Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Advantages and Disadvantages of Surround-Type Concert Halls
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Discussion of the Relation between Initial Time Delay Gap (ITDG) and Acoustical Intimacy: Leo Beranek’s Final Thoughts on the Subject, Documented
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Simulations and Subjective Rating of Acoustic Conditions in a Symphony Orchestra—A Case Study

Acoustics 2019, 1(3), 570-581;
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Acoustics 2019, 1(3), 570-581;
Received: 26 May 2019 / Revised: 18 June 2019 / Accepted: 20 June 2019 / Published: 22 July 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Auditorium Acoustics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper addresses an important aspect of auditorium design, i.e. the acoustic quality as perceived by perfomers. The approach is quite original; methodology and results are clearly presented. I think the paper can be pubished in the present form.

PLease check the reference to "2.3" at line 323, when the cocktail party effect is mentioned.

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing. The reference has now been changed to 6.2, which is the current number of the paragraph in which cocktail party effect is being discussed.

Some misspelling has been corrected. 

In general, internal links in the document had caused errors, typically repeated sentences. These have been removed.

It was discovered that the reference to Gade 2012 was missing, so this was inserted as reference 12.

Some sentences have been added here and there to improve reader friendliness.

Reviewer 2 Report

This submission addresses the relation between the subjective assessment of the acoustic conditions by members of the orchestra and a series of metrics as obtained in a geometrical simulation model. The study is based on 50 subjective responses concerning 8 music concert stages and calculation results by Odeon© 3D simulations. The author concludes the D-R to show the best relation to the satisfaction of the musicians. A value equal to zero would be optimal.

On the one hand, the submission is clear, text, illustrations, and language are fine, but on the other hand additional information and discussion about the underlying research would be welcomed: the scientific foundation of the research is after all quite limited and the underlying subjective impressions of the musicians are most likely biased by the reputation of 'the big 3' and a possible 'home advantage' for GS.

The work is undoubtedly a good start for further research.

This reviewer advises publication but only after supplying the necessary materials for a clear understanding:  3D sketches of the geometries, a compact reminder about the definition of the different quantities, clear indications of positions of the source and the receivers…

Some smaller remarks:

144 "investigation of potential correlation between the parameters (the objective data) and the assessment"  measurements can be considered as objective, in the actual case I would prefer predicted data…

Please verify the text at 161,171,190, 200 and at the start of paragraph 3.3.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing. It gives me the an opportunity to improve the paper I think.

I have used "track changes" to show clearly all my revisions. However it looks messy in the All Markup mode. 

The text at 161,171,190, 200 and at the start of paragraph 3.3 has been cleaned up. Paragraphs were repeated by some intrinsic text references, that now has been deleted.

The scientific foundation is more discussed now, e.g. ref. you comment regarding bias.

3D sketches of the geometries are added, in ANNEX

a compact reminder about the definition of the different quantities is added, a new section 1.4

clear indications of positions of the source and the receivers, in ANNEX

a missing reference (Gade 2012) is added

Back to TopTop