applied

sciences
Article
Advanced Rating Method of Airborne Sound Insulation
Reinhard O. Neubauer
IBN Bauphysik GmbH & Co. KG, Theresienstr. 28, 85049 Ingolstadt, Germany;
[email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +49-841-34173

Academic Editor: Gino Iannace

Received: 15 September 2016; Accepted: 20 October 2016; Published: 26 October 2016
Abstract: This paper describes an advanced calculation scheme based on the loudness level linked
to the specific fluctuation strength yielding a weighted normalized loudness level difference as a
single number value. This advanced rating method is a useful tool investigating airborne sound
insulation. Evidence has been presented that a simple level difference is not a suitable method to
exhibit the effects of a given signal to the airborne sound insulation. Additionally, while using a
weighted normalized loudness level difference, the effect of different test signals results in a significant
influence in the single number value. By analyzing the difference between the standard airborne
sound insulation value and the weighted normalized loudness level difference, the sound pressure
level that is transmitted through a partition is demonstrated to contain important details concerning
the subjective assessment. This study supports findings in the literature that airborne sound insulation
performance is significantly dependent on what type of sound signal is used. This paper investigates
six different thicknesses of a sand-lime brick using five different sound samples. The study indicates
that no single number value can be modeled at this time in relation to a certain construction to fulfill
comparable results related to a hearing sensation.

Keywords: airborne sound insulation; subjective assessment; loudness; sound signal; level difference;
transmission loss; weighted sound reduction index; assessment; noise awareness

1. Introduction
Acoustic comfort is assessed in general by subjective evaluation. It describes a condition that
expresses satisfaction with the acoustical environment. In that sense, building acoustics is an important
factor in building design; in particular, the interior walls, partitions, and floors need to be designed to
prevent the intrusion of sound from one room into another. In general, rooms for residential purposes,
flats, and dwelling houses are supposed to be designed and constructed with the aim to provide
reasonable airborne sound insulation [1]. A measure to describe airborne sound insulation is the
airborne sound reduction index or the sound level difference; both are descriptors defined in standards.
Protection against noise is such an essential requirement that it has been stated in the European
Construction Product Regulation [2]. A major factor arises from disturbances between dwellings due
to audible sounds perceived from neighbor activities. The basic characteristics of a sound field are now
known; however, so far, how people perceive these measures has hardly been taken into considerations.
It is, however, important to be aware of the fact that limits given in standards and regulations cannot
guarantee that no unwanted sound transmission occur [3]. The main body of standards of sound
insulation in dwellings originated in the early 1950s [4,5]. In Germany the first standard dated as
early as 1938 [6]. Meanwhile, living standards have improved significantly. A consequence of this
is, among others, that home entertainment systems and other domestic electrical appliances are
extensively used. The quality of sound insulation in buildings is generally described as a single
number rating of sound insulation.
Neubauer and Kang introduced a concept describing a frequency-dependent weighted normalized
loudness level difference [7–9]. This concept is intended to be a connection between the objective

Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322; doi:10.3390/app6110322 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322 2 of 9

measure of airborne sound insulation and the psychoacoustic measures of the loudness level and
fluctuation strength.
This paper describes the advanced method and discusses the model of a weighted normalized
loudness level difference. Some values of the measured and calculated airborne sound insulation
for sand-lime bricks of different thicknesses are presented, and computed values of the weighted
normalized loudness level differences of the respective sand-lime bricks using different sound samples
are discussed. To assess the differences in the evaluation of source signals, electronic filters were
generated. The investigation is based on the single number value of the weighted normalized loudness
level difference.

2. Calculation Scheme and Method of Assessment

The advanced rating method as introduced by Neubauer and Kang is given as the
frequency-dependent weighted normalized loudness level difference, as shown in Equation (1) and is
described in detail in [8].

