Aircraft sound environment reproduction: Sound field reproduction inside a cabin mock-up using microphone and actuator arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sound environment reproduction of various flight conditions in aircraft cabin mock-ups is useful for the design, demonstration and jury testing of interior aircraft sound quality. To provide a faithfully perceived sound environment, time, frequency and spatial characteristics should be preserved. Physical sound field reproduction approaches for spatial sound reproduction are mandatory to immerse the listener in the proper sound field so that localization cues are recreated. A 80-channel microphone array was built and used to capture a 2-hour recording of in-flight sound environments within an actual Bombardier CRJ aircraft. An instrumented cabin mock-up was used to reproduce, in the least-mean-square sense, the recorded sound field using a 41-channel trim-panel actuator array. In this paper, experiments with multichannel equalization are reported. One of the practical difficulties was related to the use of the trim panels as sound sources. Windows and trim panels introduce audible squeaks and rattles if driven at low frequencies. Bass management was therefore implemented. Floor shakers and a subwoofer were used to recreate the low frequency content while the trim panels were only used for the high frequency range. The paper presents objective evaluations of reproduced sound fields. Results and practical compromises are reported.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".