The Acoustics of the Palace of Charles V as a Cultural Heritage Concert Hall

Citation: Almagro-Pastor, J.A.; García-Quesada, R.; Vida-Manzano, J.; Martínez-Irureta, F.J.; Ramos-Ridao, Á.F. The Acoustics of the Palace of Charles V as a Cultural Heritage Concert Hall. Acoustics 2022,4, 800–820. https://doi.org/10.3390/ acoustics4030048 Academic Editors: Margarita Díaz-Andreu and Lidia Alvarez Morales Received: 14 July 2022 Revised: 19 August 2022 Accepted: 31 August 2022 Published: 15 September 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). acoustics Case Report The Acoustics of the Palace of Charles V as a Cultural Heritage Concert Hall Jose A. Almagro-Pastor 1,* , Rafael García-Quesada 2, Jerónimo Vida-Manzano 3, Francisco J. Martínez-Irureta 4 and Ángel F. Ramos-Ridao 5 1 Servicio de Acústica, Cámara Anecoica Acústica (CIC-UGR), University of Granada, C/ Periodista Fernando Gómez de la Cruz, 61, 18014 Granada, Spain 2E.T.S. Arquitectura, University of Granada, Campo del Príncipe, 11, 18009 Granada, Spain 3Facultad de Ciencias, University of Granada, Av. de Fuente Nueva, s/n, 18001 Granada, Spain 4Irumar Arquitectura, C/ Juan de Herrera, 53, 29009 Málaga, Spain 5Edificio Politécnico, University of Granada, Calle Dr. Severo Ochoa, s/n, 18001 Granada, Spain *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This paper analyses the acoustic behaviour of the Palace of Charles V from a room acoustics perspective but also ponders the uniqueness of the space and its ability to engage and enhance the audience experience. The Palace of Charles V is a relevant part of the historical heritage of Granada. It has an architectural but also an acoustic uniqueness that deserves research. A measurement campaign was made to calculate parameters such as T30, IACC, C 80 or Gm, and to explain the behaviour of the Palace. The BQI is quite high, but the late part of the impulse response (t > 80 ms) has strong unwanted reflections causing low clarity (C 80 ) and listener envelopment (LEV). Nevertheless, the Palace is a successful concert venue with good feedback from musicians and the audience. Keywords: room acoustics; open-air auditorium; heritage acoustics 1. Introduction The Palace of Charles V (from now on referred to as the Palace, in capital letters), inside the Alhambra fortification, has been used as a concert hall for a long time with quite a degree of success. Previous acoustic research in the Alhambra covers soundscape [ 1 ] and concert noise [ 2 ] but not room acoustics. Analysing the Palace as a concert hall is not straightforward for several reasons: it is open-air, part of the cultural heritage of the city and it was not designed for speech or music transmission. Open-air venues lack reflections from a ceiling, so most of the energy is reflected from walls that usually have low absorption. Scattering depends on the geometry. Some researched cases are Greek or Roman theatres [ 3 , 4 ], or public squares [ 5 ]. The shape of the Palace and its porticoed gallery has some similitudes to the use of arcades in squares [ 6 ]. Using room acoustic parameters in urban squares is useful, according to Thomas et al. [ 7 ]. The listener position has a strong influence on the space wideness assessment, and C 50 and T 30 are important in urban spaces according to the research of Calleri et al. [ 8 ]. Paini et al. [ 6 ] conclude that the addition of arcades to a public square increases T 30 , while decreasing C 80 . Previous research has discussed the applicability of the ISO 3382-1 [ 9 ] standard to unroofed spaces [10] and the relevant objective parameters to describe them [11]. The use of heritage buildings as concert venues is a common practice. Being in a historical place can improve the concert experience of attendants from an emotional point of view [ 12 ]. Brezina [ 13 ] divides the studies of historical places into two: the measurement of acoustic parameters and the storage of acoustics as audio heritage. The safeguard of the acoustic behaviour was pioneered by M. Gerzon [ 14 ] and continued by others such as Farina or Katz [ 15 – 17 ]. This work proved to be very important when the Gran Teatro La Fenice in Venice burned in 1996, but its sonic behaviour was saved because several acoustic Acoustics 2022,4, 800–820. https://doi.org/10.3390/acoustics4030048 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/acoustics Acoustics 2022,4801 measurements had been performed prior by Tronchin and Farina [ 18 ]. Furthermore, a fire destroyed the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and works by Katz et al. stored the original acoustics [ 19 ]. Recording of Ambisonic RIR allows the reconstruction of the sound field and the estimation of the direction-of-arrival (DOA) of the reflections [ 20 ]. This also allows the calculation of the impulse responses of virtual microphones, such as dipoles for lateral fraction or binaural microphones by Menzer and Faller [ 21 ], enabling the calculation of IACC or auralisation. Other reasons to keep Ambisonic RIRs are documentation and safeguarding of the historical heritage, visualisation of spatial information such as the research by Martellotta [ 22 ] or Alary and Valimaki [ 23 ], or using different available 3D reproduction techniques to recreate concerts, as shown by Tronchin and Farina [16]. There is not a lot of research regarding the room acoustics of heritage places that are not designed for music or speech transmission. Previous work by Iannace [ 24 ] showed that historical courtyards can be used for concerts without acoustic issues and good feedback from the performers. Heritage places have different sizes and shapes, and can even be open-air or squares. Most of them were not thought to be used for music or even speech transmission. Those singularities may suggest that their acoustics and their suitability for different kinds of music should be studied in each heritage place. Suitability, in this case, should be interpreted as ‘eignung’, used in sound quality. Blauert [ 25 ] groups soundquality aspects into several degrees of abstraction. The same author [ 26 ] explores the idea of the composers and performers using the acoustic properties of a room to relay messages to the audience. Musical programmers should also take decisions based on the venues they have available. Farina [ 27 ] and Pätynen-Lokki [ 28 ] moved forward to improve the understanding of the relationship between measurements and preferred acoustics. Lots of research has been carried out for historical concert hall acoustic measurements and there are some guidelines such as those by Pompoli and Prodi [ 29 ], but not too much concerning cultural heritage places not built as concert halls, excluding churches and different religious buildings as some guidelines for churches [ 30 ], cathedrals [ 31 ] and mosques [ 32 ] exists. The main musical use of the Palace is for orchestral music but it is also used for opera, jazz, flamenco or even rock [33]. This paper aims to review the physical descriptors that may explain the different and high aural quality of the Palace. The claim of good acoustics in the place is something explained in every guided visit, but it had never been scientifically researched. The descriptors used in this paper are included in the ISO 3382-1 [ 9 ] and the IEC 60268-16 [ 34 ] standards. The focus will be on measuring the objective parameters and discussing the results but the chance of safeguarding the acoustics must not be wasted. Ambisonic room impulse responses (RIR) were computed, used to estimate the direction of arrival of several reflections and to calculate the IACC. The Palace and its use as a concert hall will be discussed as part of this introduction. The material and Methods section will explain the tests made during the measurement campaign. The results and Discussion section will explain the outcomes with attention to the singularities of the space. Finally, some conclusions will be set forth. 