movie sound, part 1: perceptual differences of six

PAPERSJ. Riionheimo and T. Lokki, “Movie Sound, Part 1: PerceptualDifferences of Six Listening Environments”J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 69, no. 1/2, pp. 54–67, (2021 January/February).DOI: https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2020.0066

Movie Sound, Part 1: Perceptual Differences of SixListening Environments

JANNE RIIONHEIMO,1

AES Associate Member([email protected])

, AND TAPIO LOKKI,2

AES Fellow([email protected])

1Aalto Acoustics Lab, Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo Finland2Aalto Acoustics Lab, Department of Signal Processing and Acoustics, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

The soundtracks of movies are composed and mixed in various listening environments andthe final mix is reproduced in cinemas. The variation of electroacoustical properties between therooms could be significant, and mixes do not translate easily from one location to another. Thisstudy aims to elicit the audible differences between six different movie listening environments,which are auralized to an anechoic listening room with 45 loudspeakers. A listening test wasperformed to determine the attributes that describe the alterations in the sound field between therooms. Experienced listeners formulated a vocabulary and created an attribute set containing19 descriptive attributes. The most important attribute was the sense of space when dialoguewas evaluated. Moreover timbre and especially brightness were important when music wasevaluated. Furthermore, the change of width and clarity of the sound field was consideredimportant.

0 INTRODUCTION

Cinemas are sound environments that are expected tohave high-quality sound systems and controlled roomacoustics. As immersive audio content becomes more com-mon in movies, consumer expectations for better soundquality will increase. From the filmmakers’ point of view,a movie’s sound image in a cinema should represent whatthey have aimed at when mixing the movie in a dubbingstage. The authors have heard anecdotal statements amongfilm sound engineers in Finland about the problems inroom-to-room consistency between mixing environmentsand cinemas. Similar problems have also been presented inliterature [1–3]. These problems make mixing more diffi-cult as the sound does not easily translate from one locationto another. The motivation for our research is to betterunderstand the perceptual aspects of the problems in thetranslation.

0.1 BackgroundTo overcome the problem of translation, the electroa-

coustic response of the sound system in a cinema or dub-bing stage (mixing room) is usually calibrated according tothe SMPTE standard 202:2010 [4] or the ISO equivalent2969:2015 [5], and the sound pressure levels accordingto the SMPTE recommended practice 200:2012 [6] or theISO equivalent 22234:2005 [7]. The goal of standardization

is to “have constant perceived loudness and frequency re-sponse from installation to installation, and from position-to-position within an installation” [4]. The calibration isperformed by passing pink noise through the sound sys-tem one loudspeaker at a time and measuring the soundpressure level and steady-state magnitude response in 1/3-octave bands with an omnidirectional microphone at thecinema’s reference position or practically inside an area2/3 of the distance from the screen to the rear wall of therooms. According to the measurement, the sound level isadjusted to a reference level, and the sound system is equal-ized to fulfill a specific target curve, the X-curve. The curvehas a downward slope of 3 dB/oct at high frequencies from2 to 10 kHz and 6 dB/oct above 10 kHz. Low frequenciesfrom 50 Hz downward are also attenuated by 3 dB/oct.Additionally, the high-frequency slope is gentler for smallcinemas and steeper for very large cinemas. The size isdefined as the number of seats, ranging from 30 to 2,000.Allen [8] more closely reviews the origins of the curve,and the evolution of cinema calibration is comprehensivelysummarized by Gedemer [2].

As mentioned by Newell [1], a growing number ofprofessionals consider the standard obsolete, and a betterroom-to-room compatibility could be achieved with morestate-of-the-art methods. Gedemer [9] has reported similarfindings, where the views about the X-curve and transla-tion were surveyed from 35 re-recording mixers from 12different countries. Although the vast majority of mixing

54 J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 69, No. 1/2, 2021 January/February

PAPERS MOVIE SOUND, PART 1: PERCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES

engineers felt that the translation from the dubbing stagethey use to a commercial cinema was above average orexcellent, most mixers claim to compensate the X-curvesomehow, mainly boosting the high frequencies in musicand dialogue. Gedemer wonders if both adaptation andlearning help the mixers cope with the translation. Themovie sound professionals in this study reported using thestabilization practice [10, pp. 43–45] as a remedy for theproblematic translation. The mixing personnel watch andcritically listen to an almost finished film cut in a largecinema, after which they fine-tune the mix based on theirobservations. This practice has been used primarily whenworking in a new mixing environment for the first time,with a new audio system or audio format. After learningto compensate for the differences, stabilization is not usedregularly.

The detailed psycho-acoustical documentation behindthe X-curve seems to be missing [11]. SMPTE standard202:2010 argues that “all published experimenters havefound that in a large room, a flat response near-field loud-speaker is subjectively best matched by a distant loud-speaker having an apparent high-frequency roll-off whenassessed with steady-state measurements.” Still, the onlylisted reference is an article by Allen [8], where he presentsa listening test completed by Dolby in 1971 at the Elstreedubbing stage in the U.K. In the test, near-field monitorswith close to flat frequency response were positioned closeto the console (1.8 meters). Then the far-field stage loud-speakers 12 meters away were equalized to match timbrallywith the flat near-field monitors by listening to both dia-logue and music. In that particular dubbing stage, the bestmatch was achieved with high and low-frequency roll-off,like in the X-curve, when the steady-state response wasmeasured. In search of more reliable scientific evidence forthe X-curve, Gedemer goes through several related articlesin [2] and concludes that “the X-curve remains somewhatshrouded in confusion as to its origins and continued per-petuation.”

Current measurement techniques used for cinema cal-ibration can reveal only a steady-state timbral responsecontaining the direct sound and the reflections and rever-beration. No information about the temporal, spatial, anddirectional characteristics of the sound field is elicited. Assuggested by Toole [11] and Newell [1], the ear and braincan “hear through” the acoustics of a room as the directsound plays an essential role in the sound field perception.The steady-state response cannot reveal the response of thedirect sound in a reverberant environment. Thus a similarsteady-state result in different cinemas is achieved with dif-ferent direct sound responses. Toole goes through a lot ofanecdotal and scientific references [11] and sums up that ifthe target is a flat direct sound response, the current X-curvehigh-frequency roll-off results in a dulling of a sound, andthe shape of the curve at low frequencies results in the lackof bass in current cinemas and dubbing stages. In [11] Toolereviews the results from the SMPTE report [3], a surveyfrom Newell et al. [12], and the data from Holman [13],where the steady-state responses from 15 cinemas in theUSA and Europe calibrated to the X-curve were measured.

He finds a trend toward boosted bass, which could resultfrom the calibrator’s subjective tweaking inside the X-curvetolerances to compensate the bass weak direct sound. How-ever the high frequencies were attenuated even more thanthe X-curve recommendation, the cause of which remainsunclear.

Considering the previous issues, Newell proposed thatthe installed cinema speakers should be measured in thenear field. Similarly, Toole suggested starting by predictingthe final response from the comprehensive anechoic dataon the loudspeakers. The flat direct sound response is thetarget for both writers.

This study aims to elicit sonic differences between mix-ing rooms and cinemas using a listening test with moviesound professionals. As the number of major studio facil-ities has fallen in each main media center, the audio pro-duction is increasingly done in small units or home studios[14]. The film sound engineers in this study also reported onthis kind of trend in Finland. When the creative sound de-sign and pre-mixing are increasingly taking place in smallerunits, it is essential to consider the perceptual differencesbetween production rooms, dubbing stages, and cinemas.This information would also help develop simulating toolsthat allow mixing personnel to listen to how the mix soundsin final listening environments. The approach of this studyis practical. Technical choices arise from the need to studyauthentic movie rooms with authentic movie sound produc-tion systems and authentic movie program items.

