Next Article in Journal
Design and Fabrication of a Responsive Carrier Component Envelope
Previous Article in Journal
Structural Performance of uPVC Confined Concrete Equivalent Cylinders Under Axial Compression Loads
Previous Article in Special Issue
Characterization of New Sustainable Acoustic Solutions in a Reduced Sized Transmission Chamber
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Acoustic Enhancement of a Modern Church

by Gino Iannace 1,*, Umberto Berardi 2, Filippo De Rossi 3, Salvatore Mazza 4, Amelia Trematerra 1 and Giuseppe Ciaburro 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Submission received: 11 February 2019 / Revised: 27 March 2019 / Accepted: 8 April 2019 / Published: 15 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Noise Control in Buildings)

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a review for the paper “Enhancement of the acoustics of a modern Church”. I am positive towards this work and I am inclined to endorse it, provided that some minor points suggested below are addressed:

Please make the title more specific. E.g., “Enhancement of the acoustics of a modern Church through computer simulation: a case study in St. Pius X in Matera (Italy)” …or something like that.

The abstract should be more specific about the results; it is desirable to report some quantifiable improvements in terms of parameters already in the abstract.

The Introduction reads fine, but the literature review could be expanded a bit. I recommend mentioning some comprehensive review papers (example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022460X17306788), recent publications on the acoustics of churches (example: https://www.mdpi.com/2624-599X/1/1/4), or also some more general references about the perceived quality of the acoustics of public buildings and indoor spaces (example: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1351010X18793279).

I think the ISO suggests multiple source positions for spatial averages. Please add some justification for having only one (example: STI is interesting only for the position of the priest, or similar…)

It would be helpful for visual purposes to add a figure with a picture of the materials used for the correction, or even the sample tested in the impedence tube.

For the audience absorption coefficients, handbooks typically report audiences with different clothes – light /medium/ heavy (to account for seasonality summer/winter). Please report which set of coefficients you picked up and discuss briefly how much choosing a different set would affect calculation/results.

In line 189 it is mentioned (Table 4 [19, 20]), but there is no reference number 20 in the bibliography. Please check.


Author Response

Rev 1

This is a review for the paper “Enhancement of the acoustics of a modern Church”. I am positive towards this work and I am inclined to endorse it, provided that some minor points suggested below are addressed:

Please make the title more specific. E.g., “Enhancement of the acoustics of a modern Church through computer simulation: a case study in St. Pius X in Matera (Italy)” …or something like that.

Change as request

 

The abstract should be more specific about the results; it is desirable to report some quantifiable improvements in terms of parameters already in the abstract.

So with this solution the value of T30 is about 2.0 seconds

 

The Introduction reads fine, but the literature review could be expanded a bit. I recommend mentioning some comprehensive review papers (example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022460X17306788), recent publications on the acoustics of churches (example: https://www.mdpi.com/2624-599X/1/1/4), or also some more general references about the perceived quality of the acoustics of public buildings and indoor spaces (example: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1351010X18793279).

1.          Girón, S., Álvarez – Morales, L., Zamarreño, T., Church acoustics: A state-of-the-art review after several decades of research. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2017, 411, 378-408. doi : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2017.09.015

2.          Aletta, F.,  Astolfi, A. Soundscapes of buildings and built environments. Building Acoustics 2018, 25(3), 195–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1351010X18793279

3.          Alonso, A., Suárez, R., Sendra, J. J. The Acoustics of the Choir in Spanish Cathedrals. Acoustics 2019, 1(1), 35-46; doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/acoustics1010004

 

 

I think the ISO suggests multiple source positions for spatial averages. Please add some justification for having only one (example: STI is interesting only for the position of the priest, or similar…)

In the Church the position of the speaker is univocal and determined; and it is in the position of the altar, so this is the only position in which the sound source has been placed.

 

It would be helpful for visual purposes to add a figure with a picture of the materials used for the correction, or even the sample tested in the impedance tube.

Insert:

Fig. 6 shows: (A) the sampled used for the acoustic measurements.; (B) impedance tube.


 

Figure 6. (A) Sampled used for the acoustic measurements. (B) Impedance tube.

 

 

For the audience absorption coefficients, handbooks typically report audiences with different clothes – light /medium/ heavy (to account for seasonality summer/winter). Please report which set of coefficients you picked up and discuss briefly how much choosing a different set would affect calculation/results.

The absorption coefficients correspond to medium configuration values.

 

In line 189 it is mentioned (Table 4 [19, 20]), but there is no reference number 20 in the bibliography. Please check.

Insert ref.

Hidaka T, Nishihara N and Beranek LL. Mechanism of sound absorption by seated audiences in concert halls. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 1996, 100, 2705–2706.