Lnor,w ( f ) = Lnor( f ) × w( f ) , (1)

where Lnor(f) is the normalized level difference, and w(f) is a weighting factor
A method for determining a single value of a sound in terms of a loudness level is given in ISO
532 B [10] and in DIN 45631 [11]. The loudness level can be obtained for any sound [12]. The single
number quantity for the normalized loudness level difference (Lnor ) is written as the quotient of the
differences of the total loudness levels (LN ), which yields the following:
L N1 − L N2,m ∆Lm
Lnor = = , (2)
L N1 − L N2,0 ∆L0
where the level difference of the idealized (i.e., hypothetical or computed) airborne sound insulation
has subscript 0 and the measured has subscript m. The level LN1 is the loudness level in the source
room, and LN2 is the loudness level in the receiving room.
The idealized airborne sound insulation to obtain (LN2,0 ) may be found using a prediction model
as provided by, e.g., EN 12354 [13], or by assuming a reference curve, e.g., ISO 717-1 [14].
The total specific fluctuation strength is calculated as the sum of all partial fluctuation strength
yielding Fls’. The single number quantity of the weighting (w) is then the following:

Fls0 m
w= . (3)
Fls0 0
The multiplication of Equations (2) and (3) yields a single number quantity for the weighted
normalized loudness level difference (Lnor, w ) and is written as the following:

Lnor,w = Lnor × w. (4)

3. Measured and Calculated Values

3.1. Airborne Sound Insulation

To investigate a construction without the influence of a flanking transmission, measurements
taken in a laboratory were used. In this study, six different sand-lime brick thicknesses were studied.
The values of the measured and calculated weighted sound reduction index (Rw ) for the sand-lime
bricks of different thicknesses are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows measured and calculated Rw -values, the surface density m’, the thickness of the
sand-lime brick t, the critical frequency fc , and the respective normalized and weighted normalized
loudness level difference Lnor and Lnor,w when using pink noise as a source signal. The standardised
method assessing airborne sound insulation, which takes into account the dependence of sound
insulation on the incident spectrum according to ISO 717-1, provides two basic spectrum adaptation
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322 3 of 9

terms, C and Ctr , which are also given in Table 1. C is the spectrum adaptation term for A-weighted
pink noise, and the spectrum adaptation term for A-weighted urban traffic noise is Ctr .

Table 1. Calculated 1 and measured R- and Rw - values, and related values. Signal: pink noise.

t (mm) 70 mm 115 mm 150 mm 175 mm 240 mm 300 mm

Meas. Calc. Meas. Calc. Meas. Calc. Meas. Calc. Meas. Calc. Meas. Calc.
Rw (dB) 43 42 46 45 54 51 56 54 60 59 63 63
C (dB) −1 −1 −1 0 −1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −2 −1
Ctr (dB) −5 −3 −4 −3 −5 −4 −5 −5 −5 −5 −5 −6
m' (kg/m2 ) 130 180 285 341 475 614
fc (Hz) - 423 - 237 - 200 - 173 - 127 - 104
Lnor (-) 1.029 0.969 1.057 1.064 1.025 1.018
w (-) 1.047 0.996 0.889 0.858 0.841 0.889
Lnor,w (-) 1.078 0.964 0.940 0.912 0.862 0.905
1 The calculation of the respective airborne sound insulation was performed using the software INSUL 8.0.

3.2. Sound Signals

To quantify the sound insulation effect of different sound signals and to allow a numerical
investigation of the results, a series of measurements were carried out. The influence using
different signals was investigated via two categories of signals, namely, steady-state and
non-steady-state signals.
The steady-state signals are the broadband noise signals, “pink noise” (PN) and “white noise”
(WN). These signals were chosen because they are recommended in the standards for measuring
airborne sound insulation.
The non-steady-state signals, i.e., the transient signals, were music samples, namely,
rap (Eminem: “Lose Yourself”) (E) and classic music (Beethoven: Symphony Nr. 9: “Poco Allegro,
Stringendo Il Tempo, Sempre Piu Allegro—Prestissimo”) (B). This type of music has also been
investigated earlier [15–17].
Additionally, a sound sample called “party sound” was used as a source signal. This sound was a
combination of people talking and laughing and dance music.
The time spectra of the used signals are shown in Figure 1.
For the investigated sound source signals, the psychoacoustic parameters loudness level and
specific fluctuation strength were calculated, and the results are listed below in Table 2.