1 EXPERIMENT SETUP

In order to reliably evaluate the differences in the soundfield between different environments, two listening testswere composed so that the same program material couldbe listened to in six different rooms. Three mixing roomsand three cinemas were chosen for the test. The impulse re-sponses of 5.1 or 7.1 loudspeaker channels were measuredin reference positions in the rooms with a microphone arrayconsisting of 6 omnidirectional microphones in a symmet-ric setup shown in Fig. 1. The impulse responses wereanalyzed with the Spatial Decomposition Method (SDM)[15], and spatial room impulse responses were synthesized.The program selections from original movie soundtrackswith 5.1 or 7.1 audio were auralized using the SDM dataand reproduced in an anechoic chamber containing 45 loud-speakers and used as a stimulus set in the listening tests.So-called immersive sound formats like Dolby Atmos orDTS:X have been omitted from the study, as the number ofcinemas and mixing rooms with appropriate sound systemswere small during the measurements.

This section describes the six rooms, measurement tech-niques, post-processing, and reproduction method for thelistening tests.

1.1 Measured Listening EnvironmentsGenerally, the mixing process takes place on a dubbing

stage, which is a mixing facility assembled in a cinema orcinema-like environment [16]. However the movie sound

J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 69, No. 1/2, 2021 January/February 55

RIIONHEIMO AND LOKKI PAPERS

Fig. 1. The measurement microphone array used for the SDManalysis. The array consists of six omnidirectional microphones(G.R.A.S., Type 50 VI-1 with three pairs of 40AI microphones)in a symmetrical setup where the distance between the pair was50 mm. The top microphone was used as a pressure signal in theanalysis.

production is increasingly done in stages in different-sizedunits. At least in the Nordic countries, it is common foran engineer to spend just a few days in a large dubbingstage to tweak the details, instead of staying for weeks in acinema-like environment. It is also possible to do the wholemixing in a small unit. The six rooms that were chosen forthis study represent the wide range of mixing rooms as wellas cinemas.

Three mixing rooms vary in size from a small dry mixingroom to a dubbing stage built in a small old cinema. Threeother rooms were cinemas, including the largest one in Fin-land. The dimensional properties and loudspeaker setupsare presented in Table 1. The reverberation time T30 andclarity C50 of the rooms are shown in Fig. 2.

The smallest mixing room, Mix 1 with the size of 19 m2,has near-field monitors at a distance of 1.6 meters and theroom acoustics are very dry. Mix 2 is a film school’s mix-ing room with 4.5-meter listening distance and the largestmixing room, Mix 3, is practically the only large-scale dub-bing stage in Finland. It is constructed to an old small-scalemovie theater with an area of 120 m2 and 7 meters of lis-tening distance.

Cinema 3 has 635 seats and is the largest cinema inFinland. Cinema 2 has 257 seats and is 1/5 of the volumeof Cinema 3. Cinema 1 is a film school’s rehearsal cinemawith 50 seats.

In all rooms except Mix 1, the 7.1 audio reproductionsystem was used for the measurements in this study. Thesmall production room Mix 1 had only a 5.1 system thatwas measured. Mix 2, Mix 3, and Cinema 3 were able toreproduce immersive audio content, but the formats wereexcluded from the study and only a 7.1 system was usedfor the measurement.

All of the rooms except Mix 1 were previously calibratedaccording to the standard SMPTE ST 202:2010 [4], usingthe X-curve as a target curve for the electroacoustic re-sponse. The target for Mix 1 was a flat response, which isa normal practice in small rooms according to the inter-

Fig. 2. Reverberation time T30 and clarity C50 of the measuredrooms. Values are average of left, center, and right speakers andmeasured at the listening position. Reverberation time and clarityfrom the room auralizations are shown in dotted lines.

views with the participants. All rooms were calibrated bythe owner and not modified for the measurements.

The source of the picture in Mix 1 is a 55” TV while inother venues the picture is projected to a cinema screen. InCinema 3 the screen speakers are located above the screenand the screen is non-perforated while Cinemas 1 and 2, aswell as Mix 3, have a perforated screen and the screen inMix 2 is woven. Screen speakers left, right, and center inMix 2, Mix 3, Cinema 1, and Cinema 2 are located behindthe cinema screen.

The reference measurement positions according to stan-dard SMPTE ST 202:2010 [4] were selected for the lis-tening position in each room. In the mixing facilities, themixing position in the centerline of the room was used asa listening position. In the cinemas, the listening positionwas located in the center line in the 2/3 length from thescreen to the projector wall.

1.2 Measurement TechniqueThe level of the playback system in each venue was

calibrated with pink noise with the RMS-level of −20dBFS producing an 85-dB C-weighed equivalent contin-uous sound pressure level at the listening position as de-scribed in [6] and [7]. Impulse responses were measuredwith a 7-second logarithmic sine-sweep [17] from 1 Hz to24 kHz with the peak level of −20 dBFS. The measure-ment signals were recorded with an external laptop com-puter with MOTU UltraLite-mk3 soundcard at 24-bit/192-kHz resolution unsynchronized with the source signal. As



Table 1. The dimensions, capacity, and loudspeaker setup of six rooms.

Room A [m2] V [m3] H [m] Seats D [m] Format Surround [ss + sr]

Mix 1 19 40 2.4 ··· 1.6 5.1 1 + 0Mix 2 37 110 3.0 ··· 4.5 7.1 2 + 1Mix 3 120 400 3.4 ··· 7.0 7.1 4 + 2Cinema 1 110 750 6.0 50 7.0 7.1 3 + 3Cinema 2 250 1,400 7.5 257 11.0 7.1 4 + 3Cinema 3 825 7,000 12.5 635 20.0 7.1 6 + 4

The area (A), volume (V), height (H), number of seats, listening distance from the center speaker (D), sound format, and surround loudspeaker setupof the six rooms. The height is measured at the screen, which is the highest position in the cinemas with raked seating. The listening distance ismeasured from the center speaker to the listening position that is the 2/3 length from the screen to the projector wall in the cinemas and the mixingposition in the mixing rooms. Surround loudspeaker setup is presented as the number of side surround speakers (ss) and rear surround speakers (sr) atboth sides of the room. For instance, Cinema 3 has six loudspeakers on both sidewalls (a total of 12) and eight loudspeakers on the rear wall (four onthe left and four on the right side).

the measurement file and recording were unsynchronized,different digital clocks result in varying lengths betweenthe files. Although the difference is minuscule, between25. . .561 samples along the overall length of the measure-ment file (20,928,000 samples), it leads to a 3-ms differencebetween the length of the files at the longest, so the record-ings were later re-sampled according to alignment clicks tomatch in lengths.

For cinemas, the measurement signals were bundled to aDigital Cinema Package (DCP) that was reproduced by thecinema’s audio system for all 7.1 channels successively,i.e., how a movie soundtrack would be reproduced. Themeasurement DCP-file contained clicks in the beginningand end for aligning the recording with the measurementsignals. In mixing facilities, the sweeps were reproducedfrom the DAW through the audio system as the signalswere a movie soundtrack. If the surround speakers wereclustered to an array, the measured signal was reproducedby the array, not the individual speaker.

As a result of the measurement process, a spatial impulseresponse to listener position from each channel of the 7.1sound system was obtained. These responses were laterused in auralization, as explained in SEC. 1.2.2.

