Office Pod Acoustic Ratings: Compare the Test Object, Method and Configuration
A soundproof booth comparison is useful only when the numbers describe comparable things. First identify what was tested, then the method and configuration, and finally the proposed workplace. A panel’s sound-insulation rating, an enclosure’s speech-reduction result and a check of a particular room are different evidence. None should silently replace the others.
For an office buyer, the decision is practical: which evidence supports the calls or meetings you intend to hold, and which questions remain for the installation location? Start with the following report comparison, before selecting a pod by its headline number. The office pod acoustic glossary provides definitions; this article shows how to use them in a supplier shortlist.
Read the label before comparing the value
Copy the complete result label from the report, including subscripts, units and the referenced standard. Ask for the report number and date, the testing organization, and the page identifying the specimen. If a quotation says only Dw, do not infer which quantity the supplier means. A shortened label is not enough to identify the underlying measurement.
| Claim or report | What it addresses | Useful purchasing question | Do not assume |
|---|---|---|---|
| STC | A sound-insulation classification associated with a stated test method and assembly. | Which partition, door or other assembly was tested, and does it match the proposed component? | That a component rating is the assembled pod’s reduction or a guarantee of privacy. |
| Rw or another ISO sound-insulation rating | A reported quantity that must be read with its measurement method and test object. | What is the full symbol, the standard and the tested construction? | That it can be substituted for STC or a whole-pod speech-reduction value. |
| ISO 23351-1 speech level reduction | A laboratory comparison of a furniture ensemble or enclosure as a complete product. | Which product configuration appears in the report, and is that the offered configuration? | That the result certifies a particular office location or recording task. |
| NRC or absorption data | Sound absorption by the tested material or assembly under stated mounting conditions. | Does the lining identity and mounting match the specified finish? | That an absorptive lining prevents speech leaving the booth. |
| A general dB reduction claim | A level difference whose meaning depends on the quantities and conditions being compared. | What was measured, where, with which source, weighting and operating conditions? | That it describes perceived loudness, STC or complete confidentiality. |
ASTM E413 distinguishes ratings according to the invoking test method. ASTM E90 concerns laboratory transmission-loss measurements of building partitions and elements; it is not a field test. Check the specimen before using either reference to justify a booth claim.
ISO 717-1 concerns airborne sound-insulation ratings for buildings and building elements. A similar-looking number under a different method does not authorize a direct conversion. Keep each result in its own column rather than creating an invented common score.
Connect the report to the assembled pod
Request a model or specimen identifier, revision, drawing and configuration description. Compare these with the quotation. Record the door and glazing arrangement, lining, service openings and ventilation configuration. When the offered version differs, ask the supplier to explain the report’s applicability rather than assuming that the same external appearance means the same tested assembly.
The official scope of ISO 23351-1:2020 describes a laboratory method for comparing speech-level reduction by complete furniture ensembles and enclosures. Individual workstation components are outside that scope. This makes the distinction between a complete product and a material sample important, but citing the standard does not show that a particular MobileX model has been tested to it.
A door, glazing boundary, panel joint, floor connection, air route or cable opening deserves attention in the configuration record. These are interfaces to identify, not an assertion that every MobileX model uses the same seals, glass construction or ventilation path. Ask which items are included in the tested specimen and which were changed for the project.
Separate absorption, isolation and equipment noise
Absorptive finishes and boundary sound insulation answer different questions. ASTM C423 addresses absorption using a reverberation-room method. A lining result does not become a whole-pod isolation rating, and a photograph cannot identify a material’s tested grade or mounting.
Keep equipment-generated sound as a separate purchasing question. Request the stated operating condition for any fan or other equipment noise information. Then ask how the microphone, loudspeaker and conference system will be assessed in the proposed configuration. A boundary test alone does not establish the experience of a remote participant.
For recording, the task may involve instruments, voice recording or other sources unlike a routine office conversation. Do not transfer an office speech comparison into a recording-studio promise. Use the separate recording task and equipment brief to identify the work before selecting the evidence.
Decide what still needs a site review
Describe the intended conversation without supplying confidential content. Note where other people may sit, pass or wait, the expected door state, nearby activity and the equipment used inside. This produces a location brief that a person with suitable acoustic competence can assess. It is more useful than asking whether the pod is simply “soundproof.”
A casual listening check can reveal a concern, but it is not a formal privacy acceptance method. Do not use a phone recording or one person’s impression that words were unclear as certification. Agree the assessment method, conditions and decision responsibility with the project team.