Table 2. Psychoacoustic factors of the unprocessed signals: sound pressure level (L), loudness level
(LN ), and specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) 1 .

Sound Sample L (dB) LN (Phon) Fls’ (Vacil)

White Noise 85 98.5 0.0166
Pink Noise 85 99.1 0.0225
Beethoven 85 97.2 0.1182
Eminem 85 94.8 0.223
Party Sound 85 94.8 0.129
1 The calculations of the respective loudness level (LN ) and specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) were done using
the software ArtemiS V11, HEAD acoustics.
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322 4 of 9
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322  4 of 9 

 
Figure 1. Time signal of white noise (WN), pink noise (PN), Eminem (E), Beethoven (B), and Party 
Figure 1. Time signal of white noise (WN), pink noise (PN), Eminem (E), Beethoven (B), and Party
Sound (PS) with equivalent continuous sound pressure level of 85 dB and duration of 90 s. 
Sound (PS) with equivalent continuous sound pressure level of 85 dB and duration of 90 s.

3.3. Sound Level of Interest

Table 2. Psychoacoustic factors of the unprocessed signals: sound pressure level (L), loudness level 
(LN), and specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) 1. 
After transmission of the source signal (L1 ) through a structure or partition (Rw , DnT ), the sound
heard by a listener is theSound Sample 
receiving sound signalL (dB) LN (Phon)
(L2 ). The filtered levelFls’ (Vacil)
(L2 ) contains all the information
of the airborne sound insulation characterized
White Noise  85 by the weighted
98.5  apparent sound reduction index (R’w )
0.0166 
as it is the transmitted sound signal. The sound
Pink Noise  85 level of interest
99.1  (L2 ) is,0.0225 
in this study, the electronically
filtered sound sample, which is obtained using
Beethoven  85  a filter97.2 function representing
0.1182  the sound insulation
(Rw ) of interest. The filterEminem 
function, i.e., the 85 transfer function
94.8  used in0.223  the software, is generated by
modeling the R-values as the coefficients of a85 
Party Sound  built transfer94.8 function. The phon is a unit of perceived
0.129 
loudness level (LN ), which is a subjective measure ofNthe
1 The calculations of the respective loudness level (L strength of a sound so that the measure of
) and specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) were 
sound insulation is written in terms of a loudness level. Thus, the heard sound, which is the sound
done using the software ArtemiS V11, HEAD acoustics. 
level of interest (L2 ), is assessed in terms of a loudness level LN .
3.3. Sound Level of Interest 
If the loudness level (LN ) of the sound signals used in this study is calculated for different sound
pressure levels, it is observed that there is no linear correlation between both measures. This is
After transmission of the source signal (L1) through a structure or partition (Rw, DnT), the sound 
illustrated in Figure 2, where the loudness level is2depicted
heard by a listener is the receiving sound signal (L over sound 2pressure
). The filtered level (L level.
) contains all the information 
From Figure 2, it is seen that the loudness level is not linearly related
of the airborne sound insulation characterized by the weighted apparent sound reduction index (R’to the sound pressure level
w) 
and is dependent on the type of signal. Even for an equal sound pressure
as it is the transmitted sound signal. The sound level of interest (L level, the calculated loudness
2) is, in this study, the electronically 
level differs in its absolute value depending on the type of signal. Inspection of this data shows
filtered sound sample, which is obtained using a filter function representing the sound insulation (R w) 
that varying the sound signal, i.e., using a broadband noise signal and a transient
of interest. The filter function, i.e., the transfer function used in the software, is generated by modeling  signal, leads to
somewhat different results, allowing the sound pressure level to remain constant. This means that the
the R‐values as the coefficients of a built transfer function. The phon is a unit of perceived loudness 
loudness of a broadband
level  (LN),  which  sound and
is  a  subjective  that ofof a the 
measure  transient
strength signal are
of  a  different.
sound  This
so  that  is in
the  agreement
measure  with
of  sound 
the literature [12].
insulation is written in terms of a loudness level. Thus, the heard sound, which is the sound level of 
interest (L2), is assessed in terms of a loudness level LN. 
If the loudness level (LN) of the sound signals used in this study is calculated for different sound 
pressure  levels,  it  is  observed  that  there  is  no  linear  correlation  between  both  measures.  This  is 
illustrated in Figure 2, where the loudness level is depicted over sound pressure level. 
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322 5 of 9
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322  5 of 9 

