See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245525964

Acoustics of Apulian-Romanesque Churches: Correlations Between

Architectural and Acoustic Parameters

Article  in  Building Acoustics · March 2003

DOI: 10.1260/135101003765184816

CITATIONS READS

15 479

2 authors, including:

Francesco Martellotta
Politecnico di Bari
81 PUBLICATIONS   629 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Francesco Martellotta on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Acoustics of Apulian-Romanesque churches:
correlations between architectural and acoustic
parameters
Ettore Cirillo and Francesco Martellotta
Dipartimento di Fisica Tecnica,
Politecnico di Bari, via Orabona 4, I-70125 Bari, Italy
e-mail: f.martellotta@iol.it

ABSTRACT
This paper concludes the analysis of the results of an acoustic survey carried out on nine Romanesque
churches built in Apulia (in Southern Italy), and described in detail in a previous paper. The study was
performed taking into account both room-average values and individual position values of monaural and
binaural acoustic parameters, measured according to the ISO 3382 standard. First the effect of architectural
parameters on reverberation time was investigated, showing that volume and materials play an important
role. Then room-average values of the other acoustic parameters were investigated, showing that some of
them are mostly correlated with reverberation time and the others with total acoustic absorption. The analysis
of the individual location values showed that the monaural parameters can be expressed as functions of the
source-receiver distance and one or two of the following parameters: room volume, total absorbing area,
mean absorption coefficient, total length and reverberation time. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the
individual position values of the acoustic parameters describing the clarity are significantly correlated to
each other.

1. INTRODUCTION
Acoustic surveys carried out on buildings or places which share several characteristics may provide
different information according to the scale of analysis. On a detailed scale it is possible to
understand how specific architectural features influence the distribution of the acoustic parameters
and, if required, it is possible to rate the acoustics of each room with reference to its use. On a large
scale, if the sample dimension is statistically significant, an acoustic survey may be useful to
investigate general relations between acoustics and architecture, correlations between different
acoustic parameters, and, eventually, to provide empirical or theoretical relations for prediction
purposes.
Many large-scale studies can be found in the literature. Some of them are only based on
reverberation time measurements and generally investigate how the acoustic parameter correlates
with room volume [1-4], some take into account even speech intelligibility [5,6], and others are
based on more detailed measurements of the most important acoustic parameters made in both large
[7-10] and small [11-13] groups of churches. Some of these studies have pointed out the existence
of significant correlations between different acoustic parameters [7,10,13] and relatively weaker
correlations between acoustic and architectural parameters [8,10]. In other cases the results of the
measurements were used to define empirical prediction models [8,11,12].
The results of an acoustic survey carried out on nine Romanesque churches, built in Apulia (in
Southern Italy), and described in a previous paper [14], have been gathered in this paper in order to
 2

search for correlations between acoustic and architectural parameters. The common features which
are typical of this architectural style, known as Apulian-Romanesque because of its strong regional
characterization [15,16], are of great importance in the analysis of the results. In fact, regression
analyses are possible because the churches under investigation have different dimensions (room
volume varies from 1500 to 32000 m3), and if one of the churches shows “unusual” behaviour it can
be generally explained as the consequence of its few specific characteristics.

2. MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES
The measurements were carried out using an omni-directional sound source made of twelve 100
mm loudspeakers mounted on a dodecahedron driven by a 300 W amplifier. A GRAS 40-AR omni-
directional microphone was used together with a 01 dB Symphonie system installed on a laptop
computer. An MLS signal was used to excite the rooms. The order of the signal was adapted to the
reverberation characteristics of each room to avoid time-aliasing problems and each MLS sequence
was repeated 32 times to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Binaural measurements were obtained
using a pair of Core Sound binaural microphones taped to the ears of one of the authors and
recording the room responses to a logarithmic sine sweep [17] on a Sony TCD-10 DAT recorder.
At least two source positions were used in each church, one on the symmetry axis and one off the
axis, both in the presbytery area. The source was placed 1.5 m from the floor. Nine receiver
positions were used on average. In very large but symmetrical churches the receivers were only
placed in one half of the floor, otherwise they were spread to cover the whole floor area uniformly.
The microphone was placed 1.2 m from the floor surface. A total of 156 monaural and 135 binaural
impulse responses were collected.
The measured monaural impulse responses were used to determine the following parameters for
each frequency band: reverberation time (RT), early decay time (EDT), sound strength (G), clarity
(C80), definition (D50) and centre time (tS). Since in some of the churches the measured decay was
smaller than 30 dB, RT was determined in every church using a 20 dB decay in order to have
comparable measurements. The measured binaural impulse responses were used to calculate IACCE
(where “E” stands for “early”, that is integrating the function from 0 to 80 ms), over the frequencies
from 500 to 4000 Hz. All the measurements and the calculations of the indices were carried out
according to ISO 3382 standard [18]. In particular, the strength index (G) was calculated assuming
the sound pressure level measured in a reverberation chamber as a reference, employing the same
measurement chain and the same settings used during the on-site survey. STI and RASTI [19] were
calculated from the monaural impulse responses obtained using the omni-directional sound source,
therefore they account for the effect of the reverberation but not for that of the background noise,
which, however, was negligible.
In order to characterize the acoustics of each church the following multi-octave-band average
indices were calculated: RTmid, EDTmid, Gmid, D50mid, and tSmid, defined as the means of the
corresponding mid frequency (500-1000 Hz) values, and C80(3) and IACCE3 defined as the means of
the values at the frequencies of 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE CHURCHES SURVEYED

