...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control >Comparison of Objective Methods for Assessment of Annoyance of Low Frequency Noise with the Results of a Laboratory Listening Test
【24h】

Comparison of Objective Methods for Assessment of Annoyance of Low Frequency Noise with the Results of a Laboratory Listening Test

机译:评估低频噪声烦恼的客观方法与实验室听力测试结果的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Subjective assessments made by test persons were compared to results from a number of objective measurement and calculation methods for the assessment of low frequency noise. Eighteen young persons with normal hearing listened to eight environmental low frequency noises and evaluated the annoyance of the noises. The noises were stationary noise with and without tones, intermittent noise, music, traffic noise and impulsive low frequency noise. The noises were presented twice in a random order at LAeq levels of 20 dB, 27.5 dB and 35 dB. The assessment methods were those used in Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland and Denmark. It was found that the Danish assessment method gave the best relation to the subjective assessments made by the test persons. An important property of this method is that it includes a 5 dB penalty for noises having an impulsive character.
机译:将测试人员的主观评估与低频噪声评估的多种客观测量和计算方法的结果进行比较。十八名听力正常的年轻人听了八种环境低频噪音,并评估了这些噪音的烦恼。噪声是有声或无声的固定噪声,间歇性噪声,音乐,交通噪声和脉冲式低频噪声。噪声以20 dB,27.5 dB和35 dB的L 电平随机出现两次。评估方法是在瑞典,德国,荷兰,波兰和丹麦使用的评估方法。发现丹麦的评估方法与测试人员进行的主观评估之间的联系最佳。该方法的重要特性是它对具有脉冲特性的噪声包括5 dB的损失。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号