## 8 Analysis of Results  
The optimal range of the main acoustic parameters was considered as a function of classical music as the artistic performances represent the main function of the space, which means that the musical response is the subject of the evaluation. The main acoustic parameters were defined based on the standard ISO 3382-1 [8], namely early decay time (EDT), reverberation time (T20), clarity index (C80), definition (D50), and strength (G). These acoustic parameters are presented in the form of diagrams, as shown in Figure 6, and, where appropriate, with acoustic maps as indicated in Figures 7 and 8, which refer to the acoustic parameters that depend on the position assumed in the seating area. The analysis was assessed in the frequency range comprised between 125 Hz and 4 kHz, upon which all the scenarios were analyzed. The results were averaged for all the receivers placed in the digital models. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Description** & **Project A** & **Project B** & **Project C** \\ \hline Total number of surfaces & 1386 & 1927 & 1916 \\ Total surface area (m\({}^{2}\)) & 3368 & 3733 & 6622 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Specifics of the digital models used for acoustic simulations: existing conditions (project A), addition of temporary panels (project B), and the installation of the new acoustic shell (project C). Figure 5: Digital reconstruction of the three projects: project A (**a**), project B (**b**), and project C (**c**). Figure 6: Comparison between projects A to C applied to the garden of [PERSON]’s villa in relation to the acoustic parameters: EDT without audience (**a**), EDT with audience (**b**), T20 without audience (**c**), T20 with audience (**d**), D50 without audience (**e**), and D50 with audience (**f**). Figure 6a shows that the simulated results of the EDT range around 0.6 s, with the exception of the project C with the new shell that is around 1.45 s. A small difference is visible between the existing condition and option A shell, meaning that the addition of the perimeter panels and the suspended ones above the stage do not contribute significantly to the acoustic response of the room. It is visible how the addition of a continuous ceiling that covers all the seating area makes the acoustic response closer to the target indicated by [PERSON] [11]. With a full audience, the values were attenuated approximately by 0.15 s for the option B shell, as indicated in Figure 6b, but the line trend was similar. The presence of an audience does not make so much difference for the existing conditions and the project A shell, as studied in previous research [4]. Figure 6c shows that the simulated results of T20 are different for the three projects. In particular, the existing condition was around 0.4 s, which is not suitable for musical performance. With option A shell, the T20 values rose up to 0.7 s, which is not yet within the optimal values. The T20 results had a good response for musical performance with the option B shell, which was very uniform across the spectrum bandwidth. Figure 6d shows that the significant attenuation with the presence of audience is highlighted with the option B shell, to be up to 0.2 s, while the attenuation given by the audience in the other two projects is less effective. In terms of definition, the response in unoccupied conditions, as shown in Figure 6e, ranged between 0.4 (40%) and 0.7 (70%), which means that the acoustic response is suitable for music performance. With an audience in the stalls, Figure 6f shows that only the project with the option B shell remains suitable for musical performance, while the other two scenarios become suitable for speech and  
Figure 7: Spatial distribution of music clarity index (C80) at 1 kHz, with and without audience: project A (**a**), project B (**b**), and project C (**c**). prose, lacking definition for musical shows.