The churches in this study share some typical characteristics of Apulian-Romanesque style, such as
the basilica plan, with a main nave and side aisles, a wooden roof with trusses, a marble floor with
wooden pews, and hard limestone walls and columns. However each of the churches has specific
characteristics described in more detail in [20], and briefly summarized below.
St. Nicholas Basilica in Bari (Fig. 1A) is the prototype of the Apulian Romanesque style, it has a
transept with three apses. Two columns separate the transept and the nave. There are roofed
 3

women’s galleries, while the nave ceiling is wooden with large painted canvases. The side aisles are
cross-vaulted.
Bari Cathedral (Fig. 1B) has a transept with three apses and a dome over the crossing. The
remaining part of the church has a wooden roof with trusses. There are false women’s galleries,
therefore the side aisles are roofed and higher than in St. Nicholas .
Bitonto Cathedral (Fig. 1C) has a transept with three apses. The aisles are cross-vaulted, while the
remaining parts are roofed with trusses.
Barletta Cathedral (Fig. 1D) is made of two parts, on the facade side it is Romanesque with wooden
roofs, and on the presbytery side it is Gothic with ribbed cross-vaults on large pillars. There is no
transept but there is a Gothic choir with radial chapels.
Bisceglie Cathedral (Fig. 1E) has a transept with a large central apse and wooden stalls on both the
sides and carpets on the presbytery floor. Since there are false women’s galleries, the aisles are
roofed as is the nave.
Ruvo Cathedral (Fig. 1F) has a transept with three apses. There are no women’s galleries and the
aisles are cross-vaulted. The nave and the transept are roofed with trusses.
Bovino Cathedral (Fig. 1G) has a transept with a vaulted choir. There are no women’s galleries and
both the nave, and the aisles are roofed. The walls are plastered.
Ognissanti church in Valenzano (Fig. 1H) has no transept but it has apses. The nave is vaulted with
three domes, while the aisles are barrel-vaulted. Because of restoration work the floor is currently
made of concrete and there are no pews.
Vallisa church in Bari (Fig. 1I) has three apses, without a transept. Both the nave and the aisles are
roofed with trusses. Since the church is used as an auditorium there are lightly upholstered seats
instead of pews. The presbytery area is used as a stage and is made of wood on wooden joists.
In order to characterize the architecture of each church with a set of “numbers” to be used for
regression analyses, two groups of parameters were employed. The first included parameters
describing the room geometry: total volume (V); floor surface area (Sf); total surface area (S); nave
volume (Vn); area of the nave floor (Sn); total length (L) from entrance to the apse; total width (W)
including nave and aisles; maximum height (H) chosen between nave and transept. The second
group included parameters describing the acoustic behaviour of the materials: the mean absorption
coefficient at mid frequencies (α), calculated using the measured RT and Sabine’s formula, and the
corresponding total acoustic absorption (A). A summary of the values of these parameters,
measured, or obtained from drawings, is reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Basic details of the 9 churches surveyed.

Id Church V Sf S Vn Sn L W H α RTmid
(m3) (m2) (m2) (m3) (m2) (m) (m) (m) (s)
A St. Nicholas Basilica, Bari 32000 1530 10500 13000 533 54 26.0 24.5 0.112 4.4
B Bari Cathedral 30100 1274 9500 11000 442 46 25.0 27.5 0.095 5.3
C Bitonto Cathedral 16000 858 6500 6300 288 42 18.2 22.0 0.091 4.3
D Barletta Cathedral 15800 912 5500 8700 414 46 18.4 21.0 0.068 6.8
E Bisceglie Cathedral 10150 534 4660 4470 205 29 17.6 21.8 0.100 3.5
F Ruvo Cathedral 6400 445 3000 2400 130 29 13.3 18.5 0.092 3.7
G Bovino Cathedral 3840 452 2420 1450 132 22 18.5 11.0 0.076 3.8
H Ognissanti church, Valenzano 1800 258 1300 1190 124 19 12.8 9.6 0.041 5.4
I Vallisa church, Bari 1520 162 1130 900 75 15 10.2 12.0 0.103 2.1
 4

4. ANALYSIS OF THE ROOM-AVERAGE RESULTS

4.1. The effect of architectural parameters on reverberation time

At the end of the previous paper [14] it was observed that, despite many common architectural
features, the acoustics of each room showed considerable differences which were supposed to
depend on specific characteristics, such as room volume and materials used. In order to investigate
if a relationship between acoustics and architecture exists, reverberation times were analysed first.
Figure 2a shows the frequency plot of RT for the nine churches surveyed, and considerable
differences can be detected in both absolute values and frequency dependence. Some of these
differences are due to room volume (e.g., Vallisa church, which has the smallest volume, was
expected to have the lowest curve), while others depend on different materials (e.g, Barletta and
Bitonto cathedrals have nearly the same volume but the wooden roof of the second is much more
sound absorbing than the vaults of the first). Similar differences can be observed between Bari
Cathedral and St. Nicholas Basilica, which have comparable volume but different RT because the
latter has a wooden ceiling with painted canvases that is probably more sound absorbing than the
wooden roof of the cathedral.
However, in order to understand better whether the differences depend on room dimensions or on
materials, the effect of the volume on RT was analysed. Figure 3a reports the mid-frequency
reverberation time (RTmid) as a function of the total room volume expressed on a logarithmic scale.
It appears that the two churches having a partly or completely vaulted nave (D and H) show
considerably higher RTmid values. If these points are excluded from the regression analysis, the
remaining RTmid values, although slightly scattered, appear linearly correlated with the logarithm of
V, with a significant determination coefficient R2 equal to 0.798. It is interesting to observe that the
resulting regression equation is comparable with those reported in [4], and, in particular, with the
equations characterizing the Swiss churches reported in [6, p. 78].
The logarithmic dependence found between RTmid and V suggests that volume and total surface area
may be correlated. In fact, according to Sabine’s formula, RTmid is directly proportional to V but
inversely proportional to S multiplied by α. When the latter is nearly constant, as it is for the
selected sample of churches, RTmid depends only on the ratio between V and S, so if RTmid is well
correlated with V alone, this means that V and S are correlated as well. Figure 3b shows that, even
when the whole sample is considered, V and S are highly correlated (R2=0.994) according to a
power function, probably as a consequence of the strict proportional rules used by medieval church
builders. So, the regression equation found ( S = 6.25V 0.71 ) was used to rewrite Sabine’s formula in
order to express RTmid as a function of just V and α:
RTmid = 0.025V 0.29 α . (1)
The plot of RTmid as a function of V0.29 (Fig. 3c) shows that when points D and H (representing
Barletta Cathedral and Ognissanti church) are excluded, the remaining points are significantly
correlated but the best-fit line does not have a null intercept, contradicting Eq. (1). This depends on
the mean absorption coefficient which is similar, but not exactly the same for all the churches taken
into account: the mean α is 0.096 with a standard deviation of 0.011. If even points A and G are
excluded, the mean α is still 0.096, but the standard deviation becomes 0.005 and the intercept of
the regression line equation becomes negligible (dashed line in Fig. 3c). However, if points A and G
are not excluded and the intercept is forced to be zero, then the determination coefficient is reduced
to 0.67, but the regression equation becomes RTmid = 0.26V 0.29 , in close agreement with the results
found by Desarnaulds in [6, p. 74].
 5

