The evidence

Why sound is worth designing, and why it should be natural

Two things are well established: office noise does measurable harm, and it is speech rather than volume that breaks concentration. Whether natural sound does better than conventional masking depends on the sound, the comparator and the setting, and the results are set out here either way. Everything on this page names its study.

Each entry states the finding, the setting it was found in and the limitation that matters. The method and the full reference sit under each one.

Why soundscaping

Privacy is part of the brief. So is how the space feels.

Soundscaping combines the practical role of masking distracting speech with a designed sound experience. Nature-derived soundscapes can be selected for different activities and adapted as conditions change, giving teams control over both the acoustic background and the character of a space.

Designed around activities

Different soundscapes for focused work, shared spaces, places to pause and arrival areas.

Responsive to the room

Adaptive settings respond to changing acoustic conditions, with control over individual zones and schedules.

Evaluated in context

The research below examines distraction, preference, comfort and performance. Each study identifies what was tested, what it found and its limitations.

Booth seating beside open work areas at GSK Melbourne, with people working — GSK Melbourne · Soundscaping by Valeo Technology.

Who produced each finding

Independent researchPeer reviewed, or published by people with no commercial interest in the answer.
Industry reportingPublished by a manufacturer, a supplier or the design team responsible. Named every time.
Standard or frameworkAn acoustic standard or a design framework, quoted rather than interpreted.
Valeo TechnologyOurs: our reading of the studies, or a measurement we took ourselves.

No figure on this page is a Valeo Technology measurement of one of our own installations. Where a number comes from a working building, the entry says whose measurement it is.

One · The problem is real and it is measured

Noise is not a comfort issue

PrevalenceIndustry reporting

Second on the list

Noise is the second most common workplace complaint at 47%, behind temperature control. It is the complaint most likely to be about something the building can actually fix.

Leesman workplace survey data.

HealthIndependent research

Measurable harm

The effects of environmental noise are documented well beyond annoyance: cardiovascular effects, associations with depression and anxiety, and metabolic effects.

Münzel et al. (2014), European Heart Journal. Beutel et al. (2016), PLoS ONE. Sakhvidi et al. (2018), Environmental Research.

MechanismStandard or framework

It is speech, not volume

What breaks concentration in an open plan office is intelligible conversation, because it carries meaning your brain cannot help processing. Turning the floor down does not help. Making speech less intelligible does.

The basis of distraction distance in ISO 3382-3.

Two · Natural sound against conventional masking

Masking makes a floor workable. It does not make it pleasant.

That distinction is not a matter of taste. Pleasantness is one of the two primary perceptual dimensions of an acoustic environment, it is measurable, and it is the dimension conventional masking has never improved. The studies below include the ones where natural sound did not win.

Independent researchLiterature reviewMasking research, reviewed

Broadband maskers work, and are not experienced as pleasant

Reviewing the masking literature, Yadav and colleagues note that broadband noise maskers “have been shown to have positive effect on cognitive performance, [but] they are generally not reported as subjectively pleasant, or increasing the preference of the resulting sound environment.”

Method, sample and full reference

Yadav, Kim, Cabrera & de Dear (2017), Applied Acoustics 126:68–80. DOI 10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.05.011

Independent researchLaboratory studyn=54, five maskers at matched speech privacy

Head to head, at matched speech privacy, water came out on top

The authors’ conclusion: “the spring water sound was the most optimal speech masker whereas vocal music produced negative effects similar to those of speech.”

Limitation. Water and filtered pink noise are endorsed together as the two acceptable options; water is named the most optimal, not proven superior to pink noise on any single measure. And masked speech still degraded short-term memory relative to silence. Masking of any kind is a mitigation, not a cure.

Method, sample and full reference

Five masking sounds, filtered pink noise, ventilation noise, instrumental music, vocal music and spring water, tested against silence and against unmasked speech, every masker equalised to a speech transmission index of 0.38, so each one was doing identical acoustic work. Laboratory study, from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, a sound-masking research group, not a biophilia advocate.

