JP2002196630A - Image forming apparatus - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an image forming apparatus that reduces psychologically unpleasant sound by improving frequency component distribution of sound which is produced during an operation. SOLUTION: Among psychoacoustic parameters that are obtained from sound of the apparatus and at a position, one meter away from an end face of the apparatus, a fluctuation strength value is set to be less than or equal to 1.31 (vacil) and an loudness value and a tonality value are set so that a discomfort index S is S<-0.6. Herein the discomfort index S is obtained by an equation using the loudness value and the tonality value, which equation is S=0.3135×(loudness value)+3.4824×(tonality value)-3.1460.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to an image forming apparatus, and more particularly, to an electronic copying machine and a laser beam which generate noise such as motor driving noise, clutch and solenoid operating noise and charging noise during operation. The present invention relates to a method for improving unpleasant noise in an image forming apparatus such as a printer, and to a technique applicable to OA equipment in general.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in noise problems from the viewpoint of environmental friendliness, and there are many demands for office office equipment to solve noise problems. For this reason, the OA equipment has been reduced in noise level, and has achieved much lower noise level than before.

As an invention for solving the above-mentioned noise problem, for example, there is an invention disclosed in Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 9-193506. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to a noise masking device such as a laser beam printer or a copier, and a sounding body that generates a masking sound for masking a noise in a driving mechanism that is a source of the noise during operation, and a sounding body. And a masking sound control means for generating a masking sound having a frequency in a range including the main component frequency of the noise, thereby reducing discomfort of the noise.

[0004] However, Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No.
The technique disclosed in Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 6 (1994) No. 6 adds a masking sound to this generated sound without reducing the sound that is originally generated in function, increases the noise level, and is noisy for some listeners. However, there is a disadvantage that the user may feel uncomfortable. In addition, a sounding body for generating a masking sound and a control device for generating a masking sound only during the generation time of the sound to be masked are required, and an extra space is required on the layout of the machine. However, there is a disadvantage that the cost is greatly increased.

At present, OA equipment generally uses a sound power level (ISO777) as a method for evaluating noise.
9) is used. However, since the sound power level is a value of sound energy generated from office equipment such as a copying machine or a printer, there is a case where a correlation between the sound power level and a subjective discomfort of a human to noise is not so good.
For example, when sounds with the same sound power level are compared and heard, there may be differences in discomfort, and there are also sounds that are very unpleasant even if the value of the sound power level is small.

Therefore, in order to improve the office environment in the future, it is necessary not only to reduce the sound power level of the OA equipment but also to improve the sound quality. To improve sound quality, quantitative measurement of sound quality to understand the current situation,
It is necessary to measure how much improvement has been made before and after the improvement. However, since sound quality is not a physical quantity, it cannot be measured quantitatively. Even when compared by ear, the evaluation may differ from person to person. In addition, "the sound quality is a little improvement" and can not be only a qualitative representation such as "has been considerably improved." Unless the sound quality is quantitatively expressed by physical characteristics, it is impossible to objectively evaluate whether the countermeasure was really effective or how effective.

By the way, as a physical quantity for evaluating the sound quality,
There is a psychoacoustic parameter. Representative examples are as follows (for example, The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, "The 7th Lecture on Design Engineering and Systems""Aiming for an innovative leap in design and systems for the 21st century!" November 1997 10
See “Sound / Vibration and Design, Color and Design (1)”, Section 089B Units in parentheses are units. ).・ Loudness (sone): Loudness of hearing ・ Sharpness (acum): Relative distribution of high-frequency components ・ Tonality (tu): Tonality and pure tone content ・ Roughness (asper): Sound roughness ・Fracture strength (vacil): Fluctuation strength, beat

The above parameters tend to increase discomfort as the value of each parameter increases. Among them, only the loudness is standardized by ISO532B. The basic concept of other parameters is the same, but since the programs and calculation methods differ depending on the original research of each measuring instrument manufacturer, the measured values usually differ slightly depending on the manufacturer. Efforts to reduce all of these psychoacoustic parameters can improve sound quality.