1.2.1 Equalizing and DistortionThe applied SDM method uses pressure values only from

one microphone in the array, shown in Fig. 1. Although allthe microphones are omnidirectional, the direction of soundincidence affects the frequency response above 10 kHz. Inaddition, the microphone spacer has a small influence on theresponse as part of the sound reflects from the spacer eventhough it is round. As the most critical part of the sound isthe direct sound, and the loudspeakers in a different locationare mostly in the lateral plane, the impulse response fromthe top microphone was used as a pressure signal for theSDM analysis and the microphone was equalized to havea linear frequency response at 90 degrees of the soundincident.

As Farina’s sweep sine method [17] was used for mea-suring the impulse response, the harmonic distortion is sep-arated from the impulse response and not incorporated inthe convolved sound samples used in the auralizing process.

Fig. 3. Visualization of harmonic and sub-harmonic distortions inthe spectrogram of a seven-second sweep measurement in Cinema2. In (b) the sub-harmonic distortion is removed with The IzotropeRX 4 software.

The calculated total harmonic distortion of all the mea-sured speakers for the measurement sine sweep signal wasbelow 3% for f < 250 Hz and below 1% for f � 250 Hz,which is used as an upper limit for a sound production sys-tem’s harmonic distortion in ITU recommendation ITU-RBS 1116-1 [18]. However, the subharmonic distortion [19]could be found from screen speakers in Cinema 2, as can beseen in a spectrogram in Fig. 3(a), resulting in post-ringingin the impulse response [20]. The Izotrope RX 4 softwarewas used to remove the distortion from the recorded sweep



Fig. 4. Wide-frame model of the listening room loudspeaker setup.The 45 loudspeakers are distributed around the listener at 0◦, ±10◦,±20◦, ±30◦, ±45◦, ±60◦, ±75◦, ±90◦, ±105◦, ±120◦, ±135◦,±150◦, and 180◦ on the horizontal plane; at ±10◦, ±22◦, ±30◦,±45◦, 90◦, and ±135◦ on the vertical plane; at ±45◦ and ±135◦ atthe perpendicular plane; and at (±30◦, ±22◦) as well as at (±55◦,±22◦) positions. A subwoofer is located behind the chair.

[Fig. 3(b)]. The audibility of the subharmonic distortion, aswell as the non-linear distortion, is outside of the scope ofthis study and assumed to be negligible.

1.2.2 Auralization and Listening Room SetupThe SDM was used to analyze the measured impulse re-

sponses. The method analyzes the direction of the soundfield at every discrete-time sample by means of the siximpulse responses. The pressure signal from the top mi-crophone, as explained earlier, was then processed withthe directional information to form an SDM-encoded spa-tial room impulse response for the listening room’s loud-speaker setup. The synthesis of the SDM-encoded spatialroom impulse responses was implemented with the nearestneighbor (NN) playback, where each SDM sample is playedback from the closest loudspeaker concerning the directionparameter associated with the SDM sample. In other words,the SDM analysis takes one impulse response as input anddistributes its samples to the reproduction loudspeakers tobe used as convolution reverbs.

Instead of the wideband analysis used in the originalSDM [15], the analysis was done for octave bands to im-prove the spatial and timbral accuracy. Moreover the whitenoise equalization method was used to enhance the tonalcharacteristics of the sound field [21].

The loudspeaker setup in the anechoic listening room,consisting of 45 loudspeakers (Genelec 8030) and a sub-woofer (Genelec 1093A), is depicted in Fig. 4. Loudspeak-ers are distributed more densely in the front since the hear-ing is more sensitive in this area, and the main directionof the sound is from the movie screen in cinemas. Sincethe loudspeakers have a low-frequency limit at 65 Hz, asubwoofer was used to reproduce the frequencies belowthat. The subwoofer was positioned just behind the listen-

ing position, and the calibration of the loudspeaker setupwas done to match the frequency responses of auralizedrooms to the six real rooms.

The informal listening with two film sound engineers re-vealed that the horizontal angle of the direct sound variedbetween the measured rooms and complicated the compari-son of other aspects of the sound. Therefore the front speak-ers (L, C, and R) of all measured rooms were aligned inthe same horizontal plane at the ear level. A rotation matrixwas formed for each location by locating the loudspeakersfrom the SDM data and compensating the elevation anglesaccordingly.

1.2.3 PlausabilityThe difference in the acoustical data between the orig-

inal rooms and room auralizations were minor, as can beseen in Fig. 2, where the reverberation time T30 and clarityC50 from the room auralizations are shown in dotted lines.The average difference in T30 is 0.01 seconds between 125and 8,000 Hz and 0.07 seconds at 63 Hz. The average dif-ferences in C50 are 0.9 decibels between 125 and 8,000Hz and 2.9 decibels at 63 Hz. A possible reason for thelonger reverberation in the low frequencies is the anechoicchamber’s decay on the bass.

Although the anechoic room without image is far fromthe real theater and the feel of the cinema is missing, theassessors found the auralized acoustical environment veryrealistic. The identical match between the real rooms andauralizations was not the aim of this study, but the task forthe assessors was to elicit the differences between variousrooms. In this study, the rooms in question were the aural-ized ones that meet the criteria for mixing rooms and cin-emas. In addition, the acoustical data from the real roomsand auralizations are similar, indicating the auralizationsrepresent the real rooms.

1.3 Program MaterialA program material set was selected to contain different

spectral, spatial, and dynamical information to reveal dif-ferent aspects of studied rooms. The criteria for the set wasbased on the discussions with three film sound engineers.Five different excerpts from movie soundtracks were usedas an initial program material set for the listening tests:

Music slowEpic orchestral passage from The Lord of the

Rings: Return of the King; 12 seconds with 5.1 audioMusic fast

Rhythmic orchestral passage with sound effectsfrom Tron: Legacy; 13 seconds with 7.1 audio

Dialogue dryDialogue from Star Wars: The Force Awakens;

8 seconds with 7.1 audioDialogue wet

Dialogue with long artificial reverberation fromJattilainen; 11 seconds with 5.1 audio

Ambience



Atmospheric excerpt containing thunder, rain,speech, and interior atmosphere from Viikossaaikuiseksi; 23 seconds with 5.1 audio

The selected excerpts differ spatially (center-panned andimmersive), dynamically (static and changing dynamics),and spectrally (full and limited spectrum) and have differ-ent types and numbers of sound sources (dialogue, music,sound effects, and ambience). All items have informationin the low-frequency-effects channel (LFE); however theproportion of the channel is minor in the dialogue excerpts.

The program materials 1–3 were extracted from the Blu-ray, where the lossless DTS-HD Master Audio data wasconverted to 24-bit, 48-kHz PCM audio data. The final mixPCM audio files were used for the program materials 4–5. The 5.1 audio was converted to 7.1 audio by copyingthe side surround channels to rear channels and reducingsurround channel levels by 3 dB, as in practice most ofthe movie sound processors do for 5.1 audio that is repro-duced in 7.1 sound systems. This upward conversion is alsoin line with the International Telecommunication Union’srecommendation in [22].

As the program materials 1–3 were extracted from theBlu-ray, they could contain some extra audio processingand volume compression comparing the program materials4–5 that were the original movie soundtracks. However,the program materials were not critically compared to eachother, and the absolute timbre or dynamics of the originalprogram materials were not under evaluation. Therefore theapplied program materials can be considered equivalent.