Haapakangas, Kankkunen, Hongisto, Virjonen, Oliva & Keskinen (2011), Acta Acustica united with Acustica 97(4):641–655. DOI 10.3813/AAA.918444.

Independent researchMeta-analysisEighteen studies

The stress effect is meta-analysed, not anecdotal

A meta-analysis of eighteen studies found natural sounds produced a significant reduction in stress and annoyance, with a moderate pooled effect size (Hedges’ g = −0.60, 95% CI −0.97 to −0.23), alongside improvements in health and positive affect.

Method, sample and full reference

Buxton, Pearson, Allou, Fristrup & Wittemyer (2021), PNAS 118(14):e2013097118. DOI 10.1073/pnas.2013097118

Independent researchLaboratory study40 participants, skin conductance

Recovery from stress is faster under nature sound

Sympathetic nervous system recovery, measured by skin conductance, was faster under nature sound than under environmental noise.

Limitation. Measures rate of recovery from an induced stressor, not a reduction in baseline stress.

Method, sample and full reference

Forty participants completed a stressful task, then recovered under different sound conditions.

Alvarsson, Wiens & Nilsson (2010), IJERPH 7(3):1036–1046. DOI 10.3390/ijerph7031036.

Independent researchLaboratory studyn=30, five listening conditions

Nature sound was the only thing that protected memory. Headphones alone did nothing.

Speech significantly degraded serial recall. The nature-sound condition was the only one whose performance was not statistically distinguishable from quiet, p = 0.441. Wearing headphones without masking protected nothing at all.

Limitation. This compared nature sound against multi-voice babble, not against broadband noise. It does not show nature sound beating conventional masking. The authors also found perceived workload stayed elevated in every sound condition, nature included.

Method, sample and full reference

Five conditions, repeated measures: quiet, unmasked speech at 55 dBA, headphones worn purely as attenuation, headphones with nature-sound masking, and headphones with multi-voice babble masking. Speech significantly degraded serial recall, F(4,116) = 9.07, p < 0.001.

Jahncke, Björkeholm, Marsh, Odelius & Sörqvist (2016), Work 55(3):505–513. DOI 10.3233/WOR-162421. n=30, laboratory.

Independent researchRandomised controlled trial100 people, 30-person crossover replication, investigator-blinded

A large effect on how people feel. No effect on cortisol. Both are true.

Forest soundscapes improved total mood disturbance with a large effect, d = 1.0. Tension improved at d = 1.2. Perceived restoration improved on five of six measures.

Limitation. No differential effect on salivary cortisol. None on heart rate variability, heart rate, or immune markers. The cognitive benefit replicated in only one of the two experiments. Anyone telling you a soundscape will lower your people’s cortisol is ahead of the evidence.

Method, sample and full reference

The most recent investigator-blinded trial in this literature: a randomised controlled trial of 100 people with a 30-person crossover replication, thirty minutes of ancient rainforest audio against thirty minutes of city-centre industrial audio. Investigator-blinded; comparator was industrial noise, not silence.

Longman, Van Hedger, McEwan et al. (2025), Scientific Reports 15:33967. DOI 10.1038/s41598-025-11469-x.

Independent researchVirtual office studyn=198, ISO/TS 12913-2

Nature sound moved the soundscape, and the body followed the combination

Assessed against the ISO soundscape standard, adding nature sound raised pleasantness and eventfulness against the office baseline. The most favourable physiological responses, lower electrodermal activity and lower pulse rate, came from nature sound together with indoor greenery, and the largest pulse rate increases came from unpleasant sound with no nature present.

Limitation. This was a virtual environment, so it is evidence about perception and response under test, not about an occupied floor.

Method, sample and full reference

A virtual reality experiment with 198 participants crossed three visual scenarios with three sound environments: office alone, office plus traffic, and office plus nature.

Latini, Torresin, Oberman, Di Giuseppe, Aletta, Kang & D’Orazio (2024), Journal of Building Engineering 87:108947. DOI 10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108947 n=198, ISO/TS 12913-2.

