Pompeii Performance Soundscapes in the Amphitheater, the Grand Theater, and the Odeon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please take into consideration the comments and suggestions provided in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

• line 147

 

1. Taking into account the damage to the scenea front of the Theatre, what is the assessment of the existing damage of the stage on the reverberation and the intelligibility?
2. A: Based on published geometry (Iannace, Gino, Luigi Maffei, and Patrizia Trematerra. "The acoustic evolution of the large theatre of pompeii." Proceedings of The Acoustics of Ancient Theatres Conference. Patras. 2011.) and baseline measurements (Bevilacqua, Antonella, and Gino Iannace. "Acoustic study of the Roman theatre of Pompeii: comparison between existing condition and future installation of two parametric acoustic shells." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America4 (2023): 2211-2226.), even a conservative assumption that 5 % (visual comparison between the photographs in Bevilacqua & Iannace (2023) and the latest site photos supplied to us by the Pompeii Park suggests a much smaller loss ≈ 2 %) of the plastered scaena fronshas been lost would shorten the reverberation time by only 0.05 s and raise STI by about 0.02, using first-order sensitivity check (Sabine), —both at or below recognised JND. The present damage therefore does not audibly affect either reverberation or speech intelligibility.

• Is modern theatre operation possible without electric sound reinforcement systems?

A: Occasionally, yes—but only under specific conditions. If the venue’s natural C₅₀ > +2 dB at the back row and the crowd size is below ~1 200, unamplified performance can work; otherwise, modern operation virtually requires electric reinforcement.

• line 168

It is certain that the Odeon of antiquity had a wooden roof, to increase the reverberation of the space, (levels suitable for music). How sound is the assessment of the Odeon`s suitability for speech in the original form of the building?

yes, it had a wooden roof

the odeon was created for speech, - used for noble man. would be enhanced because you have the reflection from the roof.

 

A: Published virtual reconstructions that reinstate the wooden roof give mid-frequency T₃₀ near 1.4–1.6 s and speech-clarity indices C₅₀/D₅₀ ≳ 0.5 and STI ≳ 0.55 (Berardi, Umberto, Gino Iannace, and Luigi Maffei. "Virtual reconstruction of the historical acoustics of the Odeon of Pompeii." Journal of Cultural Heritage 19 (2016): 555-566; Ciaburro, Giuseppe, et al. "Acoustic design of ancient buildings: The odea of Pompeii and Posillipo." Buildings 10.12 (2020): 224.), all consistent with acceptable intelligibility (for comfortable speech ISO 3382 suggests C₅₀ > –3 dB, D₅₀ > 0.5, STI ≥ 0.50). Therefore, the original roofed Odeon would have been suitable for speech as well as for music. Our article confines itself to today’s measured acoustics; for the ancient condition we rely on the above-cited, peer-reviewed simulations rather than new modelling.

 

• line 188

 

To clarify that the sound insulation of Roman theaters is ensured by the perimeter wall (thorax) of the building and the closed floor plan of the space

 

• A: “In Roman theatres the encircling thorax (perimeter cavea wall) and the nearly closed semicircular plan act as a ‘sound shield’, containing the actors’ voices and limiting outside noise.” (Cites: Vitruvius De Architectura 5.3-5 & 5.8; see also Berardi et al., J. Cult. Herit. 19, 2016.)

 

• line 196

 

The change in the sound-absorbing capacity of materials over time is not a major issue in theatres with spectators.

Generally, the observations on the acoustics of the 3 spaces (Theatre, Amphitheatre, Odeon) are correct. But they should probably precede in the text and be harmonized with the descriptions in paragraph 3.1

paragraph 3.5

 

• A: 1.Minimize the effects of material aging: “We agree that, once the cavea is occupied, audience absorption dominates over small variations in wall-surface porosity; the manuscript has been revised to mention material ageing only as a secondary factor (see new line XXX, I think it could be adjusted in the text like this).”

