Acoustic ratings often are misunderstood, leading to confusion for both consumers and professionals in the flooring industry. Whether it’s about selecting the right underlayment, deciphering laboratory ratings versus real-world performance, or grappling with unrealistic building requirements, the gap between expectation and reality remains challenging.
The Role of Underlayment in Acoustic Performance
Underlayment is crucial in enhancing acoustic performance, but it’s not a standalone solution. Instead, acoustic results stem from the combined performance of the entire floor/ceiling assembly. This floor/ceiling assembly includes the type of flooring, underlayment, and the construction of the building itself.
Consider two scenarios:
- An engineered wood floor with an acoustic underlayment installed in a wood-frame, low-rise condo building.
- The same setup is used in a high-rise concrete building with a suspended concrete slab, drop ceiling, insulation, and layered drywall.
Despite identical flooring and underlayment, the acoustic performance in both will be significantly different. Why? The additional structural layers and greater separation between units in the concrete building will reduce sound transmission far more effectively than the underlayment alone used in the wood frame building. This illustrates the importance of viewing underlayment as one piece of a much larger puzzle. While underlayment plays an important role, the building’s construction has an outsized impact on acoustic performance.
Lab-Tested Acoustic Ratings vs. Real-World Performance
Acoustic ratings, often derived from laboratory tests, do not always reflect real-world performance. Labs test flooring systems under controlled conditions, including ideal concrete slabs, drop ceilings, and insulation. These conditions rarely are replicated in actual building environments.
For instance, a lab might assign an Impact Insulation Class (IIC) rating of 72 to a specific underlayment. However, this rating assumes the lab’s perfect setup. When the same underlayment is installed in a wood-frame construction, the actual IIC of the entire floor/ceiling assembly may fall short due to structural differences. This discrepancy underscores the need for consumers and building management to understand that lab ratings on specified products are not applicable for all construction methods.
Unreachable Standards in the Industry
The flooring industry often feels pressured to meet overly ambitious acoustic ratings that don’t align with real-world conditions. Building management groups and homeowner associations (HOAs) may mandate specific acoustic standards without accounting for structural variables. As a result, manufacturers create products that meet lab-tested benchmarks, which consumers interpret mistakenly as guarantees of performance in their own homes.
This creates a frustrating situation for consumers. Many are left juggling conflicting demands from their building management while navigating a flood of technical jargon. Ultimately, homeowners are stuck with expectations that neither the underlayment nor the flooring system can meet.
One approach to level the playing field is comparing Delta ratings. Unlike IIC ratings, Delta is derived by subtracting the IIC of the nominal 6” bare concrete from the IIC of the various tested assemblies. The higher the Delta IIC, the higher the performance level. Delta ratings provide a transparent and fair comparison between products to help consumers make informed decisions without overestimating what an underlayment alone can achieve.
What Consumers Should Know
Consumers play a key role in demystifying acoustic ratings by asking informed questions, such as:
- Does this product suit my building type? Different constructions – wood frame, concrete, or mass timber – will influence the effectiveness of the underlayment.
- Are the acoustic benefits based on lab or field testing? Understanding the testing conditions can set realistic expectations.
- Is the entire floor/ceiling assembly being taken into account? No one underlayment can meet the necessary IIC/STC requirements without taking the entire assembly into consideration.
Additionally, engaging with building management early in the process can prevent miscommunications and set achievable goals for acoustic performance. For instance, knowing whether your building has wood-frame or concrete construction can clarify what level of soundproofing to expect.
Bridging the Gap of Education
Addressing these misconceptions requires education and a reevaluation of industry standards. Strata and HOAs should reconsider bylaws that demand unrealistic acoustic performance, acknowledging that results depend on construction specifics.
The confusion surrounding acoustic ratings stems from the need for more transparency and understanding. By educating consumers, revisiting outdated bylaws, and accounting for the entire floor/ceiling assembly, we can bridge the gap between expectations and achievable results. Flooring professionals and consumers alike must recognize that acoustic performance is a system-wide effort, influenced as much by building design as by individual components like underlayment. Only by addressing these complexities can we create quieter, more harmonious living spaces that truly meet the needs of modern homeowners.
Jared Kress is a product manager at Metropolitan Floors in Delta, British Columbia. He can be reached at jkress@metrofloors.com.