Independent researchField study, against conventional masking77 employees, five conditions of three weeks

Water sound lost to conventional masking over eighteen weeks

Acoustic satisfaction was worse under the water-based sounds than under the conventional masking, three of the four were rated more disturbing, colleagues’ speech disturbed more, and none of them received better overall subjective ratings than the conventional masking already installed. Some measures for the first water sound were comparable rather than worse, which is the fairest reading of the paper.

Relevance. The four water sounds were recordings looped into the floor at a fixed level, which is not what we install, and this study is what happens when someone does. What we design is variation matched to the space, commissioned on site, which is the distinction the next section is about. It is also the reason we do not sell a water track.

Method, sample and full reference

An open-plan office of 77 employees, already accustomed to pseudo-random masking at 44 dB, ran five conditions of three weeks each: the original masking, four different water-based masking sounds, then back to the original, all held at 43 to 45 dB. Field experiment, five conditions of three weeks.

Hongisto, Varjo, Oliva, Haapakangas & Benway (2017), Frontiers in Psychology 8:1177. DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01177.

Valeo TechnologyWhat this adds up toOur reading of the studies above

The kind of variation is what matters

Natural content can hold a floor where a conventional masker does not, because it carries enough variation not to become a distraction in itself while never resolving into something you attend to. The type and degree of that variation decide whether it helps or harms. A conventional masker may adapt its level, but its content is fixed at commissioning and never varies. That is the technical case for generative, non-repeating content, and it is why we do not sell masking.

Method, sample and full reference

Also why restoration in open-plan conditions is better supported by natural sound than by office noise, Jahncke, Hygge, Halin, Green & Dimberg (2011), Journal of Environmental Psychology 31(4):373–382. DOI 10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.002

Three · Why this is engineering, not curation

“Nature sounds” is not a specification. Getting it right is the whole job.

Anyone can put a stream through a ceiling speaker. The research is unambiguous about what separates a soundscape that works from one that irritates: the content has to match the task, the level sits in a narrow band, and the sound has to make sense in the room it is in. Three things, each measurable, each easy to get wrong. This is what you are buying.

Content

We match acoustic variation to the task

This is measurable and it is the difference between help and harm. Tested head to head, high-variation birdsong significantly impaired performance on a serial task compared with steady rainfall. Same category of sound, opposite result. It is why a focus aisle and a break zone do not get the same content.

Newbold, Luton, Cox & Gould (2017), CHI EA ’17, 2802–2809. DOI 10.1145/3027063.3053214. n=18.

Level

We commission the level. We do not set it.

The band that works is narrow and it is documented. Water is preferred between 42 and 48 dBA, optimal around 45, against 48 dBA of background speech. In a separate open-plan study, birdsong raised perceived pleasantness at 45 to 49 dBA with clearly diminishing returns by 52. Turning it up is the most common way an installed system ends up switched off, and it is why we tune on site rather than from a specification sheet.

Abdalrahman & Galbrun (2020), JASA 147(3):1661. DOI 10.1121/10.0000892. Eşmebaşı & Lau (2026), Buildings 16(11):2279, n=53.

Context

We design it with the room, not into it

Adding a visual natural element alongside the sound improved perceived soundscape quality by up to two and a half times over the sound alone. And water masks informationally rather than energetically, it gives attention somewhere benign to go, rather than drowning speech out. That is a different mechanism from masking, and it is the reason we work inside the design team alongside the planting, the light and the materials.

Abdalrahman & Galbrun (2020), laboratory, simulation and field.

Three variables, each of which will ruin a system if it is wrong. That is why the work starts with measurement and occupancy mapping, and it is why we commission on site and come back after people move in. The target level for a focus zone is a design decision, set before we start and commissioned to on site.

Planting and open ceiling on the work floor at GSK Melbourne — GSK Melbourne, a WELL Platinum building · Soundscaping by Valeo Technology.

Four · Biophilic design and sound

Where sound sits in biophilic design

Biophilic design is a funded, accepted, well-understood category. Plants, daylight, views, natural materials. Its founding framework includes sound explicitly, which is the part a project team can act on.

