Soundscape Evaluation of a Heritage Event in an Open Environment: The Water Tribunal of the Plain of Valencia (Spain)
, Rafael Fayos-Jordan 2, Salvador Cerdá 1, Rosa M. Cibrián 3 and Alicia Giménez-Pérez 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
As a case study, acoustic and visual soundscape evaluation of a heritage event in an open environment: the Water Tribunal of the Plain of Valencia was performed. The acoustic simulation was carried out with the different software, CATT Acoustics and ODEON, with the aim of studying the applicability of this type of tool in the study of open and semi-open heritage environments. Compared with previous studies, this study deepens the application of virtual acoustics in study of an open environment of great heritage value although the innovation of this study is not strong. The following questions should be clarified or revised before this paper is accepted.
（1）In order to facilitate the reading of scholars in different fields and improve the readability of the paper, the full names of abbreviations such as JND, EDT, C80 and C50 appearing for the first time in Section 2.2.2 should be given.
（2）In this survey, a study of the subjective response associated with the soundscape of the Water Court has been carried out. In Section 3.4, it is pointed out that a total of 30 surveys were carried out, 61.5% of which were conducted by men and 38.5% by women. Also, the information on the age ranges of the respondents corresponded to those under 30 years of age (7.7%), between 30 and 50 years of age (34.6%) and over 50 years of age (57.7%). How many subjects or respondents is recruited in public survey. How to quantify the description of the global soundscape and the appropriateness of the global soundscape to the perceived environment.
（3）Line 287-289：The auralized event just presents one main sound source, i.e. the bailiff. What are the sound sources (A-I) in Figures 7-8 respectively?
（4）Change the title of Chapter 3 into “Results and analysis”, and Chapter 4 into “Conclusions”. Furthermore, the position of corresponding contents should be adjusted.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
As a case study, acoustic and visual soundscape evaluation of a heritage event in an open environment: the Water Tribunal of the Plain of Valencia was performed. The acoustic simulation was carried out with the different software, CATT Acoustics and ODEON, with the aim of studying the applicability of this type of tool in the study of open and semi-open heritage environments. Compared with previous studies, this study deepens the application of virtual acoustics in the study of an open environment of great heritage value although the innovation of this study is not strong. The following questions should be clarified or revised before this paper is accepted.
Comment:
（1）In order to facilitate the reading of scholars in different fields and improve the readability of the paper, the full names of abbreviations such as JND, EDT, C80 and C50 appearing for the first time in Section 2.2.2 should be given.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. In the final version of the paper, we have added the full name of all the acronyms in the text for the first time they appear.
Comment:
(2）In this survey, a study of the subjective response associated with the soundscape of the Water Court has been carried out. In Section 3.4, it is pointed out that a total of 30 surveys were carried out, 61.5% of which were conducted by men and 38.5% by women. Also, the information on the age ranges of the respondents corresponded to those under 30 years of age (7.7%), between 30 and 50 years of age (34.6%) and over 50 years of age (57.7%). How many subjects or respondents are recruited for the public survey. How to quantify the description of the global soundscape and the appropriateness of the global soundscape to the perceived environment.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. In this section, we have evaluated the subjective perception of the sound source(s) in the environment… The number of subjects is 30 people responding to the survey. The perception of the global soundscape has been evaluated with two specific questions
How would you describe the sound environment around you?
This question is highly rated (with 4-5) in 65.4% of the cases
To what extent is the sound environment around you appropriate to the place it occupies?
This question is highly rated in 68% of the cases
Comment:
（3）Line 287-289：The auralized event just presents one main sound source, i.e. the bailiff. What are the sound sources (A-I) in Figures 7-8 respectively?
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. There is a difference between the auralization, in which the main sound source is the bailiff, and the measurements, made in the positions of the judges and the bailiff. Locations A, B, C, …, I correspond to the measurements made in the positions of the judges, where we have placed the dodecahedron sound source for the evaluation of the acoustic parameters.
In order to clarify this in the text, we have introduced the following sentences:
“The locations of the different judges of the different irrigation ditches correspond to the letters A to I, in Figure 1a. These locations correspond to the measurements done in the Cultural Heritage environment. The location of the bailiff is next to the position of A.”
Comment:
（4）Change the title of Chapter 3 into “Results and analysis”, and Chapter 4 into “Conclusions”. Furthermore, the position of corresponding contents should be adjusted.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. We have changed the name of these sections accordingly to the suggestion of the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper represents an application of well-known methodologies to a case study. I believe the paper does not offer anything new to the scientific community and to the potential reader. It actually looks more like a report for the commissioner of the work, not to a scientific paper. I firmly believe that the way the authors presented this paper is not the way a scientific research paper should be. I do not want to discourage authors, but there are canonic ways to write papers and the document should fulfill important requirements. At present, no new methods, or part of them, are introduced. There is nothing new and the document’s’ quality is of a conference level.
