Perceptual and Acoustical Dimensions of Saxophone Sound

Arne Nykänen, Örjan Johansson

Division of Sound and Vibration, Luleå University of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden, arne.nykanen@ltu.se, orjan.johansson@ltu.se

Jan Lundberg
Division of Industrial Design, Luleå University of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden, jan.lundberg@ltu.se

Jan Berg
School of Music, Luleå University of Technology, Box 744, 941 28 Piteå, jan.berg@ltu.se

Specifications of product sound qualities may contain both perceptual and acoustical descriptions. The
perceptual descriptions are most helpful when they contain adequate detail and utilises understandable
wording. To facilitate the product design process the descriptions should also be interpretable as
acoustical quantities. The objectives of the study reported upon here were to investigate how musicians
use verbal descriptions of sound and to interpret these descriptions in terms of commonly used acoustical
quantities. Musicians’ use of verbal descriptions of saxophone sound was investigated through interviews.
The most frequently used words were evaluated through listening tests. The subjects were asked to judge
how well the words described the timbre of test sounds. To find the most significant perceptual
dimensions for the test sounds Principal Component Analysis was used. Four significant dimensions were
found and described by 9 words. To interpret the perceptual dimensions in terms of physically measurable
indices, models for how acoustical quantities relate to the perceptual dimensions were developed.
Dimension 1 was described by full-toned/warm/soft. The psycho-acoustical quantity sharpness correlated
negatively with this dimension. Dimension 2 was described by the term [o]-like. Sharpness and specific
roughness (9-11 Bark) correlated negatively with this dimension. Dimension 3 was described by
sharp/keen/rough. Sharpness and roughness correlated with this dimension. Dimension 4 was described
by the term [e]-like. No model for prediction of this dimension was found. To validate the models the
effect of a changed design of the tone holes of a saxophone was predicted with the model and validated
with new listening tests.

1 Introduction verbal descriptions in terms of acoustical quantities. By

determining which words are commonly used by a
target group (in this case saxophonists) it is possible to
The modern development process for a new product
identify information about which sound aspects are
commonly starts with the writing of a requirement
important for the group. To obtain this information,
specification based on customer needs [1]. For a
interviews were conducted with saxophone players.
product that generates sound during its operation, it is
From the interviews, 11 adjectives were selected for
therefore important to include properties of the sound
investigation through listening tests. A typical
made in the product’s specifications. Blauert and
frequency spectrum of the saxophone shows some
Jekosch [2] has stated that “to be able to actually
similarities to the frequency spectrum of the human
engineer product sounds, product sound engineer need
voice. Like the human voice, the saxophone spectrum
potent tools, i.e. tools which enable them to specify
has a strong fundamental and the amplitudes of the
design goals and, consequently, shape the product
partials fall with the frequency. The saxophone
sounds in accordance with these design goals”. Guski
spectrum also has strong formant-like characteristics.
[3] has proposed that the assessment of acoustic
Since the vowel sounds to a large extent are
information should be made in two steps: 1. Content
characterised by the formants [9], saxophone sound
analysis of free descriptions of sounds and 2.
could be expected to resemble vowel sounds. This
Unidimensional psychophysics. The importance of
hypothesis was strengthened by the fact that some of
language development in the context of audio quality
the musicians in the interviews stated that they
evaluation is also supported by Berg [4].
sometimes use vowel similes to describe saxophone
In this study saxophone sound has been examined. timbre. Therefore, vowel similes were tested as
When studying methods for product sound design, the descriptors of saxophone sounds in addition to the 11
saxophone is a suitable example since it is a product adjectives.
where sound is an essential part of function. There
The objectives of this study were to investigate how
have been studies of how to verbally describe the
musicians use verbal descriptions of saxophone sound
sound of musical instruments [5, 6, 7, 8], but more
and to interpret these descriptions in terms of
work need to be done to facilitate interpretation of
acoustical quantities.