Standard or frameworkFrameworkTerrapin Bright Green, 14 patterns

The framework includes sound

Terrapin Bright Green’s 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design defines Pattern 2, Non-Visual Connection with Nature, as “auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that engender a deliberate and positive reference to nature.” Pattern 5, Presence of Water, is defined as a condition experienced through “seeing, hearing or touching water.” Sound is named in the framework, not read into it.

Method, sample and full reference

Browning, Ryan & Clancy (2014), 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, Terrapin Bright Green, Patterns 2 and 5. Read the report

Independent researchPeer-reviewed studyBiophilic hospital design

One study names sound as a stressor, then designs around it

A peer-reviewed study of biophilic hospital design lists among patient stressors “the presence of unfamiliar and often disturbing or potentially anxiogenic sounds and noises”, and the interventions it goes on to propose are plants, light, views and materials. In that paper the acoustic environment is named as a source of harm and no acoustic remedy follows.

Limitation. That is one study rather than a rule about healthcare design, and it is the gap this practice was built to fill.

Method, sample and full reference

Totaforti (2018), City, Territory and Architecture 5(1):1. DOI 10.1186/s40410-018-0077-5.

Industry reportingControlled office studyn=37, within-subjects, three ten-week cohorts, industry-affiliated

What happens when you actually add the sound

The auditory condition alone produced the largest cognitive gain, working memory up 8.7% (p < 0.001), but it also increased negative affect (p = 0.023), lowered satisfaction with how the space looked (p ≤ 0.01), and produced no significant reduction in physiological stress. The combined condition improved working memory 7.6% (p = 0.001), reduced physiological stress markers and raised satisfaction.

Limitation. Two further results cut both ways: momentary self-reported stress fell significantly under the auditory condition as well as the combined one (p = 0.002 and p = 0.007), while directed attention did not significantly improve under any of the three. The physiological measure and the reported one did not agree, and both are reported here.

Relevance. Sound bolted onto a space underperforms. Sound designed with the light, the planting and the materials is what delivers on all three at once. That is why we work inside the design team rather than arriving after it.

Method, sample and full reference

A controlled study tested visual, auditory and combined biophilic conditions against a baseline office across three ten-week cohorts, each with two weeks of acclimation and eight weeks of experimental conditions.

Aristizabal, Byun, Porter et al. (2021), Journal of Environmental Psychology 77:101682. DOI 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101682. n=37, within-subjects, industry-affiliated.

And then, in 2026

The standard closed it

Not yet in force. What follows is the next version of the standard, published in preview. Public comment closed in May 2026 and enrolment opens later this year, so nothing certifies against it today. We are describing where the standard is going, not what it currently requires.

It names sound directly, and it does so inside a requirement that is mandatory. Strategy M4.1, Provide connection to nature and place, is required for certification, and its first clause reads: “Contain natural elements (e.g., materials, patterns, shapes, images, sounds) distributed throughout the space.”

It is not the only place. M3.1 Restorative space lists “calming sounds, for example a water feature, natural sounds, sound masking” among the strategies a project chooses from. M3.2 Nap space makes acoustical privacy a requirement rather than an option. And C8.4 Inclusive design strategies names sound at both ends of the sensory spectrum, calming sounds among the low-stimulation strategies, natural sounds among the high-stimulation ones, with sensory zoning as a strategy in its own right.

Two structural changes matter as much as the wording. Point caps per concept have been removed, and preconditions now earn points. A system contributing across Sound, Mind and Inclusive Design at the same time could never show its full value under a per-concept cap. Now it can.

We have been building to that brief for years, in buildings that are already occupied. Sensory zoning across space types, sound coordinated with the lighting and the materials, a soundscape carrying the meaning of the place rather than a generic template. The standard is new. The work is not.

Next version of the WELL Building Standard, read from the published preview. Released for public comment under IWBI’s One WELL vision; comment closed 1 May 2026.

We are not inventing a category. The framework named sound from the start, and the next version of WELL puts it inside a mandatory requirement.