 


Reviewer 2 Report

There are several major issues with this article and presentation: basically neither the origin (reason) for the article nor the specific reasons for the proposed solutions are presented. And no proof is done that the solution is better than other solutions. 


Start of study: 

- is anybody asking for a renovation? Or is this just the author(s) proposing to improve a situation that is perhaps not even a problem? 

- what is special about this church? 


Analysis of problem: 

- could the problem be solved with loudspeakers like in many other churches? This would maintain the original church acoustics for musical use and other uses when reverberation is beneficial. 


- absorption cushions could be placed on the pews, making the situation of the empty church more similar to the occupied church - and making the church less resonant and reverberant when only partially occupied. 


- placing absorption high in a church may not be the recommended location and acoustically best solution, partly depending on use, but partly in general: reverberation close to the listeners is perceived as being louder and more detrimental than reverberation from a distant location like the upper cupola. (This is different if there are focussing effects from the cupola. The question of focussing and/or local effects like which part of the room is most detrimental in reverberation is neither discussed nor studied in the paper.) 


Discussion and presentation of results: 

- as a minimum, acoustical predictions should be given for the occupied church with no additional treatment, allowing to compare the situations of (1) empty church, (2) occupied church with no treatment, (3) treated church with no audience and (4) treated church with full audience. 


- photo(s) and detailed description of proposed absorption material should be given. “absorbent sheeting” as a description is not very helpful, a discussion should be done why this material is better than other materials, and a photo should be given, indicating why this material is acceptable while apparently other materials are not acceptable. 


- has installation be tried, or is all this results of computer simulations, with basically no "proof" that the proposed solution is doing more than improving numbers. Will the acoustic quality of the church be improved or only the numbers be improved?



Author Response

There are several major issues with this article and presentation: basically neither the origin (reason) for the article nor the specific reasons for the proposed solutions are presented. And no proof is done that the solution is better than other solutions.

Start of study:

 

- is anybody asking for a renovation? Or is this just the author(s) proposing to improve a situation that is perhaps not even a problem?

The request for the Acoustic correction was received by the institution that uses the church

 

- what is special about this church?

The institution that manages the church requested an acoustic correction project because the faithful complained of a poor understanding of the spoken word. The church is internally presented with smooth plaster, the request was not to alter the internal architectural structure.

 

 

Analysis of problem:

 

- could the problem be solved with loudspeakers like in many other churches? This would maintain the original church acoustics for musical use and other uses when reverberation is beneficial.

Loudspeakers had already been installed in the Church, but they had not solved the problem of understanding speech. So it was necessary to intervene on passive acoustics with a project of correction.

 

 

- absorption cushions could be placed on the pews, making the situation of the empty church more similar to the occupied church - and making the church less resonant and reverberant when only partially occupied.

this solution was proposed, but was not accepted due to maintenance problems

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- placing absorption high in a church may not be the recommended location and acoustically best solution, partly depending on use, but partly in general: reverberation close to the listeners is perceived as being louder and more detrimental than reverberation from a distant location like the upper cupola. (This is different if there are focussing effects from the cupola. The question of focussing and/or local effects like which part of the room is most detrimental in reverberation is neither discussed nor studied in the paper.)

 

the reviewer poses a very recurrent problem in the study of these environments. The authors have addressed this problem in other papers

IANNACE, G., TREMATERRA, A., The acoustics of the Vanvitelliana hunting lodge. 17th Confeence on Applied Mathematics, APLIMAT 2018; Bratislava; Slovakia; February 6-8 February 2018; 468-478. Code 135345

TREMATERRA A., LOMBARDI I., IANNACE G., Air dome acoustics. Canadian Acoustics - Acoustique Canadienne, 45(2), 2017, 17-24.

BERARDI, U., IANNACE, G., TREMATERRA, A., The Acoustics of the Double Elliptical Vault of the Royal Palace of Caserta (Italy), Buildings 7(1), 2017, doi:10.3390/buildings7010018

Iannace, G., Di Gabriele, M., Sicurella, Sound Focusing Effects in Horseshoe Plan Theatre. Acoustics Australia 2016                44(2), pp. 359-368

 

To avoid this problem, the vaults have been covered with sound absorbing material

 

Discussion and presentation of results:

 

- as a minimum, acoustical predictions should be given for the occupied church with no additional treatment, allowing to compare the situations of (1) empty church, (2) occupied church with no treatment, (3) treated church with no audience and (4) treated church with full audience.

the reviewer provides a proper observation, For the purposes of synthesis and comprehension of the text the most significant results have been reported

empty church

with acoustic correction

with acoustic correction and audience

 

 

- photo(s) and detailed description of proposed absorption material should be given. “absorbent sheeting” as a description is not very helpful, a discussion should be done why this material is better than other materials, and a photo should be given, indicating why this material is acceptable while apparently other materials are not acceptable.