In order to clarify the role played by α, RTmid was plotted as a function of V/S (Fig. 3d), so that,
according to Sabine’s equation, the slope of the line conjoining each point with the origin is
inversely proportional to the mean absorption coefficient. The data appear distributed according to
their respective α values, so that St. Nicholas Basilica has the highest value (0.11), Ognissanti
church has the lowest value (0.04), and the remaining can roughly be divided into two groups
having average α values equal to 0.069 (D and G) and 0.096 (the others). The first group has a
lower α because Barletta Cathedral has half the nave roofed and half vaulted, and the walls of
Bovino Cathedral are finished in plaster. A similar distinction between vaulted and roofed churches
was found in [9].
Finally, it can be observed that RT and volume (or, as it will be shown below, any other geometrical
parameter) are well correlated only if the churches have a similar α. This means that the materials
used, the way in which they are used, and consequently their acoustic absorption characteristics
play a fundamental role in determining the acoustics of a church.
This can be further observed in Figure 2b, which shows the frequency plot of RT normalized using
Eq. (1) and assuming as a reference a volume of 10000 m3. In this way the curves reported in Figure
2b are mainly the result of differences in sound absorption due to the materials used. Only five
churches show a similar α, and their RT values, over the six octave bands, are concentrated in a
relatively narrow interval with an average standard deviation of about 0.3 s. The other churches
show different behaviour depending on their specific characteristics. However, it can be observed
that, at high frequencies, RT values tend to converge, clearly because of the common absorbing
effect of air. Only Ognissanti church is an exception, probably because its volume is small
compared to other churches and because the church was completely bare during the measurements.
On the other hand, at lower frequencies RT varies from low to high values according to the larger or
smaller amount of wooden surfaces used in the churches.
Most of the architectural parameters taken into account proved to be well correlated with room
volume (Table 2), so they were expected to be well correlated with RTmid, provided that the “odd”
churches (D and H) were excluded. In fact, Table 3 reports the results of the regression analyses
performed with and without those churches, showing that the correlations are significant only when
churches D and H are excluded, that is only when churches with similar α are considered. In this
case, the floor surface proved to be the best correlated parameter, followed by room volume and
total surface area.

Table 2. Coefficients of determination calculated between different geometrical parameters. Values

higher than 0.95 are indicated in bold letters.
V S V/S Sf V/Sf Vn Sn W L H A α
V 1.00
S 0.99 1.00
V/S 0.87 0.88 1.00
Sf 0.97 0.97 0.88 1.00
V/Sf 0.79 0.83 0.87 0.72 1.00
Vn 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.97 0.76 1.00
Sn 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.68 0.98 1.00
W 0.85 0.87 0.71 0.88 0.60 0.80 0.79 1.00
L 0.86 0.88 0.94 0.92 0.76 0.92 0.93 0.71 1.00
H 0.78 0.82 0.89 0.71 0.99 0.76 0.67 0.58 0.77 1.00
A 0.94 0.96 0.75 0.91 0.76 0.87 0.79 0.82 0.77 0.74 1.00
α 0.22 0.24 0.15 0.17 0.33 0.16 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.31 0.36 1.00
 6

Table 3. Coefficients of determination calculated between geometrical parameters and RT taking into
account all the churches and a selection (sel) of similar churches (excluding Barletta and
Ognissanti). Values reported in brackets correspond to logarithmic regressions.
V S V/S Sf V/Sf Vn Sn W L H A α
RT(all) (0.20) (0.17) 0.29 (0.29) 0.09 (0.28) (0.41) (0.21) (0.33) 0.10 0.04 0.31
RT(sel) (0.80) (0.80) (0.77) (0.86) 0.58 (0.71) (0.75) (0.79) (0.76) 0.60 (0.71) 0.01

4.2. The other acoustic parameters

In case of a purely exponential sound decay the theory establishes that all the energy-based acoustic
parameters, such as C80, D50, tS, and G, can be expressed as functions of RT. However, it has been
shown in [14] that in each of the surveyed churches there are only small variations in the individual
location values of RT, while other parameters are much more position sensitive, demonstrating that
no evident relation exists between their individual position values.
On the contrary, room-average values of the acoustic parameters are significantly correlated with
RT and even better with EDT. Table 4 reports the correlations between all the parameters, showing
that room-average values of RTmid and EDTmid are highly correlated (R2=0.996), but the other
acoustic parameters are better correlated with EDTmid probably because it is more position sensitive
than RTmid. Apart from Gmid and IACCE3 which have a different behaviour and will be discussed
later, the high correlation between RTmid, EDTmid, and the other energy-based parameters (Fig. 4)
suggests that the latter will be correlated with architectural parameters as scarcely as the first. In
fact, Table 5 shows that the correlations are poor and the determination coefficients are generally
smaller than 0.50, demonstrating that significant correlations can be obtained only by taking into
account both architectural and acoustic parameters together (as reported in [8,10]).
The correlations between RTmid and EDTmid, C80(3), D50mid, and tSmid led us to investigate whether
theoretical relations, based on the diffuse-field theory, can be used to express the energy-based
parameters as functions of RTmid. The theoretical relations can be easily calculated assuming a
purely exponential sound decay [21] and the resulting equations are reported in Table 6. The
coefficients of determination calculated between C80, D50 and their respective theoretical values
appear lower than those calculated in correlation with RT. Centre time behaves differently because
its theoretical value is proportional to RT and consequently the coefficient of determination between
measured and theoretical values is the same observed between measured values and RT. However,
apart from the high or low correlations, the regression equations show that none of the parameters
can be expressed by its theoretical value, but must be calculated as a function of that theoretical
value. These results are in agreement with those found in [8], even though the resulting equations
are quite different.

