Research Article| Volume 34, ISSUE 3, P320-334, May 2020

Reproducibility of Voice Parameters: The Effect of Room Acoustics and Microphones

Published:November 21, 2018DOI:



      Computer analysis of voice recordings is an integral part of the evaluation and management of voice disorders. In many practices, voice samples are taken in rooms that are not sound attenuated and/or sound-proofed; further, the technology used is rarely consistent. This will likely affect the recordings, and therefore, their analyses.


      The objective of this study is to compare various acoustic outcome measures taken from samples recorded in a sound-proofed booth to those recorded in more common clinic environments. Further, the effects from six different commonly used microphones will be compared.


      Thirty-six speakers were recorded while reading a text and producing sustained vowels in a controlled acoustic environment. The collected samples were reproduced by a Head and Torso Simulator and recorded in three clinical rooms and in a sound booth using six different microphones. Newer measures (eg, Pitch Strength, cepstral peak prominence, Acoustic Voice Quality Index), as well as more traditional measures (eg Jitter, Shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio and Spectrum Tilt), were calculated from the samples collected with each microphone and within each room.


      The measures which are more robust to room acoustic differences, background noise, and microphone quality include Jitter and smooth cepstral peak prominence, followed by Shimmer, Acoustic Voice Quality Index, harmonics-to-noise ratio, Pitch Strength, and Spectrum Tilt.


      The effect of room acoustics and background noise on voice parameters appears to be stronger than the type of microphone used for the recording. Consequently, an appropriate acoustical clinical space may be more important than the quality of the microphone.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. Aronson AE, Bless DM. “Clinical voice disorders.” New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers.

      2. Boone DR, McFarlane SC, Von Berg SL, et al. “The voice and voice therapy.” Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

        • Lee L
        • Stemple JC
        • Glaze L
        • et al.
        Quick screen for voice and supplementary documents for identifying pediatric voice disorders.
        Lang Speech Hear Ser. 2004; 35: 308-319
        • Hannaford PC
        • Simpson JA
        • Bisset AF
        • et al.
        The prevalence of ear, nose and throat problems in the community: results from a national cross-sectional postal survey in Scotland.
        Fam Pract. 2005; 22: 227-233
        • Roy N
        • Merrill RM
        • Gray SD
        • et al.
        Voice disorders in the general population: prevalence, risk factors, and occupational impact.
        Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 1988-1995
      3. Patel RR, Awan SN, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, et al. Recommended protocols for instrumental assessment of voice: American speech-language-hearing association expert panel to develop a protocol for instrumental assessment of vocal function. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018:1–19.