The rooms were measured with calibrated signal levelsas in the SMPTE recommended practice 200:2012 [6], theaim of which is to equalize the loudness between differentlistening environments. The aim of this study was to eval-uate the differences between the rooms that are calibratedaccording to standards, so no further loudness equalizationwas done for the rooms. Only the levels between the pro-gram material items were adjusted for comfortable listeningranging from 72 to 78 dB as A-weighted equivalent soundpressure levels as the default level in the listening tests. Thelevels were verified by informal listening by the authorsand the film sound engineer who did not participate in thetest. The possible loudness differences between the roomsremained constant.

Each program material was convolved separately withthe corresponding 45-channel SDM responses for all 7.1channels (5.1 in Mix 1), forming 30 program material +room combinations used as the listening test stimuli.

2 LISTENING TESTS

The listening tests contained three parts: a pre-test in-terview, free-elicitation session, and pairwise comparison.The assessors accomplished all the parts within the samesession that lasted two to three hours. The assessors wereallowed to proceed at their own pace and take a break ifneeded. The interviews as well as the conversations be-tween the parts were recorded for detailed analysis lateron.

2.1 AssessorsSeventeen experienced sound engineers took part in the

listening tests. All of them have worked in the Finnish filmsound industry in the last five years and together they havebeen involved in 78% of the mainstream fiction movies (14out of 18) and 50% of the mainstream documentaries (7 outof 14) that premiered in cinemas in 2017 [23, 24].

All the assessors were interviewed before the actual lis-tening tests to find out the details of their professional ca-reers and what kind of experience with the translation ofthe mixes they have. The interviews were recorded for fur-ther analysis. Many assessors stated that the number of jobtitles in Finnish movie production depends on the movieand is commonly smaller than listed, for instance in [25].The tasks could vary from movie to movie and many havejumped from one task to another during their career. In Ta-ble 2 the job titles of the assessors at present and during theircareers have been listed according to self-reported titles. Itis noteworthy that there can be multiple tasks per assessor.The table also shows the length of the professional careerof the assessors, averaging 22.3 years.

2.2 ProcedureTwo actual listening tests were conducted: free elicitation

and pairwise comparison. The user interfaces were createdwith Max7 software and operated with an iPad in a standinside the anechoic chamber. A paper questionnaire in awriting tablet was also given to the assessors. The userinterface was mirrored to the operator’s computer outsidethe chamber for monitoring possible problems with the test.

2.2.1 MethodologySeveral different approaches have been used for eliciting

the individual auditory attributes. A comprehensive sum-mary of different methods can be found in [26]. The meth-ods can be divided into two main approaches: direct andindirect elicitation [27]. The indirect elicitation methodsseparate sensation and verbalization and take advantage ofnon-verbal methods such as drawing. It would be preferableto communicate features such as locations and representauditory space [28] and for situations where participants’lexicon is limited. Because this study also includes the tim-bral, dynamic, and temporal aspects and the assessors wereexperienced professionals who have been verbalizing audi-tory events daily, a direct elicitation method was chosen.

The direct elicitation can be further divided into con-sensus vocabulary techniques and individual vocabularytechniques. In consensus vocabulary techniques, a groupof subjects is used to develop attributes and agree ontheir meaning. The process is time-consuming as multiplegroup discussions are needed and the goal progressivelyreaches toward a target. However the result could be a validand reliable consensus vocabulary as the Audio wheel forreproduced sound presented in ITU-R BS.2399-0 [29] or theassessment parameters presented by the European Broad-cast Union [30].

The individual vocabulary techniques allow each partic-ipant to develop and employ their own attributes, so no



Table 2. Job titles of the 17 assessors at present and during their career and the length of the professional career.

Job title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 All

Sound designer/supervising sound editor e p p p p p p p p 8p+eAudio editor (including adr and dialogue) e p p e e p e p p e p 6p+5eMixing engineer (music) p p p p 4pRe-recording mixer p p p p 4pTeacher (lecturer, professor) p p p p 4pProduction sound mixer e p p p e e e e e e 3p+7eComposer p e p 2p+eLength of the professional career (years) 15 20 23 15 29 20 30 22 30 35 13 39 25 17 15 19 12 22.3

Note. p: present job title; e: earlier job titles.

time-consuming and laborious group discussions and train-ing are needed. The attribute lists are combined and editedto their final form either statistically or through group dis-cussions. The result is a “group” attribute list. Individualvocabulary techniques include Free-choice profiling [31,32], the Flash profile [33], the Repertory grid technique[34], Audio Descriptive Analysis & Mapping [35, 36], andthe Individual vocabulary profile [37].

For this study, a direct elicitation technique with individ-ual vocabulary was chosen, as it is a straightforward andeasy to understand concept. First each assessor describedthe differences in the sound field with their own attributes.After the listening test the attribute lists are combined andedited to their final form, a “group” attribute list. Whenthe vocabulary is not restricted, the attribute pool is likelyto be large, so a reduction method for the phrasing has tobe used. Also, duplicates, synonyms, and vague terminol-ogy have to be handled. In this study the method from [38]is adapted, where the descriptive phrasing was classified insemantic categories emerging from free verbalizations. Thestandard ITU-R BS.2399-0 [29] has been used as a basisfor categorization, but new categories are also formed.

2.2.2 Free ElicitationDuring the free elicitation test, the user interface shown in

Fig. 5(a) was given to the assessors, where the program ma-terials were arranged row-wise and different rooms column-wise. The order of the rooms has been quasi-randomizedand the actual locations marked below the room numbersin Fig. 5(a) were not visible to the assessors. The asses-sors were able to listen to the 30 different listening testsamples at the desired order and pace. The change betweensamples could be made either by maintaining the positionof the playback or by starting from the beginning of thesample. The task was to get familiar with the test samplesand describe them freely with familiar vocabulary for theassessor. A form was given to the assessors for the evalua-tion. Although the assessors were not instructed to comparethe listening test samples to each other directly, they wereinformed about the upcoming pairwise comparison in thesecond phase of the test and encouraged to also listen to thepossible differences between samples. The subjects weretold that each of the listening test samples represents eithera cinema or mixing facility and the only difference they

hear is due to the sound system and acoustics of the venue.The mix remains the same.

The default listening level for the listening test sampleswas between LAeq = 72–78 dB, but an opportunity wasgiven to the assessors to change the volume at their will.However only one assessor raised the level a few decibels.The duration of the free elicitation session was between25–40 minutes, depending on the assessor. After the ses-sion the form was gone through and clarified if necessary.In addition the participants were given an opportunity tospeak freely about the evaluation. The conversations wererecorded.

2.2.3 Pairwise ComparisonIn the second phase of the test, a pairwise comparison

between rooms was performed. The Dialogue wet was leftout of the pairwise comparison; thus there were four pro-gram materials. All the cinemas were compared against allthe mixing rooms, forming 36 pairs (3 x 3 x 4). No rep-etition was used for the pairs. The order of the listeningtest samples and pairs was fully randomized among theparticipants. The user interface is shown in Fig. 5(b). Theassessors were free to listen to the sample pairs at their ownpace. Again, the assessors were able to adjust the volume,but only one assessor raised the level a few decibels.

The assessors were told to evaluate the difference be-tween the listening test samples in a pair with 1–4 attributesthey are familiar with describing the sound features. Themost significant difference was written down first. Afterevaluating a pair, the ready and next buttons had to bepressed to move to the next pair. The duration of the testwas between 25–50 minutes.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Free ElicitationIn addition for getting familiarized with the listening en-

vironment and stimuli, the task for the test was to describedifferent rooms freely without any reference. 17 sound en-gineers gave 825 descriptions for 30 stimuli.