Table 4. Coefficients of determination calculated between room-average values of different acoustic

parameters.
RTmid EDTmid C80(3) D50mid tSmid RASTI Gmid 1–IACCE3
RTmid 1.000
EDTmid 0.996 1.000
C80(3) 0.907 0.937 1.000
D50mid 0.852 0.883 0.947 1.000
tSmid 0.957 0.977 0.978 0.899 1.000
RASTI 0.942 0.959 0.949 0.902 0.946 1.000
Gmid 0.027 0.037 0.056 0.017 0.050 0.090 1.000
1–IACCE3 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.055 0.004 0.005 0.339 1.000
 7

Table 5. Coefficients of determination calculated between geometrical and acoustic parameters. Values
reported in brackets correspond to logarithmic regressions.
V S V/S Sf V/Sf Vn Sn W L H A α
EDTmid (0.22) (0.19) 0.32 (0.31) 0.10 (0.31) (0.44) (0.22) (0.36) 0.11 0.06 0.28
C80(3) (0.24) (0.20) 0.36 (0.32) 0.11 0.34 (0.46) (0.22) 0.39 0.12 0.08 0.17
D50mid 0.18 0.14 0.26 0.24 0.04 0.28 0.38 (0.18) 0.30 0.05 0.06 0.23
tSmid (0.24) (0.20) 0.36 (0.31) 0.12 (0.34) (0.46) (0.20) (0.38) 0.14 0.07 0.21
RASTI (0.32) (0.29) 0.42 (0.43) 0.16 (0.41) (0.55) (0.32) (0.48) 0.18 0.14 0.18
Gmid (0.90) (0.90) (0.85) (0.80) (0.90) (0.82) (0.68) 0.68 (0.78) (0.89) (0.99) (0.52)
1-IACCE3 (0.34) 0.36 0.29 (0.27) 0.48 (0.27) (0.20) 0.25 (0.21) 0.48 (0.33) (0.20)

Table 6. Formulae to express energy-based acoustic parameters as functions of RT according to diffuse-

field theory; determination coefficients of linear regressions between measured and theoretical
room-average values and their respective regression equations.
Index Theoretical formula R2 Regression equation
C80 C80th = 10Log(e1.104/RT–1) 0.81 C80=1.37C80th+0.89
D50 D50th = (1–e–0.69/RT) 0.68 D50=0.88D50th+0.32
tS tSth = RT/0.0138 0.96 tS=1.22tSth+42.1
G Gth = 10Log(31200RT/V) 0.99 G=0.97Gth–0.32

The strength factor Gmid shows different behaviour from other energy-based acoustic parameters. In
fact, it is scarcely correlated with RTmid (Table 4), but is highly correlated with many architectural
parameters (Table 5) and, in particular, with the logarithm of the total acoustic absorption, for
which R2=0.99 (see Fig. 5a). This correlation is in agreement with diffuse-field theory, according to
which, if the contribution of the direct sound is neglected, G is just a function of A, or, using
Sabine’s formula, of the ratio V/RT. The theoretical relation is reported in Table 6 and the
correlation between its values and those measured is considerably high (R2=0.99). In this case, the
regression equation shows that the agreement between theoretical and measured values is good, and
G can be expressed using Gth (Fig. 5b).
The comparison between measured and theoretical values of the energy-based acoustic parameters
shows that the strength factor performs better, probably because it depends on the energy of the
reverberant sound field which is well predicted using a purely exponential sound decay. On the
contrary, the other parameters, mostly depending on the early reflections – which are hardly
predictable using the classical theory – perform as badly as the smaller the early reflections interval
they consider.
Finally, the inter-aural cross-correlation coefficient is investigated. Table 4 shows that it is best
correlated with Gmid, but the determination coefficient is 0.339, proving that the correlation is
scarcely significant. Similarly, even the correlation with architectural parameters is poor (Table 5).
However, it was observed in [14] that the IACCE3 value measured in St. Nicholas Basilica was
unusually small, probably because of the columns which separate the nave from the transept and
consequently interfere with the propagation of the direct sound reducing the correlation of the
binaural signals [22]. Thus, the correlations between room-average values of (1–IACCE3) and
architectural parameters were calculated excluding St. Nicholas Basilica from the analysis. The best
correlated parameter was the total acoustic absorption with an R2 equal to 0.88, followed by the
room volume with R2 equal to 0.75. The comparison of the plots of (1–IACCE3) as a function of
both A and V explains the unusual correlation with total absorption. Figure 6a shows that (1–
IACCE3) values decrease linearly with volume with the exception of two points: point A which was
 8

discussed above, and point D. The latter corresponds to Barletta Cathedral and if it is excluded from
the regression analysis the coefficient of determination between (1–IACCE3) and V becomes 0.99.
The unusually high (1–IACCE3) value measured in Barletta Cathedral may depend on the shape of
the “sending end” of the church that, with its chapels and pillars, may provide a reduction in the
correlation between binaural signals due to diffraction effects. The high correlation observed
between (1–IACCE3) and A is scarcely significant because it is the consequence of the
correspondence between the “unusually” lower absorption of the church due to the plastered vaults,
and the “unusually” high (1–IACCE3) due to its particular sending end. On the contrary, the
correlation between (1–IACCE3) and V is in agreement with the dependence of this acoustic
parameter on room dimensions [23,24].

5. ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL POSITION RESULTS

5.1. Correlations between acoustic and architectural parameters

The analysis of the correlation between individual position values of the acoustic parameters and
architectural parameters required the use of a new independent variable, the source-receiver
distance (d), capable of taking into account the effects of sound propagation. In addition, in this
section the mid-frequency reverberation time was included among the independent variables,
grouped under the name of “architectural” parameters. In fact, as shown in the previous section, RT
influences the energy-based parameters, and it is scarcely position sensitive, so that it can be
considered as a specific feature of a room. In addition, RT can be simply calculated as a function of
“true” architectural parameters using Sabine’s formula.
In this section only monaural acoustic parameters were considered and, apart from RASTI that is a
single number parameter, the analysis was limited to 1 kHz values of EDT, G, C80, D50, tS. The
interaural cross-correlation coefficient was not taken into account because in most of the churches it
proved to be poorly correlated with the source-receiver distance.
The analysis was carried out by plotting the individual location values of the different parameters as
a function of the source-receiver distance, in addition the data belonging to different churches were
indicated with different symbols so that the behaviour of each parameter in different rooms could be
inspected (Fig. 7). In general, taking into account the whole set of data, the correlations proved to
be quite low, with considerable scattering.
However, analysing only the values measured in one church at a time, the scattering of the data
appears considerably reduced and the correlations become higher. In particular, the correlation with
source-receiver distance proves to be linear for EDT and logarithmic for the other parameters.
In order to find a general rule which can relate individual position values and architectural
parameters, for each acoustic parameter the slopes and the intercepts of the regression lines relative
to each church were calculated and later correlated with the architectural parameters. The resulting
coefficients of determination are reported in Table 7.
Early decay time shows a slight increase as the source-receiver distance grows (Fig. 7a), the ratio of
this increase proved to be logarithmically correlated to the length of the church (R2=0.46). The
intercepts were correlated to RT with R2=0.96, in agreement with the room-average behaviour
described above. Consequently, using the respective regression equations follows that EDT can be
expressed as:
EDT = [0.0373 log( L) − 0.0354]d + 0.87 RT . (2)
The strength index (Fig. 7b) decreases as the distance from the source grows, the rate of this
decrease appears correlated with the logarithm of the room volume (R2=0.71), while the intercepts
of the regression lines are correlated with α (R2=0.48), so G can be expressed as:
 9

Table 7. Coefficients of determination calculated between slopes (a) and intercepts (b) of the regression
equations calculated in each church, and architectural parameters. Best correlation values are
indicated in bold letters. Values reported in brackets correspond to logarithmic regressions.
V S V/S Sf V/Sf Vn Sn W L H A α RTmid
aEDT (0.35) (0.32) (0.39) (0.37) (0.24) (0.33) (0.31) (0.19) (0.46) (0.27) (0.21) 0.01 (0.39)
aG (0.71) (0.60) (0.63) (0.50) (0.70) (0.60) (0.46) (0.33) (0.58) (0.69) (0.59) (0.21) (0.11)
aC80 (0.30) (0.27) (0.35) (0.28) (0.27) (0.28) (0.23) (0.19) (0.31) (0.29) (0.21) (0.01) (0.23)
aD50 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.11 (0.0) 0.14 0.22 0.03 0.15 (0.0) 0.01 0.21 0.55
aTs (0.30) (0.27) (0.39) (0.33) (0.21) (0.34) (0.35) (0.17) (0.42) (0.23) (0.14) 0.03 0.47
aRASTI 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.11 (0.0) 0.14 (0.24) (0.11) 0.13 (0.0) 0.00 0.18 0.69
bEDT 0.13 (0.11) 0.22 (0.20) 0.05 0.22 (0.34) (0.14) (0.25) 0.06 0.03 0.36 0.96
bG 0.41 0.40 0.20 0.34 0.26 0.25 0.18 0.36 0.17 0.26 0.49 0.48 0.08
bC80 (0.44) (0.44) (0.42) (0.32) (0.58) (0.34) (0.20) (0.24) (0.32) (0.58) (0.59) (0.54) 0.02
bD50 (0.01) (0.01) 0.01 0.01 (0.07) 0.03 0.07 (0.0) 0.03 (0.06) (0.08) 0.40 0.51
bTs (0.11) (0.11) (0.09) (0.05) (0.22) (0.06) (0.01) (0.02) (0.06) (0.21) (0.26) (0.57) 0.23
bRASTI 0.01 (0.01) 0.02 0.02 (0.04) 0.05 0.11 (0.0) 0.04 (0.04) (0.07) 0.41 0.87

G = [− 3.54 log(V ) + 7.53]log(d ) − 79.5α + 25.3 . (3)

The clarity index (Fig. 7c) shows a different behaviour. In fact, its values decrease with the source-
receiver distance, but none of the architectural parameters showed significant correlations with the
slopes of the regression lines. Intercept values appeared to be best correlated with the logarithm of
total absorption A (R2=0.59), so the corresponding regression equation was used to provide the
following equation for C80:
C80 = −11 log(d ) + 4.97 log( A) − 5.99 , (4)
where the constant slope is given by the mean of the slopes relative to each church.
The definition index (Fig. 7d) decreases with the source-receiver distance and both slopes and
intercepts of the regression equations are correlated best with RT (with determination coefficients
respectively equal to 0.55 and 0.51). Thus, taking into account the respective regression equations
gives:
D50 = (7.86 RT − 75.5) log(d ) − 10.65 RT + 108.3 (5)
Centre time (Fig. 7e) increases as the distance from the source grows. The rate of the increase is
proportional to RT (R2=0.47), while the intercepts are correlated best with the logarithm of α
(R2=0.57). Using the respective regression equations the following expression was obtained:
t S = (37.2 RT + 49.25) log(d ) − 405.6 log(α ) − 366.3 . (6)
Finally, RASTI values appear more scattered than other parameters (Fig. 7f). A decrease with the
distance can be observed, but the correlations are lower and in one case (Vallisa church) not
significant (R2=0.18). Therefore the correlations between slopes, intercepts, and architectural
parameters were investigated disregarding the Vallisa values. RASTI decreases with the distance at
a rate which is proportional to RT (R2=0.69), and even the intercept is correlated to the same
parameter (R2=0.87). The resulting equation obtained by combining the corresponding regression
equations is:
RASTI = (3.6 RT − 36.3) log(d ) − 7.5 RT + 91.4 . (7)
 10