1.1. The Palace of Charles V and the Alhambra of Granada On both sides of the river Darro rise two hills that have seen several cultures throughout the history of the city. The Albaycín hill, where the city started, and the Sabica hill. The fortification of the Alhambra is on the Sabica hill. Inside, the Palace of Charles V is located (see Figure 1), an example of the best Italian Renaissance in Spain. Names such as Enrique de Egas, Diego de Siloéand Pedro Machuca have imprinted the history of the construction of the Palace in the style of the best Italian Renaissance. More information about the building and its historical circumstances can be found in the work by Rosenthal [ 35 ] and Brothers [36]. Acoustics 2022,4802 Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 3 Figure 1. Location plan of the Palace inside the Alhambra. In 1637, the construction process was finally abandoned due to the decline in the Spanish Empire and political factors. We owe the appearance of the Palace that we admire today to Leopoldo Torres Balbás and later to Francisco Prieto Moreno, who finally carried out a master plan for the Palace restoration, including the covering (the roof), all between 1923 and 1958. The first known musical event held in the Palace of Charles V was in 1883 as part of the city’s Corpus Christi festival. It was also used to hold international flamenco competitions, such as the one held in 1922 by García Lorca, Manuel de Falla, Andrés Segovia and other intellectuals of that time. More recently, every year since 1952, the International Festival of Music and Dance of Granada has been using it as a concert hall. In this important musical event, the Palace of Charles V always occupies a central position. According to the local press [37], Daniel Barenboim said “The sound of the Palace of Charles V is much better than that of many enclosed halls. The shape of its walls makes it a wonderful acoustic shell.” The space used as a concert hall is circular and open-air with a diameter of 30 m (see Figure 2). On its perimeter, there is a 5 m wide porticoed gallery covered with a toroidal vault with basket-handle arches whose height from the keystone to the floor is 5.80 m. On the upper floor, another porticoed gallery crowns the building, this time covered by recent wooden porticoes and wooden coffered ceilings from 1958. The entire solid cylinder enclosing the interior of the arcaded galleries is around 17,907 m3 (see Table 1), with built-in stone with bas-reliefs, half-columns and pediments framing various openings to the interior of the palace. Figure 2. Elevation section of the Palace. Reproduced with permission from the authors. Figure 1. Location plan of the Palace inside the Alhambra. In 1637, the construction process was finally abandoned due to the decline in the Spanish Empire and political factors. We owe the appearance of the Palace that we admire today to Leopoldo Torres Balbás and later to Francisco Prieto Moreno, who finally carried out a master plan for the Palace restoration, including the covering (the roof), all between 1923 and 1958. The first known musical event held in the Palace of Charles V was in 1883 as part of the city’s Corpus Christi festival. It was also used to hold international flamenco competitions, such as the one held in 1922 by García Lorca, Manuel de Falla, Andrés Segovia and other intellectuals of that time. More recently, every year since 1952, the International Festival of Music and Dance of Granada has been using it as a concert hall. In this important musical event, the Palace of Charles V always occupies a central position. According to the local press [ 37 ], Daniel Barenboim said “The sound of the Palace of Charles V is much better than that of many enclosed halls. The shape of its walls makes it a wonderful acoustic shell.” The space used as a concert hall is circular and open-air with a diameter of 30 m (see Figure 2). On its perimeter, there is a 5 m wide porticoed gallery covered with a toroidal vault with basket-handle arches whose height from the keystone to the floor is 5.80 m. On the upper floor, another porticoed gallery crowns the building, this time covered by recent wooden porticoes and wooden coffered ceilings from 1958. The entire solid cylinder enclosing the interior of the arcaded galleries is around 17,907 m 3 (see Table 1), with built-in stone with bas-reliefs, half-columns and pediments framing various openings to the interior of the palace. Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 3 Figure 1. Location plan of the Palace inside the Alhambra. In 1637, the construction process was finally abandoned due to the decline in the Spanish Empire and political factors. We owe the appearance of the Palace that we admire today to Leopoldo Torres Balbás and later to Francisco Prieto Moreno, who finally carried out a master plan for the Palace restoration, including the covering (the roof), all between 1923 and 1958. The first known musical event held in the Palace of Charles V was in 1883 as part of the city’s Corpus Christi festival. It was also used to hold international flamenco competitions, such as the one held in 1922 by García Lorca, Manuel de Falla, Andrés Segovia and other intellectuals of that time. More recently, every year since 1952, the International Festival of Music and Dance of Granada has been using it as a concert hall. In this important musical event, the Palace of Charles V always occupies a central position. According to the local press [37], Daniel Barenboim said “The sound of the Palace of Charles V is much better than that of many enclosed halls. The shape of its walls makes it a wonderful acoustic shell.” The space used as a concert hall is circular and open-air with a diameter of 30 m (see Figure 2). On its perimeter, there is a 5 m wide porticoed gallery covered with a toroidal vault with basket-handle arches whose height from the keystone to the floor is 5.80 m. On the upper floor, another porticoed gallery crowns the building, this time covered by recent wooden porticoes and wooden coffered ceilings from 1958. The entire solid cylinder enclosing the interior of the arcaded galleries is around 17,907 m3 (see Table 1), with built-in stone with bas-reliefs, half-columns and pediments framing various openings to the interior of the palace. Figure 2. Elevation section of the Palace. Reproduced with permission from the authors. Figure 2. Elevation section of the Palace. Reproduced with permission from the authors. Acoustics 2022,4803 Table 1. Volumes and area of the Palace. Surfaces [m2] Volume [m3] Seating Area Scenario Residual Spaces Total Area Total Volume Main floor (uncovered) 430 257 - 687 9391 Main floor 303 - 433 736 4136 Upper floor 303 - 313 616 4380 Total 1036 257 746 2038 17,907 The cylinder enclosing the interior of the courtyard is a sequence of voids between stone columns and other elements enclosing the galleries. In the interior cylinder of the courtyard, the closing element located halfway up the building, between heights of 5 and 8.12 m, stands out, with a thickness of more than 3 m; this is the group of friezes, triglyphs and metopes that cover the development of the bell-shaped arches of the toroidal vault, together with the height of the parapet. Most of the concerts are orchestral music but some others can include public address systems. The sound engineers working at the Palace deal with the strong delayed reflections and reverberation using high-directivity line arrays. The PA projects are not straightforward as they must cover the central area but also the second floor. This is problematic for rock but especially flamenco concerts. 