Visual soundscape is wrong.
Abstract is too short
Line 11: first sentence needs references.
All the part dealing with applications performed around the world is ok, but it should be mentioned somewhere why it is important and useful. Actually, does not seems so. Pleas improve the introduction then.
3.4 surveys. Nothing has been previously said about them. It is missing in the intro and in the methodologies. A methodology section is totally missing and the paper is not easily followable.
Conclusions are missing and discussions are poor.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment:
Section 1 must be improved. Authors should emphasize contribution and novelty, the introduction needs to clarify the motivation, challenges, contribution, objectives, and significance/implication. You should introduce the problem in more detail so that the reader is immediately clear about the purpose of your study. Specify better the essential elements of the problem. You should add more information in the introductory part, you should add other works that have also addressed the problem. At the end of the section, add an outline of the rest of the paper, in this way the reader will be introduced to the content of the following sections.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. We have added the following paragraph in the introduction section to explain and clarify the motivation and challenge:
“The purpose of this work is the analysis of the acoustic conditions in the environment of the Water Court of the Plain of Valencia and its soundscape, characterizing the main sources in this environment to serve as an objective record of the Cultural Heritage event. This study is intended to contribute to the knowledge for researchers and practitioners in outdoor Cultural Heritage events.”
At the end of this section, we have added the following paragraph:
“The paper is developed as follows: After this introductory section which motivates the work and explains the context, section 2 explains the methodology and materials used which make an exposure of the different data collection (i.e. scan of the environment, outdoor acoustic measurements, calibration and simulation of the environment, sound source characterization and auralization, and a survey for subjective soundscape evaluation). Section 3 is oriented to explain the results obtained and analyze them in the context of this Cultural Heritage event (i.e. acoustic analysis, sound source characterization, combination of the soundwalk with its visualization, analysis of the results of the survey). Finally, section 4 summarizes the main results of this work”
Comment:
Section 2 must be improved. Describe in detail the equipment used to make the measurements (Faro Focus 3D, omnidirectional microphones, and dodecahedral source). Extract this data from the datasheet of the instrumentation manufacturer. To make reading the specifications of the instruments more immediate, you must insert them in a table, listing the instruments used and the specific characteristics for each. Before describing them you should introduce the acoustic parameters you are mentioning in this section (T30, EDT, etc.).
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. We have added the followings paragraphs:
“For acoustic measurement, sound emission equipment consisting of a model DO12 omnidirectional dodecahedral sound source and a model M-1000 amplifier have been used. To record the sound emission, Behringer B5 model omnidirectional microphones have been used. In addition, an 8-channel multichannel sound card was used, of which we used one channel to emit the sweep and another 6 were used to register the sweep in the environment. Table 1 shows the specific characteristics of the measurement equipment used.”
Table 1: Specific characteristics of the equipment.
|
Equipment |
Model |
Characteristics |
|
Omnidirectional dodecahedral sound source |
DO12 |
Rated power 500W, Sound Power>120dB, Frequency range: 80 Hz-6.3 kHz |
|
Amplifier |
InterM M-1000 |
Output power level RL=4Ω bal. Stereo 520W+520W, Bridged 1000W. Freq response: DC~55KHz |
|
Omnidirectional microphone |
Behringer C2 |
Condenser. Open circuit sensitivity (at 1KHz) of -41 dBV (0 dBV=1V/Pa), linear frequency response between 20Hz and 20KHz, with 1% THD, Max SPL 140 dB (0 dB), 150 dB (−10 dB) |
|
Multichannel sound card |
Presonus AudioBox 1818 VSL |
24bit / 96K, USB 2.0, 6 input microphone/line and 2 input microphone/instruments, with pre-amp XMAX with high dynamic range (Class A) Freq. Response: 20 Hz - 22 kHz, ±0.25 dB, THD+N 0.002% +4 dBu 1 kHz |
|
3D Scanner |
FARO Focus 3D S 120 |
154 m for until 0.12 Kpoints/sec Max scan vel. 5.820rpm or 97 Hz Range 0,6m - 120m indoor/outdoor with low ambient light and normal incidence in reflectors Sist Err.: ±2mm in 25m, |
In the final version of the paper, we have added the full name of all the acronyms in the text for the first time they appear.
