Acoustic Comfort &
Psychoacoustics of Spaces

The most annoying sound is not always the loudest

Noise is a perception, not a measurement. What generates annoyance is unwanted sound — sound that conflicts with the use or attention of the moment. A high but environment-consistent sound level will be tolerated, even ignored. A quiet but intrusive sound — an intelligible conversation from a neighbouring desk, an intermittent piece of technical equipment — will capture attention against one's will, and exhaust.

In workplaces, studies confirm it consistently: the main annoyance factor is not the overall level, but the intelligibility of colleagues' speech. The brain cannot ignore comprehensible speech in its mother tongue — it mobilises cognitive resources against its will, to the direct detriment of concentration.

Two complementary disciplines, two distinct territories

The acoustician acts on the physics of sound in space: reverberation time (RT60), speech transmission index (STI), sound insulation, diffusion, NC/NR curves. They model, measure, and prescribe architectural treatments. This work is fundamental and irreplaceable — and must be integrated from the earliest design phases.

But acoustic physics says nothing about the meaning of sound for the person hearing it. It does not decide what will be perceived as intrusive or reassuring, stimulating or exhausting. It does not create the contrasts of atmosphere that make a space legible in its uses.

That is the territory of applied psychoacoustics. I intervene upstream, in close coordination with the acousticians, so that architectural treatment choices also serve the sonic intentions: an absorbent space can be designed to receive a controlled background sound that raises the masking threshold without increasing perceived levels — reducing speech intelligibility without creating additional annoyance.

Acoustic contrasts as a comfort tool

My method rests on a fundamental principle of auditory perception: a space is perceived as calm when it follows a vibrant one. Contrast creates sonic legibility — and legibility creates comfort. Rather than aiming for one homogeneous level across the whole programme, I differentiate sonic atmospheres according to uses and flows.

Users become actors of their own comfort: they choose their sound environment by moving through zones with distinct identities. This perceived control is one of the most powerful factors in reducing annoyance — independently of absolute levels. It is also what distinguishes a sound programme designed upstream from an acoustic correction carried out after handover.

Which programmes, and when to intervene?

The critical moment is the programme phase. Choices of functional zoning, surface treatments and flow organisation directly condition the possibilities for sonic differentiation. Intervening after handover constrains the solutions and increases costs.

Workplaces: open-plan offices, campuses, headquarters. Quality of life at work correlates directly with the sonic legibility of the programme — each zone must have an acoustic identity consistent with its use. The project for Orange's workspaces, distinguished by the QVT Trophy 2023, illustrates this approach at campus scale.

Luxury hospitality: acoustic comfort cannot be reduced to the sound insulation of the rooms — it is built through the coherence of the overall sonic journey, from lobby to spa. The design of the complete sonic journey of the Hôtel Ritz Paris after its total renovation is its most accomplished expression.

High-traffic & public spaces: managing acoustic comfort at large scale involves creating acoustic breathing spaces within structurally complex programmes. The sound design of Westfield Forum des Halles answers this challenge across tens of thousands of square metres of retail space and flows.