519
Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest
2 Method
The study was divided into four parts: interviews, and
three listening tests. The purpose of the interviews was
to find words commonly used by Swedish saxophone
players to describe saxophone timbre. Listening test 1
was used to investigate which words can be used to
discriminate between sounds created by different
musicians playing different saxophones. It was also
used to find significant perceptual dimensions of
saxophone sound and to select suitable words to
describe these dimensions. Finally, listening test 1 was
used to investigate how the verbal descriptions can be
interpreted in terms of acoustical quantities. The
subjects used in this test were saxophone players or
acousticians. To validate the suggested models, two
more listening tests (2 and 3) were made for validation
of the results. In listening test 2 the same set of sounds
was used as in listening test 1. To examine whether
experience in saxophone playing or acoustics influence
the results the subjects were not restricted to saxophone
players or trained listeners. In listening test 3 a new set
of sounds was selected to examine whether the
suggested models are valid not only to the set of
sounds used in listening test 1 and 2.
2.1 Interviews
To find adjectives commonly used by Swedish
saxophone players to describe saxophone timbre, ten
saxophone players were interviewed. Of these subjects,
2 were professionals, 4 studied saxophone performance
at university level and 4 were active amateur
saxophone players each having more than 30 years
experience. The procedure is described in detail in
[10]. The interviews were performed in Swedish. The
most commonly used words are found in Table 1.
2.2 Listening tests
Saxophone sounds were binaurally recorded with an
artificial head (Head Acoustics HMS III), and played
back to the subjects in the listening tests by using
equalised headphones [11]. In listening test 1 and 2
recordings of two different saxophone players, each
playing two alto saxophones of different brands were
used. This gave four possible combinations. The
saxophone players were asked to play a jazz standard
(“I Remember Clifford”) parts of which were used. By
having them play an entire piece it was assumed the
notes used would feel normal. Recording was carried
out in a small concert hall intended for jazz and rock
music. Each musician stood in the centre of the stage
while they performed. The artificial head was placed 5
m in front of the saxophone players facing them. The
saxophone players tuned their instruments before the
recording and they were given a tempo by a
metronome. Both players were instructed to play a
520
Nykänen, Johansson, Lundberg, Berg
mezzo forte. Both were studying saxophone at
university level.
In listening test 3 recordings were made of one
saxophone player playing two alto saxophones of the
same brand and model, of which one was modified by
installation of a plate surrounding the edges of the tone
holes, see figure 1.
Figure 1: Saxophone modified by installation of plates
surrounding the edges of the tone holes.
In all listening tests the stimuli used consisted of a 0.5
second long cut from a single note (Ab4, f=415 Hz).
The cut was placed so that both the attack and the
decay were removed. Instead, the tone was ramped up
and down with a ramp-up and down time of 0.075 s.
This setup was used to ensure the same section of
sound was judged in the listening tests and measured in
the acoustical measurements.
In listening test 1, 12 different sounds were used, three
of each possible combination of saxophone and
musician cut from different parts of the recordings. In
listening test 2, 8 of the sounds from listening test 1
were used. Since differences in loudness among the
stimuli in listening test 1 seemed to have some
influence on the judgments, the stimuli were loudness
equalised before they were used for listening test 2.
The changes in Sound Pressure Level were between -1
dB and +2 dB. In listening test 3, 6 different sounds
were used, three of them generated by the original and
three by the modified saxophone.
In each listening test, the subjects were asked to judge
how well the timbre was described by a number of
adjectives and vowel-similes. The subjects were also
asked to judge their overall impression of the timbre of
the judged sound. The descriptions used in listening
test 1 are found in Table 1. As a result of listening test
1, the number of descriptions evaluated was decreased
in both listening test 2 and 3, see Table 2. Only
descriptors able to separate the two saxophones and/or
the two musicians in listening test 1 were used. The
Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest Nykänen, Johansson, Lundberg, Berg