Five · In patient care

What the clinical trials found, including where they found nothing

Nature sound has been tested with patients in hospitals, and the results are mixed in a way that is worth setting out in full. Some trials found a clear benefit. One found no difference against earplugs. One found no difference between groups at all. All of them are here.

Independent researchRandomised trial90 patients before cardiac surgery, single centre

Before heart surgery, anxiety fell

Anxiety on the Spielberger inventory was significantly lower in the listening group half an hour afterwards and again in the waiting room before surgery.

Limitation. Individual listening through headphones at a single centre, not a room or a ward.

Method, sample and full reference

Ninety patients waiting for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, randomised 45 and 45, thirty minutes of natural sounds through headphones against silent headphones.

Amiri, Sadeghi & Negahban Bonabi (2017), Perioperative Medicine. DOI 10.1186/s13741-017-0074-3. p = 0.001. Single centre.

Independent researchRandomised placebo-controlled trial60 ventilated ICU patients

In intensive care, blood pressure and agitation fell

The listening group had significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, anxiety and agitation than the control group.

Limitation. Verified against the published abstract. We have not read the full text.

Method, sample and full reference

Sixty mechanically ventilated patients aged 18 to 65, randomised placebo-controlled, ninety minutes of nature sounds through headphones.

Saadatmand, Rejeh, Heravi-Karimooi et al. (2013), International Journal of Nursing Studies 50(7):895–904. DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.11.018. Verified against the published abstract. We have not read the full text.

Independent researchRandomised trial80 adults during bronchoscopy

During bronchoscopy, pain control improved and anxiety did not

Odds of better pain control 4.76. Anxiety 0.87, which is no meaningful difference.

Limitation. The sound and the mural were given together, so this trial cannot separate them.

Method, sample and full reference

Eighty consecutive adults randomised during flexible bronchoscopy under conscious sedation, a nature scene mural together with a tape of nature sounds against neither.

Diette, Lechtzin, Haponik et al. (2003), Chest 123(3):941–948. DOI 10.1378/chest.123.3.941 Pain 95% CI 1.35 to 16.7; anxiety 95% CI 0.39 to 1.96.

Independent researchThree-arm trial114 patients, percutaneous coronary intervention

Against earplugs, a draw

Both intervention groups did significantly better than the control group on respiratory rate, pain and state anxiety, immediately afterwards and thirty minutes later.

Limitation. Between nature sounds and earplugs there was no significant difference on any of those measures, so no superiority over earplugs was demonstrated.

Method, sample and full reference

A hundred and fourteen patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, in three groups: nature sounds, earplugs, and no intervention.

Akarsu, Koç & Ertuğ (2019), European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 18(8):651. DOI 10.1177/1474515119858826 Intervention against control p < 0.05; nature sound against earplug p > 0.05.

Independent researchThree-arm trial57 mothers after caesarean section, single hospital

After caesarean section, the headphones alone did nothing

Pain was significantly lower in the listening group than in either other group at fifteen and sixty minutes, and usual care and silent headphones did not differ, which is what makes the result about the sound.

Limitation. This was individual listening through headphones after surgery, not a room.

Method, sample and full reference

Fifty-seven mothers after elective caesarean under spinal anaesthesia, nineteen in each of three groups: usual care, silent headphones for twenty minutes, and nature sounds for twenty minutes at 25 to 50 dB.

Farzaneh, Mirmohammad-Sadeghi, Kamali et al. (2019), Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 9(2):e67835. DOI 10.5812/aapm.67835. Single hospital, women aged 18 to 45.

Independent researchCluster-randomised trial110 residents, 20 units, five nursing homes, three months

In dementia care, the intervention was the staff

Over three months, staff were trained as soundscape ambassadors, assessed their own units with a structured tool, discussed what they found and made small changes: the tablecloth down before the table is set, the dishwasher unpacked at a different hour, a squeaking door repaired. Neuropsychiatric symptoms fell by a clinically relevant eight points.

