Skip to main content

Table 1 Measured levels (dBA) and free-field predictions for acoustical survey sound sources, with source-receiver distances (meters)

From: The Huánuco Pampa acoustical field survey: an efficient, comparative archaeoacoustical method for studying sonic communication dynamics

Peak sound level measures for typical background noise level: ≈35 dBA; windy gusts: 50–70 dBA

PUTUTU

Strombus conch shell horn (Lobatus galeatus)

WHISTLE metal/cork safety (proxy for Andean flute/whistle)

CLAPPER

wooden percussion

VOICE

male; Quechua & Spanish speech (tenor/baritone range)

ESS (2^19)

repeated exponential sine sweep via mini loudspeaker

MEAS. (dBA)

Free-field (FF) prediction

MEAS. (dBA)

FF pred.

MEAS. (dBA)

FF pred.

MEAS. (dBA)

FF pred.

MEAS. (dBA)

FF pred.

Characteristic frequencies

300 Hz tone;

harmonic peaks

≈610 Hz & ≈920 Hz

 

3 kHz dominant tonal area (≈2.6−3.2 kHz)

 

broadband; esp > 1 kHz

 

Varies w/words; low-mid frequencies emphasized (≈150 Hz;  ≈350–450 Hz;  ≈500–600 Hz; ≈1.25 kHz articulation peak)

 

150 Hz–20 kHz (broadband) but low frequencies less robust due to loudspeaker

 

 1 m calibration

96 dBA

105 dBA

95 dBA

75 dBA

90 dBA

Source (S1) at top-CENTER

 S1-R1 (7 m)

82

80

89

89

80

79

70 (audio)

59

76

74

 S1-R2 (14 m)

77

74

79

83

80

73

64 (audio)

53

71

68

 S1-R3 (25 m)

78

68

79

77

81

67

59 (audio)

47

62

62

 S1-R4 (27 m)

61

68

66

77

57

67

58 (audio) whispers understood

47

52

62

 S1-R5 (37 m)

58

65

60

74

57

64

45

44

53

59

 S1-R6 (64 m)

54

60

50

69

44

59

51

39

43

54

Source (S2) at E-wall niche overlooking plaza

 S2-R6 (43 m)

67

64

70

73

66

63

62 clearly understood

43

57

58

 S2-R7 (133 m)

51

54

60

63

45

53

39

33

43

48

 S2-R8 (225 m)

40

49

45

58

21 (audio)

48

34 (audio)

28

40

43

  1. Measurements below the sound level meter’s 30 dBA detection threshold were estimated from audio recordings where noted by (audio). Measured and predicted level data given here are graphed for visual comparison in Figs. 11, 12, 13, and 14