Fig. 6 shows: (A) the sampled used for the acoustic measurements.; (B) impedance tube.

 

Figure 6. (A) Sampled used for the acoustic measurements. (B) Impedance tube.

- has installation be tried, or is all this results of computer simulations, with basically no "proof" that the proposed solution is doing more than improving numbers. Will the acoustic quality of the church be improved or only the numbers be improved?

This type of material has already been used by the authors successfully.

Iannace, G., Ianniello, C., Ianniello, E., Music in an Atrium of a Shopping Center.  Acoustics Australia, 2015, 43(2), pp. 191-198

 

The numerical model provides indications about improving acoustics.


Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is interesting and it is adapt to this journal. However I suggest a minor revision for improve the article.

- The following structure would be preferable based on the Buildings  Microsoft Word template file: 1.Introduction; 2.Materials and Methods; 3.Results and Discussion; 4.Conclusions. These sections mixed in the text. The paper merges theoretical part and results throughout the paper. It is difficult to follow with this approach. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings/instructions

 

- Could you clearly distinguish your contribution and the software tool use?

- The authors need to clarify and explain the difference of the current study with the available literature, as well as the main contribution of the study to the science. 


- Please add more references because the number of scientific references is too low. In the Introduction Section, please provide more general information on the importance of research in order to emphasize the state of the art also (first general information, then specific).


- The analysis is shallow and there is a lack of critical discussion and conclusions. Please provide more information, details of the graphic representations, as well as provide a critical analysis of the results illustrated graphically in the figures.


- Usually, conclusions are supported by the analysis or by the discussions included in the main text of the paper. Please provide and highlight relevant aspects of your work so that they contain 3 to 5 short bullet points that convey the essential conclusions of your article.


- Few more specific comments and recommendations:

Define all notations that is used where the concept appears first mentioned in the main text.

There are some typos in the manuscript. Please double-check.

The quality of the English should be improved.  The clarity of the manuscript can be improved.

Having mentioned the above, this manuscript is proposed to be published after minor revision.

Author Response

- The following structure would be preferable based on the Buildings  Microsoft Word template file: 1.Introduction; 2.Materials and Methods; 3.Results and Discussion; 4.Conclusions. These sections mixed in the text. The paper merges theoretical part and results throughout the paper. It is difficult to follow with this approach. https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings/instructions

checked

- Could you clearly distinguish your contribution and the software tool use?

- The authors need to clarify and explain the difference of the current study with the available literature, as well as the main contribution of the study to the science.

We have changed same part of the paper to have a better comprehension,

 

- Please add more references because the number of scientific references is too low. In the Introduction Section, please provide more general information on the importance of research in order to emphasize the state of the art also (first general information, then specific).

added

 

- The analysis is shallow and there is a lack of critical discussion and conclusions. Please provide more information, details of the graphic representations, as well as provide a critical analysis of the results illustrated graphically in the figures.

added

 

- Usually, conclusions are supported by the analysis or by the discussions included in the main text of the paper. Please provide and highlight relevant aspects of your work so that they contain 3 to 5 short bullet points that convey the essential conclusions of your article.

added

 

- Few more specific comments and recommendations:

 

Define all notations that is used where the concept appears first mentioned in the main text.

checked

 

There are some typos in the manuscript. Please double-check.

checked

 

The quality of the English should be improved.  The clarity of the manuscript can be improved.

added

 

Having mentioned the above, this manuscript is proposed to be published after minor revision.


Round  2

Reviewer 2 Report

Author has appropriately addressed reviewer's comments. Some of the answers (or even more of the direct answers to the reviewer) could ne integrated into the text of the article to make it more understandable and logical, for example the fact that speech intelligibility is insufficient even when loudspeakers are used and that the church did not accept absorbing cushions on the benches. 

Needs one final check of English language and typographical errors, otherwise now acceptable for publication as it stands. 

Author Response

could the problem be solved with loudspeakers like in many other churches? This would maintain the original church acoustics for musical use and other uses when reverberation is beneficial.

Loudspeakers had already been installed in the Church, but they had not solved the problem of understanding speech. So it was necessary to intervene on passive acoustics with a project of correction.

 

 

- absorption cushions could be placed on the pews, making the situation of the empty church more similar to the occupied church - and making the church less resonant and reverberant when only partially occupied. (absorbing cushions on the benches)

For the acoustic correction it was not possible to abduct a solution with the chairs padded with sound-absorbing material, as for reasons of maintenance and cleaning of the chairs they had to remain in smooth wood.


Back to TopTop