judgements of the perceptual qualities were made on The ability of the evaluated descriptors to separate the
11 point scales, ranging from “not at all” (=0) to saxophones and musicians from each other was
“extremely” (=10). A single exception was for the examined by ANOVA. Variables not affected by
estimation of the overall impression which was made musician, saxophone or interaction between musician
on an 11 point scale ranging from “extremely bad” (=- and saxophone were considered to be of low
5) to “extremely good” (=+5). importance in the description of the differences in
In listening test 1, 16 subjects were used. In listening timbre found among the analysed saxophone sounds.
test 2 and 3, 20 subjects were used. Models for prediction of verbal descriptions based on
acoustical quantities were developed by linear
Table 1: Descriptors used in listening test 1. regression on data from listening test 1. As dependent
variables, the mean of the judgements of all the
Swedish English translation subjects’ verbal descriptions were used. As
Stor Large independent variables, the acoustic quantities listed in
Fyllig Full-toned [12] table 3 were used. A stepwise estimation method was
Rå Rough used [13]. The limits used for probability of F for entry
Varm Warm was 0.05 and for removal 0.1. For those critical bands
Mjuk Soft [14] where specific loudness and roughness gave
Nasal Nasal significant contribution to a model, the correlation with
Kärnfull Centred specific loudness and roughness in neighbouring bands
Vass Sharp/keen [12] was examined, as well as correlation with overall
Botten Bottom loudness, sharpness and roughness. If significant
Skarp Sharp [12] correlation was found, models based on sums of
Tonal Tonal neighbouring critical bands were proposed and
likt a, som t.ex. i ”mat”* [a]-like evaluated, to avoid models relying on information in
likt e, som t.ex. i ”smet”* [e]-like single critical bands.
likt i, som t.ex. i ”lin”* [i]-like The models were validated by studying the correlation
likt o, som t.ex. i ”ko”* [u]-like between values predicted by the models and mean
likt u, som t.ex. i ”lut”* [u]-like values of judgments for listening tests 2 and 3.
likt y, som t.ex. i ”fyr”* [y]-like
likt å, som t.ex. i “båt”* [o]-like Table 3: Acoustic quantities used as independent
likt ä, som t.ex. i ”färg”* [æ]-like variables in the linear regression models.
likt ö, som t.ex. i ”kör”* [œ]-like
Index Description
Table 2: Descriptors judged in listening test 2 and 3. Fund Fundamental frequency /Hz
Loudness Loudness according to ISO532B /sone
Swedish English translation Sharpness Sharpness /acum [15]
Skarp Sharp Roughness Roughness /asper [16]
Rå Rough Tonality Tonalness [17]
Width Spectral width: The order number of the
Stor Large
highest partial with a SPL above 20 dB
Mjuk Soft
N'4.5 to N'22.5 Specific loudness per critical band [18]
Varm Warm (4.5 Bark-22.5 Bark) /sone/Bark
likt e, som t.ex. i ”smet”* [e]-like R'4.5 to R'22.5 Specific roughness per critical band [18]
likt å, som t.ex. i “båt”* [o]-like (4.5 Bark-22.5 Bark) /asper/Bark
* To give a hint of how the vowels should be pronounced, an example of a
word was given in the following way: like a, as for example in “car”. In the
English translation, the phonetic description of the vowel has been given
instead. 3 Results and discussion
2.3 Analysis 3.1 Multivariate Analysis
The analysis was made in three steps: Principal Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was done on
Component Analysis (PCA), Analysis of Variance listening test 1 to identify prominent perceptual
(ANOVA) and Linear Regression. dimensions. Scatter plots of the loadings are found in
PCA [13] was used to search for the perceptual Figure 2. The r2-values of each component are
dimensions in the data from listening test 1. The presented in table 4 together with interpretations of the
estimated qualities defined in Table 1 were used as components.
variables.

521
Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest Nykänen, Johansson, Lundberg, Berg

,8
Four pronounced and describable perceptual dimension
[a]-like were found: 1. warm/soft. 2. back vowel similes ([u],
[o]-like
[u]-like [o], [a]). 3. sharp/keen/rough. 4. front vowel similes
[u]-like
[e]-like
([i], [y], [e], [œ], [æ]).
,6
tonal
[æ]-like
3.2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
[œ]-like
,4
centred For listening test 1, the effect of two factors, musician
nasal (musician 0 or 1) and saxophone (saxophone 0 or 1) on
[y]-like
,2
bottom the use of the descriptors in Table 1 was investigated
warm
sharp/keen [i]-like overall imp by ANOVA. Variables not affected by musician,
full-toned saxophone or interaction between musician and
Component 2

soft
0,0 large
saxophone were considered to be of low importance in
the description of the differences in timbre found
rough
sharp among the analysed saxophone sounds. Adjectives and
-,2 vowel-similes with p-values below 0.05 were deemed
-,2 0,0 ,2 ,4 ,6 ,8 1,0 suitable for describing common differences between
Component 1 the sounds. This resulted in 7 adjectives and 2 vowel-
similes, totally 9 descriptors (Table 5).
1,0
Table 5: p-values for the ANOVA of data from
listening test 1. Only variables with p-values below
[i]-like
,8 [y]-like 0.05 are shown. p-values below 0.05 are in bold.

