Acoustics in Its Prehistory: Towards a More Human-Centred Science of Sound

Despite its technological sophistication, acoustics as a science may still be in its prehistory. We can now model wave propagation in three dimensions, regulate environmental noise to within decibel thresholds, and calibrate reverberation times to meet design targets. Yet for all its precision, the field remains rooted in a logic that abstracts sound from lived experience, favouring metrics over meaning.

Sound as Human Experience

Acoustics has long been shaped by classical scientific logic: quantitative, binary, and objective. While this framework has proven effective in engineering, it reduces sound to a physical stimulus, overlooking its psychological, social, and cultural depth. In reality, sound is something we interpret, not just hear, a presence that shapes and is shaped by our experience, culture, and state of mind.

Noise maps tell us where sound is loud, but not whether it’s annoying, calming, or empowering. Reverberation time gives a number, but no insight into whether a space feels comfortable. A project may meet all regulatory standards, yet still feel unlivable. This gap between measurement and experience defines the challenge facing acoustics today.

The Cracks in the Standards

Some of the industry’s most trusted benchmarks fail in practice:

Dw values can meet BCO guidance, yet speech intelligibility may remain high due to e.g. 2kHz dips, undermining privacy in offices.
Sound insulation standards often assume masking from ambient noise, which may not exist in quiet environments.
BS8233 and BS4142, while useful in specific contexts (road traffic and industrial noise, respectively), are routinely misapplied, leading to inappropriate assessments.

These are not isolated issues, they represent a broader problem: our tools are often technically correct but experientially wrong.

Beyond the Numbers: Toward Perception-Based Acoustics

The future of acoustics lies not in refining abstract metrics, but in redefining what we value. We must move toward design strategies that reflect how people actually experience sound. This means integrating:

Fuzzy and qualitative models that capture ambiguity and subjectivity
Modal frameworks that account for perception, attention, and memory
Culturally informed approaches that respect diverse relationships to sound
Soundscape-based design, now making its first policy appearances (e.g. in Welsh planning guidance), though still in its infancy

Some sectors are already pushing boundaries. In concert hall design, auralisation is used per seat to optimise the listener experience. On construction sites, perception tracking is increasingly used in real-time monitoring. In one example, gym projects have adopted NR targets based on direct user feedback—moving from regulatory compliance to “no annoyance” thresholds grounded in experience.

The Neurodivergence Gap

One area where the current paradigm is particularly weak is in addressing the needs of neurodivergent users, those with sensory processing differences such as ADHD or autism. This has become more visible post-pandemic, as workers accustomed to self-managed acoustic environments at home return to open-plan offices.

We now have evidence that personalised acoustic environments can offer measurable cognitive and emotional benefits. Two recent case studies illustrate this clearly:

Case Study 1: Personalised Soundscapes for Children with ADHD

In a controlled study using pink-noise-based structures and binaural ambisonics, research funded by KP Acoustics found:

Attention improved, with participants showing more consistent reaction times.
Hyperactivity decreased, as fewer impulsive movements were observed.
Cognitive Control strengthened, leading to better behavioural regulation and fewer errors.

This demonstrates that sound can do more than soothe, it can support executive functioning when designed with individual needs in mind.

Case Study 2: Personalised vs Generic Sound Masking in Offices

In this workplace study undertaken by KP Acoustics Research Labs, participants compared generic versus personalised sound masking systems:

Emotional Alignment
Personalised environments foster strong and consistent emotional resonance, while generic ones tend to evoke mixed or neutral responses.
Perceived Effectiveness
Participants rated personalised soundscapes as highly effective. In contrast, generic ones showed variable impact depending on the listener.
Impact on Mood
Personalised audio improved calmness and focus. Generic setups, however, led to less predictable outcomes, ranging from boredom to stress.

These findings reinforce a key point: even in shared environments, emotional responses to sound are personal, and predictable, if we take the time to listen.

Why We Still Resist

Despite growing evidence, adoption is slow. Many acousticians, bound by liability and institutional norms, feel safer referencing existing standards than proposing perception-based metrics. As engineers, we are trained to seek certainty, yet human perception resists that simplicity.

This overreliance on fixed metrics stifles creativity. It leads to copy-paste designs that meet regulations but not real needs. Worse, it discourages innovation in areas where the stakes, like mental health or neurodiversity, are only just being understood.

Listening as a Scientific Method

If traditional acoustics has been about control and compliance, the future may require a new kind of listening—one that accepts complexity and values perception as a primary data point.

Soundscape design, once niche, is emerging as a bridge between technical accuracy and human empathy. It links architecture, psychology, urban planning, and acoustics, offering a richer, interdisciplinary path forward.

What Comes Next?

We propose that the next stage in acoustic practice be grounded in testable subjectivity, perception-informed design supported by real-world evidence.

This could include:

Pilot projects exploring new metrics of comfort and annoyance
User-centred design frameworks for neurodivergent occupants
Acoustic personalisation technologies for shared office environments
Integration of soundscape criteria into planning and compliance pathways
Fuzzy and qualitative models that account for subjective experience
Modal frameworks to understand possibility, attention, and perception
Culturally informed acoustics that respect how different communities relate to sound

In this sense, acoustics may follow the trajectory of medicine, which evolved from treating symptoms to understanding individual persons. So much that today, we no longer speak of diseases, but of patients themselves. Or psychology, which progressed from behaviourism to a rich landscape of cognitive, emotional, and social understanding.

A New Logic for Listening

If the dominant logic of science has long been reductionist and objective, the future of acoustics may require a new logic entirely, one that accepts ambiguity, honours perception, and integrates subjectivity without sacrificing rigor.

We may well look back on this era and see it as the prehistoric stage of acoustic understanding, a time when we could measure sound but not yet truly listen.

If you want to get involved in the discussion or learn more about the research at KP Acoustics Research Labs, contact or team: info@kpacoustics.com | 0208 222 8778 | 02382 544 965