Illustrative worked example. This is a realistic brief run through Echo using the same method a real report uses — not an account of a named past client. See every case study for more, including which of these are real, permissioned projects as they're added.
The brief
An outsourced customer-service provider asked for options on a 40-desk floor after an engagement survey flagged concentration and stress complaints well above the company's other sites. Call quality scores were reported as lower on this floor. The brief was explicit that some ambient background noise was fine, even useful for call privacy between neighbouring desks — the problem was specific neighbouring conversations cutting through clearly, not general hum.
Open-plan call floor
22 × 14 × 3.2 m, about 986 m³ — painted plasterboard walls, carpet tile floor, suspended mineral-fibre ceiling (low-performance tile).
Carpet and a basic suspended ceiling meant the room wasn't loud in the conventional sense — but the ceiling tile's absorption was low-grade, and with no desk screening at all, the ISO 3382-3 distraction distance (the range over which a neighbouring voice stays intelligible) is estimated to extend well beyond adjacent desks, which is the actual mechanism behind both complaints.
The standard, and the target
This is one of the few room types where the goal isn't simply "lower reverberation" — ISO 3382-3 is framed around distraction distance and spatial decay of speech, and a floor can be technically quiet while still having every desk clearly overhearing its two nearest neighbours, which is what was actually happening here.
The constraint
The client's own brand guidelines specified an open, screen-free desk layout for a recent refit, ruling out the fastest conventional fix (taller desk screens) before the acoustic brief even started — the fix had to work with low or no screening.
The decision
A higher-performance ceiling tile replaced the existing low-grade one across the whole floor, paired with desk-height (not sightline-blocking) fabric desk dividers that met the brand's open-plan requirement while still breaking the direct sound path between adjacent seats, and a low-level sound-masking system tuned to the brief's own "some background is fine" position.
Every route considered, vendor-neutral — we don't sell any of it.
- High-performance suspended ceiling tile, full floorabout 310 m²
Replaced the existing low-grade tile like-for-like in the same grid.
- Low desk-height fabric dividers40 desks
Sized to stay within the brand's open, screen-free sightline requirement.
- Tuned sound-masking systemwhole floor
The one route here that adds sound rather than removes it — deliberately, per the brief.
The outcome
The model predicts the combination would bring the distraction distance down to roughly one desk position rather than three to four. Whether that eases concentration complaints is something only the client's own staff feedback could show. This is a design-stage prediction for an illustrative room, not a measured result.
Indicative figures for this example, from the same method a real report uses. Not a measured survey and not a compliance certificate — where one is required, that's a survey to BS EN ISO 3382-2.
Now do it for your room.
Four questions, about a minute. Free to see whether you have a problem.
Check my room →Questions people ask
Isn't adding a masking system the opposite of what an acoustic fix should do?
Not in an open-plan office — ISO 3382-3 measures how quickly speech decays and how far a voice stays distracting. Controlled background sound is a common design response because a specific nearby voice distracts more than ambient level alone.
Why not just allow taller desk screens?
It would likely have been the single most effective route, but the client's own brand guidelines ruled it out before the acoustic brief started — this example is specifically about the routes that work within that constraint.
Does this apply to a smaller open-plan team, not a call floor?
The same ISO 3382-3 method applies, but the target distraction distance and the weight given to masking versus absorption would likely differ for a team not spending the whole day on live calls.