2. Restructuring to “front-load” acoustic conclusions: Add 2-3 sentence summary metrics at the end of each paragraph in 3.1.1 - 3.1.3 (Amphitheater, Grand Theater, Odeon); delete or replace the description of the acoustic performance of these three spaces in the original 3.5 with the following quote.

 

• Reservations should be recorded regarding the intelligibility of speech in Roman amphitheaters, in conditions of background noise and with the presence of spectators.

paragraphs 4 and 5

 

• A:

“The STI values reported above refer to measurements taken in an empty arena. (Bevilacqua, Antonella, and Gino Iannace. "Acoustic study of the Roman theatre of Pompeii: comparison between existing condition and future installation of two parametric acoustic shells." The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 154.4 (2023): 2211-2226.) show that when the Large Theatre of Pompeii is numerically populated with a full audience, the additional absorption lowers unamplified STI by ≈ 0.03 and reduces C₅₀ by ≈ 1 dB. Earlier work by Iannace, (Iannace, Gino, Luigi Maffei, and Patrizia Trematerra. "The acoustic evolution of the large theatre of pompeii." Proceedings of The Acoustics of Ancient Theatres Conference. Patras. 2011.) indicates a similar sensitivity for the same venue in its Roman configuration, where the presence of a velarium and crowd noise pushed STI close to the ISO-recommended lower limit of 0.45–0.50. Because the Amphitheatre has a larger volume and no scenic wall to reinforce early reflections, an equivalent occupancy (≈ 20 000 spectators and ambient noise ≥ 55 dBA) would be expected to degrade STI by at least the same amount—potentially below the threshold for comfortable speech. We therefore record a reservation: in real performances, intelligibility in the Pompeii Amphitheatre may fall short of the values measured in the empty arena unless electric reinforcement is employed.” 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The adittion of a paragraph/subchapter providing a short, comparative, architectural description of the Amphitheater, the Roman (Great) Theater and the Odeon of Pompei —with references to their basic dimensions— is strongly proposed, in order the archaeological, architectural and historical background of the study to be enhanced and the the results of the relative sound-studies to be more comprehensible.

Minor corrections, suggested:

1. In various lines as in 171, 195 and 201 the Italian word Teatro is used –as in case of a “toponym”– instead of the English word Theater.
2. In the 1^st reference (line 396): Stefani, G. “La vera data…”, instead of Stefani, Grete. “La vera data…”.

Author Response

The adittion of a paragraph/subchapter providing a short, comparative, architectural description of the Amphitheater, the Roman (Great) Theater and the Odeon of Pompei —with references to their basic dimensions— is strongly proposed, in order the archaeological, architectural and historical background of the study to be enhanced and the the results of the relative sound-studies to be more comprehensible.

Answer: Thank you we have added this.

Minor corrections, suggested:

1. In various lines as in 171, 195 and 201 the Italian word Teatro is used –as in case of a “toponym”– instead of the English word Theater. Ok
2. In the 1^st reference (line 396): Stefani, G. “La vera data…”, instead of Stefani, Grete. “La vera data…”. Ok

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a continuity with other acoustic studies developed, as well as a great scientific interest for cultural heritage. However, despite its coherence, the only question that would make it easier to read and understand would be to change the order of some of the points. Within the results, it seems more coherent to present points 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 before the objects of study, as they present a context and historical characteristics that can serve as a general context to locate the three works that will be discussed later and their particular characteristics. 
However, the non-acceptance of this suggestion does not change the invaluable approval of the article.

Author Response

The article presents a continuity with other acoustic studies developed, as well as a great scientific interest for cultural heritage. However, despite its coherence, the only question that would make it easier to read and understand would be to change the order of some of the points. Within the results, it seems more coherent to present points 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 before the objects of study, as they present a context and historical characteristics that can serve as a general context to locate the three works that will be discussed later and their particular characteristics. 
However, the non-acceptance of this suggestion does not change the invaluable approval of the article.