In conclusion, it appears that the acoustic parameters under investigation show a clear dependence
on source-receiver distance which is the consequence of the attenuation of the direct sound and of
the early reflections as the sound propagates. The individual location variations and the “initial”
values of the parameters appear to depend on one or two of the following “architectural”
parameters: V, L, A, α, and RT. It is significant that the parameters which influence the individual
location values are so simple and nearly coincide with those used in the diffuse-field theory.
Equations (2-7) were not defined for prediction purposes. In fact, only 1 kHz octave band values
were considered and only linear and logarithmic regression models were used. However, it is useful
to investigate their prediction accuracy, even though their performance is expected to be
unsatisfactory because a continuous model can hardly take into account the fluctuations of
individual location values.
The best measure to test the accuracy of a prediction formula is the rms error calculated between
measured and predicted data in each source-receiver combination. However, in order to evaluate a
prediction error, it should be expressed in terms of “just noticeable difference” (JND), that is the
minimum variation between two parameter values required for a subject to perceive a difference.
The prediction error, expressed in terms of JND, is given by the mean of the absolute values of the
differences between measured and predicted values divided by the corresponding JNDs, and it is
acceptable if it is smaller than one. JND is equal to 1 dB for both G and C80, is equal to 5% of the
measured value for tS and EDT, and is equal to 5% in absolute value for D50 [25,26]. For RASTI no
JND has been defined in the literature, so only the rms error is given.
The results, reported in Table 8, show that, on average, G can be predicted with good accuracy in
nearly all of the cases, with errors smaller than one JND. The other parameters show higher errors,
generally varying between one and two times their respective JNDs. It must be pointed out that in
this kind of analysis the determination coefficient may provide quite misleading results, in fact, as
reported in Table 8, in some cases high R2 values do not correspond to accurate predictions. Finally,
it appears that, apart from the procedure used to find the equations (which may lead to
systematically overestimate or underestimate the values in some of the churches), their best or worst
performance depends on the smaller or larger fluctuations which characterize the measured
parameters. Thus, G which is generally more uniform, can be predicted better than the others, the
fluctuations of which cannot be easily predicted when empirical or even theoretical models are
used [27,28]. Therefore, if this limitation is known, the equations found can be a practical tool to
give rough predictions based on a few simple architectural parameters.

Table 8. Round mean square errors, just noticeable differences (JND), and determination coefficients
between measured values of acoustical parameters and those predicted using equations (2-7).
EDT G C80 D50 tS RASTI
rms JND rms JND rms JND rms JND rms JND rms JND
St. Nicholas Basilica, Bari 0.17 0.57 1.02 0.95 2.02 1.84 7.1 1.23 58.0 2.9 2.5 -
Bari Cathedral 0.38 1.36 0.92 0.80 1.94 1.61 6.9 1.18 23.3 1.1 5.1 -
Bitonto Cathedral 0.41 1.98 1.02 0.96 1.44 1.24 9.7 1.70 33.4 2.3 3.7 -
Barletta Cathedral 0.23 0.57 0.63 0.53 3.69 3.58 2.1 0.34 45.4 1.5 2.0 -
Bisceglie Cathedral 0.31 1.57 0.83 0.66 1.86 1.33 10.3 1.27 37.9 2.9 4.9 -
Ruvo Cathedral 0.18 0.79 0.71 0.58 1.50 1.27 6.3 0.97 29.3 1.9 3.3 -
Bovino Cathedral 0.23 1.24 1.06 0.97 1.44 1.19 6.9 1.07 40.1 3.2 3.1 -
Ognissanti church, Valenzano 0.42 1.47 0.71 0.66 0.84 0.66 10.3 1.98 42.3 2.0 3.9 -
Vallisa church, Bari 0.15 1.27 1.30 1.24 3.26 3.10 9.8 1.74 14.0 1.6 -
Mean values 0.27 1.20 0.91 0.82 2.00 1.76 7.71 1.28 35.9 2.1 3.6 -
Determination coefficient R2 0.95 0.96 0.63 0.56 0.89 0.72
 11

5.2. Correlations between acoustic parameters

In section 4.2 it was observed that room-average values of the acoustic parameters describing the
“clarity” were highly correlated with each other, and with temporal parameters, EDT above all. The
existence of such correlations between individual location values was investigated as well.
Figure 9 shows the plot of the correlations between pairs of parameters. It appears that only tS is
still highly correlated with EDT (R2=0.91) with a linear regression equation which is similar to the
one found considering room-average values. The other parameters show poor correlations with
EDT, with considerable scattering of data which prevent any use of the temporal parameter as a
substitute for the clarity indices.
The latter are again well correlated with each other. The highest correlations are observed between
C80 and D50, with R2=0.93, and between RASTI and tS, with R2=0.88. C80 is well correlated even
with tS (R2=0.84) and with RASTI (R2=0.83). D50 shows the lowest correlations with RASTI
(R2=0.73) and with tS (R2=0.72). Similar results, with comparable regression equations (especially
between RASTI and tS), were found by Carvalho [7,10].
Finally, it can be stated that even though the scattering of the data is often considerable, the
parameters which describe the “clarity” are highly correlated and provide nearly the same
information. The analysis of the individual location values identified more complex regression
models compared to the simple linear regressions which were found between room-average results.
In that case the number of data points was probably too small to show more complex relations.

6. CONCLUSIONS
The acoustics of nine Romanesque churches, mostly cathedrals, was studied during an experimental
survey. The most important acoustic parameters were measured and their correlation with
architectural parameters was investigated. Architectural parameters included descriptors of both
geometry and acoustic characteristics of materials.
Room-average values of the acoustic measures were considered first. No significant correlation was
found between RT and geometric parameters unless the churches having the lowest α were
excluded from the analysis, so that the remaining churches had nearly the same α. When this
selected sample was considered, the correlations with architectural parameters increased
significantly, and, as shown by other researchers [1-6], it appeared that RT is well correlated to
room volume. Among the other acoustic parameters, G was highly correlated with total absorption
area, while EDT, C80, D50, tS, and RASTI, proved to be highly correlated to each other and with RT,
so the correlations with architectural parameters proved to be as scarcely significant as those
reported in [8,10]. A comparison between measured parameters and those calculated as functions of
RT, using diffuse-field theory, showed that G can be predicted with good accuracy, while C80, D50,
and tS, showed considerable scattering of the data and lower correlations. A comparison with a
similar analysis performed in [8] showed that the equation to predict G was nearly the same, but the
equations to predict the other parameters were significantly different.
The analysis of the individual position results showed that EDT, G, C80, D50, tS, and RASTI
measured in each church proved to be related to source-receiver distance as a consequence of the
attenuation of the direct sound and of the early reflections as the sound propagated. The individual
location variations and the “initial” values of the parameters appeared to depend on one or two of
the following “architectural” parameters: V, L, A, α, and RT. The resulting equations provided good
predictions of individual position values of G, while the other acoustic parameters were predicted
with less accuracy. However, if used carefully, Eqs (2-7) can be conveniently used in similar
 12