Dependent Factor: Factor: Interaction

,6 [œ]-like Variable Musician Saxophone musician-
saxophone
Full-toned 0.02 0.82 0.02
,4 [u]-like Rough 0.94 0.75 <0.00005
[u]-like
Warm 0.15 0.53 0.0002
[o]-like
[æ]-like Soft 0.0003 0.18 0.0001
,2 Nasal 0.02 0.22 0.22
overall imp large
rough
sharp Sharp/keen <0.00005 0.05 <0.00005
Component 4

warm centred
[e]-like
full-toned sharp/keen Sharp <0.00005 0.05 0.0003
0,0 bottom [a]-like 0.89 0.31 0.04
nasal
soft [o]-like 0.61 0.15 0.03
[a]-like Overall imp 0.59 0.54 0.0001
tonal
-,2
-,6 -,4 -,2 -,0 ,2 ,4 ,6 ,8 1,0
Component 3 Descriptors representing each component from the
PCA were selected for further analysis. Component 1
Figure 2: Four Varimax rotated components found by was represented by soft and warm, component 2 by
PCA from listening test 1. Descriptors in bold did [o]-like, component 3 by sharp and rough and
separate the two musicians and/or the two saxophones. component 4 by [e]-like. Component 4 was considered
to represent front vowels, even though [e]-like and [æ]-
like were not salient on this component. None of the
front vowel similes showed significant variations
Table 4: r2-values of the four Varimax rotated between the two saxophones or the two musicians at
components found by PCA from listening tests based the 0.05 level. [e]-like was the front vowel simile with
on tone stimuli. the lowest p-value (0.12 for the factor musician).
Therefore, it was chosen as a representative for front
Dim r2X Salient Variables vowels, and hence also for component 4, even though
Positive loading Negative loading it was not salient in this component. The selected
1 19% full-toned, warm, bottom - descriptors were used as variables in listening tests 2
2 15% [a]-like, [o]-like, [u]-like - and 3. For listening test 2 the same factors as for
3 14% sharp/keen, rough, sharp soft, warm listening test 1, musician and saxophone, were
4 10% [i]-like, [y]-like - examined by ANOVA. The results are presented in
Sum 58% table 6.

522
Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest Nykänen, Johansson, Lundberg, Berg