        • Titze I
        • Yoshiyuki H
        • Scherer R
        Some technical considerations in voice perturbation measurements.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1987; 30: 252-260
        • Skowronski M
        • Shrivastav R
        • Hunter EJ
        Cepstral peak sensitivity: a theoretic analysis and comparison of several implementations.
        J Voice. 2015; 29: 670-681
        • Zhang Y
        • Jiang JJ
        Acoustic analyses of sustained and running voices from patients with laryngeal pathologies.
        J Voice. 2008; 22: 1-9
        • Ma EP
        • Yiu EM
        Multiparametric evaluation of dysphonic severity.
        J Voice. 2006; 20: 380-390
        • Heman-Ackah YD
        • Michael DD
        • Baroody MM
        • et al.
        Cepstral Peak Prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112: 324-333
        • Maryn Y
        • Bodt M
        • Nelson R
        The acoustic voice quality index: toward improved treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders.
        J Commun Disord. 2010; 43: 161-174
        • Shrivastav R
        • Eddins DA
        • Anand S
        Pitch strength of normal and dysphonic voices.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 131: 2261-2269
        • Kopf LM
        • Jackson-Menaldi C
        • Rubin AD
        • et al.
        Pitch Strength as an outcome measure for treatment of dysphonia.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 691-696
        • Rubin AD
        • Jackson-Menaldi C
        • Kopf LM
        • et al.
        Comparison of Pitch Strength with perceptual and other acoustic metric outcome measures following medialization laryngoplasty.
        J Voice. 2018; ([Advance online publication])
        • Hunter EJ
        • Helpern AE
        • Spielman JL
        Impact of four nonclinical speaking environments on a child's fundamental frequency and voice level: a preliminary case study.
        Lang Speech Hear Ser. 2012; 43: 253-263
        • Bottalico P
        • Graetzer S
        • Hunter EJ
        Effects of speech style, room acoustics, and vocal fatigue on vocal effort.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2016; 139: 2870-2879
        • Bottalico P
        • Graetzer S
        • Hunter EJ
        Effects of voice style, noise level, and acoustic feedback on objective and subjective voice evaluations.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2015; 138: EL498-EL503
        • Barsties B
        • De Bodt M
        Assessment of voice quality: current state-of-the-art.
        Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015; 42: 183-188
        • Deliyski DD
        • Shaw HS
        • Evans MK
        • et al.
        Regression tree approach to studying factors influencing acoustic voice analysis.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2006; 58: 274-288
        • Deliyski DD
        • Shaw HS
        • Evans MK
        Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements.
        J Voice. 2005; 19: 15-28
        • Kardous CA
        • Shaw PB
        Evaluation of smartphone sound measurement applications.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2014; 135: EL186-EL192
        • Parsa V
        • Jamieson DG
        • Pretty BR
        Effects of microphone type on acoustic measures of voice.
        J Voice. 2001; 15: 331-343
        • Deliyski DD
        • Evans MK
        • Shaw HS
        Influence of data acquisition environment on accuracy of acoustic voice quality measurements.
        J Voice. 2005; 19: 176-186
        • Švec JG
        • Granqvist S
        Guidelines for selecting microphones for human voice production research.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010; 19: 356-368
        • Fairbanks G.
        “The Rainbow Passage.
        In: Voice and articulation drillbook. Harper & Row, New York1960: 127
        • Boersma P
        • van Heuven V
        Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer.
        Glot Int. 2001; 5: 341-347
        • Maryn Y
        • Bodt M
        • Latoszek B
        • et al.
        The value of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking different languages.
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013; 271: 1609-1619
        • Ferrand CT.
        Harmonics-to-noise ratio: an index of vocal aging.
        J Voice. 2002; 16: 480-487
        • Teixeira P
        • Fernandes P
        Jitter, Shimmer and HNR classification within gender, tones and vowels in healthy voices.
        Procedia Technology. 2014; 16: 1228-1237
        • Titze I
        Workshop on acoustic voice analysis.
        National Center for Voice and Speech, Denver, CO1995
        • ISO 3382-2
        Acoustics—measurement of room acoustic parameters. Part 2: Reverberation time in ordinary rooms.
        International Organization for Standardization, Genève2008
        • R Development Core Team
        R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
        R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria2011 (Available at:) (Accessed September 23, 2016)
        • Bates D
        • Maechler M
        • Bolker B
        • et al.
        lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4.R package version 1.1–7. 2014. Available at:?>.
        (Accessed September 23, 2016)
        • Kuznetsova A
        • Brockhoff PB
        • Christensen RHB
        lmerTest: tests in linear mixed-effects models.
        (Accessed September 23, 2016)
        • Hothorn T
        • Bretz F
        • Westfall P
        • et al.
        Multcomp: simultaneous inference in general parametric models.
        (Accessed September 23, 2016)
        • Satterthwaite FE
        An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components.
        Biometr. Bull. 1946; 2: 110-114
        • ISO/IEC 17043:2010
        Conformity assessment – General requirements for proficiency testing.
        International Organization for Standardization, Geneva2010
        • ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008
        Uncertainty of measurement – Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.
        International Organization for Standardization, Geneva2008
        • Dejonckere PH
        • Bradley P
        • Clemente P
        • et al.
        A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS).
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001; 258: 77-82