1.2. Audience The layout for the concerts has slight variations every year. The maximum audience is 1200 people, but restrictions due to COVID-19 had a big impact on the audience size in terms of distance among members of the audience. Being an open-air venue helped to safely keep enough seats and did not affect the layout. A big proportion of the audience is located in the patio; there are side stalls in the lower gallery and an audience arch in the upper floor gallery. All of the audience is seated on plastic chairs. On the upper floor, the chairs are on grandstands to enable the visibility of the stage (see Figure 3). Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 4 Table 1. Volumes and area of the Palace. Surfaces [m2] Volume [m3] Seating area Scenario Residual Spaces Total Area Total Volume Main floor (uncovered) 430 257 - 687 9391 Main floor 303 - 433 736 4136 Upper floor 303 - 313 616 4380 Total 1036 257 746 2038 17,907 The cylinder enclosing the interior of the courtyard is a sequence of voids between stone columns and other elements enclosing the galleries. In the interior cylinder of the courtyard, the closing element located halfway up the building, between heights of 5 and 8.12 m, stands out, with a thickness of more than 3 m; this is the group of friezes, triglyphs and metopes that cover the development of the bell-shaped arches of the toroidal vault, together with the height of the parapet. Most of the concerts are orchestral music but some others can include public address systems. The sound engineers working at the Palace deal with the strong delayed reflections and reverberation using high-directivity line arrays. The PA projects are not straightforward as they must cover the central area but also the second floor. This is problematic for rock but especially flamenco concerts. 1.2. Audience The layout for the concerts has slight variations every year. The maximum audience is 1200 people, but restrictions due to COVID-19 had a big impact on the audience size in terms of distance among members of the audience. Being an open-air venue helped to safely keep enough seats and did not affect the layout. A big proportion of the audience is located in the patio; there are side stalls in the lower gallery and an audience arch in the upper floor gallery. All of the audience is seated on plastic chairs. On the upper floor, the chairs are on grandstands to enable the visibility of the stage (see Figure 3). Figure 3. The Palace during the measurement campaign. Figure 3. The Palace during the measurement campaign. Acoustics 2022,4804 1.3. Stage The stage is wide and covers an important part of the open-air central patio (Figure 4). The particular geometry of the stage makes the stage acoustics of the Palace quite singular. Some performers can be quite near, while others can be more than 20 m away from a given musician in the orchestra. Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 5 1.3. Stage The stage is wide and covers an important part of the open-air central patio (Figure 4). The particular geometry of the stage makes the stage acoustics of the Palace quite singular. Some performers can be quite near, while others can be more than 20 m away from a given musician in the orchestra. Figure 4. The stage during the measurement campaign. The long distance from closer walls can exacerbate this problem as the direct sound path will predominate over the first reflections among near performers. A quick estimation would predict an attenuation of more than 25 dB, comparing a musician 20 m away to another one at a 1 m distance (under free-field conditions). The high reverberation is expected to reduce this issue by enhancing the strength (G) between distant positions. Gade [38–40] recommends measuring ST (see Section 2.2.4) with chairs on stage. In addition, Dammerud [41] deepens into the different results obtained in real-condition experiments (with musicians). Sadly, this set of measurements was made without musicians or chairs on stage, as was explained previously. Uncertainty of stage measurements can be higher than expected for other descriptors according to Giovannini and Astolfi [42]. 2. Materials and Methods A measurement campaign was carried out on the 2nd and 6th of July 2021. The measurements followed the recommendations of the ISO 3382-1 standard [9]. It took place between 10 PM and 1 AM without the presence of the public. The late hours allowed for low noise levels as the Palace was closed for visits. Wind speeds were negligible (less than 0.5 m/s) and the temperature was lower than during hot summer afternoons. All the tests were taken without musicians or an audience. Only the chairs in the audience and the platform of the stage were mounted. The Palace does not have those elements unless a performance is programmed. Giving reliable and enlightening results has therefore been a concern. The recommendations of Pompoli-Prodi [29] and Astolfi et al. [10] were interpreted and followed as far as possible and some of the descriptors were not averaged to provide more information. Measuring with an audience was not possible. Performing the measurements in the Palace required permission from Patronato de la Alhambra and FesFigure 4. The stage during the measurement campaign. The long distance from closer walls can exacerbate this problem as the direct sound path will predominate over the first reflections among near performers. A quick estimation would predict an attenuation of more than 25 dB, comparing a musician 20 m away to another one at a 1 m distance (under free-field conditions). The high reverberation is expected to reduce this issue by enhancing the strength (G) between distant positions. Gade [ 38 – 40 ] recommends measuring ST (see Section 2.2.4) with chairs on stage. In addition, Dammerud [ 41 ] deepens into the different results obtained in real-condition experiments (with musicians). Sadly, this set of measurements was made without musicians or chairs on stage, as was explained previously. Uncertainty of stage measurements can be higher than expected for other descriptors according to Giovannini and Astolfi [42]. 2. Materials and Methods A measurement campaign was carried out on the 2nd and 6th of July 2021. The measurements followed the recommendations of the ISO 3382-1 standard [ 9 ]. It took place between 10 PM and 1 AM without the presence of the public. The late hours allowed for low noise levels as the Palace was closed for visits. Wind speeds were negligible (less than 0.5 m/s) and the temperature was lower than during hot summer afternoons. All the tests were taken without musicians or an audience. Only the chairs in the audience and the platform of the stage were mounted. The Palace does not have those elements unless a performance is programmed. Giving reliable and enlightening results has therefore been a concern. The recommendations of Pompoli-Prodi [ 29 ] and Astolfi et al. [ 10 ] were interpreted and followed as far as possible and some of the descriptors were not averaged to provide more information. Measuring with an audience was not possible. Performing the measurements in the Palace required permission from Patronato de la Alhambra and Festival de Granada, but performing them with an audience and orchestra would have Acoustics 2022,4805 required extra permissions from the visiting orchestras and would have been disturbing for the audience. 