## 5 Results and Discussion
### Evolutionary Analysis  
The values for reverberation time, calculated using the parameter \(T_{\rm 30m}\), are very similar throughout history for the different uses. In general, the variation between the different models in reverberation times is within a range of 4.00%, regardless of the position \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Ground Floor Audience Receivers**} \\ \hline  & & \(T_{\rm 30m}\) & \(\rm EDT_{m}\) & \(G_{\rm m}\) & \(C_{\rm 80m}\) & \(D_{\rm 50m}\) & STI & \(J_{\rm LFm}\) & IACC\({}_{\rm Em}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{S1\({}_{\textsc{main altar}}\)} & H1 & 2.19 & 2.18 & 10.10 & 0.12 & 0.38 & 0.51 & 0.15 & 0.63 \\  & H3 & 2.21 & 2.21 & 9.82 & 0.11 & 0.37 & 0.51 & 0.14 & 0.61 \\  & H6 & 2.17 & 2.15 & 9.38 & \(-\)0.20 & 0.35 & 0.50 & 0.15 & 0.61 \\ \hline S2\({}_{\textsc{dome}}\) & H5 & 2.18 & 2.09 & 11.06 & 2.83 & 0.55 & 0.56 & 0.16 & 0.65 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{S3\({}_{\textsc{chir}}\)} & H2 & 2.21 & 2.28 & 6.63 & \(-\)0.16 & 0.38 & 0.52 & 0.15 & 0.58 \\  & H4 & 2.23 & 2.25 & 6.05 & \(-\)0.26 & 0.37 & 0.51 & 0.12 & 0.59 \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{RECEIVERS NOVICES’ TRIBUNES} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{SOURCE} & MODEL & \(T_{\rm 30m}\) & \(\rm EDT_{m}\) & \(G_{\rm m}\) & \(\rm C_{\rm 80m}\) & \(D_{\rm 50m}\) & STI & \(J_{\rm LFm}\) & IACC\({}_{\rm Em}\) \\  & (ms) & (ms) & (dB) & (dB) & \(D_{\rm 50m}\) & STI & \(J_{\rm LFm}\) & IACC\({}_{\rm Em}\) \\ \hline SI\({}_{\textsc{main altar}}\) & H1 & 2.12 & 2.21 & 7.75 & 1.54 & 0.49 & 0.57 & 0.20 & 0.46 \\ \hline S3\({}_{\textsc{chir}}\) & H2 & 2.21 & 2.27 & 4.11 & 0.02 & 0.39 & 0.52 & 0.20 & 0.55 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Unique number values for sources S1 (main altar), S2 (dome) and S3 (choir) in the different hypotheses. of the source. This was foreseeable, since there are no significant changes in volume or in the absorption of the coatings of the church in the models (Figure 10). In addition, if these average values are compared with the average values of the optimal reverberation times, the church shows a degree of reverberance since in all cases they remain above the recommended limit, 1.59 s for musical use and 1.19 s for speech [35]. EDT results support those obtained for \(T_{\text{30m}}\). The lowest reverberation occurs in the 21 st-century layout when the source is located under the dome that exceeds 1 JND compared to the hypotheses of the 18 th to 20 th centuries. The degree of amplification produced by the audience room located on the ground floor or in the stands is lower when the source is located in the choir when compared to its location on the main altar or under the dome, exceeding 2.5 JND. In addition, the subjective sound level of the novices is lower than that of the audience on the ground floor. Figure 11 represents the distribution of \(G\), in the ground floor audience area, at a frequency of 1000 Hz, for the different hypotheses. No major differences are observed in the behaviour of the room between hypotheses H1-H2 and H3-H4, which correspond to the 18 th-19 th centuries and the 20 th century, respectively. However, the introduction of wooden benches for the liturgy in the 20 th century leads to a decrease of 1 JND in the perception of the sound level for the audience located in the benches when the sound source is located in the main altar. This last hypothesis, H3, is very similar to that obtained in the 21 st century for the Bienal de Flamenco (H6). In H5, when the sound source is placed under the dome, the amplification of the room increases in the audience area on the ground floor due to the decrease in distances to receivers, and a very similar spatial distribution is achieved for the four audience distributions. The sound clarity perceived, both musical, evaluated using C\({}_{\text{80m}}\), and speech, through \(D_{\text{50m}}\), presents values that remain below 1 JND over time for the different sound sources and audiences. However, two exceptions must be noted.