Table 6: p-values for the ANOVA of data from sound was excluded from the analysis the correlation
listening test 2. p-values below 0.05 are bold. (r2) for [o]-like1 was 0.98 and for [o]-like2 also 0.98.
The outlier was considerably sharper than the other
Variable Factor: Factor: Interaction sounds. It did not diverge from the other sounds with
Saxophone Musician musician-saxophone respect to [o]-likeness. This indicates that the models
Overall imp. 0.18 0.53 0.48 for [o]-like overestimate the importance of sharpness.
Sharp <0.00005 0.83 0.51
Rough 0.20 0.51 0.53 Table 8: The linear regression models suggested by
Soft <0.00005 0.39 0.17 stepwise estimation.
Warm <0.00005 0.36 0.43
Listening test: 1 2 3
[e]-like 0.09 0.06 0.89
r2adj r2 r2
[o]-like 0.001 0.15 0.57 Variables correlating with component 1
warm1=19.6-12.0 sharpness 0.76 0.77** 0.44
For listening test 3, the effect of one factor, saxophone warm2=19.3-11.1 sharpness-26.0 R'13.5 0.84 0.92** 0.40
with or without the plates surrounding the edges of the warm3= 0.96 0.83** 0.26
tone holes, was analysed by ANOVA. The results are 14.7-5.55 sharpness-54.7 R'13.5-1.79 N'21.5
presented in table 7. In listening test 3 all selected soft1=10.6-2.27 N'18.5 0.84 0.72** 0.27
variables could be used for discrimination between the Variable correlating with component 2
[o]-like1=18.4-9.3 sharpness-23.2 R'9.5 0.75 0.76** 0.71*
two saxophones. The modified saxophone was judged
Variables correlating with component 3
sharper, rougher, less soft, less warm, more [e]-like and
sharp1=5.94+1.74 N'14.5+1.72 N'18.5+41.2 R'4.5 0.99 0.59* 0.61
less [o]-like than the unmodified saxophone. No rough1=-10.9+11.2 sharpness+36.2 R'15.5 0.91 0.59* 0.81*
significant difference in overall impression was found. Variable correlating with component 4
[e]-like1=1.43+0.90 N'14.5+13.8 R'9.5 0.78 -0.07 0.00
Table 7: p-values for the ANOVA of data from [e]-like2= 0.92 -0.26 0.00
listening test 3. p-values below 0.05 are bold. 1.23+0.37 N'14.5+24.2 R'9.5+.12 N'21.5
Overall impression
Variable Factor: Saxophone overall imp.1=2.53-48.2 R'5.5-358 R'22.5 0.82 0.09 0.25
Overall imp. 0.26 overall imp.2= 0.91 0.32 0.15
2.07-28.5 R'5.5-466 R'22.5-28.3 R'14.5
Sharp 0.04
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Rough 0.004 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Soft 0.0001
Warm 0.0002
Table 9: Linear regression models based on sums of
[e]-like 0.05
neighbouring critical bands.
[o]-like <0.00005 Listening test: 1 2 3
r2adj r2 r2
3.3 Linear regression Variables correlating with component 1
20.5 0.78 0.88** 0.46
warm 4 = 19.1 − 11.2 sharpness - 1.53 ∑ R ′i
i =9.5
A stepwise estimation method [13] was used to find the
warm5 = 0.81 0.81** 0.29
linear regression models best explaining the connection 20.5 22.5
between the perceptual descriptors and acoustic 15.8 − 7.09 sharpness - 3.25 ∑ R ′i + 0.569 ∑ N′i
i =9.5 i =18.5
indices. The results are found in Table 8. To avoid
soft2=20.3-12.5*sharpness 0.68 0.81** 0.55
models relying on information in single critical bands,
Variable correlating with component 2
models based on sums of correlating neighbouring [o]-like2=18.4-9.45 sharpness-11.1(R'9.5+R'10.5) 0.74 0.77** 0.67*
critical bands were proposed, see Table 9. Variables correlating with component 3
For listening test 3, an outlier in the judgements of sharp2=-19.9+19.3 sharpness 0.74 0.86** 0.69*
warm, soft and sharp was identified. When this sound sharp3=-12.4+9.53 sharpness+1.93 N'14.5 0.91 0.69* 0.56
was excluded from the analysis the correlations (r2)
18.5 0.92 0.92** 0.26
sharp 4 = −5.85 + 2.62 shaprness + 0.344 ∑ N′i
were 0.88 for warm1, 0.92 for warm2, 1.00 for warm3, i =13.5
rough2=-9.83+10.5 sharpness+2.44 roughness 0.80 0.77** 0.81*
0.86 for warm4, 0.85 for warm5, 0.72 for soft1, 0.92 for
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
soft2 and 0.92 for sharp4. The outlier has the highest ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
specific loudness in the region between 4 and 9 Bark. It In listening tests 1 and 2 there were no significant
was perceived to be the warmest, softest and the least differences in the judgements of [e]-like between
sharp sound. The specific loudness between 4 and 9 different sounds. Therefore a model built on one of
Bark might be important for the perception of warm, these tests can not be expected to show good precision
soft and sharp, and this is not considered in the models. in predictions on other sets of sounds. In listening test
Another sound was identified as an outlier in the 3 there were significant differences in the judgements
predictions of [o]-like in listening test 3. When this of [e]-like between different sounds. Stepwise