The word count for six rooms and five program materialsis presented in Table 3. As can be seen, the assessors usedmore descriptions for the extremes Mix 1 with dry acousticsand Cinema 3 with the longest reverberation. Also, Mix 3



Fig. 5. User interfaces for the listening tests. In (a) the roomnames marked in red below the room numbers were not visible tothe assessors. The new listening test sample could be adjusted tostart either from the beginning or from the same position as theprevious sample with the “keep position/start from zero” button.In (b) the “ready” button had to be pressed before moving onfrom the “next” button. Assessors wrote the evaluations to thequestionnaires.

generated slightly more verbal descriptions than the otherrooms.

The descriptions were mostly one or two words long,containing a wide range of content varying from the exactobjective description like “pronounced 500 Hz” to highlysubjective imagery like “woodish People’s House.” Mostlythe language was technical and exact. The framework forthe classification of the descriptions in this study is theattribute list from ITU-R BS.2399-0 [29]. The interviewer

Table 3. Word count in free elicitation for six different roomsand five program material items.

Room Word count Stimulus Word count

Mix 1 158 Music slow 208Mix 2 124 Music fast 164Mix 3 135 Dialogue dry 169Cinema 1 126 Dialogue wet 137Cinema 2 125 Ambience 147Cinema 3 157TOTAL 825 TOTAL 825

reviewed all the descriptions with an assessor after the testand asked the assessors to elucidate all vague descriptions.

The 825 descriptions were classified in categories eitherpresented in ITU-R BS.2399-0 or emerging from the de-scriptions. All descriptions were reduced to their base formand synonyms were grouped. The process was iterative,so some new categories emerged only with one programmaterial item, after which they were added to the categorylist. If the unclassifiable description was used only onceit was excluded from the analysis. In addition nine vaguedescriptions were abandoned.

Following the method by Samoylenko [39], the attributeswere classified into two groups: descriptive and attitudinal,where the attitudinal group is subdivided into “emotional-evaluative” and “naturalness-related” attributes and the de-scriptive group is divided into unimodal and polymodal at-tributes. The task of free description did not restrict the useof the attitudinal attributes, so 81 attitudinal attributes werefound that make 10% of the whole descriptor pool. Thesewere good (28), natural (25), neutral (14), unpleasant (7),unnatural (6), and artificial (1). Although the attribute natu-ral is included in ITU-R BS.2399-0 under the transparencycategory, where it is defined as “the sound is similar tothe listener’s expectation to the original sound without anytimbral or spatial coloration or distortion,” the descriptionsnatural and neutral are addressed as attitudinal without anydescriptive information in this study. The remaining 744descriptors were descriptive and unimodal, which is relatedonly to the sense of hearing.

The descriptions for different program material items inall rooms, as well as the descriptions for different roomswith all program material items, are presented in the tablein Fig. 6. The attitudinal attributes are included in the tableand highlighted in a yellow color.

The free elicitation was accomplished without a refer-ence or an anchor and the assessors were free to choosetheir listening scheme and the order in which they wantedto listen to the samples. The assessor’s listening habits, ex-pectations, and preferences likely influence the individualresponses and different context and different bias effectscould affect final results [40]. However the assessors weremovie sound professionals who listen to movie sound dailyand are thus an obvious group to evaluate movie sound an-alytically. The aim was to form a rich vocabulary, so thepersonal listening schemes and emphases are beneficial increating a group vocabulary. When the attribute pool is large



Fig. 6. Free elicitation results. The number of most-used words for all rooms and program material items. Attitudinal words arehighlighted in yellow. The percentage of most used words as well as descriptive words are presented in the last row and last column.

the trends of assessments can be investigated by averagingthe results.

3.2 Pairwise ComparisonThe aim of the pairwise comparison test was the eval-

uation of the differences between the mixing rooms andcinemas with four program materials. A separation wasmade between the primary differences that were writtenfirst to the questionnaire and the secondary differences thatwere written to the following rows. The differences weredescribed with one to two-word phrases and a total of 1,145descriptions were given, of which 544 were the primary de-scriptions. The word count for the pairwise test is presentedin Table 4. On average the 17 sound engineers gave 1.87descriptions per sample pair.

Again, all the descriptions were classified in categorieseither presented in ITU-R BS.2399-0 or emerging fromthe descriptions. All descriptions were reduced to theirbase form and synonyms were grouped. If a new categoryemerged with only one specific program material item, thecategory was added to the category list and the groupingprocess was done again. The assessors were asked to eluci-

Table 4. Word count in the pairwise comparison for 17 mixingengineers who evaluated 36 sample pairs, in which the 3 mixingrooms were compared to the 3 cinemas with 4 program material

items.

Weight Word count Stimulus Word count

1st 544 Music slow 2942nd 411 Music fast 3113rd 157 Dialogue dry 2594th 33 Ambience 281TOTAL 1,145 TOTAL 1,145

Note. 1st: assessors were informed to write the most significantdifference first, after which the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th difference could alsobe written.

date any vague descriptions right after the test. Again, theattributes were classified into two groups: descriptive andattitudinal. The question setting in the pairwise comparisonlimits out the attitudinal attributes effectively, so only threeattitudinal descriptors were given: the pleasantness (1 time)and naturalness (2 times) were abandoned in the analysis.



Table 5. Attribute list with weighed importance values.Attributes describe the difference between mixing rooms and

cinemas. Attributes are presented individually for four differentprogram material items as well as for all program material

items.

Attribute Music Music Dialogue Ambience All

Slow Fast DrySense of space 9% 20% 53% 28% 27%Brightness 30% 13% 4% 9% 14%Timbre 15% 11% 7% 11% 11%Width 10% 10% 8% 8% 9%Clarity 7% 9% 8% 6% 7%Distance 2% 4% 5% 6% 4%Midrange 4% 4% 3% 4% 4%Surround level 4% 4% 0% 5% 4%Localization 2% 3% 3% 5% 3%Bass 1% 6% 2% 1% 3%Upper midrange 2% 3% 2% 3% 3%Envelopment 2% 2% 0% 5% 2%Boxiness 2% 1% 0% 1% 1%Nasality 3% 0% 1% 1% 1%Articulation 0% 3% 0% 0% 1%Presence 0% 0% 2% 1% 1%Grandiosity 1% 1% 0% 1% 1%Phasiness 0% 1% 0% 1% 1%Level 0% 1% 0% 1% 1%

Note. The most important attributes with weighed importance value10% or more bolded and attributes with weighed importance valuebetween 5. . .9% are in italics.

The procedure mentioned above for classifying andgrouping the attributes resulted in 36 attributes. After theattribute list was finished, the total number of occurrenceswas calculated for each attribute. The primary differenceswere weighed by factor 1 while the secondary descriptionswere weighed by factor 0.5, and the total importance val-ues were calculated for all the attributes. The attributes withfewer than 0.5% importance values were excluded from theanalysis. This resulted in 19 attributes total. The attributesas well as the importance values are presented in Table 5.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Free ElicitationIn the first test the assessors made no direct compari-

son between the locations but evaluated all five programitems and six rooms freely. A matrix of most used words ispresented in the table in Fig. 6.