 
Figure  2.  Loudness  level  (LN)  as  a  function  of  sound  pressure  level  for  different  sound  signals 
including transient and steady state signals. The shaded area characterizes the region for the loudness 
level (LN). The straight line corresponds to the following relationship: sound pressure level = loudness 
level. 

From Figure 2, it is seen that the loudness level is not linearly related to the sound pressure level 
and  is  dependent  on  the  type  of  signal.  Even  for  an  equal  sound  pressure  level,  the  calculated 
loudness level differs in its absolute value depending on the type of signal. Inspection of this data   
shows that varying the sound signal, i.e., using a broadband noise signal and a transient signal, leads 
Figure 2.2. Loudness
Figure Loudness  level (LN(L
level  ) Nas)  aas 
function of sound
a  function  pressure
of  sound  level forlevel 
pressure  different sound signals
for  different  including
sound  signals 
transient and steady state signals. The shaded area characterizes the region for
to somewhat different results, allowing the sound pressure level to remain constant. This means that  the loudness
including transient and steady state signals. The shaded area characterizes the region for the loudness  level (LN ).
The straight
level (L line corresponds to the following relationship: sound pressure level = loudness level.
N). The straight line corresponds to the following relationship: sound pressure level = loudness 
the loudness of a broadband sound and that of a transient signal are different. This is in agreement 
level. 
with the literature [12]. 
The calculated psychoacoustic parameter specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) is also not a linear
The calculated psychoacoustic parameter specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) is also not a linear 
From Figure 2, it is seen that the loudness level is not linearly related to the sound pressure level 
function and is also dependent on the type of signal and on the level of the sound signal. In Figure 3,
function and is also dependent on the type of signal and on the level of the sound signal. In Figure 3, 
and 
the is 
regiondependent  on  the 
of the specific type  of  signal. 
fluctuation strengthEven 
(Fls’)for 
of an 
the equal 
soundsound 
signalspressure  level, 
used in this
the region of the specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) of the sound signals used in this study is depicted  the iscalculated 
study depicted
loudness level differs in its absolute value depending on the type of signal. Inspection of this data 
as a function of sound pressure
as a function of sound pressure level.  level.
shows that varying the sound signal, i.e., using a broadband noise signal and a transient signal, leads 
to somewhat different results, allowing the sound pressure level to remain constant. This means that 
the loudness of a broadband sound and that of a transient signal are different. This is in agreement 
with the literature [12]. 
The calculated psychoacoustic parameter specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) is also not a linear 
function and is also dependent on the type of signal and on the level of the sound signal. In Figure 3, 
the region of the specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) of the sound signals used in this study is depicted 
as a function of sound pressure level. 

 
Figure 3. Specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) as a function of sound pressure level. The shaded area
characterizes the region for the specific fluctuation strength (Fls’).

