I frequently talk about the benefits of sound masking in general, namely that this practice blocks distractions and provides speech privacy.  These are extremely important benefits for open offices, hospitals, government offices, and military bases because workers and staff can be more productive {ie less distracted} and enjoy more confidentiality.    It is a well-studies fact that office noise contributes to workers’ levels of stress, error rates, and even levels of absenteeism.  These workers are more stressed, more prone to making mistake,s less likely to problem-solve, less likely to make ergonomic adjustments to their work stations, and turn over more quickly than workers in quieter offices.  Additionally, loud offices or headquarters or bases are not private.  Conversations can be easily overheard, leading to an economic or safety disadvantage.  All of this revolves around noise and noise leaks in the work place.  That is were sound masking comes in to play.  The introduction of low-level white noise into a treated area or several zones allows workers’ conversations and noisiness in general to be covered, or masked, so that fewer people are bothered by it or privy to it.  However, what kind of white noise should be used?  How loud should it be?  Isn’t adding noise to noise counter-productive?  Do I need a sound machine or a sound masking system?  How can I mask sound without making too much noise?  Can I have paging, too?

In the next few posts, I am going to answer these questions with regard to the superior sound masking capabilities of the VoiceArrest System.

When to Use a Sound Machine & When to Choose a Sound Masking System

We’ve talked about white noise, how it’s used for sound masking, and why speaker placement is so crucial in an effective sound masking system.  Now I’d like to talk about when to use a sound machine versus when to use a system.

Sound Machines

Sound machines are great for individual use.  Sound machines are especially helpful for frustrated workers in loud cubicles or with noisy co-workers.  They are also helpful as sleep aides for adults and children alike.  The main thing to know is that sound machines are most effective for individuals in small spaces.  They do not cover large areas or help entire offices, unless everyone has one.  However, for a cubicle, a bedroom, or a hotel room, a sound machine is a fantastic resource.

Sound Masking

In contrast, sound masking is more suitable for larger areas and more people.  By its design, sound masking systems deliver uniform, consistent speech privacy for entire offices through the gentle whooshing of white noise in speakers strategically placed in the ceiling tiles.  This kind of sound masking is ideal for noisy offices, medical facilities, government agencies, and military groups because it is effective in in reducing distractions, thus improving productivity, as well as achieving confidential privacy.  Thus, it’s more than a personal noise solution- an entire office or agency can benefit.

Sound machines are effective for individuals, while sound masking systems are more suitable for larger noise problems.

I frequently talk about the benefits of sound masking in general, namely that this practice blocks distractions and provides speech privacy.  These are extremely important benefits for open offices, hospitals, government offices, and military bases because workers and staff can be more productive {ie less distracted} and enjoy more confidentiality.    It is a well-studies fact that office noise contributes to workers’ levels of stress, error rates, and even levels of absenteeism.  These workers are more stressed, more prone to making mistake,s less likely to problem-solve, less likely to make ergonomic adjustments to their work stations, and turn over more quickly than workers in quieter offices.  Additionally, loud offices or headquarters or bases are not private.  Conversations can be easily overheard, leading to an economic or safety disadvantage.  All of this revolves around noise and noise leaks in the work place.  That is were sound masking comes in to play.  The introduction of low-level white noise into a treated area or several zones allows workers’ conversations and noisiness in general to be covered, or masked, so that fewer people are bothered by it or privy to it.  However, what kind of white noise should be used?  How loud should it be?  Isn’t adding noise to noise counter-productive?  Do I need a sound machine or a sound masking system?  How can I mask sound without making too much noise?  Can I have paging, too?

In the next few posts, I am going to answer these questions with regard to the superior sound masking capabilities of the VoiceArrest System.

The Benefits of Controlled Placement of Privacy

Last time we talked about white noise, why it works, and how it’s used in a sound masking system.  One of the most important steps in selecting an effective sound masking system is how the speakers are placed.  With many other systems the air space above the ceiling is utilized to distribute the white noise for sound masking. When the masking is delivered in appropriate volumes above the open cubicles, the sound also echoes in the ceiling above the closed offices, even though there are no loudspeakers present.  The result is often excessive noise levels in the closed office. The old systems could only resolve this problem by lowering the settings which resulted in less consistent privacy across the open office space.

In contrast, the VoiceArrest System uses Direct Field technology which provides better control over the sound distribution in an area shared by both open cubicles and closed offices. The sound masking intended for the open office area is entirely restricted to the open area, with no echoing or bleed over effect in the closed offices or conference rooms. If there are enclosed spaces that also require sound masking, separate zones can be established with their own levels and controls entirely independent of the necessary coverage of any open office area.  Thus, direct field sound masking delivers great coverage without the historical consequences.

Sound masking is an effective means of covering office noise and providing speech privacy.  It is most effective, however, when the speakers are placed directly within the ceiling tiles so that the sound is uniform.