4.1.1 The Most Common DescriptorsIn the free elicitation test the assessors evaluated the

rooms most commonly as reverberant, unclear, bright, dark,narrow, nasal, clear, and dry, as can be seen in the last cellof the table in Fig. 6. By combining the opposites, the mostcommon attributes were the timbre (bright and dark), clar-ity (unclear and clear), and sense of space (reverberant anddry). Looking more closely to individual rooms at the bot-tom row of the table, it can be seen that the word reverberantis mainly used for Cinema 3 (71% of the total count 58 forthe word) and unclear is mainly used for Cinema 3 (42%)and Mix 3 (29%) while bright is used for Mix 1 (76%) and

dark is used for Mix 3 (51%) and Cinema 3 (31%). Theword narrow is used for Mix 1 (50%) as well as the de-scriptor dry (53%). The descriptors nasal and clear are usedevenly for all the rooms being almost like opposites: a roomis evaluated either nasal or clear.

4.1.2 RoomsWhen looking at how the assessors evaluated individual

rooms, the extremes Mix 1 and Cinema 3 are consideredfirst. The smallest room Mix 1 with nearfield monitoring isdescribed as bright, narrow, and dry (together 47% of 158words) while the largest theater Cinema 3 is described as re-verberant, unclear, and dark (together 50% of 157 words).The largest mixing room Mix 3 is described as dark, un-clear, reverberant, and nasal (together 47% of 135 words).The assessors used only a few attitudinal descriptors forthese 3 rooms (4% of all 450 words), mainly for Mix 1,which was occasionally described as unpleasant and un-natural. Instead, the attitudinal words represent 17% of thetotal 375 words for the other three rooms Mix 2, Cinema1, and Cinema 2. Rooms Mix 1, Mix 3, and Cinema 3seem to be more distinctive and evaluated consistently onlydescriptively as opposed to the other three rooms, whichare described both affectively and descriptively. The affec-tive descriptors were, in order of prevalence, clear, good,and natural or less often narrow, dry, or unclear. If we di-vide rooms into two groups, “distinctive” and “good,” it isworth noticing that the assessors used only a few negativeattitudinal words like unpleasant for “distinctive” rooms,mainly for the room Mix 1, but much more positive attitu-dinal words for “good” rooms. It seems that more preferredrooms were evaluated more affectively.

In total the assessors used fewer words for “good” rooms(45% of the total 825 descriptors) than for “distinctive”rooms and they also used the different words more evenly.It is notable that although the reverberation time in Mix 2 issimilar in Mix 1, only Mix 1 is evaluated as dry. However,the listening distance in Mix 2 is 4.5 meters while it is 1.6meters in Mix 1, yet hardly any difference in clarity C50

can be seen. Mix 1 was the only room with a flat frequencyresponse target while other five rooms are calibrated ac-cording to the standard SMPTE ST 202:2010 [4], using theX-curve with a downward slope at high frequencies as atarget curve for the electroacoustic response. This is theobvious reason for evaluating Mix 1 as bright and can alsolead to describing the room as unpleasant and unnaturalalongside other rooms. However the word unnatural comesfrom the program item Dialogue wet, where an artificialreverberation is added to a dry dialogue, which can alsobe the reason for the description. Although the frequencyresponse contains more high frequencies than in the otherrooms, it is also evaluated as restricted.

It is also noteworthy that Cinema 1 is evaluated as dry andCinema 2 is evaluated as intimate while Mix 3 is evaluatedas reverberant and distant even though the reverberationtimes and listening distances are similar to or even longerthan in Cinema 2. It is clear that Cinema 3 is describedas reverberant because the reverberation time is more than



twice as long as in the other rooms, but the sense of spaceseems to also be related to the program material.

4.1.3 The Effect of Program MaterialA trend can be seen when looking at the effect of the

program material in the last column of the table in Fig. 6.The most common attribute for the slow and epic orchestralpassage Music slow is the timbre (26%) consisting of thewords dark and bright while the most common attributefor the dialogue Dialogue dry is the sense of space (25%)consisting of the words reverberant and dry. The other de-scriptors are more evenly distributed between five programitems, unclear being the most used word for the rhythmicorchestral music Music fast (11%). It is worth noting thatwith the Music slow the sense of space and with the Dia-logue dry the timbre are not considered relevant. Lookingonly at the Music slow we can see that the attribute timbrecomes mostly from the distinctive rooms; the word dark isused mostly for Cinema 3 and Mix 3 while the word brightis used mainly for Mix 1. Similarly, in Dialogue dry, thesense of space comes from the same distinctive group; theword reverberant is used mainly for Cinema 3 and Mix 3while the word dry is used for Mix 1.

4.2 Pairwise ComparisonIn the second test, a structured pairwise comparison be-

tween three cinemas and three mixing rooms with four pro-gram items were carried out. An attribute list containing 19descriptive attributes in order of importance was composedand presented in Table 5.

4.2.1 The Most Common AttributesIn the pairwise comparison, the five most common at-

tributes were the sense of space, brightness, timbre, width,and clarity. A similar trend to that in the free elicitationcan be seen in the program dependency of the attributes.The sense of space represents 53% of all attributes whenevaluating Dialogue dry while representing only 9% of allattributes when evaluating Music slow. On the contrary, at-tributes brightness and timbre represent 45% of all attributeswhen evaluating Music slow while representing only 11%of all attributes when evaluating Dialogue dry. The use offive most-used attributes is more evenly distributed whenevaluating Music fast while the sense of space represents28% of all attributes when evaluating Ambience containingdialogue and atmospheric sounds.

To find out if the attributes are different without the“distinctive” rooms, the analysis was also done first withoutextremes Mix 1 and Cinema 3, leaving only four pairs ofrooms per program material item and finally without thewhole “distinctive” group, leaving only two pairs of roomsto evaluate. The five most common attributes do not changein either of these conditions. Only the percentages and orderchange, being 14% for the sense of space, 9% for the width,8% for the brightness, 8% for the timbre, and 7% for theclarity when only the “good” rooms are compared together.When only the extremes are removed from the analysisthe five most common attributes and their order remain the

same. Also, concerning each program item, the five mostcommon attributes remain the same, except with Musicslow the clarity is changed with the surround level when“distinctive” rooms are removed.

Assessors evaluated the level difference between therooms to be insignificant. From this it can be concludedthat the SMPTE recommended practice 200:2012 [6] man-ages to equalize the loudness between rooms of differentsizes with different acoustics.

The results from the pairwise comparison match withthe free elicitation test. In this study, the free elicitationwithout a reference seemed to be as reliable as the morestructured pairwise comparison, and it also provided de-scriptive information from the rooms themselves, not justthe differences.

4.3 Relation to Other WorkVarious studies have proposed descriptive attributes for

evaluating the reproduced sound. Gabrielsson [41] inves-tigated the perceived sound quality of loudspeakers, head-phones, and hearing aids and suggested eight perceptualdimensions for the sound quality analysis. Eleven attributeswere elicited in a study by Berg and Rumsey [42] wherethe spatial performance of a sound reproducing system wasassessed. Choisel and Wickelmaier [43] investigated twodifferent approaches for eliciting auditory attributes and de-rived eight relevant auditory attributes for evaluating multi-channel reproduced sound. Zacharov and Koivuniemi [35,36] presented eight spatial attributes and four timbral at-tributes for studying the perceptual nature of spatial soundreproduction systems. Sixteen attributes were developed ina study by Lorho [44], where the quality of spatial en-hancement systems for stereo headphone reproduction wasinvestigated. The attributes were divided into three groupsrelating to localization, space, and timbre. Francombe et al.presented 26 perceptual attributes that contribute to listenerpreference with experienced and inexperienced listenerswhen a wide range of spatial audio reproduction methodswas investigated [45]. None of the studies have evaluatedthe perceptual differences between mixing rooms and endlistening environments. However all six most important at-tributes elicited in this study are present in the above studieswith the same or an equivalent name. The sense of space anddistance is present in all six studies above. Width appearsin five and clarity in four studies out of six. Both timbreand brightness appear in three different studies, so one ofthe two attributes appears in all studies. The significance ofan attribute depends on the context of the study.