It is seen that the broadband noise signal has little specific fluctuation strength, whereas the
transient signal, i.e., music-type signal, spreads with increasing sound pressure level. This means

 
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322  6 of 9 

Figure 3. Specific fluctuation strength (Fls’) as a function of sound pressure level. The shaded area 
characterizes the region for the specific fluctuation strength (Fls’). 

Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322 6 of 9

It  is  seen  that  the  broadband  noise  signal  has  little  specific  fluctuation  strength,  whereas  the 
transient signal, i.e., music‐type signal, spreads with increasing sound pressure level. This means that 
that specific 
the  the specificfluctuation  strength 
fluctuation depends 
strength on on
depends the  level 
the levelof ofthe 
thesignal. 
signal.For 
Forvery 
very low 
low sound  pressure 
sound pressure
levels, i.e., below approximately 10 dB, both signal types tend to be close to zero. The smallest values 
levels, i.e., below approximately 10 dB, both signal types tend to be close to zero. The smallest values
are observed using white noise, and the maximum values are identified for the music‐type signal E. 
are observed using white noise, and the maximum values are identified for the music-type signal E.
The deviation of the studied signal types, i.e., the difference between a broadband noise signal and a 
The deviation of the studied signal types, i.e., the difference between a broadband noise signal and a
music‐type signal, was observed to be as large as a factor of approximately 100. 
music-type signal, was observed to be as large as a factor of approximately 100.

3.4. Weighted Normalized Loudness Level Difference 
3.4. Weighted Normalized Loudness Level Difference
The computed
The computed  normalized 
normalized loudness 
loudness levellevel  difference 
difference (Lnor
(Lnor ) for )  for  different 
different sound issamples 
sound samples is 
presented
presented in Figure 4. Analyzing Equation (2), it is clear that a value greater than 1 indicates that the 
in Figure 4. Analyzing Equation (2), it is clear that a value greater than 1 indicates that the measured
measured airborne sound insulation (R
airborne sound insulation (Rw ) performsw) performs better than the calculated insulation. 
better than the calculated insulation.

 
Figure 4.4. Normalized
Normalized loudness
loudness level
level difference
difference (L
(Lnor) ) for  different  sound  samples  calculated  for  a 
Figure nor for different sound samples calculated for a
single wall construction of sand‐lime brick of thickness ranging from 70 to 300 mm and calculated 
single wall construction of sand-lime brick of thickness ranging from 70 to 300 mm and calculated
sound reduction index Rww (C; C
sound reduction index R (C; Ctrtr). The upper and lower dotted grey lines indicate the region for the 
). The upper and lower dotted grey lines indicate the region for the
individual results. PN stands for pink noise, WN for white noise, B for Beethoven, E for Eminem, and 
individual results. PN stands for pink noise, WN for white noise, B for Beethoven, E for Eminem,
PS for Party Sound. 
and PS for Party Sound.

The computed values of the weighted normalized loudness level differences of the respective 
The computed values of the weighted normalized loudness level differences of the respective
sand‐lime  bricks  of
sand-lime bricks of  different
different  thicknesses
thicknesses  are
are  presented
presented  in
in  Table
Table 3,
3,  and
and the
the results
results are
are depicted
depicted 
graphically in Figure 5. 
graphically in Figure 5.
Table 3 shows the Lnor,w‐values for different thicknesses of the sand‐lime brick, and different sound 
signals. 
Table 3. Calculated weighted normalized loudness level differences. The different signal types are
indicated by PN for pink noise, WN for white noise, B for Beethoven, E for Eminem, and PS for
Table 3. Calculated weighted normalized loudness level differences. The different signal types are 
Party Sound.
indicated by PN for pink noise, WN for white noise, B for Beethoven, E for Eminem, and PS for Party 
Sound.    Weighted Normalized Loudness Level Difference (Lnor,w ) for
Thickness mm Different Thicknesses and Different Sound Signals
Weighted Normalized Loudness Level Difference (Lnor,w) for 
WN PN E B PS
Thickness mm  Different Thicknesses and Different Sound Signals 
70 WN  1.060 PN1.078 1.041
E 0.987
B 1.079 PS 
115 0.901 0.964 1.005 0.996 1.069
70  150 1.060  0.929 1.078 
0.940 1.041 
0.987 0.987 
0.983 1.0091.079 
115  175 0.901  0.925 0.964 
0.912 1.005 
0.977 0.996 
0.998 0.9701.069 
150  240 0.929  0.897 0.862 1
0.940  0.987 
0.990 0.983 
1.004 0.9751.009 
300 1
175  0.925  1.033 0.905
0.912  1.038
0.977  1.010
0.998  1.081 0.970 
Mean 0.957 0.943 1.006 0.996 1.030
Standard deviation 0.071 0.074 0.027 0.010 0.052
1 The bold and italic numbers in Table 3 are the minimum and maximum values.
 deviation 
1 The bold and italic numbers in Table 3 are the minimum and maximum values. 