Comment:
You need to better describe how you prepared the survey, how you chose the population sample to which you administered it. Did you check the hearing abilities of the participants? How did you make sure that all participants heard the signal in the same conditions? Did you use any rules for the preparation of this survey? This part of your paper seems a little weak to me. You have to describe it more carefully.
Answer:
Thank you for your comments. The survey was prepared based on the so-called Swedish protocol, which is a questionnaire, where the respondents have first to assess the quality of the sound environment in the environment (referred to the auralization developed). The evaluation relied on different bipolar semantic scales (5 levels) inspired by the Swedish protocol, which was translated into Spanish taking into account the semantic elements as well as a proposal for translation into English.
[31] Axelsson, O.; Nilsson, M.E.; Berglund, B. The Swedish soundscape-quality protocol. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2012, 131, 3476–3476. doi:10.1121/1.4709112.
[34] Aletta, F., Oberman, T., Axelsson, O., Xie, H., Zhang, Y., Lau, S.K., Tang, S.K., Jambrošic, K., de Coensel, B., van den Bosch, K., Aumond, P., Guastavino, C., Lavandier, C., Fiebig, A., Schulte-Fortkamp, B., Sarwono, J., Sudarsono, A., Astolfi, A., Nagahata, K., Jeon, J.Y., Jo, H.I., Chieng, J., Gan, W.S., Hong, J.Y., Lam, B., Ong, Z.T., Kogan, P., Silva, E.S., Manzano, J.V., Yörükoglu, P.N.D., Nguyen, T.L., Kang, J., 2020. Soundscape assessment: Towards a validated translation of perceptual attributes in different languages, in: Proceedings of the 49th International Congress and Expo on Noise Control Engineering.
[35] Watcharasupat, Karn N. and Jaratjarungkiat, Sureenate and Lam, Bhan and Jitwiriyanont, Sujinat and Akaratham, Kanyanut and Ooi, Kenneth and Ong, Zhen-Ting and Suthiwan, Titima and Pichetpan, Nitipong and Rojtinnakorn, Monthita and Gan, Woon-Seng, Quantitative Evaluation Approach for Translation of Perceptual Soundscape Attributes: Initial Application to the Thai Language, arXiv, 2022.
As the survey was offered and tested over the Internet, the hearing abilities of the participants were not checked. The test was presented as a Google Form, with the recommendation to be used with headphones. The evaluation of the soundscape can be described with a circumplex model which is as follows. Attributes located 45° from each other are considered adjacent. Attributes located 90° from each other are considered orthogonal, and attributes located 180° from each other are considered antipodal. Additionally, clockwise and counterclockwise qualifiers are used to specify the relative location of an attribute with respect to another based on their locations on the circumplex model.
We have added two specific questions to evaluate the perception of the global soundscape:
How would you describe the sound environment around you?
This question is highly rated (with 4-5) in 65.4% of the cases
To what extent is the sound environment around you appropriate to the place it occupies?
This question is highly rated in 68% of the cases.
We have added the following paragraph in section 2.5:
“As the survey was offered and tested over the Internet, the hearing abilities of the participants were not checked. The test was presented as a Google Form, with the recommendation to be used with headphones. The evaluation of the soundscape can be described with a circumplex model [35].”
Comment:
Section 4 must be improved. Paragraphs are missing where the possible practical applications of the results of this study are reported. What these results can serve the people, it is necessary to insert possible uses of this study that justify their publication. They also lack the possible future goals of this work. Do the authors plan to continue their research on this topic?
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. At the end of this section, we have added the followings paragraphs:
“This is especially interesting in the current health emergency situation caused by Covid-19, offering the possibility of remote tourism. Likewise, if in the future the soundscape suffers alterations of any kind, a detailed compendium of visual and sound information on its current state would be available, which would guarantee its conservation and allow future generations to enjoy and study it.”
“As a future line of research, it is proposed to delve into the generation of interactive acoustic and visual models in open environments, in which the viewer can move freely listening and observing the same as if they made a face-to-face visit. Currently, work is being done on the development of interactive acoustic and visual models using the Unity software.”
Comment:
Thank you for your comments. We have made the following changes:
11-12) Introduce adequately the topic (Virtual acoustics)
Answer:
We have added the following paragraph:
“The concept of virtual acoustics includes a series of computer and acoustic signal processing techniques that allow to study and recreate the acoustic behaviour of a room.”
12-13) Add references to support these statements.
Answer:
The following references have been added to support the statement in line 12-13_
[1] Katz, B.F.G.; Murphy, D.; Farina, A. Exploring cultural heritage through acoustic digital reconstructions. Physics Today 2020, 73, 32-37, doi:10.1063/PT.3.4633.