5 CONCLUSION

This study aimed to elicit sonic differences betweenmovie mixing rooms and cinemas. Two listening tests wereperformed where experienced listeners evaluated three mix-ing rooms and three cinemas. First the impulse responseswere measured in each room with the sound system used forthe movie sound playback. Second the impulse responseswere analyzed with the spatial decomposition method and



the spatial impulse responses were synthesized. Finally fiveprogram items were auralized to the 45-channel sound sys-tem in an anechoic room that enabled the assessors to listento and compare the rooms sequentially. Two listening testswere performed: a free elicitation and a pairwise test.

The results from both listening tests show that differencesin the sense of space, brightness, timbre, width, and clarityas well as in the distance are the most important when com-paring cinemas and mixing rooms. The words and attributesused in the listening tests were classified in categories ei-ther presented in ITU-R BS.2399-0 or emerging from thedescriptions. All 19 attributes in Table 5, except surroundlevel and phasiness, are listed in the ITU-R BS.2399-0 Au-dio wheel, some with different names. The sense of space(reverberance), brightness (dark-bright), clarity, width, anddistance are positioned in the Audio wheel’s outermost cir-cumference with the timbre (timbral balance), midrange,and localization in the middle circumference.

The assessors described the differences in the surroundlevel independently, in addition to the width or envelop-ment. The equivalent for the attribute phasiness is notlisted in ITU-R BS.2399-0. The ordinary meaning for theword is that a comb filter’s sound resulted from a de-layed copy of the sound. It could result from latency inthe signal path or a single prominent reflection, for in-stance, from the mixing console. The attribute is com-monly used among mixing engineers. The level differ-ences between the rooms were insignificant, which suggeststhat the SMPTE recommended practice 200:2012 [6] man-ages to compensate for the loudness differences betweenrooms successfully.

The perceptual differences between the rooms are highlydependent on the program material. While the slow andepic full frequency range music is evaluated, the differ-ences in the sound’s timbral aspects, especially in thetreble, were described as most important. Instead, whena dry dialogue is evaluated, the sense of space was farmore critical than the other aspects of the sound. Manyof the assessors noticed this difference during the freeelicitation test and some even reported that they did notbelieve that all the samples in one row in the listen-ing matrix in the user interface were from the sameroom.

Although the largest cinema Cinema 3 was evaluatedmostly with negative words, some of the assessors men-tioned that the reverberance made it wider than someother rooms and that the reverberance also uplifts the mu-sic although the lack of brightness makes it less prefer-able. The reverberance of the (large) room is perceivedas part of the mix’s ambience with the slow music. How-ever, with a dry dialogue, the situation is different, andspeech is perceived as too reverberant, unclear, and dis-tant. A listening environment’s effect is thus different indifferent parts of a movie soundtrack, which contains dia-logue, music, effects, and ambient sound. The descriptionsfor the program item Ambience were an even combina-tion of the most important words. However the assessorsfound evaluating the Ambience difficult precisely becauseit contained multiple sound elements. For research pur-

poses a sound sample with explicit content seems to be thebest solution.

6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was partly funded by the Academy of Fin-land, grant number 296393. We would like to thank all thelistening test assessors and Dr. Sakari Tervo for commentsand discussions.

7 REFERENCES

[1] P. Newell, K. Holland, J. Newell, and B. Neskov,“New Proposals for the Calibration of Sound in CinemaRooms,” presented at the 130th Convention of the AudioEngineering Society (2011 May), convention paper 8383.

[2] L. A. Gedemer, A New Method for Measuring andCalibrating Cinema Audio Systems for Optimal SoundQuality, Ph.D. thesis, University of Salford (2017).

[3] SMPTE, “B-Chain Frequency and Temporal Re-sponse Analysis of Theatres and Dubbing Stages,” TC-25CSS (2014).

[4] SMPTE, “Motion-Pictures — Dubbing Theaters, Re-view Rooms and Indoor Theaters — B-Chain Electroacous-tic Response,” Standard 202:2010 (2010).

[5] ISO, “Cinematography – B-Chain Electro-acousticReponse of Motion-Picture Control Rooms and Indoor The-atres – Specifications and Measurements,” InternationalStandard 2969:2015 (2015).

[6] SMPTE, “Relative and Absolute Sound PressureLevels for Motion-Picture Multichannel Sound Systems —Applicable for Analog Photographic Film Audio, DigitalPhotographic Film Audio and D-Cinema,” RecommendedPractice 200:2012 (2012).

[7] ISO, “Cinematography – Relative and AbsoluteSound Pressure Levels for Motion-Picture Multi-channelSound Systems – Measurement Methods and Levels Ap-plicable to Analog Photographic Film Audio, Digital Pho-tographic Film Audio and D-Cinema Audio,” InternationalStandard 22234:2005 (2005).

[8] I. Allen, “The X-Curve: Its Origins and History:Electro-acoustic Characteristics in the Cinema and the Mix-Room, the Large Room and the Small,” SMPTE MotionImaging J., vol. 115, no. 7–8, pp. 264–275 (2006 Jul./Aug.).

[9] L. A. Gedemer, “Evaluation of the SMPTE X-CurveBased on a Survey of Re-Recording Mixers,” presentedat the 135th Convention of the Audio Engineering Society(2013 Oct.), convention paper 8996.

[10] R. Izhaki, Mixing Audio: Concepts, Practices andTools, 2nd ed. (Taylor & Francis, Oxfordshire, England,2012).

[11] F. Toole, “The Measurement and Calibrationof Sound Reproducing Systems,” J. Audio Eng. Soc.,vol. 63, no. 7/8, pp. 512–541 (2015 Jul./Aug.), https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2015.0064.

[12] P. Newell, K. Holland, S. Torres-Guijarro, S. Castro,and E. Valdigem, “Cinema Sound: A New Look at Old Con-cepts,” in Performing Arts Venue: Balancing the Design,


https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2015.0064



Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, vol. 32, Pt. 5, pp.106–126 (Cardiff, UK) (2010).

[13] T. Holman, “Cinema Electro-acoustic Quality Re-dux,” SMPTE Motion Imaging J., vol. 116, no. 5–6, pp.220–233 (2007 May/Jun.), http://doi.org/10.5594/J11446.

[14] B. Owsinski, The Mixing Engineer’s Handbook, 3rded. (Nelson Education, Toronto, Canada, 2013).

[15] S. Tervo, J. Patynen, A. Kuusinen, and T. Lokki,“Spatial Decomposition Method for Room Impulse Re-sponses,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 61, no. 1/2, pp. 17–28(2013 Jan./Feb.).

[16] Full Sail University, http://getinmedia.com/industry/film-tv.

[17] A. Farina, “Simultaneous Measurement of ImpulseResponse and Distortion With a Swept-Sine Technique,”presented at the 108th Convention of the Audio EngineeringSociety (2000 Feb.), convention paper 5093.

[18] ITU, “Methods for the Subjective Assessment ofSmall Impairments in Audio Systems Including Multichan-nel Sound Systems,” Recommendation BS.1116-1 (1997).

