Page 38 - Spring 2019
P. 38

Art: at cancer: Hull Acuuaeiea

Hamilton. 13.. and Bilhnu, S. (20111). wave-based mom acoustics n-todeliing: Lokki, 1'. (2013). Throw away that standard and listen: Your lwa
Recent progress and future outlooks. Proceeding: ofihe lristilurv ufAcous- ears work better. inamai of Building Acoustics 20(4). 283-294.
Iics:Au.dit1Jrium Amusfia. Hamburg, Germany. October 4-6, 2018. ht1ps://dotorpJ1o.12o0/1351 -010X.2u.4.2a3.

Hawltes. R 1, and Douglas, 1-1. (1971). Subjective acoustic experience in Lokki, T., Pitynen. 1., Kuuainen, A., and Tervo, 5. (2012). Dnentagling
concert nud.itona.Acl11 Ai:iL€iim united with Acinirca 24(5),235-250. preference ratings of concert hall acoustics using subjective sensory

1-Iochgraf. K. (201 5). Auralizalitm ofconcert 1-iaiiztcortriicr Using Finite Df- profiles. 77:2 loumai of the Acoustical Society of America 132, 3143-3151.
ferencc Time Domain Mcrhads and Wave I-‘rciai syntimis. MS Thesis. Rens- irt1ps:iidor.orp-/10. 1 111 i 1.475sii2o.
selaer Polytechnic institute, Troy, NY. Lokld. T., Patynen, 1-, Te_rVD, 5.. Siltancn, S., and Savioja, L. (2011). Engag-

riocirgrai, 1<.. Sacks. 1.. and Markham, 11. (21117). The model versus the ing concert hall acoustics is mad: up of trnrporai envelope prcservtrig
mom: Parainetric and aural comparisons of modeled and t-nezuurcd im- reflgcijons. The Iaun1r1It1fiheAc0ust1'ml Sucirty t1fAn1erim 129(6), EL223-
pulse responses. The Ioumizl ofiiu» Amustiml sarieiy n]Amcri'm 141(5), EL22s. httpe.//dotorg/10.1121/1 1579145.

3857. itiips://rioiorgiitt.1121/1 4988612. Markham, B. (2014). Leo Bennett and concert hau acoustics. Acoucrin Ta—

International organiz.-ttion for Standardization (ISO). (20D9).Azn1A.vfi(£ - day 1l)(4),43-58.

Mznsi-ircmenl ojizoom Acoustics Parameters - Prirt 1: Perjormanoz spacrn. Meyer, 1. (2009). Acuiisiics and the I’e1j'armm1c£ nfMlL€iE: Manuai flzr Ac-
Intemational Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. uusiicirms, Audio Engineers, Musicians, ArLhi!t:rLt and Musical Iristmmem‘

Kahle Acoustics and Altin. (2005). Phiiiiamionie de Paris Acoustic Brigfl Makers, 5:11 ed. Springer-Verlzg, NewYork Translated hyu. Hansen.
section on Concert Iiaii Only. Available at l1ttp://mrw.1ta1ile.beiamcics/ Pitynen, 1., and Lokki, T. (2016). concert halls with strong and iat-
Acaust1cl3riet_I‘dl’_Z(!D6.pd.i'. Accessed octnher 30, 2013. eral sound increase the emotional impact or orchestra music. The

1(ahle.E. (2013). Room acoustical quality of concert halls; Perceptual t‘ac- [onmai of the Awirslicril society of America 139(3). 1214-1224.
tors and acoustic cr1teria—Return from experience. Building AL‘£ilLtliE.t lit1ps:i/riotorg/10.1121/1.4944033.

20(4). 265-282. Piitynen, 1.. Term. 5., Rohinson, 17., and Lokkl, T. (2014). Concert halls with

Kahle. E. (2018). Halls without qualifies - or the effect of acoustic djtfusion. stronglnteral milcctlons enhance musical dynnn-tics. Pmceedings ofi/12Nu-
Proceedings of the Institiitc ofAmi4stics: Auditorium Acoirsiirx. I-iamhurg. tianni Academy ofsrimcet aj (I12 Unircd sratet ufAmcrica 111(12), 4409-
Germany, October 4-5. 2018. 4414. ltl1p.v:.’/(‘lm org/ in. ll)73lpi1:1s. 1) 19-17:71 1 i.

Kirkega.-rrd, L. and Guisrund, T. (2011). In search of a new paradigm: I-Iciw scelo, 'l'.. Exton, P.. and Day, C. (2015). Cornmissioning of the Phuharrnonie
do our parameters and rneaeurernent teclmiqucs constrain approaches to rle Pnris, orande Sallc. Pmceediligs oftire Iristitutt sptcoaott-a Auditorium
concert hall design? Acoustics Today 7(1), 7-14. Acoustics. Paris. October 29-31. 2015. voL 37. pp. 123-135.

Kuusincn, A., and Lo1<.ic‘1,T. (2017). wheel of concert hall acoustics. At-ia Schroeder, M., Gottloh, 5., and siehtasse, K. (1974). comparative study
Acusnm muted with Acinircri 103(2). 185-188. h|ips:/ldui.urg/lU.3!l3/ iJfEumpean tnnccrt hails: Corn-Jation ofsubjzctive preference with geo-
AAA.9l9U4b. metric and zicousiics parameters. The Iounxal of the Acoustical Society if

Amcyim 56. 1195-1201.htips://dotorg/10.1121/1.1903-1011.
soulodre. G. A., and Bradley, 1. (1995). subjective evaluation of new room
acoustic measures. 771e]1mnml of [I121-lroustttal society ofAmenm 911. 294-
301. iutps //doimirglil 1121/1 412735.
W Eiaskatch

o c i  7 ' Kelsey Hochgraf is a senior consultant

ln  ' in the architectural acoustics group at

‘V I ' Acentech, Cambridge, MA. She works

, . . . ‘ii “ ' f ' t di ' li.i:1 ' u

The ASAsWomen in Acoustics Committee was ‘ . an a Vamw 0 _m er _mP  PIOFC
* u asa arcuarmeresm e er-
‘ b t h 17 ti 1 t t th p
created in 1995 to address the need to foster a E y‘ , forming arts and educational facilities
. . . . - ' ll ' Li 1 d 1' cl
supportive atmosphere within the Society and _ _ as we as m “Gus Fa mo _e mg in

au.ral.1zat1on. Kelsey also teaches an acoustics class in the me-

within the scientific community at large, ultimately chanical engineering department at Tufts University, Med-
. . ford. MA. She holds a BSE i.t1 mechanical and aerospace en-

encciuraging women to pursue rewarding and _ _ _ _ , _

gineering from Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and an

satisfying careers in acoustics. MS in a.tcl-litectural acoustics from Rensszlaer Polytechnic
 Institute, Troy, NY. Find out more about Kelseys interesLs
Learn moreabout‘ th commlttne It and background in “Ask an Acoustician” in the winter 2017

http:I/womeninacoustics.org. issue 0fA€0H5“"=5 T0“?-
as i A|:uull:l:- Thflay 1 Spring 2019


















   36   37   38   39   40