In continuation of our discussion on sound masking essentials and how to choose and evaluate a sound masking system, here is a concise summary of the last 3 of 6 things to consider when deciding between direct- and indirect-field technology:

1. Costs
2. Simplicity
3. Privacy
4. Precise, uniform sound distribution
5. Comfort and sound quality
6. Flexibility and expandability

4. Precise, Uniform Sound Distribution

Speech privacy is not achieved by blasting louder noise to cover loud noise.  All effective speech privacy systems must have the right kind of sound, the right frequencies. While all sound masking systems have the objective to meet the Baranek curve of sound frequencies, which describes the most effective frequency range of masking, most systems opt out of producing true “white noise” composed of all frequencies, and use a range that is composed of human speech instead.

o       Direct-field systems use speakers that emit sound in a wide-angle, typically 170-degrees in order to achieve maximum uniformity and allow the masking spectrum to be pre-tuned to the most effective settings. Direct field systems are factory tuned to the Baranek curve, laid out to meet the privacy needs of the specific acoustic environment, and are tamper-proof once installed to ensure system security.

o       Indirect-field system consistency can be achieved through monitoring, on-site tuning (often through the use of centralized controls and software), and with system security enhancements to compensate for acoustical inconsistencies due to the sound absorbing and blocking characteristics of typical ceiling and plenum materials.

5. Comfort and Sound Quality

Remember that speech privacy is a matter of rendering speech unintelligible so the brain doesn’t focus on any one conversation or voice.  While this is achievable with really loud white noise, the result would be even worse.  Thus, it’s essential to achieve speech privacy with effective, but the lowest amount of white noise possible.  You’d want to be able to control the sound in both open and closed office zones, too, since closed offices normally require 4 to 6 decibels lower volume than those in open office areas.  A common zoned-sound challenge in most offices is that the above-ceiling air plenum is common to both open and closed offices areas since office walls often do not extend more than an inch or two above the suspended ceiling tiles.

o       Direct-field technology allows for easy zoning with no unwanted bleed-over effect because the speakers are placed below the plenum where their sound can be zoned using existing office walls.  Choosing speakers that radiate sound with at least a 170-degree (ultra-wide-angle) will be most effective, allowing for a pre-tuned spectrum for maximum speech privacy with the least possible volume.

o       Indirect-field or plenum-based systems can avoid excessive sound spilling into the closed offices by installing an adjustable loudspeaker above enclosed office areas.  Good plenum-based systems typically rely on an adjustable “master” speaker that controls a number of non-adjustable “slave” speakers to properly zone open-office areas.

6. Flexibility and Expandability

Finally, it’s nice if your sound masking system is both flexible and expandable.

o       Both direct and indirect field systems can incorporate paging and music functionality.

Sound masking can come in a variety of forms, but the biggest bang for your buck {a 300-500% return on investment!} comes via direct-field technology.

In continuation of our discussion on sound masking essentials and how to choose and evaluate a sound masking system, here is a concise summary of the first 3 of 6 things to consider when deciding between direct- and indirect-field technology:

1. Costs
2. Simplicity
3. Privacy
4. Precise, uniform sound distribution
5. Comfort and sound quality
6. Flexibility and expandability

1. Costs

While an initial investment is made when installing a sound masking system, a Cornell study found that significant savings were made with even small acoustic treatments.  That’s because fewer distractions led to better worker focus, improved accuracy, and less stress.  Financial models show a 300- to 500-percent return on investment.

o       Direct-field system costs are speakers and installation; the placement of the direct field system avoids costs of overcoming challenges unique to most plenum spaces.

o       Indirect-field costs include equipment and installation, plus additional configurations, software and features to address plenum-based acoustical challenges.

2. Simplicity

Sound Masking is a simple solution to noise problems in that no aesthetic changes are required, nor is there any need to add walls or partitions.

o       Direct-field system speakers radiate sound directly into treated areas in a wide-angle arc from a tamper-proof product, removing security issues and the obstacles and variables inherent in plenum-based systems.

o       Indirect-field system variability due to the inherent plenum-based obstacles can be simplified with additional software and system enhancements for adjusting and setting frequency balances.