 

Dear Reviewer

 

Thank you for this suggestion. I have added an additional introduction and reordering - not exactly as you specified but to address the various feedbacks. I hope this will make sense.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting topic but the authors did not present their study properly and scientifically. It is ambiguous to identify whether this article is a research article or a review article. The structure is fine but the content in each section is confusing for the readers. Although the authors proposed the study objective, they failed to provide sufficient literature review and evidence to justify and derive the study objective. The applied methods, materials, and study results were not properly described and explained. Please find more comments below. I suggest this article needs a substantial revision to improve its scientifity and rigor.

 

Introduction

The literature review is too superficial to support and derive the study objective.

 

Line 42-43: the author indicates there are just a few studies exploring these aspects, but their study still builds upon existing research. So, if there is not enough research currently, how could the authors conduct this study based on current evidence? This does not make sense logically.

 

Line 45: why did the authors need to reinterpret these theatres? And what is this comparative framework? There is no introduction or indication in the previous content.

 

Materials and methods

A large part of the current content in this section is more like the literature review and concept explanation, which should be in the Introduction section before proposing the research objective. Instead, this section should have more descriptions and explanations, especially regarding the study sites, and applied methods in terms of measurements, indicators, and analysis.

It is suggested to rewrite this section to specifically focus on providing the readers with enough details on the methodology of this study, so they can understand or even replicate your research.

 

Results

Importantly, in this section, the authors should objectively present the study findings and explain the results if necessary. However, some content in this section can actually be moved to Section 2. Besides, it is very confusing for the readers to understand the relationships between the elaboration and the objective or results of this study, especially for Section 3.4 and 3.5. My impression is that the authors are still introducing some backgrounds or situations instead of demonstrating what they have got or found from this study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

Thank you, we have tried to better clarify the methodology and structure as well as re-ordered the overall form and added additional clarifications and references.

 

Best

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written and well-organized paper.

It presents the results of original research and makes a valuable contribution to knowledge and
understanding of impulse response analysis of roman architecture ruins, in this case the Pompeii Amphiteatre, the Grand Theatre and the Odeon.

Specific Comments

1. I recommend avoiding the use of 'soundscape' in the title and instead using 'performance soundscape' or 'instrumental soundscape', due to the many scientific and artistic approaches of the term. So as the use of impulse response (IR) measurement or acoustic analysis, since is the most important factor of the research.
2. I suggest the use of architectural plans so as to understand better the sites and the methods of data collection.
3. I would really like to see a detailed presentation of the equipment and the software used, such as the acoustic cameras, etc.

Author Response

1. I recommend avoiding the use of 'soundscape' in the title and instead using 'performance soundscape' or 'instrumental soundscape', due to the many scientific and artistic approaches of the term. So as the use of impulse response (IR) measurement or acoustic analysis, since is the most important factor of the research. - Thank you, I have done so.
2. I suggest the use of architectural plans so as to understand better the sites and the methods of data collection. - Instead of architectural plans I have added a section to describe the sites and referred to the referenced papers where these and detailed descriptions of the measurements can be found, so as not to repeat our previous research.
3. I would really like to see a detailed presentation of the equipment and the software used, such as the acoustic cameras, etc. - Please see the previous point.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has interesting topic, is nicely written, and for experts from heritage field brings valuable information and conclusions.

I have one minor remark and some major concerns. The two major concerns consider two last chapters. The title and the first part of paper considers three buildings in Pompei: the Amphiteatre, the Grand Theatre and the Odeon. Then in the most important part of the paper - the discussion is titled "Acoustic Effects in the Pompeii Amphitheatre", and the authors consider only Amphitheatre. Since the paper is titled as it is, and since first part of the paper covers all three buildings, the discussion should also do the same.

What is more confusing when you read the discussion in some parts you have the feeling that authors do not discuss the amphitheatre, but the theatre, like in line 312 "The semi-circular arrangement of the cavea...". Some conclusions that authors bring seem more suited to theatre, then to amphitheatre like in lines 359-361 "Pompeii Amphitheatre likely had a frequency response favoring mid-range and high-frequency sounds, making it particularly well-suited for spoken-word performances and musical spectacles involving wind and brass instruments." Amphitheatres definitely werent well suited for spoken word, but odeons and theatres were. So authors should clarify this ambiguity, and clearly state for which building each conclusion is targeted. 