2.1. Measurement Setup and Methodology Three source positions were selected on the stage. They were kept for both the audience and the stage measurements. Furthermore, sixteen microphone positions on the stage and ten in the audience (see Figure 5) were selected following the guidelines of the ISO 3382-1 standard [9]. All the source–receiver combinations were measured. Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 7 Figure 5. Layout of the concerts and the measurement campaign with source and receiver positions. (Red crosses indicate source positions; blue crosses indicate microphone positions) 2.2. Acoustic Indices Unless otherwise specified, all indices have been calculated according to ISO 3382-1 [9]. 2.2.1. Level Parameters The impulse-to-noise ratio (INR) describes the quality of the RIR measured, as it gives the range of the usable decay. Therefore, the minimum values of each measurement are more interesting to know than the average values. Strength (G) is the logarithmic ratio of the squared pressure of the measured impulse response to that of the response measured in a free field at a distance of 10 m. A graphical plot of Gm as a function of the source–receiver distance can be useful, as it varies with distance. Moreover, a comparison with the theoretical free field and the summation of it with the room constant (R) helps to visualise the contribution of the reverberation to the acoustic level. All of the strength values displayed are the average values of the octave bands of 500 and 1000 Hz (noted as Gm). Figure 5. Layout of the concerts and the measurement campaign with source and receiver positions. (Red crosses indicate source positions; blue crosses indicate microphone positions). Measurements in selected audience seats took place during the second night. A Lookline DL-203 dodecahedral source was used. Calibration of the source in an anechoic chamber enabled the calculation of G (strength) and other energetic parameters. A Genelec 8040 studio monitor was used for half of the seats to improve the frequency and phase response of the computed RIR in addition to the omnidirectional source. The sweeps were recorded using one of the omnidirectional microphones together with a Rode NT-SF1 first-order Ambisonic array. The measurements of the stage were carried out on the first night using the dodecahedral source. The signals were recorded using four 378B02 PCB half-inch microphones. The air conditions are stated in Table 2. Acoustics 2022,4806 Table 2. Air conditions during the measurement campaign. Audience Stage Beginning End Beginning End Temperature, ◦C 28.1 24.9 30.5 24.7 Humidity, % 33 49 29 31 Barometric Pressure, mB 929.0 928.8 931.4 929.7 Exponential sine sweeps were used because of their segregation of harmonic distortion, documented by Farina [ 43 ], and their higher impulse-to-noise ratio under usual test circumstances. Recorded signals were deconvolved by post-processing using Aurora plugins [ 44 ] to obtain the RIR. Extracting room acoustic indices from the RIR was easy and convenient. 2.2. Acoustic Indices Unless otherwise specified, all indices have been calculated according to ISO 3382-1 [ 9 ]. 2.2.1. Level Parameters The impulse-to-noise ratio (INR) describes the quality of the RIR measured, as it gives the range of the usable decay. Therefore, the minimum values of each measurement are more interesting to know than the average values. Strength (G) is the logarithmic ratio of the squared pressure of the measured impulse response to that of the response measured in a free field at a distance of 10 m. A graphical plot of Gm as a function of the source–receiver distance can be useful, as it varies with distance. Moreover, a comparison with the theoretical free field and the summation of it with the room constant (R) helps to visualise the contribution of the reverberation to the acoustic level. All of the strength values displayed are the average values of the octave bands of 500 and 1000 Hz (noted as Gm). 2.2.2. Reverberation and Energy Ratios The T20 and T30 reverberation times (RTs) and the EDT (early decay time) have been calculated together with their standard deviations ( σ (T20) and σ (T30)). T20 and T30 are normalised reverberation times, calculated from linear regression of different sections of the Schröder curve, while EDT is calculated using the first 10 dB drop when the signal is not yet diffuse. Definition (D 50 ) is the 50 ms-to-total arriving sound energy ratio. D 50 relates to the perceived definition or speech intelligibility. Clarity (C 80 ) is the logarithmic earlyto-late arriving sound energy ratio, being 80 ms, the time limit between “early” and “late”. C80 relates to the perceived musical clarity. According to Adelman-Larsen [45], the reverberation time of the 63 Hz octave is important for rock music. 2.2.3. Speech Transmission This paper covers the use of the Palace for music but the voice is usually part of the music. The speech transmission index (STI) is based on modulation transfer functions as defined by the IEC 60268-16 standard [ 34 ]. The values were calculated for female and male voices using the impulse responses without any corrections due to background noise, meaning the SNR is assumed to be infinite. 2.2.4. Stage Parameters Stage conditions are important for the performers to hear themselves and each other. Early support (ST Early ) describes the ensemble conditions while late support (ST Late ) describes the reverberance. The results are averaged from 200 to 2000 Hz. Acoustics 2022,4807 2.2.5. Spatial Impression Parameters Inter-aural cross-correlation coefficients (IACC), correlate well with the subjective quality of “spatial impression” in a concert hall. IACCE stands for the early (<80 ms) IACC, while L stands for late (>80 ms). The results averaged in the octave bands of 500, 1000 and 2000 Hz are noted as “3”. The binaural quality index (BQI), calculated as (1-IACCE3) and introduced by Beranek [ 46 ], has the highest correlation of all the physical measures with the subjective judgments of acoustic quality in opera houses by the conductors, and it is related to the apparent width of the sound source (AWS) sensation. Listener envelopment (LEV) was calculated as (1–IACCL3). Binaural RIRs were processed from Ambisonic RIR using Ambi Head HD [ 47 ] with a Neumann KU 100 SOFA (Spatially Oriented Format for Acoustics) and then calculated using ARTA software [48]. 3. Results and Discussion The results included in this section were calculated from the RIR obtained from the omnidirectional and first-order Ambisonic microphones. 3.1. Level Parameters Table 3shows the INR results of the measurements in the audience and stage areas, with both the average and minimum of each band. Some stage measurements showed low INR values. Therefore, T20 will be used to calculate the stage reverberation time instead of T30. Measurements on the stage were recorded with lower input levels to avoid clipping at the positions at a 1 m distance. That explains the lower INR values. Table 3. Average and minimum INR values. Audience Stage f, Hz Average, dB Minimum, dB Average, dB Minimum, dB 125 49 42 50 43 250 53 48 54 47 500 57 53 53 45 1000 58 54 49 42 2000 62 58 49 43 4000 64 60 44 36 Strength (G) was averaged in the 500 and 1000 Hz octaves (Gm). Higher values were expected near the source. The spatial average of Gm does not provide meaningful information. Table 4displays the 30 individual values for the selected positions in the audience. Table 4. Gm values of each source–receiver pair in the audience. Gm (dB) Rec. 1 Rec. 2 Rec. 3 Rec. 4 Rec. 5 Rec. 6 Rec. 7 Rec. 8 Rec. 9 Rec. 10 Source A −0.7 −1.3 0.3 1.3 0.4 −0.1 −1.7 −1.5 −1.7 −1.6 Source B 0.4 5.0 −1.3 −1.1 0.3 −0.5 −1.4 −0.7 −2.0 −1.4 Source C 0.4 −0.3 −0.6 −0.2 0.8 1.0 −0.1 −0.2 −1.1 −1.2 Under free-field conditions, the pressure level from an omnidirectional source only depends on its sound power and distance. Reverberant noise must be added to this freefield level. The easiest way is to consider perfect diffuse conditions, represented by a room constant (R), see (1). Lp=Lw+10·lg1 4πr2+4 R(1) Acoustics 2022,4808 Figure 6shows the measured strength versus the distance to the source of the measurements in the audience area. Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 9 Table 3. Average and minimum INR values. Audience Stage f, Hz Average, dB Minimum, dB Average, dB Minimum, dB 125 49 42 50 43 250 53 48 54 47 500 57 53 53 45 1000 58 54 49 42 2000 62 58 49 43 4000 64 60 44 36 Strength (G) was averaged in the 500 and 1000 Hz octaves (Gm). Higher values were expected near the source. The spatial average of Gm does not provide meaningful information. Table 4 displays the 30 individual values for the selected positions in the audience. Table 4. Gm values of each source–receiver pair in the audience. Gm (dB) Rec. 1 Rec. 2 Rec. 3 Rec. 4 Rec. 5 Rec. 6 Rec. 7 Rec. 8 Rec. 9 Rec. 10 Source A −0.7 −1.3 0.3 1.3 0.4 −0.1 −1.7 −1.5 −1.7 −1.6 Source B 0.4 5.0 −1.3 −1.1 0.3 −0.5 −1.4 −0.7 −2.0 −1.4 Source C 0.4 −0.3 −0.6 −0.2 0.8 1.0 −0.1 −0.2 −1.1 −1.2 Under free-field conditions, the pressure level from an omnidirectional source only depends on its sound power and distance. Reverberant noise must be added to this freefield level. The easiest way is to consider perfect diffuse conditions, represented by a room constant (R), see (1). =+10· 1 4π+4  (1) Figure 6 shows the measured strength versus the distance to the source of the measurements in the audience area. Figure 6. Gm in the audience versus source–receiver distance (m). Free-field values for comparison. Figure 6 also shows the curves of the free-field behaviour and the free field plus the averaged reverberant noise for comparison (called FF+R). The contribution of the reverberation was calculated by subtracting the free-field contribution of each measurement and averaging the level excess. Positions near to walls, such as those around 20 m and 28 -10 -5 0 5 5 1015202530 G (strength, dB) vs. distance (m). Audience G (500-1K avg) Free-Field (theoretical) FF+R Figure 6. Gm in the audience versus source–receiver distance (m). Free-field values for comparison. Figure 6also shows the curves of the free-field behaviour and the free field plus the averaged reverberant noise for comparison (called FF + R). The contribution of the reverberation was calculated by subtracting the free-field contribution of each measurement and averaging the level excess. Positions near to walls, such as those around 20 m and 28 m, are over the curve, while the positions far from reflective areas, around 12 m, are below the curve. This Equation (1), known as the “classical theory”, only accounts for free field and diffuse field. A revised theory for concert spaces was formulated by Barron and Lee [ 49 ], including the contribution of the early reflections. This topic will be explained in Section 15.6. Figure 7shows the same calculated values for the stage positions. Similar behaviour was observed on stage, but the highest distance was 12 m. The 12 measurements at a 1 m distance showed deviations from the expected value of 19.9 dB under free-field conditions. The average was 19.8 dB and the standard deviation was 0.90. Using 1 m distance measurements on stage to calibrate G instead of an average in an anechoic chamber is common practice. Averaging some of them can help to minimise systematic errors. Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 10 m, are over the curve, while the positions far from reflective areas, around 12 m, are below the curve. This equation (1), known as the “classical theory”, only accounts for free field and diffuse field. A revised theory for concert spaces was formulated by Barron and Lee [49], including the contribution of the early reflections. This topic will be explained in section 15.6. Figure 7 shows the same calculated values for the stage positions. Similar behaviour was observed on stage, but the highest distance was 12 m. The 12 measurements at a 1 m distance showed deviations from the expected value of 19.9 dB under free-field conditions. The average was 19.8 dB and the standard deviation was 0.90. Using 1 m distance measurements on stage to calibrate G instead of an average in an anechoic chamber is common practice. Averaging some of them can help to minimise systematic errors. Figure 7. Gm on stage versus source–receiver distance (m). Free-field values for comparison. 3.2. Reverberation and Energy Ratios Reverberation times averaged from audience points under unoccupied conditions (RTU): (T20 and T30) are quite similar. T30 and C (which is T30/T20-1) are shown in Table 5. The reverberation time of each measurement is little dependent on the location, as previously reported by Thomas et al. [7]. Table 6 shows the values for the stage measurements. Table 5. Reverberation times and energy ratios (audience). f, (Hz) T30, (s) σ(T30) EDT, (s) σ(EDT) C, % D50 C80, (dB) 63 2.78 0.309 2.50 0.69 −0.04% 0.34 −0.68 125 2.43 0.101 2.20 0.43 0.04% 0.33 −0.63 250 2.40 0.083 2.10 0.29 −0.04% 0.25 −1.71 500 2.25 0.055 2.08 0.31 1.12% 0.28 −1.26 1000 2.24 0.038 2.08 0.24 0.09% 0.35 −0.1 2000 2.09 0.031 1.93 0.22 0.58% 0.41 0.77 4000 1.81 0.04 1.61 0.24 1.40% 0.46 1.98 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 13579111315 G (strength, dB) vs. distance (m). Stage Gm Free-Field (theoretical) FF+R Figure 7. Gm on stage versus source–receiver distance (m). Free-field values for comparison. Acoustics 2022,4815 the grandstands of the first floor (see Figure 12). C 80 was higher (C 80,A-P9 = − 1.3 dB, C80,B-P9 =−1.6 dB, C 80,C-P9 = − 0.2 dB) and the blend level of the three sources was quite similar. However, reflections do not tend to come from the sides as in P7. Some returning spectators show a preference for seats in this area. Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 17 Figure 12. View from P9 featuring A, B and C positions. Figure 9 shows a remarkably high C 80 value for the C-P6 combination that deserves some explanation. The energy–time curve (Figure 13) shows two groups of strong reflections arriving in the first 80 ms (yellow and red lines) causing a C 80 and STI rise. Figure 14 shows the directions of arrival for the same combination. Figure 13. Energy–time curve (source in C, microphone in P6). Figure 12. View from P9 featuring A, B and C positions. Figure 9shows a remarkably high C 80 value for the C-P6 combination that deserves some explanation. The energy–time curve (Figure 13) shows two groups of strong reflections arriving in the first 80 ms (yellow and red lines) causing a C 80 and STI rise. Figure 14 shows the directions of arrival for the same combination. Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 17 Figure 12. View from P9 featuring A, B and C positions. Figure 9 shows a remarkably high C 80 value for the C-P6 combination that deserves some explanation. The energy–time curve (Figure 13) shows two groups of strong reflections arriving in the first 80 ms (yellow and red lines) causing a C 80 and STI rise. Figure 14 shows the directions of arrival for the same combination. Figure 13. Energy–time curve (source in C, microphone in P6). Figure 13. Energy–time curve (source in C, microphone in P6). Acoustics 2022,4816 Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 18 Source in C, mic in P6 (X-Y) Source in C, mic in P6 (X-Z) Source in C, mic in P6 (3D) Figure 14. DOA of reflections. Source in C, microphone in P6. 