Figure  5  shows  the  weighted  normalized  loudness  level  difference  (Lnor,w)  for  different  sound 
samples. Analyzing Equation (4) reveals that results greater than 1 indicate a tendency that theoretical 
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322 7 of 9
values are overestimated in comparison to measurements. 

 
Figure 5. Weighted normalized loudness level difference (L nor,w) for different sound samples calculated 
Figure 5. Weighted normalized loudness level difference (Lnor,w ) for different sound samples calculated
for a single wall construction of sand‐lime brick of thickness ranging from 70 to 300 mm and calculated 
for a single wall construction of sand-lime brick of thickness ranging from 70 to 300 mm and calculated
sound reduction index R
sound reduction index Rww (C; Ctr). The upper and lower dotted grey line indicates the region for the 
(C; Ctr). The upper and lower dotted grey line indicates the region for the
individual results. PN stands for pink noise, WN for white noise, B for Beethoven, E for Eminem, and 
individual results. PN stands for pink noise, WN for white noise, B for Beethoven, E for Eminem,
PS for Party Sound. 
and PS for Party Sound.

4. Analysis of Results 
Table 3 shows the Lnor,w -values for different thicknesses of the sand-lime brick, and different
sound signals.
The range of measured weighted sound reduction index (R w) with surface density 130–614 kg/m² 
Figure 5 shows the weighted normalized loudness level difference (Lnor,w ) for differenttrsound
varies between 43–63 dB (Table 1). The range of respective spectrum adaptation terms (C; C ) is −1 
samples. Analyzing Equation (4) reveals that results greater than 1 indicate a tendency that theoretical
dB.  A  comparison  with  calculated  values  reveals  that  there  is  a  maximum  difference  in  airborne 
values are overestimated in comparison to measurements.
sound insulation of 3 dB. 
The time signals used to compute the loudness level had a sound pressure level of 85 dB and 
4. Analysis of Results
duration  of  90 s.  In  theory, it  should  be  clear  that  computing  the airborne sound  insulation  using 
different  sound  of signals  should  reveal  no  reduction
difference.  This (Ris  2
The range measured weighted sound index w ) only  true  if density
with surface sound  130–614
pressure  level 
kg/m
between 43–63 dB (Table 1). The range of respective spectrum adaptation terms (C; Ctr ) is −1 dB.
differences or even loudness level differences are concerned [8]. 
varies
Comparing 
A comparison withresults  in  Table 
calculated 3  where 
values revealsthe  weighted 
that there is anormalized  loudness  level 
maximum difference difference 
in airborne soundis 
depicted 
insulationreveals 
of 3 dB.that  a  minimum  value  (0.862)  was  observed  using  pink  noise  insulated  by  a 
construction 
The timeof  sand‐lime 
signals usedbrick  with  a the
to compute thickness 
loudness of  240 
levelmm, 
hadwhile 
a sounda  maximum  value 
pressure level of(1.081) 
85 dB was 
and
observed 
duration of for 
90the 
s. In “party 
theory,sound” 
it shouldsample  insulated 
be clear by  a  construction 
that computing the airborne of  sand‐lime  brick  with 