3. Privacy

Sound masking is achieved through speech privacy.  This means that effective sound masking systems provide privacy and confidentiality.

o       Direct-field systems target specific frequencies that have the greatest impact on speech intelligibility while eliminating frequencies that simply add noise.  (Studies by the National Research Council of Canada revealed that office workers in typical open office environments were only comfortable if the ambient background sound volume was in the very narrow range of 45 dB – 48 dB.)  With direct-field systems, effective tuning within this narrow range of volume does not rely on the installer, since the direct field systems are shipped ready to deliver precisely controlled sound uniformity for both volume and frequencies throughout the entire treated areas and are not affected by the acoustic challenges of the plenum.

o       Indirect-field systems can compensate for plenum obstacles by providing each loudspeaker with volume and frequency control, using more loud-speakers (spaced 10’ rather than 15’ apart), and providing sound-attenuating “boots” at each opening in the ceiling. However, these optional measures add to the project costs.  Additionally, plenum-based systems must use large speakers to generate much higher levels of sound in order to provide enough volume when it filters into the workspace below. These larger speakers produce a certain amount of energy in the lower frequency bands that simply can’t be tuned out.

Sound masking can come in a variety of forms, but the biggest bang for your buck {a 300-500% return on investment!} comes via direct-field technology.

A sound masking system is only as good at its ability to provide effective speech privacy, and that privacy without annoyance is possible for everyone in the room when the masking volume and frequencies are precise and extremely uniform.  This is accomplished primarily through correct speaker type and placement.

There are two main types of sound masking: direct-field and indirect-field.  There are several factors to consider when choosing between the two types of technology.

Direct-Field Technology

First, direct-field technology places the speakers directly within the ceiling tiles so that the sound is emitted directly into the treated area, hence the name.  Direct-field technology is the most innovative on the market thus far.  With this newer speech privacy technology, facility manager considerations should include:

• Installation costs
• Origin of the sound
• Layout and speaker orientation
• System capability to produce frequencies within the speech spectrum range
• System capability to meet speech privacy standards including ANSI / ISO / IEC

Indirect-Field technology {aka plenum-based systems}

In contrast, indirect-field technology places the speakers above the ceiling tiles; thus, speakers and sound are in the plenum. In addition to the above criteria associated with direct field technology, considerations will include:

• Maintenance costs
• Choice of speaker type
• Number of noise sources used to create the sound
• Zone system and node identification for troubleshooting
• Software and equipment controls, security, serviceability, migration, equalization, availability

The difference between the two types of technology, direct-field and indirect-field, is more than a few letters.  In-direct field technology is less precise and therefore less effective.  In addition, by nature of its very set-up, indirect-field technology requires maintenance and trouble-shooting that is simply unnecessary if direct-field were used instead.

Sound masking systems are effective if the achieve speech privacy; speech privacy can be best achieved by correct speaker type and placement.

Actually, all offices are noisy and distracting, evidenced by the fact that the average worker loses over 2 hours of productivity because of it.  However, it may be that when you first started officing in your current building it wasn’t that noisy…or at least not to the same degree as it is now.  What changed?  It’s possible that new construction or renovation has entered the scene on adjacent floors or even adjacent buildings.  The addition of loud, invasive construction can only make distraction worse.  What used to be a peaceful, quiet work place is now the scene of zoned out, stressed out workers, most of whom probably go home nursing a migraine.

A direct-field system (mounted in the ceiling tiles themselves).

Short of waiting for the completion of the construction, it may feel as if there is little you can do to reclaim the tranquil work environment you once had.  Fortunately, that is not the case.  Many offices have turned to sound masking systems to fight this kind of distraction.  In fact, the use of white noise employed by sound masking is effective against most kinds of distraction in that it enables workers to tune out disruptive sounds and therefore focus on work again.  The most effective and least noticeable systems can be installed directly into the ceiling tiles and can even serve as a paging/music system.

It’s interesting that by adding noise you can actually diminish the effects of noise, but this principle has been true a lot longer than sound masking systems have been employed.  Given its history of success, there’s no reason not to give sound masking a shot!

Can you really blame a worker for being unproductive here?

Cubicles

This set-up does not exactly inspire one to work.  Talk, yes.  Eavesdrop, sure.  Trip people as they walk by, absolutely.  Work, no.  While efficient in terms of a corporate budget, cubicles are horribly inefficient in terms of worker productivity.  For instance, the average worker is distracted more than two hours every day.  When your work day conists of 8 hours, losing one-fourth of that time seems ridiculous.

Get rid of the cubicles?

You don’t have to tear out the cubicles or remodel to fix the sound leaks inherent to this type of office.  In fact, many workers have been creative on their own- they wear headphones to work or try out free white noise generators or purchase their own white noise machines.  The problem with headphones is that an employee’s favorite music is rarely conducive to work either, and individual sound masking units only help that one worker (and not the hundreds who are still untreated and therefore still working only six hours a day).  Many businesses have opted to treat the entire office with sound masking that is mounted directly in the ceiling itself.  This type of technology (direct field) delivers consistent, uniform sound that covers the intrusive noises so common in the typical cubicle-ridden office.

As a manager, it’s your job to get your employees to work.  Times are tough, money is tight.  But a simple investment in sound masking could help you reclaim your company’s portion of the $700billion lost to distractions in 2008.  Don’t you think it’s worth it?