[19] F. Bolanos, “Measurement and Analysis of Sub-harmonics and Other Distortions in Compression Drivers,”presented at the 118th Convention of the Audio EngineeringSociety (2005 May), convention paper 6517.

[20] S. Tervo, J. Saarelma, J. Patynen, I. Huhtakallio,and P. Laukkanen, “Spatial Analysis of the Acoustics ofRock Clubs and Nightclubs,” in Proceedings of the NinthInternational Conference on Auditorium Acoustics (2015).

[21] S. Tervo, J. Patynen, N. Kaplanis, M. Lydolf, S.Bech, and T. Lokki, “Spatial Analysis and Synthesis ofCar Audio System and Car Cabin Acoustics With a Com-pact Microphone Array,” J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 63, no.11, pp. 914–925 (2015 Nov.), http://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2015.0080.

[22] ITU, “Multichannel Stereophonic Sound SystemWith and Without Accompanying Picture,” Recommenda-tion BS.775-2 (2012).

[23] Suomen Elokuvasaatio, “Elokuvavuosi 2017 Facts& Figures” (2012).

[24] IMDb.com, Inc., www.imdb.com.[25] Full Sail University, http://getinmedia.com/

industry/film-tv.[26] N. Zacharov (Ed.), Sensory Evaluation of Sound

(CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2019).[27] S. Bech and N. Zacharov, Perceptual Audio Eval-

uation - Theory, Method and Application (John Wiley &Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2006).

[28] R. Mason, N. Ford, F. Rumsey, and B. deBruyn, “Verbal and Non-verbal Elicitation Techniquesin the Subjective Assessment of Spatial Sound Repro-duction,” presented at the 109th Convention of theAu-dio Engineering Society (2000 Sept.), convention paper5225.

[29] ITU, “Methods for Selecting and Describing At-tributes and Terms in the Preparation of Subjective Tests,”Report BS.2399-0 (2017).

[30] EBU, “Assessment Methods for the SubjectiveEvaluation of the Quality of Sound Programme Material–Music,” Tech Rep. 3286-E (1997 Aug.).

[31] A. A. Williams and S. P. Langron, “The Use of Free-Choice Profiling for the Evaluation of Commercial Ports,”J. Sci. Food Agr., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 558–568 (1984 May),http://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740350513.

[32] A. A. Williams and G. M. Arnold, “A Comparisonof the Aromas of Six Coffees Characterised by Conven-tional Profiling, Free-Choice Profiling and Similarity Scal-ing Methods,” J. Sci. Food Agr., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 204–214(1985 Mar.), http://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740360311.

[33] J. Delarue and J. -M. Sieffermann, “Sensory Map-ping Using Flash Profile. Comparison With a Conven-tional Descriptive Method for the Evaluation of the Flavourof Fruit Dairy Products,” Food Qual. Pref., vol. 15,no. 4, pp. 383–392 (2004 Jun.), http://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00085-5.

[34] D. M. H. Thomson and J. A. McEwan, “AnApplication of the Repertory Grid Method to Investi-gate Consumer Perceptions of Foods,” Appetite, vol. 10,no. 3, pp. 181–193 (1988 Jun.), http://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6663(88)90011-6.

[35] N. Zacharov and K. Koivuniemi, “Audio Descrip-tive Analysis & Mapping of Spatial Sound Displays,” inProceedings of the International Conference on AuditoryDisplay (2001).

[36] N. Zacharov and K. Koivuniemi, “Unraveling thePerception of Spatial Sound Reproduction: Techniques andExperimental Design,” presented at the AES 19th Inter-national Conference: Surround Sound - Techniques, Tech-nology, and Perception, Technology, and Perception (2001Jun.), conference paper 1929.

[37] G. Lorho, “Individual Vocabulary Profiling of Spa-tial Enhancement Systems for Stereo Headphone Repro-duction,” presented at the 119th Convention of the AudioEngineering Society (2005 Oct.), convention paper 6629.

[38] C. Guastavino and B. F. G. Katz, “Perceptual Eval-uation of Multi-dimensional Spatial Audio Reproduction,”J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 1105–1115 (2004),https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1763973.

[39] E. Samoylenko, S. McAdams, and V. No-sulenko, “Systematic Analysis of Verbalizations Pro-duced in Comparing Musical Timbres,” Int. J.Psych., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 255–278 (1996 Dec.),https://doi.org/10.1080/002075996401025.

[40] E. C. Poulton and S. Poulton, Bias in QuantifyingJudgments (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Oxford-shire, England, 1989).

[41] A. Gabrielsson, “Dimension Analyses of PerceivedSound Quality of Sound-Reproducing Systems,” Scand.J. Psych., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 159–169 (1979 Sept.),http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1979.tb00697.x.

[42] J. Berg and F. Rumsey, “In Search of the Spatial Di-mensions of Reproduced Sound: Verbal Protocol Analysisand Cluster Analysis of Scaled Verbal Descriptors,” pre-sented at the 108th Convention of the Audio EngineeringSociety (2000 Feb.), convention paper 5139.

[43] S. Choisel and F. Wickelmaier, “Extraction of Au-ditory Features and Elicitation of Attributes for the Assess-ment of Multichannel Reproduced Sound,” J. Audio Eng.Soc., vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 815–826 (2006 Sept.).


http://doi.org/10.5594/J11446

http://getinmedia.com/industry/film-tv


http://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2015.0080

http://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2015.0080

http://www.imdb.com



http://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740350513

http://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740360311

http://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00085-5

http://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00085-5

http://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6663(88)90011-6

http://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6663(88)90011-6

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1763973

https://doi.org/10.1080/002075996401025

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1979.tb00697.x


[44] G. Lorho, “Evaluation of Spatial Enhancement Sys-tems for Stereo Headphone Reproduction by Preference andAttribute Rating,” presented at the 118th Convention of theAudio Engineering Society (2005 May), convention paper6514.

[45] J. Francombe, T. Brookes, R. Mason, and J. Wood-cock, “Evaluation of Spatial Audio Reproduction Meth-ods (Part 2): Analysis of Listener Preference,” J. Au-dio Eng. Soc., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 212–225 (2017 Mar.),https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2016.0071.

THE AUTHORS

Janne Riionheimo Tapio Lokki

Janne Riionheimo was born in Toronto, Canada, in 1974.He has studied acoustics and audio signal processing at theHelsinki University of Technology and music technologyin Sibelius Academy. He received an M.Sc. degree in 2004and has since worked as an acoustic consultant and soundengineer. He is currently working as a part-time doctoralcandidate at the Department of Media Technology at theAalto University School of Science under the supervisionof Professor Tapio Lokki. In his doctoral research he fo-cuses on movie sound and the role of room acoustics inlistening spaces.

•Born in Helsinki, Finland in 1971, Tapio Lokki has

studied acoustics, audio signal processing, and computer

science at the Helsinki University of Technology (TKK)and received an M.Sc. degree in 1997 and a D.Sc. (Tech.)degree in 2002. At present Prof. Lokki is an AssociateProfessor (tenured) with the Department of Signal Pro-cessing and Acoustics at Aalto University. Prof. Lokkileads his virtual acoustics team to create novel objec-tive and subjective ways to evaluate room acoustics. Inaddition the team currently contributes to sound ren-dering algorithms for virtual reality applications, speechin noise and reverberation-related hearing research, andnovel material science, in particular wood fiber-based ab-sorption materials. Prof. Lokki is a fellow of the AESand an honorary member of the Acoustical Society ofFinland.



movie sound, part 1: perceptual differences of six

Documents