sound insulation usinga 
thickness of 300 mm. It is seen in Table 3 that the “party sound” sample, followed by the music sample 
different sound signals should reveal no difference. This is only true if sound pressure level differences
E, yielded the highest mean values. The broadband noise samples (pink and white noise) yielded the 
or even loudness level differences are concerned [8].
smallest values. 
Comparing results in Table 3 where the weighted normalized loudness level difference is depicted
In  Figure 
reveals 5,  it  is  seen 
that a minimum that (0.862)
value the  music 
was sound 
observed sample 
using B pink
yielded  the insulated
noise smallest byvalues,  whereas  the 
a construction of
broadband noise signal “pink noise” showed large variation in response. This is also indicated by the 
sand-lime brick with a thickness of 240 mm, while a maximum value (1.081) was observed for the
calculated 
“party sound”standard 
sample deviation 
insulatedof by the  mean  for  pink 
a construction of noise,  which 
sand-lime brickwas  ±0.074, 
with whereas 
a thickness ofB 
300yielded 
mm. Itthe 
is
smallest  standard 
seen in Table 3 thatdeviation: 
the “party ±0.010 
sound” (Table  3).  This 
sample, result by
followed showed  clearly 
the music that  different 
sample E, yieldedsounds  yield 
the highest
mean values. The broadband noise samples (pink and white noise) yielded the smallest values.
In Figure 5, it is seen that the music sound sample B yielded the smallest values, whereas the
broadband noise signal “pink noise” showed large variation in response. This is also indicated by the
calculated standard deviation of the mean for pink noise, which was ±0.074, whereas B yielded the
smallest standard deviation: ±0.010 (Table 3). This result showed clearly that different sounds yield
different weighted normalized loudness level differences indicating a large scattering of measured and
predicted results.
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322 8 of 9

5. Discussion
The results of Figure 4 (normalized loudness level difference) indicate that the measured airborne
sound insulation (Rw ), for most of the investigated constructions, performs better than indicated by
the calculation. This result turns completely if we analyze results in Figure 5 (weighted normalized
loudness level difference), which reveals that for most of the investigated constructions, theoretical
values tend to be overestimated in comparison to measurements. This indicates that a loudness level
difference does not adequately describe the effect of a transient signal in a hearing related measure.
From comparing the psychoacoustic values of loudness level and specific fluctuation strength, it is
clear that no linear relation exists for a specific sound sample. This means that no single number value
can be modeled at this time in relation to a certain construction. This becomes very clear by inspection
of Figure 5. The main reason for this is that the sound signal (i.e., the type of signal) plays a major
part in the perception of a sound sample (as demonstrated by psychoacoustic data), although, as was
shown in this study, a construction can be found for a particular sound signal and sound insulation.

