Room 1

The main purpose of room 1 is being a distribution space. It is the top floor of a 4 storey stair case with the kitchen being the lowest floor. What is most remarkable with this space, is how precisely one can hear the sounds produced in the kitchen 3 storeys below. For example it is perceivable without any problem and even it is a quite loud and harsh sound when somebody puts their cuttlery down on their plate or when somebody makes a coffee. However speech is perceivable but more diffuse and is therefore most likely to be overheard.
The traffic, the church bell or somebody showering can also be heard in this space, traffic being very present and not so easily overheard as it is an irregular sound and associated with something dangerous. These are also the reason why it causes most discomfort, while the kitchen noises are also irregular but more  familiar. 

In the acoustic test, the recording number two is perceived loudest. In recording one and two, the sounds are a little bit sharp. The reason for this could be the parallel walls in front and behind the speaker that resonate the sound. In the background the disturbing car sounds are audible, but more diffuse than in reality. This might be as the recorder is placed on the floor it receives different sound waves than the listeners ear on 1.6m above ground level.

Room 2

The main purpose of this room is to shower and to brush your teeth. It is highly reverb-y which makes it great for singing while showering. Probably as everything is covered in tiles and the room has got quite a high ceiling. It doesn’t bother at all, as one is usually alone in this room. The most prevailing sound in the room is the noise of the running shower, but also the traffic from outside. These sounds both are non-disturbing to the user. The traffic is not disturbing in this room either, as it is less dominant than in room 1. Possibly because it is usually covered by the sound of the shower, the running tab or the tooth brush in the users mouth.

In the acoustic test the shower is much more dominant and disturbing than in reality. When being close to the microphone, the reverbrance of the space can be heard a little bit, but not to the extent it is perceived in reality.
Acoustic test number 2 sounds almost dull and less intense in the recording while three sounds more clear and reverb-y again. It can be derived from this that the reverbrance of the space works better when closer to one wall and less when in the middle of it all.