Skip to documentation content

R2 — Acoustic methodology: metrics, standards, claim limits

Decision-oriented research for TUNES Wave 1. Must be read with acoustic-survey-methodology.md. TfL R3291 (FOI) is a methodology reference only — not redistributable data and not affiliation or endorsement.

Owns: which metrics to collect/publish; how standards apply (or do not); multi-metric and station-to-station discipline; what consumer devices cannot claim.

Does not own: citizen-science governance (R1); iPhone AGC/API experiment design detail (R3); full calibration hierarchy (R4); claim-language legal sign-off.


1. Decision questions

  1. What metric set should the iOS collector compute and what should the public map / open dataset expose by default?
  2. Which ISO/IEC (and related) standards apply directly, which are informative, and which claims are unsupported on consumer devices?
  3. How do we reuse professional survey discipline (sections, layered metrics, provenance, grading) without pretending to be Class 1?

Open questions touched: #6 (research / profiled / informal grades), #11 (exposure / discomfort / loudness / risk wording).


2. Professional discipline to reuse (from methodology notes)

From R3291 practice notes + ISO 3381 framing — transferable system, not transferable Class 1 status:

  1. Traceable (or best-available characterised) instrument with stated limits
  2. Pre/post checks where feasible; discard/suspect runs that fail stability checks
  3. Justified measurement position/height (or honest passenger-position metadata)
  4. Controlled and disclosed conditions; record exclusions
  5. Canonical spatial unit = station-to-station section with duration
  6. Layered metrics — never blend A / C / peak / bands into one unexplained number
  7. Full provenance: device, software/pipeline version, corrections stored separately
  8. Honest grade: in-service crowd data is survey-grade at best

TUNES adds passenger loads, ordinary behaviour, and optional perception — those enrich context; they do not upgrade the acoustic grade.


3. Spatial unit and analysis time

3.1 Station-to-station section

Working assumption (accepted for research direction): the canonical public comparison unit is a station-to-station section with duration T.

Why this matches professional practice:

  • Maps cleanly to network topology
  • Comparable across days and contributors
  • Forces every Leq to carry an averaging time

Implementation notes (product detail owned later by R6/R7 + ios/web):

  • Report both directions separately when the network model distinguishes them
  • Exclude or flag non-representative legs (e.g. held mid-section) with disclosed reasons — same honesty pattern as professional footnotes
  • Do not publish a section Leq without T

3.2 Homogeneous sessions

Participatory noise-mapping practice (NoiseCapture-style protocol ideas): keep a session in a homogeneous environment; start a new logical segment when the environment changes (platform vs moving train). Underground GPS is unreliable — snap to station-pair geometry, don’t trust raw fixes as acoustic truth.


4. Metric set

Prefer derived features computed on device (or in a versioned pipeline) over uploading raw audio. Keep fields separate.

4.1 Core metrics (launch-directed)

MetricRoleNotes
LAeq,TPrimary continuous level for section comparisonAlways with A-weighting and duration T (ISO 1996-1 framing)
LCeq,TLow-frequency / flatter weighting companionLCeq − LAeq large → significant LF energy (rule-of-thumb diagnostic, not a health claim)
LCpeakInstantaneous C-weighted peakNot a time average; useful for impulsive events; regulatory context only
Percentiles (e.g. LA10, LA50, LA90 over T)Distribution within the sectionHelps distinguish steady rumble vs intermittent events; exact set finalized in architecture
One-third-octave L_eq bandsSpectral diagnosisPrefer IEC 61260-style band centres; store as derived spectrum, not a single “tone score”

Z-weighting / unweighted levels: useful for research exports when computationally available; not required for passenger-facing primary colouring.

4.2 Time structure

  • Section-level aggregates are the public unit.
  • Optional finer internal frames (e.g. short Leq blocks) may support boundary detection and QA — version them; don’t silently redefine historical section values (R10).

4.3 Psychoacoustic and event candidates (research backlog, not launch claims)

Candidates for later derived features / research layers only until validated:

CandidateWhy interestingClaim limit
Tonality / wheel-squeal indicatorsPassenger-relevant tonal eventsAlgorithm + version required; not “official squeal index”
Sharpness, roughness, fluctuation strengthTimbre / modulation characterPsychoacoustic models are method-dependent; keep out of unexplained blended scores
Impulsiveness indicatorsDoor slams, bangsComplement LCpeak; don’t replace it
Speech masking / conversation difficulty proxiesLinks to accessibility concernsPrefer pairing with subjective items (R9); avoid medical claims
Vibration-related experienceFelt vibration ≠ mic pressureNeeds sensors/methods beyond SLM metrics; separate channel

Do not ship a single “discomfort score” that mixes objective bands and survey answers without an explicit, documented model version.

