Reinforcing speech levels and controlling noise and reverberation are the ultimate acoustical goals of lecture-room design to achieve high speech intelligibility. The effects of sound absorption on these factors have opposite consequences for speech intelligibility. Here, novel ceiling baffles and reflectors were evaluated as a sound-control measure, using computer and 1/8-scale models of a lecture room with hard surfaces and excessive reverberation. Parallel ceiling baffles running front to back were investigated. They were expected to absorb reverberation incident on the ceiling from many angles, while leaving speech signals, reflecting from the ceiling to the back of the room, unaffected. Various baffle spacings and absorptions, central and side speaker positions, and receiver positions throughout the room, were considered. Reflective baffles controlled reverberation, with a minimum decrease of sound levels. Absorptive baffles reduced reverberation, but reduced speech levels significantly. Ceiling reflectors, in the form of obstacles of semicircular cross section, suspended below the ceiling, were also tested. These were either 7m long and in parallel, front-to-back lines, or 0.8m long and randomly distributed, with flat side up or down, and reflective or absorptive top surfaces. The long reflectors with flat side down and no absorption were somewhat effective; the other configurations were not.

1.
M. R.
Hodgson
, “
Experimental investigation of the acoustical characteristics of university classrooms
.”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
106
(
4
),
1810
1819
(
1999
).
2.
J. S.
Bradley
,
R.
Reich
, and
S. G.
Norcross
, “
On the combined effects of signal-to-noise ratio and room acoustics on speech intelligibility
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
106
(
4
),
1820
1828
(
1999
).
3.
W.
Yang
and
M.
Hodgson
, “
Auralization study of optimum reverberation times for speech intelligibility for normal and hearing-impaired listeners in classrooms with diffuse sound fields
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
120
(
2
),
801
807
(
2006
).
4.
M.
Picard
and
J. S.
Bradley
, “
Revisiting speech interference in classrooms
,”
Audiology
40
(
5
),
221
244
(
2001
).
5.
M.
Hodgson
and
R. J.
Orlowski
, “
Acoustic scale modeling of factories, Part I: Principles, instrumentation and techniques
,”
J. Sound Vib.
113
(
1
),
29
46
(
1987
).
6.
H. E.
Bass
,
L. C.
Sutherland
,
A. J.
Zuckerwar
,
D. T.
Blackstock
, and
D. M.
Hester
, “
Atmospheric absorption of sound: Further developments
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
97
(
1
),
680
683
(
1995
).
7.
M.
Hodgson
, “
Empirical prediction of speech levels and reverberation in classrooms
,”
Build. Acoust.
8
(
1
),
1
14
(
2001
).
8.
American National Standards Institute
, ANSI S3.5-1997, “
Methods for calculation of the speech intelligibility index
,”
1997
.
9.
B.-I.
Dalenback
, CATT-Acoustic v8.0 (Gothenburg, Sweden,
2004
).
10.
M.
Hodgson
, “
Evidence of diffuse surface reflections in rooms
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
89
(
2
),
765
771
(
1991
).
11.
M. R.
Hodgson
and
E.-M.
Nosal
, “
Effect of noise and occupancy on optimum reverberation times for speech intelligibility in classrooms
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
111
(
2
)
931
939
(
2002
).
12.
M.
Hodgson
, “
Measurements of the influence of fittings and roof pitch on the sound field in panel-roof factories
,” Appl. Acoustics
16
(
5
),
369
391
(
1983
).
You do not currently have access to this content.