Acoustical consultants are the secret sauce to better restaurants

Brandon Cudequest – bcudequest@acentech.com

Acentech, 33 Moulton St., Cambridge, MA, 02138, United States

Popular version of 2aAAb1 – Signal-to-noise ratio in restaurants: fine lines between terrific and terrible dining experiences
Presented at the 190th ASA Meeting
Read the abstract at https://eppro01.ativ.me/web/planner.php?id=ASASPRING2026

–The research described in this Acoustics Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed–

Restaurant noise is one of the most common acoustical complaints. Since a truly quiet restaurant is an empty one, the question becomes, “how much are diners willing to cope with noise as a trade-off for good food and a fun night out?”.

Crowdsourced data from the app SoundPrint, which has logged more than 100,000 noise measurements in restaurants, suggests that the difference between a restaurant where conversation feels easy and one where it feels exhausting is relatively small: only about 7 decibels (dB), which is about the difference between a raised and normal speaking voice. And the average noise level of a “quiet” restaurant? Approximately 70 dBA. The dBA unit indicates that the noise was adjusted to approximate the human ear’s response to sound.

Figure 1 – Soundprint User Interface. Customers measure fifteen seconds of noise and then rate their ability to have a conversation (courtesy of SoundPrint).

This might seem very loud if you’ve ever used a sound level meter app on your phone. Because it is – our indoor environments are purposefully designed to be 45 dBA or much quieter to provide comfort, rest, and the right environment for mentally demanding tasks like business conference calls or listening to class lectures.

Restaurants test the resilience of our hearing system and require a combination of visual and auditory cues to fill in the gaps. Whether or not we can clearly see the person’s face, pick up context clues from the conversation, or know the person’s voice all play a role in helping us understand each other in restaurants. If you are about to have a business dinner with someone you’ve never met before, think twice about where you are going and pull up a few photos. Does the ceiling look shiny and seamless? Are the tables close together? Is it mostly mood lighting with table lamps? If so, you might not land that deal.

Figure 2 – A charming restaurant that serves delicious food; however, guests may have a hard time hearing each other during peak hours.

Restaurant noise is not guesswork. Acoustical consultants can study architectural drawings, occupancy counts, and room finish materials to determine noise levels in restaurants based on the number of customers. If restaurant owners want to fix the issue, the optimal solution often must accommodate tight operating margins: find the cost-effective, minimally invasive solution.

The cacophony of restaurants is often simple oversight: the designer did not hire an acoustical consultant and opted for a sound-reflective ceiling material instead of a sound-absorbing ceiling. The reason this remains a consistent issue even after the restaurant has opened is far more complex: a noisy packed dining room suggests a thriving restaurant, creates turnover, and a tight table arrangement means more paying customers. Restaurants are a business and noisemakers are the clients. Add a thumping soundtrack to the mix and you have a perfect recipe for a strained voice and splitting headache.

A quiet restaurant is an empty one. However, owners, designers, and consultants can establish realistic goals if we reference crowdsourced data and reframe what quiet means in the context of restaurants. Practical advice from acoustical consultants can make all the difference between a terrible and acceptable dining experience, increasing the chance that customers come back.

If it is any solace, restaurants have been obnoxiously loud for nearly a century (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Noise levels found at home and in restaurants. Adapted from “Present Methods of Sound Measurement” by A.H. Davis, (Architects’ Journal, May 1938)