[2] Pietroni, E. Mapping the Soundscape in Communicative Forms for Cultural Heritage: Between Realism and Symbolism. Heritage 2021, 4, 4495-4523
Comment:
15-17) Add more references of paper about Roman Theaters acoustic (other authors), for example: “Acoustic design of a new shell to be placed in the Roman amphitheater located in Santa Maria Capua Vetere”, and The Acoustics of the Benevento Roman Theatre”.
Answer:
We have added different references related to the soundscape of open spaces
[3] Bevilacqua, A.; Ciaburro, G.; Iannace, G.; Lombardi, I.; Trematerra, A. Acoustic design of a new shell to be placed in the Roman amphitheater located in Santa Maria Capua Vetere. Applied Acoustics 2022, 187, 108524. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2021.108524.
[4] Sukaj, S.; Ciaburro, G.; Iannace, G.; Lombardi, I.; Trematerra, A. The Acoustics of the Benevento Roman Theatre. Buildings 2021, 11. doi:10.3390/buildings11050212
[5] Chourmouziadou, K.; Kang, J. Acoustic evolution of ancient Greek and Roman theatres. Applied Acoustics 2008, 69, 514–529. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2006.12.009.
Comment:
17-19) Cite the upgraded version of the paper [5]: “Acoustic design of ancient buildings: The odea of Pompeii and Posillipo”.
Answer:
We have added the reference of Ciaburro et al. (Berardi et al. describe the problem and Cianburro et al. just add some upgrades with Posillipo)
[11] Ciaburro, G.; Iannace, G.; Lombardi, I.; Trematerra, A. Acoustic Design of Ancient Buildings: The Odea of Pompeii and Posillipo. Buildings 2020, 10. doi:10.3390/buildings10120224
Comment:
34-39) Move this section at the beginning of the section 2
Answer:
We have made this change.
Comment:
40) Add reference to ISO-3382-1.
Answer:
We have added this reference.
[17] International Stardards Organization. ISO 3382-1: Acoustics - Measurement of Room Acoustic Parameters. Part 1 : Performance Rooms; ISO, 2009
Comment:
41) Add reference to Odeon and CATT-Acoustic software to allow readers to learn more about the topic.
Answer:
We have added these references.
[26] Dalënback, D. CATT. Acoustics. http://www.catt.se/. [Online; accessed Dec 12, 2019].
[27] Christensen, C. ODEON Room Acoustics Program, Version 10.1, User Manual, Industrial, Auditorium and Combined Editions. ODEON A/S, Lyngby, Denmark, 2009
Comment:
56) Introduce adequately the location of this study (Water Court)
Answer:
In order to specify the location of this study, we have added the following paragraph:
“In this research, virtual acoustics has been applied in the study of Water Court, a heritage event that takes place in Plaça de la Verge (Virgin Square) in Valencia (Spain).”
Comment:
58) Add reference to FARO Focus 3D.
Answer:
We have added this reference.
[23] FARO Technologies Inc. FARO Laser Scanner FOCUS 3D. https://downloads.faro.com/index.php/s/CY5BS9Jd2JEf8YY, Feb 2013. [Online; accessed Apr 11, 2022].
Comment:
60) Add reference to Scene software
Answer:
We have added this reference.
[24] FARO Technologies Inc. FARO SCENE User Manual. https://downloads.faro.com/index.php/s/CJpAZrodftrR4q5?dir=undefined&openfile=114215. [Online; accessed Apr 11, 2022]
Comment:
62) “in-situ measurements” Explain how these measurements were made (what tools you used besides the FARO).
Answer:
At this point, we have change the sentence “The results obtained with the 3D scans have been compared with in-situ measurements” by the following paragraph to explain how the scanning measurements were performed and compared to in-situ measurements.
“The 3D scans were made in the environment where the Water Tribunal takes place. Also some measurements were made with a laser distance meter in the place of the Apostles’ Door at the Cathedral. These measurements were compared in the model to ensure the precision of the scan.”
Comment:
66) Add reference to ISO-3382-1
Answer:
We have added this reference.
Comment:
74) The map in Figure 1.a needs to be improved, add a legend indicating which are source positions and which microphone positions.
Answer:
We have changed the original image to the following image:
Comment:
80) Add reference to Autocad software
Answer:
We have added this reference.
[25] AutoDesk. AutoCAD Architect User’s Manual 2011. https://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/autocad_aca_user_guide_english.pdf, 2010. [Online; accessed Apr 11, 2022].
Comment:
94) ”JND” Do not use acronyms until you have presented the full definition
Answer:
In the final version of the paper, we have added the full name of all the acronyms in the text for the first time they appear.