30 dB range. There are two groups of strong reflections with delays around 30 and 50 ms. IRIS shows they both come from the left side (Figure 15). The source was positioned in C (red dot and line), while the first group came from the parapet (green lines and dot, 15–50 ms delayed) and the second from the outer ring (blue lines and dot, >50 ms delay). The delays match the length of the geometrical paths. Figure 15. Directions of arrival of reflections. Time regions and 360 ° photograph included. 10 dB range. 3.7. Overall Attributes Discussion The auditorium is quite reverberant. Taking into account it is open-air, a lot of the reflections come from the sides. This has been found by Pätynen and Lokki [57] to increase the emotional impact. The Palace is also wide, so the ITDG is very high as well. Taking a look at Figure 8, it is not straightforward to decide which reflection should be considered the first for the calculation of ITDG, especially if we think about the implications of psychoacoustical pre-masking and post-masking [58]. The balance of frequencies in the reverberation time is adequate: the bass ratio (BR) was 1.08 and brightness (Br) was 0.87. Only Br is too low for pop and rock according to Adelman-Larsen [45], but BR and Br are optimum for different kinds of music according to Arau [56]. The differences between T30 and EDT are not significant when averaged (see Table 5), but they are high in the centre of the hall due to the high ITDG. Of note, the standard deviation of EDT was much higher Figure 14. DOA of reflections. Source in C, microphone in P6. 30 dB range. There are two groups of strong reflections with delays around 30 and 50 ms. IRIS shows they both come from the left side (Figure 15). The source was positioned in C (red dot and line), while the first group came from the parapet (green lines and dot, 15–50 ms delayed) and the second from the outer ring (blue lines and dot, >50 ms delay). The delays match the length of the geometrical paths. Acoustics 2022, 4 FOR PEER REVIEW 18 Source in C, mic in P6 (X-Y) Source in C, mic in P6 (X-Z) Source in C, mic in P6 (3D) Figure 14. DOA of reflections. Source in C, microphone in P6. 30 dB range. There are two groups of strong reflections with delays around 30 and 50 ms. IRIS shows they both come from the left side (Figure 15). The source was positioned in C (red dot and line), while the first group came from the parapet (green lines and dot, 15–50 ms delayed) and the second from the outer ring (blue lines and dot, >50 ms delay). The delays match the length of the geometrical paths. Figure 15. Directions of arrival of reflections. Time regions and 360 ° photograph included. 10 dB range. 3.7. Overall Attributes Discussion The auditorium is quite reverberant. Taking into account it is open-air, a lot of the reflections come from the sides. This has been found by Pätynen and Lokki [57] to increase the emotional impact. The Palace is also wide, so the ITDG is very high as well. Taking a look at Figure 8, it is not straightforward to decide which reflection should be considered the first for the calculation of ITDG, especially if we think about the implications of psychoacoustical pre-masking and post-masking [58]. The balance of frequencies in the reverberation time is adequate: the bass ratio (BR) was 1.08 and brightness (Br) was 0.87. Only Br is too low for pop and rock according to Adelman-Larsen [45], but BR and Br are optimum for different kinds of music according to Arau [56]. The differences between T30 and EDT are not significant when averaged (see Table 5), but they are high in the centre of the hall due to the high ITDG. Of note, the standard deviation of EDT was much higher Figure 15. Directions of arrival of reflections. Time regions and 360 ◦ photograph included. 10 dB range. 3.7. Overall Attributes Discussion The auditorium is quite reverberant. Taking into account it is open-air, a lot of the reflections come from the sides. This has been found by Pätynen and Lokki [ 57 ] to increase the emotional impact. The Palace is also wide, so the ITDG is very high as well. Taking a look at Figure 8, it is not straightforward to decide which reflection should be considered the first for the calculation of ITDG, especially if we think about the implications of psychoacoustical pre-masking and post-masking [ 58 ]. The balance of frequencies in the reverberation time is adequate: the bass ratio (BR) was 1.08 and brightness (Br) was 0.87. Only Br is too low for pop and rock according to Adelman-Larsen [ 45 ], but BR and Br are optimum for different kinds of music according to Arau [ 56 ]. The differences between T30 and EDT are not significant when averaged (see Table 5), but they are high in the centre of the hall due to the high ITDG. Of note, the standard deviation of EDT was much Acoustics 2022,4817 higher than that for T30. No echoes or strong reflections that could cause artefacts were detected in any of the points measured, other than the first-order high-energy reflections already mentioned. Previous research by Paini et al. [ 59 ] claims reverberation time (T30) and clarity index (C 80 ) not to be accurate for unroofed auditoriums and suggests strength (G) together with auralisations to be satisfactory for finding possible echoes. Moreover, Mo and Wang [ 60 ] support this claim. Cabrera and Martens [ 61 ] proposed using loudness models to predict reverberance (the subjective perception of reverberation). In the particular case of this palace, T30 was high and diffuse; the dimensions are not big compared to typical squares, and the circular shape avoids flutter echoes due to parallel walls. The only exception is when the source and receiver are close to the centre. Only then, a huge echo is audible and it makes sense to neglect the T30 values. One of the particularities of the Palace is the high ITDG in every seat. This is caused by the long distance from the side walls. Some first reflections are strong and surpass the 80 ms limit of the early ones, affecting parameters such as clarity (C 80 ) or envelopment (LEV). LEV has a low value and it is paradoxical, given that the room is circular and open-air. This low ITDG is expected to be judged as a lack of intimacy and a defect. The best-liked halls in the world have an ITDG around or below 25 ms in the centre of the main floor, according to Beranek [ 46 ]. At over 35 ms, halls are considered lower grade, and over 60 ms, lower results are expected. However, the Palace is an imposing and monumental venue. Furthermore, clarity (C 80 ) in the mid frequencies had a negative value (Table 5), meaning that energy arriving late to the receiver was higher than early energy. This blend of characteristics makes the orchestra sound big and not intimate. Good acoustics involve definition and intimacy but also reverberation, loudness and spatial impression. This multidimensional nature of the preference approach is not new; Hawkes and Douglas [ 62 ], and others such as Beranek [ 46 ] have researched in that direction. All these attributes should be blended to some extent, but some of them are opposed to others. Blauert [25] divides the quality of the acoustics into functional adequacy, typicality, listening tradition and aesthetics. The concept of ‘eignung’, named in the introduction, makes sense here. Good halls sound intimate but “should the palace of the emperor who ruled territories on which the Sun never set sound intimate?” We believe that a place with those visual characteristics should have monumental, not intimate acoustics. 