be clearly explained. This section could be subdivided in turn into other subsections. The "Measurig methods" section collects a variety of information that is dispersed and disorganized: on the one hand, it refers to the measurement process,
Method section is re-arranged as;
3. Method of the Study
3.1 Measuring Method
3.1.1.Discussion on the Measurement Results
3.2 Simulations
3.2.1 Discussion on the Simulation Results
although is missing the description of the characteristics of the sound source,
White noise explained in line 91.
the receiver microphones, the height of both, etc.
Microphones are located with 1 m, 3.5 m, 5.5 m and 7.5 m heights respectively. This is added to lines 89-90.
This section also discusses the acoustic parameters, and the optimal values of each parameter. What do you mean by most practical values? The most usual? The range provided are too big, obviously a small classroom is not the same as a big cathedral, so I considered that this information is unnecessary.
This section is removed.
As for the recommended values, these are not the same for word or music, so it is difficult to generalize and establish such specific ranges. Are these values based on a certain formula that is related to the volume? Please, specify.
Line 96- 97 shows that these values are for a hall.
Graphs 5 and 6 are unnecessary, since they simply determine that the measurements have been carried out correctly.
Figures 5 and 6 joined as new; Figure 5. Average (INR) and (SNR) of all the points in the hall.
In the simulation section, it is implied that a calibration process of the model has been carried out, adjusting the coefficients until the differences between measured and simulated are minimal. However, the explanation of the process is not clear. Which was the unit of measurement that determines that the differences between measured and simulated are large or small? The Just Noticeable Difference (JND) is usually used in this term, but it is not mentioned in this work.
Terminology of JND added in lines 260-261.
- As for the absorption coefficients used, it would be advisable to provide references.
New referance added.
34. Absorption coefficients. Available online: www.acoustic.ua/st/web_absorption_data_eng.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2019).
- When it comes to show the results, both measurement and simulation, it would be advisable to incorporate a graph with a spacial average of the values, depending on each of the frequencies between 125-4k (32Hz, 63Hz, 8k and 16k could be omitted). In addition, both the average value (500Hz-1k) and the recommended values could be represented in a Table in order to establish a comparison between the different simulations. In this way, it will be possible to show all the information in a single graph: the differences between simulations and with respect to the optimal values.
It would be highly recommendable to clearly describe what each simulation consists of, justifying on a table which element is incorporated in the model.
Results for both measurement and simulation are left on existing Table 5.
Also; Figures 5 and 6 combined;
Figure 5. Average (INR) and (SNR) of all the points in the hall. Created.
Also; Figures 7, 8 and 9 combined;
Figure 6. Average (RT), (EDT), (C80) and (D50) of all points in the hall. Created.
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript is well written, it is easy to understand. However, because there are so many parameters to be considered, I would like to propose a table, where the suggested recommendation values are presented. It would also make the values presented in Tables easier to compare. Introduction and literature review seem to be ok, and reliable references has been used. The results can be seen in Tables and Figures, and discussion is based on the results. Conclusions could be more precise to achieved results and the changes achieved in modelling. Could the actions proposals from the modelling to be collected as a list for example in Figure 10 legend? Now Figure 10 illustrates temporary reflectors, but I don´t know if they are suggested actions to improve acoustics or something unrelevant?
Minor comments:
There are abbreviations that remain unexplained like cc and IACC
Page 9 chapter 3.1. second sentence; The figure 5 should be Figure 7
Author Response
Reviewer 4
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required. English language checked.
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
***Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the results clearly presented? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
*****Are the conclusions supported by the results? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
***Method section improved as;
Method section is re-arranged as;
3. Method of the Study
3.1 Measuring Method
3.1.1.Discussion on the Measurement Results
3.2 Simulations
3.2.1 Discussion on the Simulation Results
*****Conclusion developed as;
By adding average INR, SNR as Figure 5 and average of RT, EDT, C80 and D50 in Figure 6. In lines 319-323.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript is well written, it is easy to understand. However, because there are so many parameters to be considered, I would like to propose a table, where the suggested recommendation values are presented. It would also make the values presented in Tables easier to compare. Introduction and literature review seem to be ok, and reliable references has been used. The results can be seen in Tables and Figures, and discussion is based on the results. Conclusions could be more precise to achieved results and the changes achieved in modelling. Could the actions proposals from the modelling to be collected as a list for example in Figure 10 legend? Now Figure 10 illustrates temporary reflectors, but I don´t know if they are suggested actions to improve acoustics or something unrelevant?
All of these points done. Additionally, Figure 10 is now re-numbered as Figure 7.
Legend is changed as; Figure 7. Removable reflectors for the stage support during music activities in the hall.
Minor comments:
There are abbreviations that remain unexplained like cc and IACC
cc is removed.