Comment:
99-101) You are already presenting the results, in this section you just have to describe the methodology. Move Figure 3 to the next section.
Answer:
We have made this change.
Comment:
102-108) You are already presenting the results, in this section you just have to describe the methodology. Move Figure 4 to the next section.
Answer:
We have made this change.
Comment:
127-130) Explain why you characterize the voice in the anechoic chamber.
Answer:
We have made the recording in an anechoic chamber with a double objective: on the one hand, to obtain the anechoic signal of a session of the water court; on the other hand, characterize the bailiff source. By incorporating the created bailiff source into the acoustic model instead of a generic speech source, a higher degree of precision is achieved in sound auralization.
We have added the following paragraph:
“By incorporating the created source into the acoustic model instead of a generic speech source, a higher degree of precision is achieved in sound auralization.”
Comment:
131-132) You already said it, remove
Answer:
We have made this change.
Comment:
157) Introduce adequately the topic (Swedish protocol) .
Answer:
We have added the following paragraph:
“The Swedish Soundscape-Quality Protocol was first proposed by O. Axelsson et al. [29-31]. The work of Cain et al. [32] extended further the previous contribution which later became the basis for the two-dimensional model in the ISO 12913-3:2019 [20].”
[20] ISO 12913-3:2019. Acoustics — Soundscape — Part 3: Data analysis, 2019
[29] Axelsson, O., Nilsson, M.E., Berglund, B., 2009. A Swedish instrument for measuring soundscape quality, in: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Noise Control.
[30] Axelsson, O., Nilsson, M.E., Berglund, B., 2010. A principal components model of soundscape perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128, 2836–2846. doi:10.1121/1.3493436.
[31] Axelsson, O., Nilsson, M.E., Berglund, B., 2012. The Swedish soundscape quality protocol. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131, 3476.
[32] Cain, R., Jennings, P., Poxon, J., 2013. The development and application of the emotional dimensions of a soundscape. Applied Acoustics 74, 232–239. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2011.11.006, doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2011.11.006.
Comment:
170-173) How did you detect the building materials?
Answer:
These are the actual materials in the environment. They are determined through visual inspection.
Comment:
199) Figure 7: Explain in the caption what A,B,C, … refer to.
Answer:
In the text of the abscissa axis of the graph it indicates that it is the sound source.
Comment:
206) Figure 8: Explain in the caption what A,B,C, … refer to.
Answer:
In the text of the abscissa axis of the graph it indicates that it is the sound source.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Section 1 must be improved. Authors should emphasize contribution and novelty, the introduction needs to clarify the motivation, challenges, contribution, objectives, and significance/implication. You should introduce the problem in more detail so that the reader is immediately clear about the purpose of your study. Specify better the essential elements of the problem. You should add more information in the introductory part, you should add other works that have also addressed the problem. At the end of the section, add an outline of the rest of the paper, in this way the reader will be introduced to the content of the following sections.
Section 2 must be improved. Describe in detail the equipment used to make the measurements (Faro Focus 3D, omni-directional microphones, and dodecahedral source). Extract this data from the datasheet of the instrumentation manufacturer. To make reading the specifications of the instruments more immediate, you must insert them in a table, listing the instruments used and the specific characteristics for each. Before describing them you should introduce the acoustic parameters you are mentioning in this section (T30, EDT, etc.). You need to better describe how you prepared the survey, how you chose the population sample to which you administered it. Did you check the hearing abilities of the participants? How did you make sure that all participants heard the signal in the same conditions? Did you use any rules for the preparation of this survey? This part of your paper seems a little weak to me. You have to describe it more carefully.
Section 4 must be improved. Paragraphs are missing where the possible practical applications of the results of this study are reported. What these results can serve the people, it is necessary to insert possible uses of this study that justify their publication. They also lack the possible future goals of this work. Do the authors plan to continue their research on this topic?
11-12) Introduce adequately the topic (Virtual acoustics)
12-13) Add references to support these statements.
15-17) Add more reference of paper about Roman Theaters acoustic (other authors), for example: “Acoustic design of a new shell to be placed in the Roman amphitheater located in Santa Maria Capua Vetere”, and The Acoustics of the Benevento Roman Theatre “”.
17-19) Cite the upgraded version of the paper [5]: “Acoustic design of ancient buildings: The odea of Pompeii and Posillipo”.
34-39) Move this section at the beginning of the section 2
40) Add reference to ISO-3382-1.
41) Add reference to Odeon and CATT-Acoustic software to allow readers to learn more about the topic.
56) Introduce adequately the location of this study (Water Court)
58) Add reference to FARO Focus 3D.
