## 5 Discussion
### Comparison of the Measured and Simulated Results
In particular, the average values for each row obtained from the two software are always within or at the limit of the JND for each parameter, except C\({}_{80}\) in the first row. The differences between the simulated and measured results, in terms of average values per each row, are within two to seven times the JND for T\({}_{20}\), without any systematic behaviour related to the row. In the case of C\({}_{80}\), the differences from simulated and measured values are higher for the first row, with average simulated values that are three and five times the JND with Odeon and Catt-Acoustic, respectively, within 2 JND for the second and third rows, and within the JND for the last row, for both the software. For G, the average simulated values for each row are always within or quite close the JND compared to measured values for both the software, with a slightly worse behaviour for Odeon. Figure 5 shows as both the software correctly simulated the reduction of G with the distance from the source, with slopes in dB per distance doubling (dB/dd) that are 6.6 dB/dd and 6.3 dB/dd, for Odeon and Catt-Acoustic, respectively, compared to 6.3 dB/dd for the measurements. Figure 4: Sum of Absolute Differences (SAD) between the measurements and simulations overall the receivers, for T\({}_{20}\), C\({}_{80}\), and G in Odeon (**a**,**c**,**e**) and for CATT (**b**,**d**,**f**). Light yellow refers to very similar values between simulation and measurements. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Acoustical Parameters**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Row**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Receiver**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**T\({}_{\text{20}}\) (s)**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**C\({}_{\text{40}}\) (dB)**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**C (dB)**} \\ \cline{3-11}  & & **Measured** & **Pred. (Odeon)** & **Pred. (Catt)** & **Measured** & **Pred. (Odeon)** & **Pred. (Catt)** & **Measured** & **Pred. (Odeon)** & **Pred. (Catt)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{First row} & R3 & 0.58 & 0.66 & 0.68 & 20.8 & 17.0 & 15.1 & \(-\)0.3 & \(-\)1.7 & \(-\)1.0 \\  & R6 & 0.70 & 0.66 & 0.62 & 16.9 & 17.0 & 15.2 & \(-\)0.9 & \(-\)2.3 & \(-\)2.6 \\  & R9 & 0.31 & 0.70 & 0.64 & 22.1 & 15.4 & 15.3 & \(-\)2.4 & \(-\)1.8 & \(-\)1.4 \\ \hline spatial mean & 0.53 & 0.67 & 0.65 & 19.9 & 16.5 & 15.2 & \(-\)1.2 & \(-\)1.9 & \(-\)1.7 \\  & R2 & 0.81 & 0.92 & 0.97 & 16.5 & 14.6 & 14.5 & \(-\)4.8 & \(-\)6.7 & \(-\)6.4 \\ Second row & R5 & 0.66 & 0.93 & 0.92 & 19.2 & 15.3 & 14.6 & \(-\)5.4 & \(-\)7.1 & \(-\)6.7 \\  & R8 & 0.71 & 0.90 & 0.77 & 15.9 & 14.5 & 15.4 & \(-\)6.0 & \(-\)7.0 & \(-\)7.0 \\ \hline spatial mean & 0.73 & 0.92 & 0.89 & 17.2 & 14.8 & 14.8 & \(-\)5.4 & \(-\)6.9 & \(-\)6.7 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Third row} & R1 & 0.98 & 1.10 & 1.00 & 15.4 & 14.0 & 13.0 & \(-\)7.8 & \(-\)9.0 & \(-\)9.0 \\  & R4 & 0.94 & 1.03 & 1.05 & 16.9 & 13.9 & 12.5 & \(-\)8.0 & \(-\)9.8 & \(-\)9.6 \\  & R7 & 1.04 & 0.99 & 0.90 & 15.7 & 13.8 & 14.2 & \(-\)9.3 & \(-\)9.8 & \(-\)9.7 \\ \hline spatial mean & 0.99 & 1.04 & 0.98 & 16.0 & 13.9 & 13.2 & \(-\)8.4 & \(-\)9.5 & \(-\)9.4 \\  & R10 & 1.31 & 1.11 & 0.89 & 14.3 & 14.5 & 15.2 & \(-\)10.2 & \(-\)11.4 & \(-\)10.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean values of the measurements and simulations for the T\({}_{\text{20}}\), C\({}_{\text{40}}\), and G acoustical parameters for the source in position S1. The data refer to the averages of the 500 Hz and 1 kHz octave bands and to the repetitions for the same receiver position. Spatial means refer to receivers on the same row.