The last chapter-conclusion is too short. Of course it doesn't have to repeat everything that paper brings, but it should bring all important facts and conclusions, because lot of readers will read only the abstract and conclusion, and based on them will decide if they will read the paper. Besides this the conclusion now is targeted only to amphitheatre - it should cover all three buildings.

Minor remarks:

• lines 253-255 are repeated lines 245-247

Author Response

"The title and the first part of paper considers three buildings in Pompei: the Amphiteatre, the Grand Theatre and the Odeon. Then in the most important part of the paper - the discussion is titled "Acoustic Effects in the Pompeii Amphitheatre", and the authors consider only Amphitheatre. Since the paper is titled as it is, and since first part of the paper covers all three buildings, the discussion should also do the same."

You are correct - something went wrong during the editing of the final submitted version - originally all 3 theatres were indeed discussed. Part accidentally got deleted. They are now complete with discussion in section 4 and 5 of all three theatres.

R: What is more confusing when you read the discussion in some parts you have the feeling that authors do not discuss the amphitheatre, but the theatre, like in line 312 "The semi-circular arrangement of the cavea...". Some conclusions that authors bring seem more suited to theatre, then to amphitheatre like in lines 359-361 "Pompeii Amphitheatre likely had a frequency response favoring mid-range and high-frequency sounds, making it particularly well-suited for spoken-word performances and musical spectacles involving wind and brass instruments." Amphitheatres definitely werent well suited for spoken word, but odeons and theatres were. So authors should clarify this ambiguity, and clearly state for which building each conclusion is targeted. 

 

A: Correct. This is now corrected.

R: The last chapter-conclusion is too short. Of course it doesn't have to repeat everything that paper brings, but it should bring all important facts and conclusions, because lot of readers will read only the abstract and conclusion, and based on them will decide if they will read the paper. Besides this the conclusion now is targeted only to amphitheatre - it should cover all three buildings.

 

A: The conclusion is now expanded and covers all three buildings.

In general we have changed the order of sections to hopefully be more clear.

Sincere thanks.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

The authors appear to have misunderstood my previous comments. To clarify, I am not suggesting that the paper needs to provide an exhaustive review of all previous studies. However, for this work to qualify as a rigorous and credible research article, it must present a sufficient and in-depth background, typically through a well-structured literature review, that effectively establishes the justification and necessity of the study.

 

Unfortunately, the revised introduction remains superficial. A comprehensive background study is a fundamental prerequisite for conducting meaningful research. While the authors are not expected to review every prior study, they should, at least, begin with a broader overview of the general topic, then progressively narrow the focus toward the specific area their study addresses. Such a review must be clearly related to the core subject of the paper. This approach represents a basic principle of academic and scientific writing.

 

Moreover, it carries little weight that the authors feel their introduction is sufficient for the study, as this paper, if published, is intended for a much wider readership beyond the authors themselves.

 

Additionally, the study objective should be clearly and explicitly stated after identifying existing research gaps. At present, this key element is lacking.

 

Regarding the “comparative framework” mentioned in Line 42 and Line 48, it remains unclear what framework the authors are referring to. If this framework is indeed central to the study’s design and analysis, it must be clearly presented. If not essential, I recommend removing it to avoid confusion. However, if it refers to the comparison-related content in, for instance, Section 2.3 to 2.5, then I strongly suggest including a figure or diagram that illustrates the overall logical structure and relationships among the elements being compared much more clearly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

A: we have added a wider literature overview overall and especially in the introduction, and zoomed in to the specific study area, we have added additional reference and clarified better the comparative framework. 

We have explicitly stated the study objective after identifying research gaps.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

everything is fine

Author Response

Thank you for your positive confirmation