60) Add reference to Scene software
62) “in-situ measurements” Explain how these measurements were made (what tools you used besides the FARO).
66) Add reference to ISO-3382-1
74) The map in Figure 1.a needs to be improved, add a legend indicating which are source positions and which microphone positions.
80) Add reference to Autocad software
94)” JND” Do not use acronyms until you have presented the full definition
99-101) You are already presenting the results, in this section you just have to describe the methodology. Move Figure 3 to the next section.
102-108) You are already presenting the results, in this section you just have to describe the methodology. Move Figure 4 to the next section.
127-130) Explain why you characterize the voice in the anechoic chamber.
131-132) You already said it, remove
157) Introduce adequately the topic (Swedish protocol) .
170-173) How did you detect the building materials?
199) Figure 7: Explain in the caption what A,B,C, … refer to.
206) Figure 8: Explain in the caption what A,B,C, … refer to.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment:
The paper represents an application of well-known methodologies to a case study. I believe the paper does not offer anything new to the scientific community and to the potential reader. It actually looks more like a report for the commissioner of the work, not to a scientific paper. I firmly believe that the way the authors presented this paper is not the way a scientific research paper should be. I do not want to discourage authors, but there are canonic ways to write papers and the document should fulfill important requirements. At present, no new methods, or part of them, are introduced. There is nothing new and the document’s quality is of a conference level.
Answer:
Thank you very much for your comment.
This research provides information on the applicability of the tools and procedures used in closed spaces for the acoustic study of open and semi-open heritage environments. The acoustic simulation of this type of environment allows knowing in advance the acoustic result of any intervention proposal before its practical implementation, guaranteeing that it does not negatively affect the soundscape.
As a final result of the research carried out, the acoustic and visual simulation of the environment of the Tribunal de las Aguas has been obtained. Thanks to this, anyone, from anywhere and at any time, can enjoy a virtual session of the Tribunal de las Aguas. This is especially interesting in the current health emergency situation caused by Covid-19, offering the possibility of remote tourism. Likewise, if in the future the environment suffers alterations of any kind, a detailed compendium of visual and sound information on its current state would be available, which would guarantee its conservation and allow future generations to enjoy and study it.
Comment:
Visual soundscape is wrong.
Answer:
Thank you very much for your comment. We have changed the title of the article.
Comment:
Abstract is too short
Answer:
Thank you very much for your comment. We have added the following paragraph:
“With the research carried out, it has been obtained, on the one hand, a complete study of the acoustics of the environment of the Water Tribunal and, on the other, an enhancement of the Valencian tangible and intangible heritage.”
Comment:
Line 11: first sentence needs references.
Answer:
Thank you very much for your comment. The following references have been added:
[1] Katz, B.F.G.; Murphy, D.; Farina, A. Exploring cultural heritage through acoustic digital reconstructions. Physics Today 2020, 73, 32-37, doi:10.1063/PT.3.4633.
[2] Pietroni, E. Mapping the Soundscape in Communicative Forms for Cultural Heritage: Between Realism and Symbolism. Heritage 2021, 4, 4495-4523
Comment:
All the part dealing with applications performed around the world is ok, but it should be mentioned somewhere why it is important and useful. Actually, does not seems so. Please improve the introduction then.
Answer:
Thank you very much for your comment. Introduction section has been expanded following the recommendations of the reviewers. We have added the following paragraph in the introduction section to explain and clarify the motivation and challenge:
“The purpose of this work is the analysis of the acoustic conditions in the environment of the Water Court of the Plain of Valencia and its soundscape, characterizing the main sources in this environment to serve as an objective record of the Cultural Heritage event. This study is intended to contribute to the knowledge for researchers and practitioners in outdoor Cultural Heritage events.”
Comment:
3.4 surveys. Nothing has been previously said about them. It is missing in the intro and in the methodologies.
Answer:
Thank you very much for your comment. We have added the following paragraph:
“As the survey was offered and tested over the Internet, the hearing abilities of the participants were not checked. The test was presented as a Google Form, with the recommendation to be used with headphones. The evaluation of the soundscape can be described with a circumplex model [35].”
Comment:
A methodology section is totally missing and the paper is not easily followable.
Answer:
Thank you very much for your comment. Section 2 describes the methodology used. This section has been partially rewritten, adding the changes noted by reviewers, which have been made in this section.
Comment:
Conclusions are missing and discussions are poor.
Answer:
Thank you very much for your comment. Section 4 includes the main conclusions of the research. This section has been expanded following the recommendations of the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
English should totally be improved. I recommend a mother tongue re-edit.
I would remove the divisions into 2.1.1. and 2.1.2, as it is not helpful.