4. Conclusions This paper tries to answer the question of whether the Palace of Charles V has good acoustics, and if not, why the audience thinks it sounds so good. It is a heritage building where musical performances are held. Concerts include different genres such as classical music, opera, flamenco or rock, with different acoustic needs. Several acoustic parameters were measured without the public or musicians in the audience and stage areas. The most remarkable findings are related to the high energy and delayed reflections due to the circular shape of the inner patio. The RTU 500-1000 was 2.24 s, while the RTO was expected to be between 1.28 and 1.98 s, which is not excessive given the size of the building. The high RT is due to the massive stone building. The absence of a ceiling leads to a predominance of reflections in the horizontal plane. This non-diffuse field affects the calculations of reverberation times under different conditions (occupied or adding treatment). Clarity is very low due to the delay of the first strong reflections after 80 ms. Intimacy is supposed to be very important for concert halls. This palace is the opposite of intimate. Furthermore, the LEV was very low but the BQI was quite good. The lack of earlier reflections from the sides, compared to a similar shoebox-style concert hall, causes all these issues. Using standard descriptors has been found useful in open-air spaces and heritage buildings but it is still not clear if the recommendations regarding their value should be applied. The emotional response to historical architecture or suitability of the place Acoustics 2022,4818 and the music must be taken into account. This research includes an extensive set of descriptors and also Ambisonic RIR that can be used for auralisation, documentation and safeguarding. Further research can use these data to assess specific recommendations for heritage buildings. Which acoustic indices are important for music in heritage places deserve further research. Auralisations with visual content can be an effective tool for checking whether the sound of the Palace can be improved with the use of absorbers or by reconsidering the design of the stage to give earlier reflections. There is no doubt that the acoustic indices would improve, but it would be interesting to know if the audience would find it appropriate as the architecture of the Palace is monumental, not intimate. Programmers need to understand the acoustics of singular heritage halls such as this. A search for appropriately sized and aesthetically pleasing heritage sites can result in possible high-quality venues. Further research is needed, including semiology and audio-visual interactions, to understand why halls that were not designed as auditoria and are far from perfect in terms of hall acoustic recommendations sound so good. Author Contributions: J.A.A.-P. conceived of the presented idea. J.A.A.-P., R.G.-Q., J.V.-M. and F.J.M.-I. took part in the field measurements. J.A.A.-P. performed the computations. R.G.-Q., J.V.-M. and Á.F.R.-R. verified the analytical methods. J.A.A.-P. and R.G.-Q. wrote the manuscript with support from the rest of the authors. R.G.-Q., J.V.-M. and Á.F.R.-R. supervised the findings of this work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the institutions and individuals who helped make this article possible: Festival Internacional de Música y Danza de Granada, Patronato de la Alhambra y el Generalife, Centro de Instrumentación Científica de la Universidad de Granada (CIC-UGR), Teófilo Zamarreño, Lidia Álvarez, Alexis Campos, Dario Paini, Niels Adelman-Larsen, Suso Ramallo, Cástor Rodríguez (Sound of Numbers), Paco Pretel and Daniel Ortiz. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Pérez-Martínez, G.; Torija, A.J.; Ruiz, D.P. Soundscape Assessment of a Monumental Place: A Methodology Based on the Perception of Dominant Sounds. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018,169, 12–21. [CrossRef] 2. Almagro-Pastor, J.A.; García-Quesada, R.; Ramallo, S.; Martínez-Irureta, F.J.; Ramos-Ridao, Á.F. Assessing Environmental Noise Impact of PA Systems with the Swept-Sine Method. A Case Study in the Heritage Site of the Alhambra. Appl. Acoust. 2021 , 176, 107897. [CrossRef] 3. Bevilacqua, A.; Ciaburro, G.; Iannace, G.; Lombardi, I.; Trematerra, A. Acoustic Design of a New Shell to Be Placed in the Roman Amphitheater Located in Santa Maria Capua Vetere. Appl. Acoust. 2022,187, 108524. [CrossRef] 4. Galindo, M.; Girón, S.; Cebrián, R. Acoustics of Performance Buildings in Hispania: The Roman Theatre and Amphitheatre of Segobriga, Spain. Appl. Acoust. 2020,166, 107373. [CrossRef] 5. Paini, D.; Rindel, J.H.; Gade, A.C.; Turchini, G. The Acoustics of Public Squares/Places: A Comparison between Results from a Computer Simulation Program and Measurements in Situ. Inter-Noise 2004,2004, 1–8. 6. Paini, D.; Gade, A.C.; Rindel, J.H. AgoráAcoustics—Effects of Arcades on the Acoustics of Public Squares. In Proceedings of the Forum Acusticum Budapest 4th European Congress of Acoustics, Budapest, Hungary, 2 August–29 September 2005; pp. 1813–1818. 7. Thomas, P.; Van Renterghem, T.; Botteldooren, D. Using Room Acoustical Parameters for Evaluating the Quality of Urban Squares for Open-Air Rock Concerts. Appl. Acoust. 2011,72, 210–220. [CrossRef] 8. Calleri, C.; Shtrepi, L.; Armando, A.; Astolfi, A. Evaluation of the Influence of Building Façade Design on the Acoustic Characteristics and Auditory Perception of Urban Spaces. Build. Acoust. 2018,25, 77–95. [CrossRef] 9. ISO 3382-1; Acoustics—Measurement of Room Acoustic Parameters—Part 1: Performance Spaces. International Standardization Organization: Geneve, Switzerland, 2009; ISBN 9788578110796. Acoustics 2022,4819 10. Astolfi, A.; Bo, E.; Aletta, F.; Shtrepi, L. Measurements of Acoustical Parameters in the Ancient Open-Air Theatre of Tyndaris (Sicily, Italy). Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 5680. [CrossRef] 11. Bo, E.; Shtrepi, L.; Alerta, F.; Puglisi, G.E.; Astolfi, A. Geometrical Acoustic Simulation of Open-Air Ancient Theatres: Investigation on the Appropriate Objective Parameters for Improved Accuracy. Build. Simul. Conf. Proc. 2019,1, 18–25. [CrossRef] 12. Smith, L.T.A.-T.T. Emotional Heritage: Visitor Engagement at Museums and Heritage Sites LK; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; Available online: https://Tamulibraries.on.Worldcat.Org/Oclc/1154133804 (accessed on 30 August 2022). 13. Brezina, P. Acoustics of Historic Spaces as a Form of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Antiquity 2013,87, 574–580. [CrossRef] 14. Gerzon, M.A. Recording Concert Hall Acoustics for Posterity. AES J. Audio Eng. Soc. 1975,23, 569. 15. Farina, A.; Ayalon, R. Recording Concert Hall Acoustics for Posterity. In Proceedings of the AES 24th International Conference Multichannel Audio, Banff, AB, Canada, 26–28 June 2003. 16. Farina, A.; Tronchin, L. Measurements and Reproduction of Spatial Sound Characteristics of Auditoria. Acoust. Sci. Technol. 2005 , 26, 193–199. [CrossRef] 17. Katz, B.F.G.; Murphy, D.; Farina, A. The Past Has Ears (PHE): XR Explorations of Acoustic Spaces as Cultural Heritage. In Proceedings of the Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics: 7th International Conference, AVR 2020, Lecce, Italy, 7–10 September 2020; Proceedings, Part II. De Paolis, L.T., Bourdot, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 91–98. 18. Tronchin, L.; Farina, A. Acoustics of the Former Teatro “La Fenice” in Venice. J. Audio Eng. Soc JAES 1997,45, 1051–1062. 