Author Archives: Nathan Van Ness

Conference room solution webinar

Webcast Replay: “Speech Privacy, Acoustics and Sound Masking”

Current building and architectural trends often create a “speech privacy crisis” in many commercial construction projects. Fortunately, engineers and specifiers have tools at their disposal to address many of the problems that can arise.

In the replay of the “Speech Privacy Acoustics and Sound Masking” webcast, originally hosted by Consulting-Specifying Engineer on Nov. 13, you will learn how four acoustic principals affect speech privacy levels in the workplace. The term “speech privacy” is further defined and its impacts on employees’ and employers’ experience are discussed. This webcast explores the impacts that common construction techniques and interior furnishings pose on the levels of speech privacy one can obtain, keeping in mind modern interior design may conflict with client’s speech privacy goals.

You’ll learn how sound masking contributes to increased speech privacy levels as well as the different approaches sound masking systems use in terms of deployment, performance trade-offs and design parameters. This emphasis on sound masking systems will differentiate between “white noise” systems of the past and modern technologies, which often use network infrastructure and contemporary components.

Finally, this webcast focuses on how specifiers should best approach including sound masking systems in their projects to ensure client satisfaction. Information is shared to better explain how systems may be designed, specified, made code-compliant and deployed, making the process seamless for both construction professionals and clients alike.

Learning objectives:

  • Better understand the need for speech privacy in modern commercial spaces.
  • Identify the As, Bs, Cs and Ds of architectural acoustics and their impact on speech privacy levels.
  • Understand three unique approaches to sound masking systems and the impact architecture has on the proper choice.
  • How to set client expectations when it comes to speech privacy levels and deliverable results.
  • Learn how to specify, design and deploy code-compliant sound masking systems and when an acoustic consultant should be engaged in the project.

Presented By:
Mike Griffitt, Field Sales Engineer, Biamp Systems

Manage Cambridge Sound Masking with SageVue

SageVue is Biamp’s enterprise AV device monitoring and management platform that provides a comprehensive overview of all network-connected Cambridge systems (plus Biamp’s Tesira and Devio products).

Engineered to be the best solution for managing Cambridge sound masking technology, SageVue is also easy to integrate with third-party network management systems via its RESTful API.

New 2.1 features include discovery, management, and monitoring of network-enabled Cambridge systems, and much more. SageVue makes managing your comprehensive Biamp network easier than ever.

The SageVue 2.1 release adds the following features:

  • Easily discover and add Cambridge devices to SageVue
  • View, acknowledge and dismiss faults
  • Read Cambridge device details, including zone level and mute status, network details and location information
  • Access a device’s internal management console

Cambridge sound masking solutions help organizations of all sizes protect speech privacy, reduce noise distractions, and increase workplace productivity. The product family includes the QtPRO® direct-field sound masking system and DynasoundPRO® in-plenum sound masking solution.

USEFUL LINKS

conference room 2

5 Reasons “Adaptive” Sound Masking Negatively Affects Sound Masking Performance and Occupant Comfort

Soft dB, the sound masking and acoustics consulting company, claims “To be optimal, sound masking must adapt to changes: It must increase during very active periods and become more discreet when the area is quieter.” This is objectively false.

Although it sounds enticing, there are five primary reasons why using adaptive technology is detrimental to a sound masking system’s performance and negatively impacts building occupants.

It reduces sound masking levels when they are most needed.

A sound masking system’s job is to provide speech privacy. It does this by reducing the distance at which a conversation can be understood by “covering” the talker’s signal. The primary purpose of adaptive technology, however, is to reduce the sound masking volume level at times of lower activity. By reducing the level during quiet periods, the sound masking’s effectiveness is reduced at times when privacy is needed most. This is simply a self-defeating feature that actually lowers speech privacy levels.

By the time the sound masking level has changed, the noise distraction has passed.