6. Conclusions
This paper showed the effects of different sound signals on airborne sound insulation by relating
objective measures of a sound pressure level difference and subjective related measures, i.e., loudness
level and specific fluctuation strength. The study supports results presented earlier [8] that an index of
sound insulation expressed as a single number rating (such as the weighted sound reduction index)
cannot provide a reliable measure of the perceived efficacy of the insulation.
The computed efficacy of airborne sound insulation was investigated, revealing that an objective
measure of efficacy is dependent on the type of sound signal. As shown by the comparison of calculated
values with experimental results, the difference in weighted normalized loudness level demonstrated
dependence on signal characteristics and on the type of airborne sound insulation.
This study supports the advanced calculation scheme of a loudness-based model. It has been
shown that it is feasible to transform the objective measure of a sound pressure level into a loudness
level and form, together with the specific fluctuation strength, a subjectively related evaluation.
This new measure of a weighted normalized loudness level difference permits evaluating a construction
in terms of an objective and subjectively related measure.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. The Building Regulation. Approved Document E. UK Regulation, into force since 1 July 2003. Available online:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/resistance-to-sound-approved-document-e (accessed on
15 September 2016).
2. Construction Products Regulation (CPR). Regulation No. 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of
the European Council of 9 March 2011, Official Journal of the European Communities. 4.4.2011. L 88/5.
Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0305&
from=EN (accessed on 15 September 2016).
3. Noise. Technical Handbooks 2013 Domestic—Noise, The Scottish Government Publications. Section
5—Noise. Available online: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00459728.pdfhttp://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32011R0305&from=EN (accessed on 15 September 2016).
4. Rasmussen, B.; Rindel, J.H. Concepts for Evaluation of Sound Insulation of Dwellings—From Chaos to
Consensus? In Proceedings of the 4th European Congress on Acoustics (Forum Acusticum), Budapest,
Hungary, 29 August–2 September 2005.
5. Neubauer, R.O.; Scamoni, F. Die Akustische Klassifikation in Italien und Deutschland: Perspektiven und
Möglichkeiten. (In German). In Proceedings of the Conference on Acoustics EUROREGIO, Merano, Italy,
22 March 2013; pp. 1–4.
Appl. Sci. 2016, 6, 322 9 of 9

6. DIN 4110:1938. Technische Bestimmung für die Zulassung neuer Bauweisen. (Technical Specification for the Approval
of New Construction Methods); Beuth Verlag: Berlin, Germany. (In German)
7. Neubauer, R.O.; Kang, J. Airborne Sound Insulation Based on a Model of Loudness. In Proceedings of the
21st International Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV), Beijing, China, 13–17 July 2014.
8. Neubauer, R.O.; Kang, J. Airborne sound insulation in terms of a loudness model. Appl. Acoust. 2014, 85,
34–45. [CrossRef]
9. Neubauer, R.O.; Kang, J. A Model Based on Loudness Level to Describe Airborne Sound Insulation.
In Proceedings of the 43rd International Congress on Noise Control Engineering (InterNoise), Melbourne,
Australia, 16–19 November 2014.
10. ISO 532/R. Acoustics- Method for Calculating Loudness Level; International Organization for Standardization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 1975. (Standard confirmed in 2012).
11. DIN 45631/A1:2010-03. Berechnung des Lautstärkepegels und der Lautheit aus dem Geräuschspektrum-Verfahren
nach E. Zwicker-Änderung 1: Berechnung der Lautheit zeitvarianter Geräusche; Beuth Verlag: Berlin, Germany.
(In German)
12. Fastl, H.; Zwicker, E. Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models, 3rd ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007.
13. EN 12354-1:2000. Building Acoustics. Estimation of Acoustic Performance in Buildings from the Performance of
Elements (Part 1: Airborne Sound Insulation between Rooms); European Committee for Standardization (CEN):
Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
14. ISO 717-1:2013. Acoustics—Rating of Sound Insulation in Buildings and of Building Elements, Part 1: Airborne
Sound Insulation; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
15. Neubauer, R.O.; Kang, J. What Describes the Airborne sound Insulation in Technical and Subjective Regard?
In Proceedings of the 6th Forum Acusticum, Aalborg, Denmark, 26 June–1 July 2011; pp. 1783–1787.
16. Neubauer, R.O.; Kang, J. Time Structure of the Signal in Airborne Sound Insulation. In Proceedings of the
9th European Conference on Noise Control (EuroNoise), Prague, Czech Republic, 10–13 June 2012.
17. Neubauer, R.O.; Kang, J. Airborne Sound Insulation as a Measure for Noise Annoyance. In Proceedings of
the 21st International Congress on Acoustics (ICA), Montréal, QC, Canada, 2–7 June 2013.

© 2016 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).