19. Katz, B.F.; Postma, B.N.; Poirier-Quinot, D.; Meyer, J. Experience with a Virtual Reality Auralization of Notre-Dame Cathedral. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2017,141, 3454. [CrossRef] 20. Marshall Day IRIS. Available online: https://www.iris.co.nz/ (accessed on 30 August 2022). 21. Menzer, F.; Faller, C. Obtaining Binaural Room Impulse Responses from B-Format Impulse Responses. In Proceedings of the 2008 Audio Engineering Society 125th Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2–5 October 2008; Volume 2, pp. 912–919. 22. Martellotta, F. On the Use of Microphone Arrays to Visualize Spatial Sound Field Information. Appl. Acoust. 2013 ,74, 987–1000. [CrossRef] 23. Alary, B.; Valimaki, V. A Method for Capturing and Reproducing Directional Reverberation in Six Degrees of Freedom. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Immersive and 3D Audio: From Architecture to Automotive (I3DA), Bologna, Italy, 8–10 September 2021; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef] 24. Iannace, G. The Use of Historical Courtyards for Musical Performances. Build. Acoust. 2016,23, 207–222. [CrossRef] 25. Blauert, J. Conceptual Aspects Regarding the Qualification of Spaces for Aural Performances. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2013 ,99, 1–13. [CrossRef] 26. Blauert, J.; Raake, A. Can Current Room-Acoustics Indices Specify the Quality of Aural Experience in Concert Halls? Psychomusicol. Music. Mind. Brain 2015,25, 253–255. [CrossRef] 27. Farina, A. Acoustic Quality of Theatres: Correlations between Experimental Measures and Subjective Evaluations. Appl. Acoust. 2001,62, 889–916. [CrossRef] 28. Pätynen, J.; Lokki, T. Evaluation of Concert Hall Auralization with Virtual Symphony Orchestra. Build. Acoust. 2011 ,18, 349–366. [CrossRef] 29. Pompoli, R.; Prodi, N. Guidelines for Acoustical Measurements inside Historical Opera Houses: Procedures and Validation. J. Sound Vib. 2000,232, 281–301. [CrossRef] 30. Martellotta, F.; Cirillo, E.; Carbonari, A.; Ricciardi, P. Guidelines for Acoustical Measurements in Churches. Appl. Acoust. 2009 ,70, 378–388. [CrossRef] 31. Álvarez-Morales, L.; Zamarreño, T.; Girón, S.; Galindo, M. A Methodology for the Study of the Acoustic Environment of Catholic Cathedrals: Application to the Cathedral of Malaga. Build. Environ. 2014,72, 102–115. [CrossRef] 32. Suárez, R.; Sendra, J.J.; Navarro, J.; León, A.L. The Sound of the Cathedral-Mosque of Córdoba. J. Cult. Herit. 2005 ,6, 307–312. [CrossRef] 33. Adelman-Larsen, N.W. Rock and Pop Venues—Acoustic and Archictectural Design; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-3-642-45235-2. 34. IEC. 60268–16-2003; Sound System Equipment—Part 16: Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index. International Electrotechnical Commission: London, UK, 2003; ISBN 9780580761638. 35. Rosenthal, E.E. The Palace of Charles V in Granada; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1985. 36. All, U.T.C. The Renaissance Reception of the Alhambra: The Letters of Andrea Navagero and the Palace of Charles V Author (s): Cammy Brothers Published by: Brill Stable URL. JSTOR 1994,11, 79–102. 37. Tapia, J.L.; El Oído Del Carlos, V. Available online: https://www.ideal.es/granada/20090705/mas-actualidad/cultura/palaciocarlos-v-granada-acustica-oido-200907050909.html (accessed on 30 August 2022). 38. Líndez, B.; Rodríguez, M. La Bóveda Anular Del Palacio de Carlos V En Granada. Hipótesis Constructiva; The Annular Vault of Carlos V Palace in Granada. Constructive Hypothesis. Inf. La Construcción 2015,67, e125. [CrossRef] 39. Gade, A.C. Investigations of Musicians’ Room Acoustic Conditions in Concert Halls. Part II: Field Experiments and Synthesis of Results. Acustica 1989,69, 249–262. 40. Gade, A.C. Practical Aspects of Room Acoustic Measurements on Orchestra Platforms. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress on Acoustics, Beijing, China, 3–10 September 1992. Acoustics 2022,4820 41. Dammerud, J.J. Stage Acoustics for Symphony Orchestras in Concert Halls. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bath, Bath, UK, September 2009. 42. Giovannini, M.; Astolfi, A. The Acoustical Characterization of Orchestra Platforms and Uncertainty Estimation of the Results. Appl. Acoust. 2010,71, 889–901. [CrossRef] 43. Farina, A. Simultaneous Measurement of Impulse Response and Distortion with a Swept-Sine Technique; Audio Engineering Society: New York, NY, USA, 2000. 44. Farina, A. Aurora for Audacity. Available online: http://www.angelofarina.it/Public/Aurora-for-Audacity/ (accessed on 15 February 2020). 45. Adelman-Larsen, N.W.; Thompson, E.R.; Gade, A.C. Suitable Reverberation Times for Halls for Rock and Pop Music. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010,127, 247–255. [CrossRef] 46. Beranek, L.L. Concert Halls and Opera Houses: Music, Acoustics, and Architecture, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2005; Volume 117, ISBN 9781441930385. 47. Noise Makers Ambi Head HD Software. Available online: https://www.noisemakers.fr/ambi-head-hd/ (accessed on 30 August 2022). 48. Mateljan, I. ARTA User Manual. 2007. Available online: https://artalabs.hr/download/ARTA-user-manual.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2022). 49. Barron, M.; Lee, L.-J. Energy Relations in Concert Auditoriums. I. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1988,84, 618–628. [CrossRef] 50. Dietsch, L.; Kraak, W. Ein Objektives Kriterium Zur Erfassung von Echostörungen Bei MusikUnd Sprachdarbietungen. Acustica 1986,60, 205–216. 51. Olive, S.E.; Toole, F.E. The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms. J. Audio Eng. Soc. 1989,37, 539–553. 52. Barron, M. The Subjective Effects of First Reflections in Concert Halls—The Need for Lateral Reflections. J. Sound Vib. 1971 ,15, 475–494. [CrossRef] 53. Sabine, W.C.; Dwight, C.H. Collected Papers on Acoustics. Am. J. Phys. 1966,34, 370. [CrossRef] 54. Iannace, G.; Maffei, L.; Aletta, F. Computer Simulation of the Effect of the Audience on the Acoustics of the Roman Theatre of Beneventum (Italy). In Proceedings of the Acoustics of Ancient Theatres Conference, Patras, Greece, 18–21 September 2011; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef] 55. Beranek, L.L. Analysis of Sabine and Eyring Equations and Their Application to Concert Hall Audience and Chair Absorption. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2006,120, 1399–1410. [CrossRef] 56. Arau-Puchades, H. ABC de La Acústica Arquitectónica; CEAC: Barcelona, Spain, 1999; ISBN 9788432920172. 57. Pätynen, J.; Lokki, T. Concert Halls with Strong and Lateral Sound Increase the Emotional Impact of Orchestra Music. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2016,139, 1214–1224. [CrossRef] 58. Fastl Hugo, E.Z. Psycho-Acoustics Facts and Models; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 91, ISBN 9783642517655. 59. Paini, D.; Gade, A.C.; Rindel, J.H. Is Reverberation Time Adequate for Testing the Acoustical Quality of Unroofed Auditoriums? In Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics. 6th Auditorium Acoustics. International Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 20–22 May 2011; Volume 28, pp. 66–73. 60. Mo, F.; Wang, J. The Conventional RT Is Not Applicable for Testing the Acoustical Quality of Unroofed Theatres. Build. Acoust. 2013,20, 81–86. [CrossRef] 61. Lee, D.; Cabrera, D.; Martens, W.L. The Effect of Loudness on the Reverberance of Music: Reverberance Prediction Using Loudness Models. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2012,131, 1194–1205. [CrossRef] 62. Hawkes, R.; Douglas, H. Subjective Acoustic Experience in Concert Auditoria. Acta Acust. United Acust. 1971,24, 235–250.