Limitation. This was staff-led management of the soundscape a ward already had, not the playing of nature audio. There was no clear effect on quality of life, psychotropic drug use, staff workload or job satisfaction.

Method, sample and full reference

A cluster-randomised trial across twenty units in five Dutch nursing homes, 110 residents with dementia and 97 with complete data, mean age 86.5.

Kosters, Janus, van den Bosch et al. (2023), JAMDA. DOI 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.11.010. Primary outcome the Neuropsychiatric Inventory, 8.0 point reduction.

Independent researchRandomised trial86 enrolled, 84 completed, single centre

In burns dressing changes, the between-group result was null

Pain fell significantly within the listening group and not within the control group.

Limitation. Between the two groups there was no significant difference in pain or in anxiety, and analgesic use was comparable. The authors conclude that a single session may offer limited clinical benefit and call for longer and repeated exposure to be tested.

Method, sample and full reference

Eighty-six patients enrolled and eighty-four completed at a single centre, one thirty-minute nature sound session during a dressing change against a normal dressing change.

Zarei, Zarei, Biranvand et al. (2025), Burns 51(9):107697. DOI 10.1016/j.burns.2025.107697. Within group p < 0.001, effect size 0.58; between groups pain p = 0.06, anxiety p = 0.80.

Read together, these are listening sessions given to individuals, or in the nursing home trial the management of a ward’s existing sound. Not one of them is a trial of a building-wide soundscaping installation, and not one of them shows that soundscaping treats a condition.

They are why we think the patient environment is worth designing deliberately. They are also why we will not tell a hospital what its outcomes will be.

Six · The head-to-head

Industry reporting

Put side by side against conventional masking, in an occupied building

This is the study the category has needed, and it was not run by us or by our supplier. Haworth put optimised biophilic soundscaping against two conventional pink-noise masking systems in their own corporate headquarters, with ninety-three knowledge workers and a minimum of two weeks living with each condition.

Biophilic soundscapingConventional maskingOccupant rating, 1 to 5

Lower is better

Being overheard

2.88

3.17

p .004

Experience of noise

3.04

3.35

p .004

Higher is better

Satisfaction with the content

3.88

3.00

p .004

Satisfaction with the volume

4.00

3.00

p .008

Satisfaction with its effect on work

3.67

3.09

p .062not significant

The same numbers as a table

Occupant measure	Biophilic soundscaping	Conventional masking	p
Being overheard (lower is better)	2.88	3.17	.004
Experience of noise (lower is better)	3.04	3.35	.004
Satisfaction with the content	3.88	3.00	.004
Satisfaction with the volume	4.00	3.00	.008
Satisfaction with its effect on work	3.67	3.09	.062 not significant

Their conclusion, in their words: “The optimized biophilic soundscaping was perceived to be more effective at masking overheard conversations than other sound-masking conditions in real world applications.”

Limitation

Conventional masking won one measure

In the paired laboratory experiment, on a deliberately difficult focus task under continuous conversation, conventional masking produced fewer errors than soundscaping. Soundscaping was ahead on all five occupant measures, and significantly so on four of them at p < .01. The fifth, satisfaction with its effect on work, did not reach significance at p = .062.

Secondary finding

Headphone use went up under masking

The authors flag it as a confound in their data. We read it as the result, and that reading is ours rather than theirs. Both major masking manufacturers have published the same thing in plainer language, that white noise systems were “effective irritants… soon turned down or off”, and that masking levels in quiet environments “typically result in occupant complaints”.

Source

Published, and not by us

Johnson, Thompson Goodchild, Waddell & Gussenbauer (2020). Acceptance & Efficacy of Biophilic Soundscaping in an Open Plan Office. Joint research report, Haworth Inc. with Cognitive Corp. Field study n = 93; laboratory experiment n = 39. It is a company research report rather than a journal paper, so it has no DOI. Ask us and we will send you the copy we hold.

Open plan work zone with orange screens and planting at Medibank Wollongong — Medibank Wollongong · Soundscaping by Valeo Technology.