[0009]

However, a great deal of labor is required to take measures for all psychoacoustic parameters. Noise generated from OA equipment such as copiers and printers is composed of noises of many timbres due to the complexity of the mechanism. For example, low-frequency heavy noise, high-frequency high-pitched sound, and shock-generated noise Are generated while changing over time from a plurality of sound sources such as a motor, paper, and a solenoid.

Humans judge these sounds comprehensively and judge whether they are unpleasant, but it is considered that the judgment is made by weighting which part is particularly related to unpleasantness. That is, there are psychoacoustic parameters that have a large effect on discomfort and psychoacoustic parameters that have a small effect on discomfort. And this depends on the tone of the machine. For example, a high-speed printer that generates a large number of impact sounds feels the most unpleasant impact noise, and a desktop printer that is relatively slow and relatively quiet generates less impact noise, so the charging noise generated during AC charging is most unpleasant. May be felt. Thus, the part that is unpleasant is different. Therefore, the part for improving the sound quality may be different between the low-speed machine and the high-speed machine. Accordingly, if a psychoacoustic parameter having a large improvement effect on discomfort is searched for and the sound quality is efficiently improved by improving the parameter, the labor is reduced.

Therefore, objective sound quality can be evaluated by combining psychoacoustic parameters having a large improvement effect on discomfort, weighting the parameters, formulating a sound quality evaluation formula and calculating a subjective evaluation value for discomfort. And the sound quality can be improved. Furthermore, if the subjective evaluation value for discomfort is determined as to how much the discomfort will be eliminated, and a device that improves the sound quality so that it is less than that value is provided, the problem relating to noise in the office can be solved. Will be.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION It is an object of the present invention to provide an image forming apparatus in which the problem of the unpleasant sound described above is improved by improving the frequency component distribution of the sound generated at the time of operation, thereby alleviating psychological discomfort. It was done as.

[0013]

According to the first aspect of the present invention, among the psychoacoustic parameters obtained from the sound of the device at a position 1 m away from the end face of the device, the fraction strength value is 1.31 ( vacil) Satisfies the following conditions, and is obtained by an equation using a loudness value and a tonality value: S = 0.135 × (loudness value) + 3.4824 × (tonality value) −3.1460 (−1 ≦ S ≦ 1) The discomfort index S satisfies S <−0.6.

According to a second aspect of the present invention, in the first aspect of the present invention, the discomfort index S satisfies S <-0.7.

According to a third aspect of the present invention, in the first aspect of the present invention, the sound of the device is used as the sound intensity of the fracturing strength value, the loudness value and the tonality value.
It is a value obtained by sampling with MSIII and analyzing by an acoustic analyzer manufactured by Head Acoustic.

According to a fourth aspect of the present invention, in the third aspect of the present invention, the discomfort index S satisfies S <-0.7.

[0017]

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram of an essential part for explaining an example of an image forming apparatus to which the present invention is applied. The image forming apparatus shown in FIG. 1 is provided with a paper feed conveyance system such as a main body tray 4, a bank paper feed tray 5, a manual feed tray 6, a paper feed roller 10, a registration roller 11, and the like. The sheet is conveyed from the sheet feeding and conveying system to the sheet discharging tray 9 through the process cartridge 3, the fixing unit 7 and the sheet discharging roller 12. Above the process cartridge 3, an image writing unit 8 including an LD unit, a polygon mirror, an fθ mirror (not shown), and the like is provided. In addition, a drive transmission system including the photosensitive drum 1, a drive motor for rotating the rollers, a solenoid, and a clutch (not shown) is provided.
In such a configuration, at the time of image formation, drive noise of the drive motor and the drive transmission system, operation noise of the solenoid and clutch, paper conveyance noise, charging noise, and the like are emitted.

By the way, when objectively evaluating the degree of discomfort of mechanical sound, a measure for measuring discomfort is required. Just as with sound level meters when evaluating sound energy, when evaluating discomfort, measure the physical quantity of the sound and substitute the value into the sound quality evaluation formula. Evaluation will be performed.

The sound quality evaluation formula for predicting the discomfort of sound is created by performing a subjective evaluation experiment by a human and performing statistical analysis using a plurality of psychoacoustic parameters. The sound quality evaluation formula needs to be statistically significant at least 95%. Note that loudness, tonality, sharpness, roughness, fracture strength, and the like are defined as psychoacoustic parameters.