The public scope of ASTM E2638 concerns objective speech-privacy measurement for a closed room. It does not supply one universal adequacy criterion for every conversation. Whether it is appropriate for the particular enclosure and site requires competent assessment. The site-specific privacy review guide explains the buyer’s preparation without turning this article into a measurement tutorial.
Use a report-to-quotation comparison sheet
Fill one copy for each offered configuration. Leave an unknown item unresolved rather than awarding it an assumed score. Separate a document you have received from an explanation the supplier still needs to provide.
| Record | Offer A | Offer B | Decision or follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model, revision and quotation reference | ________ | ________ | Resolve mismatched product identities. |
| Report number, date and testing organization | ________ | ________ | Obtain the relevant report pages, not only a brochure label. |
| Full metric, method and test object | ________ | ________ | Keep unlike metrics separate. |
| Door, glazing, lining and service configuration | ________ | ________ | Ask how differences from the offered version are addressed. |
| Ventilation and equipment operating condition | ________ | ________ | Identify what was present and running. |
| Proposed location and neighbouring listeners | ________ | ________ | Define any separate site assessment. |
| Acceptance responsibility and unresolved evidence | ________ | ________ | Record who decides, using which agreed evidence. |
Compare the acoustic case for a price premium
Use acoustic evidence to decide which offers remain suitable, then compare the cost of the configurations that meet the same work requirement. Do not divide a price by STC, NRC or a speech-reduction figure to create a value score. They describe different things, and even like-for-like laboratory results do not establish the outcome at your proposed location.
Separate two questions: does the evidence address the acoustic task, and what does the extra money buy? Where both offers provide comparable whole-enclosure evidence for the quoted configurations, compare the reported results using the same method and your project’s acceptance criteria. A higher result is relevant when it helps meet that requirement; it is not automatically worth more for every buyer. Then price differences in usable layout, furniture, equipment and delivery scope separately.
Hypothetical quotation comparison: Offer A has a lower shell price and lists a wall-panel STC value and lining NRC. Offer B costs more and includes a whole-enclosure speech-reduction report for its quoted configuration. A’s component figures do not establish equivalence to B, but B’s report alone does not justify the premium. If the project needs whole-enclosure evidence, A remains unresolved until suitable evidence is available; that is not a measured failure. If B addresses the requirement, compare what its price includes before deciding whether its extra cost buys the needed performance, a different fit-out or unrelated options.
Where neither offer supplies evidence suitable for the acoustic decision, a price comparison can still support an initial budget, but not an acoustic winner. Keep both proposals provisional for that requirement. Any separately commissioned assessment is a distinct scope and cost, not an assumed part of the pod price. The model-price and project-budget guide shows how to compare the selected configuration, equipment, freight and local work without double counting. You can begin an inquiry with the task and budget information you already have; unresolved evidence can remain explicit while the proposal develops.
Keep acoustic evidence alongside model fit
MP1 and MP1+ are single-person options; MP2 and MP3 address two-person and four-person meeting configurations. These descriptions help make a shortlist, but they do not establish a permitted session length or guaranteed comfort. Compare the proposed furniture, user tasks, lighting, power and ventilation alongside the evidence.
MP1+ has a larger published external footprint than MP1. That is a dimension fact, not proof that any chosen desk or chair fits. Obtain the model’s usable-space and furniture drawings. For MP2 or MP3, identify how people use equipment, leave their seats and open the door; do not assume a larger nominal capacity requires longer occupancy.
MobileX has confirmed a 35dB test result. Keep that manufacturer-confirmed figure with its actual test context; do not relabel it as STC, Rw or an ISO 23351-1 result without the corresponding report. For a quotation, request the applicable model, test quantity, method and configuration so the buyer can use the result correctly.
Confirm the supply list for the quoted model. Do not infer included desks, seats, screens or data equipment from a reference image or a general configuration note. The four-model comparison handles the shortlist; manufacturer information and catalogue documents support supplier and product identification.
Send a concise evidence brief
State the intended task, model shortlist, proposed configuration, room location and acoustic question. Attach the relevant plan without personal or confidential conversation details. Ask for the report reference, the configuration it covers and any assessment needed for a proposed change.
Brief: Task: ________. Candidate model/configuration: ________. Proposed location and adjacent uses: ________. Required evidence: ________. Report/configuration differences: ________. Site assessment owner: ________. Unresolved decision: ________.
Request model information and an evidence-based project quotation. The objective is a comparison you can explain: a defined product, a defined test and a clear account of what still needs checking at the site.
Use the current MobileX POD buyer resources before quoting
This article is kept as an older workplace insight. For current office pod, phone booth, office phone booth and soundproof booth buying decisions, use the updated model data, comparison guide, catalogs and quotation path below.