4.4 What not to do

  • One decibel number as a complete passenger-experience description
  • Averaging LAeq with LCpeak or octave bands into one field
  • Baking calibration offsets into published values without retaining unadjusted + offset provenance
  • Calling crowd results engineering-grade

5. Standards applicability

5.1 Directly informative for method design

StandardRelevance to TUNES
ISO 3381:2021Interior railway noise methods; heights 1.2 m seated / 1.6 m standing; Class 1 instrumentation requirement; grades via ISO 12001; in-service / relaxed monitoring is below engineering grade — crowd Tube runs are survey-grade at best
ISO 1996-1:2016Definitions of Leq, weightings, how to express quantities — always quote weighting + duration
IEC 61672-1SLM Class 1 vs Class 2 performance — defines what phones are not
IEC 61260Fractional-octave filters — target for band features
IEC 60942Sound calibrators — relevant when external mic + calibrator exist (Tier A paths)
ISO 12001Engineering vs survey grade language — use for honesty labels

5.2 Occupational / environmental context (informative, not TUNES compliance)

InstrumentUse carefully
Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 (UK)Explains why dose metrics (e.g. LEX,8h) and LCpeak appear in workplace framing — does not make TUNES an occupational compliance tool
Environmental assessment practiceInformative for descriptor vocabulary; passenger map ≠ statutory noise map

5.3 What standards do not authorize on consumer phones

Uncalibrated or lightly characterised iPhones cannot honestly claim:

  • Conformance to IEC 61672 Class 1 (or typically even Class 2 without demonstrated verification)
  • ISO 3381 engineering-grade type-test equivalence
  • Substitution for operator acceptance tests or regulatory surveys
  • Traceable chain to a national reference without documented calibrator + procedure
  • Health risk classification, hearing-damage dose, or medical advice from map colours

Smartphone literature (e.g. NIOSH SLM app programme on iOS; peer-reviewed app-vs-SLM evaluations) supports treating apps as adjunct / screening tools with model- and condition-dependent error — cite primary sources when quoting any numeric tolerance; do not invent project-specific accuracy figures here. Any TUNES tolerance bands must come from TUNES experiments (R3/R4).


6. Measurement positions and passenger reality

ISO 3381 fixed heights (1.2 m / 1.6 m) are the professional ideal. Ordinary passengers will sit, stand, hold phones at variable heights, and sometimes obstruct mics.

Decision posture:

  • Capture position metadata (sitting/standing; phone in hand vs pocket/bag; approximate carriage location) rather than pretending ISO heights.
  • Protocol guidance: phone in hand, mic unobstructed; don’t tap/handle mid-run; avoid pocket/bag for higher tiers (R1/R3).
  • Pocket/bag or voice-processed sessions → quality flags and tier demotion, not silent “correction to ISO.”

7. Quality tiers and grading (working)

Align acoustic honesty with quality tiers A–E (glossary working labels):

TierAcoustic reading
AReference SLM or validated external mic + documented protocol — still label survey vs engineering per actual method
BSupported iPhone model with experimental correction profile — relative and profiled absolute claims only within published uncertainty
CProject app, unprofiled device, complete metadata, no major flags — useful for relative patterns with caveats
DImports / incomplete control (e.g. Voice Memos path if ever allowed) — research curiosity / weak public weight
EInsufficient metadata — archive or exclude from passenger aggregates

Crowd in-service data maxes out at survey-grade at best even at Tier A when conditions are not type-test controlled.


8. Public claim language (decision draft for ADR)

May say (with caveats)Must not say (foundation stage)
Section LAeq from passenger samples; sample size; tier mix“Scientifically validated public map” without tiers + experiments
“Often louder in our samples than section Y”“Unsafe,” “hearing damage,” “exceeds legal limit”
Low-frequency energy suggested by LCeq−LAeqMedical diagnosis or accessibility guarantee
Survey-grade passenger monitoringEngineering-grade / Class 1 equivalent / TfL-approved

Allowed vocabulary for exposure, discomfort, loudness, and risk follows ADR-011; any broader claim requires new acoustic and legal evidence.


9. Minimum derived payload (schema starter)

Mirror auditability from professional tables without Class 1 pretence:

  • Network: line, direction, from/to station (section)
  • Metrics: name, weighting, value, unit, duration T
  • Optional: percentiles, 1/3-octave vector, peak
  • Device: model, OS, app version, pipeline version
  • Calibration: offset if any (stored separately), tier, quality flags
  • Context: position/height proxy, crowding, exclusions
  • Grade label: survey-grade at best for crowd collection; a documented reference protocol states its actual grade separately
  • Alignment: snapped vs GNSS accuracy note

Prefer this derived package for upload; raw PCM stays on device by default (R5).


10. Repo implications

RepoAcoustic obligations
tunesMetric definitions, claim limits, methodology versions, open releases with provenance
tunes-iosOn-device derived feature computation, flags, section timing, offline buffering
tunes-webAggregation per section, multi-metric display, uncertainty, no blended mystery scores

Recommendation

Adopt a multi-metric, section-based, survey-grade-honest methodology: public comparison on station-to-station LAeq,T plus LCeq,T, LCpeak, percentiles, and 1/3-octave derived features; never blend metrics or objective/subjective scores; label crowd data survey-grade at best; use ISO 3381 / IEC 61672 / ISO 1996-1 as normative vocabulary and honesty bounds, not as a certificate for iPhones. Psychoacoustic indices stay in research backlog until versioned and validated. Finalize numeric uncertainty bands only after R3/R4 experiments — do not invent them.

Confidence

High for section unit, layered metrics, survey-grade labelling, and “phones ≠ Class 1.” Medium for exact percentile set and which psychoacoustic candidates enter v1 derived schema. Low for public risk/exposure wording until legal/acoustic ADR.

Depends on experiment/legal/user-test?

Yes. Device accuracy and orientation experiments (R3); calibration hierarchy (R4); user tests for how multi-metric maps are understood; legal review for claim language (#11); optional expert review of band/psychoacoustic feature specs.

Primary standards and references (do not treat as TUNES results)