Here, an embodiment of the sound quality evaluation test of the unpleasant sound by the present inventors will be described. The flow of the experiment is as follows. (1) Sampling of the operation sound of the image forming apparatus (2) Processing of the operation sound (creating a plurality of processing sounds (test sounds)) (3) Measurement of psychoacoustic parameters of the created test sounds (4) Test sounds Paired comparison experiment by → → calculation of subjective evaluation value for discomfort (5) Multiple regression analysis using subjective evaluation value and psychoacoustic parameter measurement value for discomfort パ ラ メ ー タ Derivation of sound quality evaluation formula

(1) Sampling of operation sound of image forming apparatus Machine A (20 ppm) and machine B (16 pp)
m), Dummy head HMS manufactured by Head Acoustics Co., Ltd.
(Head Measurement System) III. Sound was collected and recorded on digital audio tape (hereinafter, DAT) by binaural (binaural). When recording is performed in this manner, the sound can be reproduced as if the human had actually heard the sound of the machine by reproducing the sound through dedicated headphones.

[Measurement conditions] Recording environment: semi-anechoic room (using standard stand) Ear position of dummy head: height 1.2 m, horizontal distance 1 m from equipment end face Recording mode: FF (free field) → Anechoic room) ・ HP filter: 22Hz

(2) Working sound processing (preparing a plurality of working sounds (test sounds)) The working sound of Aircraft-A was processed by an acoustic analyzer BAS (Binaural Analysis System) manufactured by Head Acoustic. As a processing method, a portion related to each sound source of the image forming apparatus was removed from the recorded operation sound on the frequency axis or the time axis, or the sound pressure level was emphasized.

(3) Measurement of Psychoacoustic Parameters of the Prepared Test Sound The sound obtained by processing the operation sound of Aircraft A and the sound of Aircraft B and C were converted into psychoacoustic parameters by an acoustic analyzer BAS manufactured by Head Acoustic's. I asked.

(4) Scheffe's paired comparison method based on test sound (Ura's modified method) Experiment → Subjective evaluation value calculation for discomfort Subjects who are evaluated for the test sound are collected, and the test sound is compared in a pair to find which one. I was asked if it was uncomfortable. Ura's variant is a pairwise comparison as follows. Considering the comparison order, one subject compares all combinations one by one. More specifically, two combinations are made from t materials, and N subjects make the combinations (i, j) and (j, i).
Are all compared. As a result, the subjective evaluation value of each test sound is obtained and ranked. For example, when the test sound 1 and the test sound 2 are compared (with reference to the test sound 1), the subjective evaluation value of the test sound 1 is 1 point when the test sound 1 is unpleasant. If sound 2 was unpleasant, it was calculated as -1 point. The results were totaled and statistically processed, and the subjective evaluation value α of each test sound
(−1 ≦ α ≦ 1) was obtained. The larger the subjective evaluation value α is, the more unpleasant it is. Table 1 shows the results. Note that the test sound 1 is the original sound of the aircraft A.

[0026]

[Table 1]

By the way, among the psychoacoustic parameters, only loudness is standardized by ISO532B. The basic concept of other parameters is the same, but since the programs and calculation methods differ depending on the original research of each measuring instrument manufacturer, the measured values usually differ slightly depending on the manufacturer. In this experiment, an experiment was performed using a dummy head HMSIII manufactured by HEAD acoustics and an acoustic analyzer BAS manufactured by HEAD acoustics.

(5) Multiple regression analysis based on subjective evaluation value and psychoacoustic parameter measurement value for discomfort Multiple regression analysis is performed using the subjective evaluation value and psychoacoustic parameter, and a sound quality evaluation formula for predicting the subjective evaluation value using psychoacoustic parameters is obtained. As a result of the derivation, it was found that the subjective evaluation value α can be predicted by Expression (a) shown later. This is a statistically significant 95% result. The contribution rate representing the accuracy of the equation is 97%.
Met. This means that the discomfort of sound contributes 97% to loudness and tonality. 3 remaining
% Means that other factors cause discomfort.

