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)
University of Washington, Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Seattle, WA, 98105, United States
Additional authors: DJ Audet Jr, Aoi A. Hunsaker, Mallory Butler, Carol Sammeth, Alexandria Podolski, Theodore F. Argo, David A. Anderson, Nathaniel T. Greene,
Popular version of 2pNSa4 – Two-dimensional sound localization during hearing protector use in a large sample of human listeners
Presented at the 189th ASA Meeting
Read the abstract at https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0040527
–The research described in this Acoustics Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed–
In noisy professions – from manufacturing to the military – hearing protection and perception are often at odds. The sense of hearing normally enables listeners to detect and locate sounds arriving from any direction – an especially valuable ability in settings with low visibility (darkness, fog, smoke), visual clutter, or in which important sound sources may be outside the field of vision altogether, whether off in the distance or “right behind you!” However, when noisy settings demand the use of hearing protectors (usually earplugs or earmuffs), the ability to determine sound direction is reduced. Hearing protectors lower the level of transmitted sound – their designed purpose – but they also change the quality of the transmitted sound, disrupting the subtle bits of acoustic information the brain relies on to determine sound direction. This means listeners may confuse forward and rearward sounds, or struggle to locate sounds overhead. The trade-off between protection and perception can contribute to disuse of hearing protectors in critical settings where situational awareness and personal safety may be acutely valued above long-term hearing health.
Methods to evaluate hearing protector impacts have varied widely across previous studies; hearing protectors come in many shapes and sizes, and directional hearing ability varies across people even before hearing protectors enter the picture. Here, in an effort to identify key factors that mediate hearing protector impacts, we measured directional hearing during hearing protector use in a large sample of listeners across two different sites (130 subjects enrolled study-wide). Listeners were asked to orient to sounds that varied in horizontal and vertical location while wearing a variety of commercially available hearing protector styles, with orientation accuracy measured using wireless sensors.
All hearing protectors reduced directional hearing ability, but variation across devices pointed to key variables that may impact performance – and may be captured using relatively simple acoustic measurements. This work is part of an effort to develop metrics beyond the industry-standard “Noise Reduction Rating” that consumers and hearing conservation professionals alike might use to select job-appropriate hearing protectors, and that hearing protection manufacturers might leverage to design and build better devices.
This work was funded by the US Department of Defense Joint Warfighter Medical Research Program.
Pickleball Noise Consultant, 151 E Summit St, Harbor Springs, MI, 49740-1124, United States
Popular version of 1pNSc3 – Using municipal zoning ordinances to manage pickleball noise near homes.
Presented at the 189th ASA Meeting
Read the abstract at https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0040122
–The research described in this Acoustics Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed–
Pickleball has exploded in popularity, becoming the fastest-growing sport in the United States. Cities are racing to build new courts, and parks departments often convert one tennis court to 4 pickleball courts to keep up with demand. But something unexpected happens when those courts open: nearby residents start reporting a sharp, repetitive “pop-pop-pop” sound that quickly becomes difficult to live with. Many people wonder why this problem keeps appearing and why traditional noise rules don’t seem to help.
The answer begins with the sound itself. A pickleball hit is a very fast impact between a hard paddle and a hard plastic ball. Each hit has a quick, bright impulsive “pop” that the human ear is especially sensitive to. Each court generates an average of 900 popping noises each hour, with many courts used 12 hours a day. A steady stream of sharp, unpredictable impacts. Our bodies are wired to pay attention to sudden noises, so it’s difficult to “tune out” these sounds even when the sound levels, measured in decibels, don’t seem extreme.
Cities are increasingly finding themselves pulled into public controversies, petitions, tense council meetings, and even lawsuits. Headlines report suffering neighbors and angry players as communities react by shuttering courts that were built too close to homes, wasting public money and straining recreation budgets.
The irony is that cities already have the right tools: zoning ordinances and trained planning staff whose daily job is to prevent land-use incompatibility. What was missing was simply recognizing that pickleball noise behaves differently than other park activities — and therefore needs to be managed through zoning, not after-the-fact noise enforcement.