523
Forum Acusticum 2005 Budapest
estimation of [e]-like based on this test resulted in the
model: [e]-like=-2.00+2.58 N'18.5, with r2adj=0.91. This
model remains to be validated on a new set of sounds.
4 Conclusions
The sequence of interviews and tests reported in this
paper forms a systematic approach for the
identification of salient perceptual dimensions. In
addition, the approach enables development of models
for prediction of how sounds are perceived based on
psychoacoustic measurements. All the selected
descriptors; sharp, rough, soft, warm, [e]-like and [o]-
like, were useful for describing differences in
saxophone timbre and could be modelled by
psychoacoustic quantities. Four perceptual dimensions
were formed: 1. warm/soft, 2. back vowel similes, 3.
sharp/rough, 4. front vowel similes. The
psychoacoustic indices sharpness and roughness are
among the most prominent qualities of saxophone
sound, but it is also possible to identify critical bands
where specific loudness and roughness are of particular
importance. Of special interest are the prediction
models for “sharp” and “rough”. The best model for
“sharp” uses the psychoacoustic quantity sharpness,
but it emphasises the region between 13 and 19 Bark
(2000-5300 Hz), where the hearing is most sensitive.
This suggests that psychoacoustic sharpness
underestimates the importance of this frequency
region. The best prediction model for “rough” is a mix
of roughness and sharpness. This suggests that the
Swedish word for rough, “rå”, is interpreted as a mix
between psychoacoustic roughness and sharpness.
When the task was to describe sounds, the use of
untrained listeners in the tests gave similar results as
the use of saxophone players. When the task was to
judge preference the untrained listeners failed to reach
consensus, while saxophone players succeeded.
References
[1] G.Pahl, W. Beitz,,‘Engineering Design: A
Systematic Approach’, Springer-Verlag, London,
ISBN 3-540-19917-9 (1996)
[2] J. Blauert, U. Jekosch, ‘Sound-Quality Evaluation
– A Multi-Layered Problem’, Acustica-Acta
Acustica, Vol. 83. pp. 747-753 (1997)
[3] R. Guski, ‘Psychological Methods for Evaluating
Sound Quality and Assessing Acoustic
Information’, Acustica-Acta Acustica, Vol. 83. pp.
765-774 (1997)
[4] J. Berg, ‘Systematic Evaluation of Perceived
Spatial Quality in Surround Sound Systems’,
524
Nykänen, Johansson, Lundberg, Berg
Doctoral thesis 2002:17, Luleå University of
Technology, Sweden, ISSN: 1402-1544 (2002)
[5] M.C. Gridley, ‘Trends in description of saxophone
timbre’, Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 65. pp.
303-311. (1987)
[6] R. A. Kendall, E.C Carterette, ‘Verbal Attributes
of Simultaneous Wind Instrument Timbres. 1.
VonBismarck Adjectives’, Music Perception, Vol
10. pp. 445-468 (1993)
[7] V. Rioux, ‘Methods for an Objective and
Subjective Description of Starting Transients of
some Flue Organ Pipes - Integrating the View of
an Organ-builder’, Acustica-Acta Acustica, Vol
86. pp. 634-641 (2000)
[8] J. Stephanek, Z. Otcenasek, ‘Psychoacoustic
aspects of violin sound quality and its spectral
relations’, Proc. 17th International Congress on
Acoustics, Italy-Rome (2001)
[9] B.S. Rosner, J.B. Pickering, ‘Vowel Perception
and Production’, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
ISBN 0-19-852138-3 (1994)
[10] A. Nykänen, Ö. Johansson, ‘Development of a
Language for Specifying Saxophone Timbre’,
Proc. Stockholm Music Acoustic Conference 2003,
Stockholm, Vol. 2. pp. 647-650 (2003)
[11] J. Blauert, K. Genuit, ‘Evaluating sound
environments with binaural technology – some
basic considerations’, J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn. (E), Vol.
14. No. 3. pp. 139-145 (1993)
[12] A. Gabrielsson, H. Sjögren, ‘Perceived sound
quality of sound-reproducing systems’, J. Acoust.
Soc. Am., Vol 65. pp. 1019-1033 (1979)
[13] J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, W.C.
Black, ‘Multivariate Data Analysis’, 5ed. Prentice
Hall International, London, ISBN 0-13-930587-4
(1998)
[14] E. Zwicker, ‘Subdivision of the audible frequency
range into critical bands (Frequenz-gruppen)’, J.
Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 33. p. 248 (1961)
[15] G. Von Bismarck, ‘Sharpness as an attribute of
timbre of steady sounds’, Acustica, Vol. 30. pp.
159-192 (1974)
[16] W. Aures, ‘Ein Berechnungsverfahren der
Rauhigkeit’, Acustica, Vol. 58. pp. 268-280 (1985)
[17] W. Aures, ‘Berechnungsverfahren für den
sensorischen wohlklang beliebiger schallsignale’,
Acustica, Vol. 59. pp. 130-141 (1985)
[18] E. Zwicker, H. Fastl, ‘Psychoacoustics – Facts and
Models’, 2ed. Springer Verlag, Berlin, ISBN 3-
540-65063-6 (1999)