The predicted value of the subjective evaluation value α based on this sound quality evaluation formula is named the discomfort index S. There is no unit for the S value. Since the sounds of not only the machine A but also the machines B and C of different models could be predicted, it can be said that this is an evaluation formula that generally holds for a plurality of image forming apparatuses (machines) of about 16 to 20 ppm. S = 0.3135 × (loudness value) + 3.4824 × (tonality value) -3.1460 (−1 ≦ S ≦ 1) (a) Here, the noise of the image forming apparatus in the 16 to 20 ppm class is calculated. It was found that the discomfort was represented by loudness (loudness of hearing) and tonality (content of pure tone components).

By the way, according to the equation (a), other psychoacoustic parameters have no relation to discomfort, or the other parameters are influenced through loudness and tonality. Even if the psychoacoustic parameter is not related to discomfort at present, if it takes a larger value than the present condition, there is a possibility that the discomfort will be affected.
Also, if the psychoacoustic parameter that is currently related to discomfort through loudness and tonality takes a larger value than the current situation, the effect on discomfort may reverse the loudness and tonality and replace the most uncomfortable psychoacoustic parameter. is there.

Therefore, from Table 1, it can be said that the expression (a) is satisfied within a range satisfying the following conditions.・ Sharpness is 2.7 (acum) or less ・ Roughness is 1.24 (asper) or less ・ Fracture strength is 1.31 (vacil)
Less than

FIG. 2 is a scatter diagram in which the relationship between the subjective evaluation value α and the discomfort index S (predicted value by the sound quality evaluation formula) is plotted. The subjective evaluation value α and the S value, which are the results of a human subjective evaluation experiment, have a good correlation, and it is possible to objectively evaluate discomfort in the future by using a sound quality evaluation formula.

Table 2 shown below summarizes the results of experiments on what value the discomfort index S becomes uncomfortable. The test subjects heard the test sounds 1 to 17 obtained by processing the operating sound of the aircraft A and the sounds of the aircrafts B and C, and evaluated the discomfort in three levels.
In Table 2, “○” indicates a sound with good evaluation, “×” indicates a sound with poor evaluation, and “△” indicates a middle sound.

According to the results shown in Table 2, if S <−0.6 (b) is satisfied, the discomfort is alleviated. That is, if the loudness value and the tonality value of the equation (a) can be set so as to satisfy the condition (b), an image forming apparatus in which discomfort is reduced can be provided. Further, if S <−0.7 (c) is satisfied, it is possible to provide an image forming apparatus with a sound that hardly causes discomfort.

[0035]

[Table 2]

[0036]

(1) Effects of the Inventions of Claims 1 and 3 The discomfort of the noise generated from the image forming apparatus can be reduced.

(2) Effects of the Inventions of Claims 2 and 4 The discomfort of the noise generated from the image forming apparatus can be further reduced than the effects of the inventions of Claims 1 and 3.

[Brief description of the drawings]

FIG. 1 is a cross-sectional view of a main part for describing an example of an image forming apparatus to which the present invention is applied.

FIG. 2 is a scatter diagram in which a relationship between a subjective evaluation value α and a discomfort index S (predicted value by a sound quality evaluation formula) is plotted.

[Explanation of symbols]

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Photosensitive drum, 3 ... Process cartridge, 4 ... Main body tray, 5 ... Bank paper feed tray, 6 ... Manual feed tray, 7
... Fixing unit, 8 ... Write unit, 9 ... Discharge tray, 10 ... Paper roller, 11 ... Registration roller, 12 ...
Discharge roller.

Claims (4)

[Claims] 1. Among the psychoacoustic parameters obtained from the sound of the device at a position 1 m away from the end face of the device, a fracture strength value of 1.31 (v
acil) Satisfies the following conditions and is obtained by an equation using a loudness value and a tonality value: S = 0.135 × (loudness value) + 3.4824 × (tonality value) −3.1460 (−1 ≦ S ≦ 1) The discomfort index S satisfies S <−0.6. 2. The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the discomfort index S satisfies S <−0.7. 3. The fractation strength value, the loudness value, and the tonality value are obtained by collecting the sound of the device with a sound measuring device HMSIII manufactured by Head Acoustic, and analyzing the sound by a sound analyzing device manufactured by Head Acoustic. The image forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the value is a value obtained by performing the above operation. 4. The image forming apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the discomfort index S satisfies S <−0.7.