Remove brands of commercial software and equipment. Change them with the generic description of what they are.
Acoustic acquisitions are not correctly described. What was their duration? What indicators have been taken? Sample frequencies? How many repetitions?
Always put a space between numbers and units. Please use dB(A) when they are.
In MDPI journals units are o be put in (), not [] that are used for references. Change them accordingly in all graphs.
In acoustics, there is no absolute sense in reporting double decimals for noise acquisitions, as they are over the instrument sensibility. Please correct all to 1 digit.
Chapter 3.5: Psychoacoustics parameters must include sharpness, loudness and so on. Please investigate them and add.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment: English should totally be improved. I recommend a mother tongue re-edit.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. In order to improve the English grammar, mother tongue proofreading has been done by an expert proofreader.
Comment: I would remove the divisions into 2.1.1. and 2.1.2, as it is not helpful.
Answer: Thank you for your comment. Although the differentiation was done to highlight the calibration process, it is true it can be removed without any effect on the narrative structure of the paper. So, in the final version, we have removed this division.
Comment: Remove brands of commercial software and equipment. Change them with the generic description of what they are.
Answer: Thank you for your comment. The brands were introduced to highlight the technical features of the devices. It is true that after describing the specifications of these devices, the brands are not longer necessary. So, in the final version of the paper, we have removed some of these brands (only those which are technically specified).
Comment: Acoustic acquisitions are not correctly described. What was their duration? What indicators have been taken? Sample frequencies? How many repetitions?
Answer: Thank you for your comment. For the acoustic acquisition in the outdoor environment, we used the PreSonus multichannel sound card. As described in the text: “The anechoic recording was made by registering the bailiff's speech at the different heights of the microphones shown, forming a hemi-sphere, with a 8-channel recording audio interface”.
The duration of the recordings was extended for three times the temporal extension of the sweep signal used for the sound source excitation, as established by ISO 3382. In our case, the duration of each sweep signal was 8 s. The sampling frequency and quantization used with the multichannel sound card was 44100 Hz and 16 bit.
In order to improve the description of this measurement procedure, we have added the following paragraph:
“In order to obtain these recordings, an 8 s logarithmic sweep signal, with three repetitions, has been reproduced in the environment with the omnidirectional sound source, and processed to obtain the average impulse response. This impulse response has been further processed with Matlab to obtain band values for each of the referenced main acoustic parameters.”
Comment: Always put a space between numbers and units. Please use dB(A) when they are.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. We have added this space between number and unit (the scale A was not used in any of the studies performed).
Comment: In MDPI journals units are o be put in (), not [] that are used for references. Change them accordingly in all graphs.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. We have changed the in all the graphs.
Comment: In acoustics, there is no absolute sense in reporting double decimals for noise acquisitions, as they are over the instrument sensibility. Please correct all to 1 digit.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. We have modified it accordingly to the instrument sensibility.
Comment: Chapter 3.5: Psychoacoustics parameters must include sharpness, loudness and so on. Please investigate them and add.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. We have computed the psychoacoustic parameters (loudness, sharpness, roughness, fluctuation strength and tonality) with a specific software programmed in Matlab (https://github.com/jausegar/urbauramon/tree/master/URPAA). We have added the following paragraph to the paper:
“Taking into account the results and code obtained by Pastor et al. in [44], the audio signal generated after the auralization has been processed to compute the psychoacoustic parameters (that is loudness, sharpness, roughness, fluctuation strength and tonality -together with the Zwicker's psychoacoustic annoyance-) with a specific software programmed in Matlab [45]. Table 8 summarizes the computed values for the average value and standard deviation for the different parameters.
|
Loudness (sone) |
Sharpness (accum.) |
Roughness (asper) |
Fl.Strength (vacil) |
Tonality (-) |
Psychoac. Annoyance |
|
|
Avg |
8.99 |
1.31 |
0.06 |
0.44 |
0.13 |
11.17 |
|
Std |
7.46 |
0.15 |
0.06 |
0.57 |
0.15 |
8.32 |
Table 8: Average and standard deviation values of the computed psychoacoustic parameters for the auralization of the bailiff sound source in the environment of the Water Tribunal”
Comparing this result with the one obtained in the survey of the Sweedish Sound-Quality Protocol, we have added the following paragraph at the end of section 3.5:
“According to the average value of the psychoacoustic annoyance obtained in Table 8 compared with the results shown in [44, 45], we found that the results in the survey are in good accordance with the subjective perception, qualified as "little annoying"”
- Pastor-Aparicio, A.; Segura-Garcia, J.; Lopez-Ballester, J.; Felici-Castell, S.; García-Pineda, M.; Pérez-Solano, J.J. Psychoacoustic Annoyance Implementation With Wireless Acoustic Sensor Networks for Monitoring in Smart Cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 2020, 7, 128–136. doi:10.1109/JIOT.2019.2946971.