With constant broadband noise sources such as masking, slight variations of sound masking level can easily be perceived by building occupants. If these changes in volume are noticed they will most likely result in complaints by building occupants. To reduce the chance of this happening, a delay period must be introduced between the time at which a change in background level is detected and the time in which the sound masking signal level is adjusted. This delay in time often results in the “triggering event” being well in the past by the time in which the adaptive technology reacts. Thus, by the time a change is made, the triggering event is often well over and new conditions can exist.

There can never be enough microphones to measure levels consistently.

The adaptive approach relies on microphones installed into the ceiling. The proximity of the triggering noise source to the microphone is directly proportional to the frequency at which sound masking level shifts will occur. For example. if a single conversation between two persons takes place directly under a microphone position, the sound masking system adjustment may occur. If that same conversation takes place away from the microphone position, the conversational level may not trigger a change. In order to achieve any resemblance of consistency, a greater number of microphones (microphone arrays) would need to be deployed. The microphone to loudspeaker ratio in the Soft Db approach is simply too sparse to be effective with only a few of single sound masking controller’s zones capable of being controlled in this manner. This results in even greater inconsistencies as occupants move throughout an office space which again leads to complaints.

The microphones cannot distinguish between speech noise and other general office noises.

The inconsistencies in noise reaction measurement noted above can also be affected with other noise sources such as printers, air handling units, and other non-speech related noise sources leading to unnecessary changes in sound masking level.

Would employees want to work in an office with microphones potentially recording their conversations?

As adaptive technology utilizes ceiling mounted microphones, the workforce may have realistic privacy concerns. The sensor’s deployed with the Soft DB system are unsecured analog audio signals which could easily be tapped for eavesdropping purposes. This makes the technology inappropriate for both highly secure environments or other environments where corporate espionage is of concern. This makes adaptive technology particularly ill-suited for government installations as well.

Conclusion:

In general, it is a best practice to always calibrate a sound masking system to consistent levels based on the acoustic conditions and furnishings. Changes in sound masking levels should only occur in situations where a real need exists (i.e. reduced sound masking levels for security). This can easily be done with schedule based triggers at specific times making very gradual changes to a sound masking system’s overall sound level. Changing the sound masking levels when a space is occupied is a recipe for disaster when it comes to providing an “unobtrusive” environment for workers. Furthermore, reducing the sound masking levels at times where less activity is present is simply counterproductive as “quieter environments” rely on adequate sound masking levels to provide adequate speech privacy levels.

Lencore Continues to Spread False Fire Code Claims

Sound Masking and False Fire Code Claims

Lencore (a U.S.-based provider of sound masking solutions and one of Biamp’s sound masking competitors) has heightened their push to spread the claim that the National Fire Protection and Signaling Code 72 (NFPA 72) requires all standalone sound masking systems to be comprised of UL2572 listed components.

Lencore’s claim is false — pure and simple.

The facts:

  • Standalone sound masking systems DO NOT need to be UL 2572 listed. NFPA 72, in its entirety, does not dictate requirements for standalone sound masking systems.
  • Control units used in the deployment of Mass Notification Systems, such as Emergency Communications Systems, are required to be UL 2572 listed. Standalone sound masking components ARE NOT subject to this requirement.
  • Some local Authorities Having Jurisdiction or building codes may still require that a sound masking system be disabled in the event of an emergency. QtPro and DynasoundPro products both have hardware provisions for such connections. No special UL listing is required for the components to facilitate such a connection because the life safety system initiates and supervises the relay circuit to disable the sound masking signal.

For more facts about what the NFPA 72 does and does not require with regard to sound masking installations, check out the following information:

It’s important to note that Biamp has integrated Cambridge sound masking technology into its SageVue 2.1 browser-based monitoring and management platform. Now AV technology managers can use the same powerful, IT-friendly tools and customizable user interface to efficiently monitor and administer Cambridge equipment alongside Tesira®, Devio®, and Crowd Mics™ systems.

Lencore’s i.NET sound masking technology does not provide the ability to integrate system monitoring and administration into a centralized AV system control platform…yet another huge advantage in Biamp’s favor.