Romanesque churches to obtain a rough estimate of the acoustic parameters as a function of a few
simple architectural parameters and the source-receiver distance.
The correlation between C80, D50, tS, and RASTI was observed even when individual location values
were considered, demonstrating (as shown by Carvalho in [10]), that these parameters give nearly
the same information.
Despite the observations made in this paper being based on a relatively small sample, the results
proved to be significant. However, a wider survey is underway in order to enlarge the number of
churches under investigation and take into account different architectural styles.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank all the parish priests and church management for allowing access to their
churches.

REFERENCES
[1] Fearn R.W., Reverberation in Spanish, English, and French churches. J. Sound Vib. 43(3),
562-567 (1975).
[2] Tzekakis E.G., Data on the acoustics of the Byzantine Churches of Thessaloniki. Acustica, 4,
275-279 (1979).
[3] Mijic M., Serbian Orthodox Church – An Acoustical View. Proc. 17th ICA, Rome,
September 2001.
[4] Desarnaulds V., Carvalho A.P.O., Analysis of reverberation time values in churches
according to country and architectural style. Proc. of the 8th International Congress on Sound
and Vibration, Hong-Kong, July 2001.
[5] Desarnaulds V., Bossoney S., Eggenschwiler K., Studie zur Raumakustik von Schweizer
Kirchen. Fortschritte der Akustik–DAGA 98, Zürich, 710-711 (1998).
[6] Desarnaulds V., De l’acoustique des églises en Suisse. Une approche pluridisciplinaire.
Doctoral Thesis. EPFL, (2002), (in French).
[7] Carvalho A.P.O., Objective acoustical analysis of room acoustic measurements in Portuguese
Catholic churches. Proc. Noise-Con 94, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 805-810 (1994).
[8] Carvalho A.P.O., Relationship between objective acoustical measures and architectural
features in churches. Proc. W.C. Sabine Centennial Symposium, 127th Acoustical Society of
America Meeting, Cambridge, MA (USA), 311-314, (1994).
[9] Carvalho A.P.O., The Sabine equation and coupled spaces in churches. Proc. Inter-Noise 95,
Newport Beach CA (USA), 339-342, (1995).
[10] Carvalho A.P.O., Relations between rapid speech transmission index (RASTI) and other
acoustical and architectural measures in churches. Applied Acoust. 58, 33-49 (1999).
[11] Sendra J.J., Zamarreño T., and Navarro J., Acoustics in churches. In Computational Acoustics
in Architecture. J.J. Sendra ed., Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications, 133-
177 (1999).
[12] Galindo M., Zamarreño T., Giron S. Clarity and Definition in Mudejar-Gothic Churches.
Building Acoust. 6, 1-16 (1999).
[13] Galindo M., Zamarreño T., Giron S. Speech intelligibility in Mudejar-Gothic churches.
Acustica–acta acustica, 86, 381-384 (2000).
[14] Cirillo E. and Martellotta F., Acoustics of Apulian-Romanesque churches: an experimental
survey, Building Acoust. 9(4), 271-288, (2002).
[15] Belli D’Elia P., La Puglia, Milano: Jaca Book (1987), (in Italian).
[16] Petrucci A., Cattedrali di Puglia, Roma: D’Arte (1960), (in Italian).
 13

[17] Farina A., Simultaneous measurement of impulse response and distortion with a swept-sine
technique. Proc. 108th AES convention, Paris, February 2000.
[18] ISO-3382. Acoustics–Measurement of the reverberation time of rooms with reference to other
acoustical parameters, (1997).
[19] IEC-60268-16, Sound system equipment–Part 16: Objective rating of speech intelligibility by
speech transmission index, (1998).
[20] Martellotta F., Caratteristiche acustiche delle chiese romaniche in Puglia. Doctoral Thesis in
Applied Physics. Università degli Studi di Ancona, (2001), (in Italian).
[21] Cremer L., and Müller H.A., Principles and Applications of Room Acoustics, London:
Applied Science Publishers (1982).
[22] Cirillo E., Martellotta F., On the measurement of binaural acoustic parameters in some
Romanesque churches. Proc. Forum Acusticum 2002, Seville (2002), Paper RBA-06-016.
[23] Bradley J.S., Comparison of concert hall measurements of spatial impression. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 96(6), 3525-3535, (1994).
[24] Ando Y., Architectural acoustics: blending sound sources, sound fields, and listeners, New
York: Springer Verlag (1998).
[25] Cox T.J., Davies W.J., Lam Y.W., The sensitivity of listeners to early sound field changes in
auditoria. Acustica 79, 27-41 (1993).
[26] Bork I. A comparison of room simulation software – The 2nd round robin on room acoustical
computer simulation. Acustica – Acta acustica 86, 943-956 (2000).
[27] Cirillo E., Martellotta F., Some observations on the theoretical prediction of strength and
clarity inside highly diffusing rooms. Proc. Forum Acusticum 2002, Seville (2002), Paper
ARC-Gen 004.
[28] Cirillo E., Martellotta F., An improved model to predict energy-based acoustic parameters in
churches, Applied Acoust. 64(1), 1-23 (2002).
 14

Figure 1. Plan of the churches surveyed. Church ID are the same reported in Table 1.
( ): source positions. ( ): Receiver positions.
 15

9.0 10.0
A A
8.0 9.0
B B
7.0 8.0
C C
7.0

normalized RT (s)
6.0 D D
6.0
5.0 E E
RT (s)

5.0 F
4.0 F
4.0 G
G
3.0
H 3.0 H
2.0 2.0 I
I
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000
a) Frequency (Hz) b) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 2. a) Frequency plot of RT measured in the nine churches surveyed. b) Frequency plot of
RT values normalized as if all churches had a volume of 10000 m3. Church ID are the
same reported in Table 1.

