Acoustic tests with were carried out and it established the the previously set music levels on the system used by Floor 29 was capable of causing that music was audible within the boardroom and all three other offices tested (which included the CEO’s office). The contribution of the levels exceeded the target criteria, which was based on a combined test which included both subjective and objective elements aim to meet the expectation of being close to inaudibility.
Targeted refinement to each frequency of the music enabled a condition to be achieved whereby music was not audible against the ambient noise from the services, and did not raise the measured noise levels in each frequency sufficiently to suggest that the music noise was affecting the overall noise level. This test was repeated in each of the other rooms, with the same result in all spaces except the small meeting room when background levels were a considerably lower. In this space the music was barely audible when staying quiet and considering the one to one use of this space was considered to meet the criteria on balance.
The set up was referred to as the ‘fair level threshold’, which meet the criteria considered necessary to meet the expectations of the occupants of floor 30, and the acoustic limiter was adjusted so that in the expert opinion of Mr Rogers would robustly control the music noise levels against the defined maximum music levels (LAeq 87dB(A)), which is considered to be commercially viable for those on floor 29.
In the expert opinion of Mr Rogers sufficient and robust protection is now in place to enable the operation of the dance floor without disruption to those on floor 30.