Seven · What it measures out at in real buildings

Industry reporting

Client research across installed sites

These are measurements from working floors rather than laboratory conditions, and they are larger than the effects the peer-reviewed literature reports. That is worth knowing before you use them. Each entry states what the underlying research document records, and all of them are client research conducted by Moodsonic, our technology partner, first-party, not independent. These are research documents rather than published papers, so there is nothing to link to. Ask us for the document behind any figure on this page and you will get it.

31%

Increase in cognitive performance

North American workplace. Sixteen weeks, six zones, 118 canvassing responses and 53 surveys. The same study recorded a 19% increase in self-rated collaboration and an 84% reduction in speech intelligibility.

24%

Reduction in reported stress

Multiple workplaces across APAC and Europe. The same study recorded 12% acoustic comfort, 10% decision-making, 5% working memory, and 72% positive on enjoyment.

15 → 5

Distraction distance, in metres

European installation, acoustic measurement before and after, with an 84% reduction in speech distraction, a different measure from the distance itself. This is the figure specifiers find most useful, because it is spatial and you can picture it.

38%

Fewer errors on difficult tasks

North American workplace, n=132. The same study recorded 78% fewer errors on easy tasks.

Eight · How the result gets proved

Standard or framework

There is an ISO standard for asking people how a building sounds. We use it.

Acoustic measurement tells you the environment changed. It cannot tell you whether the experience changed. ISO 12913 exists precisely to close that gap: eight perceptual attributes, projected onto two axes, producing a coordinate you can plot before and after and defend to anybody.

Illustrative example, not measured project results. It uses the ISO/TS 12913-3:2019 projection. Each ring is a hypothetical occupant response to the eight-attribute questionnaire. The filled circle is that floor’s average before intervention, sitting in the chaotic quadrant. The triangle is the same hypothetical floor afterwards. The pattern, a move rightward into the pleasant half without losing eventfulness, is the outcome a workplace brief usually describes in words and never evidences.

Before

The questionnaire, then the plot

Eight attributes, pleasant, vibrant, eventful, chaotic, annoying, monotonous, uneventful, calm, each on a five-point scale, plus the dominant sound sources and an overall judgement. Ten minutes per occupant. It produces one dot per person and one average for the floor.

After

The same instrument, unchanged

Repeated four to twelve weeks after occupation. Same questions, same scale, same projection, so the two plots are genuinely comparable. The distance and direction the average travels is the finding, and it is not our opinion of it.

Alongside

Set against what the system measured

The platform is logging distracting events, speech and noise levels and acoustic comfort continuously over the same period. Putting the subjective plot next to the objective record is how you find out whether a floor that measures better is actually experienced as better. They do not always agree, and where they diverge is the useful part.

A recent review of eighteen international acoustic guidelines for learning environments found only two of them mention soundscape principles at all. The standard is written, validated and available, and we report against it.

ISO/TS 12913-2:2018 (data collection) and ISO/TS 12913-3:2019 (data analysis), after Axelsson, Nilsson & Berglund (2010), JASA 128(5):2836–2846. Projection method per Mitchell, Aletta & Kang (2022), JASA Express Letters 2(3):037201. Guidelines review: Kurukose Cal, Aletta & Kang (2025), Building Acoustics.

Nine · Our standard

Valeo Technology

Then we measure your building, not somebody else's

Published research tells you the effect is real. It cannot tell you what will happen on your floor. So we agree the measurement and review scope with you before work begins, and the numbers you end up reporting are your own.

Before

Measured, then designed

Acoustic measurement of existing spaces, or assessment of the proposed design, occupancy mapping, and a target agreed with your team before anything is specified.

After

Measured again, in use

A post-occupancy review four to twelve weeks after people move in. Tuned against the finished space and how it is genuinely used, and reported on where a client wants it.

On the record

Every figure has a source

Each number on this page names its study and what the source records. We do not write “research shows”, and we do not build a range by bracketing two measures from two different studies. Ask for any source and you will get it.

That is the difference between quoting research at you and measuring your floor.

Send us a floor plan