Designing workplaces to minimize noise and sound impact

Indeed, managing perceived levels of sound by defining the background sound conditions (i.e. background noise criteria and masking sound) for a given space is only the first step; it then becomes possible to use other acoustical strategies to manage the transmission of sound into (or out of) spaces to maintain those conditions as closely as possible. For example, Figure 1  shows various sources of sound and its transmission toward a building/rooms. The use of outdoor barriers, the building envelope, internal walls, and furniture attenuate the level of sound from various sources that differ in their level, spectral properties, and location. The use of absorptive tools, such as panels, ceiling tiles, and carpet help remove acoustic energy that, if not successfully blocked, would continue to reverberate after entering these spaces.

In other words, application of masking also informs decisions regarding wall construction (e.g. sound transmission class [STC] ratings; full or partial height), ceiling selection (e.g. noise reduction coefficient [NRC] and ceiling attenuation class [CAC] ratings), and other acoustical materials such as absorptive panels, tying it far more closely with architectural and acoustical design.

In conclusion

Failure to incorporate appropriate acoustical solutions raises concerns for occupants’ physical and psychological safety, as well as for organizational diversity and productivity. While most building professionals are familiar with the “ABC Rule”—and, indeed, a holistic approach is required to achieve the desired experiential outcome—the role of background sound (the “C”) remains widely misunderstood.

Fine-tuning the acoustical vernacular helps easily identify acoustic conditions that provoke adverse effects, and how sound can be used to mitigate them. At the same time, looking to recent research to further the understanding between “acoustics” and “human perception” (specifically within the realm of psychoacoustics, even prior to the complexities introduced by the architectural environment) provides a framework for achieving “optimal acoustic conditions”—a path formerly obscured by reluctance to speak openly about mental health and neurological differences, as well as the ease with which noise complaints were dismissed as neurotic, weak, or self-centred.

While the vagaries of individual perception are worth exploring, the interest ultimately lies in the practice of acoustics within a communal workplace environment. Addressing the issues the POE data has brought forth—and transforming occupant-centric objectives into quantifiable acoustic criteria—requires nuanced exploration of sound’s attributes, encompassing not only its level, but also its spectral, spatial, and temporal qualities, within the context of common objectives such as achieving acoustic comfort and maintaining acoustical privacy.

Although acoustical comfort is a relatable concept, many consider it more subjective than objective. By quantifying the degree to which humans can perceive sound—and, in the case of masking technology, conforming to a preferred spectrum—the Masking Effect demonstrates why this belief is misinformed. Similarly, the argument for acoustical privacy is often perceived as niche and only relevant to occupants of certain spaces, even though the conditions required to achieve it are the same as those needed for focus. In the end, sound is all around and the physics relating the Masking Effect are omnipresent conditions—one’s building professionals can intentionally shape using the type of noninformational broadband sound that forms the backdrop of occupant’s daily lives, perfected for their productivity, health, well-being, and satisfaction.