- Segura-Garcia, J.; Lopez-Ballester, J.; Pastor-Aparicio, A. URPAA: Urbauramon Psycho-acoustic Annoyance Analyzer. https://github.com/jausegar/urbauramon/tree/master/URPAA, 2019. [Online; accessed 19-April-2022].
The following figure shows the evolution of each psychoacoustic parameter and the psychoacoustic annoyance.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors addressed all the reviewer's comments with sufficient attention and modified the paper consistently with the suggestions provided. The new version of the paper has improved significantly both in the presentation that is now much more accessible even by a reader not expert in the sector, and in the contents that now appear much more incisive. The addition of a sufficient reference bibliography gave consistency to the authors' statements and the results they achieved.
Minor revision
Try to enrich the captions of the figures, the reader should be able to read the figure without the need to retrieve the information in the paper. Try to summarize the essential parts of the Figure and what you want to explain with it.
62) Do not use abbreviation such as i.e. I have seen that you often use this abbreviation, so I will not repeat this advice again, it also applies to the other occurrences.
117) Improve the caption of Figure 2, at first glance it doesn't look like an acoustic model, I don't see a sound distribution, it looks more like a CAD model to me.
300) Introduce adequately the Reliability statistics and interclass correlation
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment: The authors addressed all the reviewer's comments with sufficient attention and modified the paper consistently with the suggestions provided. The new version of the paper has improved significantly both in the presentation that is now much more accessible even by a reader not expert in the sector, and in the contents that now appear much more incisive. The addition of a sufficient reference bibliography gave consistency to the authors' statements and the results they achieved.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment.
Minor revision
Comment: Try to enrich the captions of the figures, the reader should be able to read the figure without the need to retrieve the information in the paper. Try to summarize the essential parts of the Figure and what you want to explain with it.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. Figure captions have been modified as follows:
Figure 1. (a) Location of sound sources and measurement points during acoustic measurement of the environment of the Water Tribunal. (b) Image of the acoustic measurement equipment used during acoustic measurement of the environment of the Water Tribunal.
Table 1. Specific characteristics of the equipment used during acoustic measurement of the environment of the Water Tribunal.
Figure 2. Virtual model used in the acoustic simulation of the soundscape of the Water Tribunal.
Figure 3. Anechoic chamber used for sound source characterization (School of Architects at the Polytechnic University of Valencia).
Figure 12. 3D sound source diagrams in ODEON software at different frequencies of the characterized sound source.
Figure 13. (a) Visual simulation overview of the environment of the Water Tribunal (b) Detail of the representation of a session of the Water Tribunal.
Figure 14. Survey with average response of perceived soundscape of the Water Tribunal.
Comment: 62) Do not use abbreviation such as i.e. I have seen that you often use this abbreviation, so I will not repeat this advice again, it also applies to the other occurrences.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. In the final version, we have modified this.
Comment: 117) Improve the caption of Figure 2, at first glance it doesn't look like an acoustic model, I don't see a sound distribution, it looks more like a CAD model to me.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. In the final version, we have modified this figure to include the sound source (the bailiff shown in red color) and the receivers (the judges shown in blue color).
Figure 2. Virtual model used in the acoustic simulation of the soundscape of the Water Tribunal.
Comment: 300) Introduce adequately the Reliability statistics and interclass correlation
Answer:
Thank you for your comment. We have added new paragraphs explaining the reliability statistics and interclass correlation used:
“This reliability analysis is based on the (Pearson) correlation, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and the intraclass correlation index between acoustic parameters obtained for measurements and for simulations.
The Cronbach’s alpha (α) is a coefficient used to measure the reliability of a measurement scale, but as there is no p-value associated to allow hypothesis rejection of scale reliability, we cannot use it as a rule of thumb. However, the closer it is to its maximum value, that is 1, the greater the reliability of the scale [42]. Also, the intraclass correlation index (ICC) is a descriptive statistic that can be used when quantitative measurements are made on units that are organized into groups. It describes how strongly units in the same group resemble each other. Sometimes, it is perceived as a type of correlation, but unlike most of the other correlation measures, it operates on data structured as groups, rather than data structured as paired observations [42].”
- Cohen, L.; Manion, L.; Morrison, K. Research Methods in Education; Routledge, 2018
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I am glad the authors followed my deep reviews and the paper is now ready for being published.