In response, leading cities have begun to rethink how and where pickleball courts should be located. Places like Park City, Utah; Torrance, California; and several East Coast towns have amended their zoning codes to create predictable rules that shield residents from controversy while protecting recreation departments or private developers from costly mistakes. The common strategy is a three- tier framework. First is setting a minimum setback distance between courts and homes, a “no pickleball zone” of 250, 350 or 500 feet.
Then for the court proposals just beyond that setback, the planning department can establish requirements for noise mitigation – some combination of noise barriers, limited playing hours and the mandatory hiring of staff to enforce the use of quieter paddles and balls. This intermediate distance is called the “conditional use zone”. Courts at a further distance of 800 to 1000 feet are approved “by right” without conditions as the noise has lost much of its energy by traveling over that distance.
The lesson from early adopters is clear: pickleball can thrive without generating noise controversy if cities treat it as a land-use planning question for the professionals in the zoning department rather than a noise-meter question. The communities that plan wisely avoid conflict, avoid bad publicity, protect public funds, and preserve the joy of the sport.
Program Chair The Quiet Coalition A program of Quiet Communities, Inc. P.O. Box 533 Lincoln MA, USA
Popular version of 4aPP10 – Should the common-law right to quiet enjoyment be expanded to a literal right to quiet in one’s home? Presented at the 189th ASA Meeting Read the abstract at https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0041134
–The research described in this Acoustics Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed–
Should people have a legal right to quiet in their homes? There already is a legal doctrine called based on English Common Law, but this has nothing to do with quiet. It means that a landlord can’t bother a tenant unnecessarily in a rented apartment or house.
The official definition of noise is noise is unwanted sound but a newer definition, already adopted by the International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise, is noise is unwanted and/or harmful sound. Noise has both auditory and non-auditory health effects. Too much noise causes hearing loss, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), and hyperacusis (a sensitivity to noise that doesn’t bother others). Non-auditory health effects include high blood pressure, heart disease, and increased mortality. Possible non-auditory health effects also include obesity, diabetes, and infertility.
The Environmental Protection Agency calculated safe noise levels in 1974. These are not standards or regulations, but were calculated as mandated by Congress.
Table 2. World Health Organization Noise Level Recommendations
Noise damages hearing but how does noise damage overall health? As shown by the National Park Service noise map (Figure 1), without human noise, nature is quiet. Loud noise usually signals danger. The perception of danger leads to a three-part involuntary response, 1) an almost immediate increase in blood pressure and pulse, mediated by the autonomic nervous system; 2) a slower increase in stress hormone levels, involving the brain, the pituitary gland, and the adrenal glands; and 3) inflammation of blood vessel linings. An illustration of how this might occur is shown in the Figure 2.
In 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that 100 million Americans were exposed to harmful levels of noise pollution. That number is undoubtedly larger now. Multiple studies document excessive noise exposure for those living in cities, largely from road traffic noise. In London, the median daytime road traffic noise level was 55.6 decibels (dB), with increased cardiovascular disease and mortality to those exposed to >60 dB, especially older people. In the HYENA study, increased aircraft and road traffic noise exposure was correlated with increased blood pressure. Average noise levels may hide intermittent noise disrupting sleep. Nighttime noise has particularly deleterious effects on health due to sleep disruption.
Figure 1. National Park Service Noise Map Without Anthropogenic Noise
Figure 2. Proposed pathophysiological mechanisms of noise-induced cardiometabolic disease. Reproduced with permission from Munzel T, Schmidt FP, Steven S, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Feb 13;71(6):688-697. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29420965/
There can be no rational doubt that noise is harmful. The Noise Control Act of 1972 established a national policy to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health and welfare. Expanding the Right to Quiet Enjoyment to a literal right to enjoy quiet in one’s home, whether rented or owned, will take either litigation or legislation at the local, state, or national levels. This presentation is a preliminary discussion of this topic, with any expansion of a right to quiet enjoyment undoubtedly something that will take may years to accomplish. One thing is for sure: a quieter world, with homes that are free from unhealthy noise disturbances inside and in their outdoor spaces, will be a better and healthier world for all.
