{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014218009478672985, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.236286919831223, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Soniferous Architecture: From Archaeo-Acoustics Towards the Soundsculpture Aural Era

â€œI call architecture frozen musicâ€ a quote by Johan Wolfgan von Goethe. It seems that his description of architecture will not be this much long lasting. Since many architectural structures now are considered soniferous. In an approach to rational the thinking of positive soundscape and move onwards in terms of systematic decision making, and creating tools for more creative planning techniques, this paper utilizes two methodologies in assessing soundscape impacts. One approach usually implemented in quality of manufacturing and product development, namely the Kano Model. The other approach deals with the case in the form of a wider scope which relates the design of the soundscape, and the effect of sound sculptures in objective terms. Due to the complexity of characterizing the soundscape, and its dependence on several of perceptual aspects and interventions, both models are mapped to form an evaluation tool for a specific sonic environment. It can be considered to be a complement along with previous frameworks that shed light on the emission of sound, and others on factors influencing the soundscape perception, or to be used as a tool for understanding and assessing individual responses and evaluation. In this case the importance of having a framework is to help evaluating the common effect of a successful intervention on the positive attributes of the soundscape.