Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Absorbing comments are not really sound

  • Comment
letters

I was concerned about the technical article in AJ Focus January on acoustics, which included the statement: 'We can summarise that there are two concerns: a) the sound is slower to decay, so any disturbance to residents is extended?'.

This suggests that longer reverberation times cause longer-duration sounds which are, therefore, noisier. The actual mechanism is for reverberant interiors to have higher reverberant sound pressure levels, resulting from activity sound energy build-up (for example, each doubling of the amount of absorption in a space reduces its reverberant SPL by 3dB). The other benefit of adding absorption in otherwise acoustically 'hard' spaces is to localise a specific noise source by enhanced attenuation with distance.

The good news is that the first absorption added into a 'hard as nails' reverberant space is very effective, as it is not 'competing' with other absorbent surfaces to catch incident sound energy (you have to keep doubling the absorption units to halve the reverberation time, the classic Sabine hyperbola).

Duncan Templeton, director, Building Design Partnership:

BDP Acoustics, Manchester

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.