Quiet Communities, Scientific Advisory Board, BOISE, ID, 83703-1000, United States
Stephanie Knudson, Charles Leahy
Popular version of 1pNSc6 – Reevaluating Pickleball Noise Assessment: The Case for Integrating Non-Acoustic Annoyance Factors
Presented at the 189th ASA Meeting
Read the abstract at https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0040125
–The research described in this Acoustics Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed–
Pickleball is a wildly popular sport, with over 36 million players nationwide. The hard paddle strike on the plastic ball creates a distinctive pock-pock-pock sound that players find invigorating, but neighbors living close to courts experience as irritating at best. HOAs and recreation districts are retrofitting tennis courts into pickleball courts to meet popular demand, but too often these courts are located very near homes.
There are countless reports documenting neighbors’ complaints and efforts to decrease the decibel level of pickleball play with noise barriers and quiet equipment. Many acoustics professionals are aware of other acoustic factors besides decibels such as impulsivity, frequency (Hz), and number of noise events per unit time that play a role in how humans perceive sound.
The context around a sound also plays an important role in how humans perceive sound. These are called non-acoustic factors. This study looks at the the pervasive non-acoustic effects related to long-term exposure to pickleball noise. It turns out that it’s not just about the decibels.
People who can hear pickleball noise in their homes (“neighbors”) have provided a wealth of personal accounts of non-acoustic factors affecting their lives. From 2023 to 2025, the authors closely analyzed news reports, social media, podcasts, Zoom recordings of public meetings, and legal filings pertaining to pickleball noise. We identified six categories of non-acoustic factors that contribute to neighbors’ distress.
1. Social conflict: The nature of these conflicts is widespread and includes face to face harassment as well as name calling/threats on social media towards those who speak up about the noise problem (e.g. Karens, crybabies, busybodies, whiners, ridiculous, entitled…).
2. Fear: Neighbors, even those who don’t speak out, report fear of harassment. Residents also fear the effects on their physical and mental health the longer they are exposed to the noise. One man was so disturbed by his auditory hallucinations that he and his wife went on a hunger strike to try to stop the noise.
3. Negative impact on daily activities: Neighbors report being forced to leave their homes for hours or days at a time. They stop opening windows, stop using their yards, and stop having guests over. They report being unable to enjoy a sense of peace inside their own homes.
4. Loss of locus of control: In one recent survey of >260 communities, almost 3 out of 4 living within 1000 feet of courts reported being able to hear the noise inside their homes. In an effort to gain some sense of control, some people wear noise cancelling headphones in their own homes or spend lots of money on new windows. But even these efforts do not resolve the situation, leaving residents feeling like they have no control over their own lives at home.
5. Loss of trust in authorities: Neighbors report that authorities, even after hearing about the impact on the neighbors, often don’t take action to move or close courts with the explanation “we can’t make everyone happy.”
6. Perceived unfairness. Neighbors express a sense of injustice when the majority’s desire for a specific type of recreation seems to outweigh the minority’s right to be able to enjoy their homes in peace.
Why is this important? Because research shows that the context around a noise affects how much that noise impacts people. (See ISO technical specification 16755-1).
Pickleball noise is not merely an issue of sound and decibels; it’s a complex psychosocial public health phenomenon that impacts communities to an extent not previously documented. The data clearly show that courts in residential areas cause significant community discord. One solution may be to create formal policy on setbacks for pickleball court locations so players can enjoy their game in a location where neighbors are not affected.
Figure 1 – Soundprint User Interface. Customers measure fifteen seconds of noise and then rate their ability to have a conversation (courtesy of SoundPrint).
Figure 1 – Soundprint User Interface. Customers measure fifteen seconds of noise and then rate their ability to have a conversation (courtesy of SoundPrint).
Figure 2 – A charming restaurant that serves delicious food; however, guests may have a hard time hearing each other during peak hours.
Figure 2 – A charming restaurant that serves delicious food; however, guests may have a hard time hearing each other during peak hours.
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)