7.0 D
12000
y = 0.790Ln(x) - 3.345
y = 6.246x 0.712 A
6.0 R2 = 0.798 10000
R2 = 0.994 B
H B
5.0 8000
RT mid (s)

C
S (m 2)

C A
4.0 G F 6000
D
E E
3.0 4000
G F
2.0 I 2000 H
I
1.0 0
1000 10000 100000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000
3 3
a) V (m ) b) V (m )

7.0 D
7.0 D

6.0 6.0
H B H B
5.0 5.0
y = 0.19x + 1.03
RT mid (s)
RT mid (s)

C A G A
4.0 R2 = 0.76 G 4.0 C
F y = 2.39x F
E
E
3.0 3.0 R2 = 0.99
y = 1.68x
2.0 I 2.0 I R2 = 0.98

1.0 1.0
5 10 15 20 25 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.29
c) V d) V / S (m)

Figure 3. a) Room-average RTmid vs. room volume; b) Total surface area vs. total room volume;
c) Room-average RTmid vs. V0.29, the dashed line is the regression line calculated
excluding points A and G; d) Room-average RTmid vs. V/S. Church ID are the same
reported in Table 1. ( , , ): Points excluded from regression analysis.
 16

0.0 25

-2.0 20
-4.0

D 50mid (%)
C 80(3) (dB)

15
-6.0
10 y = -3.78x + 30.94
-8.0 R2 = 0.88
y = -1.76x + 1.60
5
-10.0 R2 = 0.94

-12.0 0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

EDT mid (s) EDT mid (s)

a) b)

700 50

600 45
y = 85.06x - 31.47
500 R2 = 0.98 40
RASTI (%)
ts mid (ms)

400 35

300 30
y = -4.43x + 55.22
200 25 R2 = 0.96

100 20
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

EDT mid (s) EDT mid (s)

c) d)

Figure 4. Plot of room-average values of (a) C80(3), (b) D50mid, (c) tSmid and (d) RASTI vs. EDT.

25 20

20
15
G mid (dB)

15
Gmid (dB)

10
10
y = 0.97x - 0.32
5 y = -4.22Ln(x) + 43.35
R2 = 0.99
R2 = 0.99
0 5
100 1000 10000 5 10 15 20
2
A (m ) theoretical G mid (dB)
a) b)

Figure 5. Plot of room-average values of Gmid vs. (a) total acoustic absorption A, and (b)
theoretical G values calculated using diffuse-field hypothesis.
 17

0.70 0.70
G G
D D
H F H F
0.68 A 0.68 A
E E
1 - IACCE3

1 - IACCE3
0.66 0.66
C C
0.64 0.64
R2 = 0.75 R2 = 0.88
0.62 B 0.62 B

0.60 0.60
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 0 500 1000 1500
V (m 3 ) A (m 2 )
a) b)

Figure 6. Plot of room-average values of (1–IACCE3) vs. (a) total room volume V, and (b) total
acoustic absorption A. ( ): Points excluded from regression analysis.
 18

8.0 25

7.0
20
6.0
15
EDT (s)

5.0

G (dB)
4.0 10
3.0
y = 0.07x + 3.17 y = -5.85Ln(x) + 26.55
5
2.0 R2 = 0.23 R2 = 0.59
1.0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 1 10 100
a) Source-receiver distance (m) b) Source-receiver distance (m)

4 70
2
60 y = -12.60Ln(x) + 47.88
0
R2 = 0.47
-2 50
-4
C80 (dB)

D50 (%)
40
-6
-8 30
-10 20
-12 y = -4.26Ln(x) + 4.70
R2 = 0.54 10
-14
-16 0
1 10 100 1 10 100
c) Source-receiver distance (m) d) Source-receiver distance (m)

700 60

600 y = 125.51Ln(x) + 0.81

R2 = 0.39 50
500
RASTI (%)

40
400
ts (ms)

300
30
200
20 y = -8.75Ln(x) + 57.95
100 R2 = 0.48
0 10
1 10 100 1 10 100
e) Source-receiver distance (m) f) Source-receiver distance (m)

Figure 7. Plot of individual location values of (a) EDT, (b) G, (c) C80, (d) D50, (e) tS, at 1 kHz
octave band and (f) RASTI, vs. source-receiver distance. Different symbols correspond
to different churches.
 19

4 70 700
2 -0.40x y = 87.32x - 43.82
60 y = 64.56e 600
0 R2 = 0.91
-2 50 R2 = 0.50
500
C80 (dB)

D50 (%)
-4

ts (ms)
40
-6 400
-8 30
-10 300
20
-12 y = -2.08x + 2.47 200
10
-14 R2 = 0.62
-16 0 100
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
EDT (s) EDT (s) EDT (s)

70 70 60

60 y = 43.69e0.21x 60 y = 0,0003x 2,97 55 y = 49.28e0.06x

R2 = 0.93 R2 = 0,73 50 R2 = 0.83
50 50

RASTI (%)
45
D50 (%)

D50 (%)

40 40
40
30 30
35
20 20
30
10 10 25
0 0 20
-15 -10 -5 0 5 20 30 40 50 60 -15 -10 -5 0 5
C80 (dB) RASTI (%) C80 (dB)

700 900 700

y = 126208.63x -1.70
y = -31.90x + 123.85 800 y = -137.43Ln(x) + 665.40
600 R2 = 0.88 600
R2 = 0.84 700 R2 = 0.72
500 500
600
ts (ms)

ts (ms)
ts (ms)

400 500 400

400
300 300
300
200 200
200
100 100 100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80
C80 (dB) RASTI (%) D50 (%)

Figure 8. Plot of the correlations between individual location values of different monaural
parameters.

View publication stats