IACC is a measure, inter-aural cross correlation (IACC), Line 128.
Page 9 chapter 3.1. second sentence; The figure 5 should be Figure 7
It is corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The comments have been adequately incorporated in the revised draft.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.English native speaker corrected the article.
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the methods adequately described? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the results clearly presented? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the conclusions supported by the results? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The comments have been adequately incorporated in the revised draft.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
As this reviewer indicated in the previous letter, this manuscript was rejected as it should be completely rewritten in order to upgrade it to cope with publication. In the same way, an exhaustive revision of the language was required. Only some variations in the text are observed, but comments and required changes were not undertaken in depth. This reviewer can not recommend publication of this article in the journal Sustainability.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required.English native speaker corrected the article.
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
*Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
**Is the research design appropriate? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
***Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
****Are the results clearly presented? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
*****Are the conclusions supported by the results? | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
As this reviewer indicated in the previous letter, this manuscript was rejected as it should be completely rewritten in order to upgrade it to cope with publication. In the same way, an exhaustive revision of the language was required. Only some variations in the text are observed, but comments and required changes were not undertaken in depth. This reviewer can not recommend publication of this article in the journal Sustainability.
Name of the article changed to;
Acoustical Renovation of University Multipurpose Halls: the case of Lala Mustafa Paşa Hall
Odeon and Dirac has been removed from keywords and reverberation time; speech intelligibility added as new keywords.
* Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
Last paragraph of the introduction is added to show contribution the study.
This case study seeks to address some of these issues.
**Is the research design appropriate?
Literature review is enriched by adding these new references.
New paragraph added to the last paragraph of literature review section.
In educational the reverberation time and the speech transmission index and background noise have a major impact on their acoustic quality [16-18]. However, acoustical issues for coaches deals with interior noise because of side wall vibration, back area noise and floor sound transmission loss [19].
References 8,16, 17,18,19 are added new.
8-Eldakdoky, S.; Elkhateeb, A. Acoustic improvement on two lecture auditoria: Simulation and experiment. Frontiers of Architectural Research 2017, 6, 1-16.
16-Leccese, F.; Rocca, M.; Salvadori, G. Fast estimation of speech transmission index using the reverberation time: Comparison between predictive equations for educational rooms of different sizes. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 140, 143-149.
17-Sala, E.; Rantala, L. Acoustics and activity noise in school classrooms in Finland. Appl. Acoust. 2016, 114, 252-259.
18-John, J.; Thampuran, A.L.; Premlet, B. Objective and subjective evaluation of acoustic comfort in classrooms: A comparative investigation of vernacular and modern school classroom in Kerala. Appl. Acoust. 2016, 104, 33-41.
19-Jie, Z.; Xinbiao, X.; Xiaozhen, S.; Chunyan, Z.; Ruiqian, W.; Xuesong, J. SEA and conribution analysis for interior
noise of a high speed train. Appl. Acoust. 2016, 112, 158-170.
***Are the methods adequately described?
Line 125 Removed
The bass strength or bass ratio (BR) is a measure of the support the reverberation in the hall gives to the low notes of the music. It is affected by many factors, including surface materials and chair design.
****Are the results clearly presented?
Line 331 newly added.
LF80 shows the spatial configuration which fails in all simulations because it should be >25 for symphonic music.
*****Are the conclusions supported by the results?
Last two paragraphs in conclusion are added new.
It can be seen in Table 1 and Figure 3 for speech intelligibility that STI female and STI male are minimum 0.35 (poor) and maximum 0.49 (fair) for both female and male except point A9 which is fair for STI female but poor for STI male. RASTI is always poor that is minimum 0.33 and maximum 0.43 for all points.
Reverberation time of the occupied hall has minimum 2.4 and maximum 3.73 that can be seen in Table 2. In addition to these, reverberation time for real measurements is minimum 0.5 and maximum 4.9. Reverberation time for simulation 1 found minimum 1.06 and maximum 6.79 that shows no differences between measured and simulated values. Reverberation time for simulation 2 found minimum 0.84 and maximum 4.35 with the addition of curtains (0.26 kg/m2) for windows over the seating area. Reverberation time for simulation 3 found minimum 0.52 and maximum 2.16 with addition of acoustic plates on the ceiling and walls. Reverberation time for simulation 4 found minimum 0.61 and maximum 3.28 by keeping back wall and all of the walls as they are for increasing the diffusion of sound which is favorable for music performances.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
For the third time, this reviewer believes that this article is not up to the level to be published. This reviewer understand that the authors are interested and try to make an effort by modifying small things, but the article would require an absolutely complete restructuring as already stated in the first revision. In addition, originality and novelty of this article is not of great interest.
