Deciphering the decibels of STC ratings

Stephen A. Cusa

Citation: Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 19, 015040 (2013); doi: 10.1121/1.4801039

View online: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4801039
View Table of Contents: https://asa.scitation.org/toc/pma/19/1
Published by the Acoustical Society of America

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Measurement of the absorption coefficient of sound absorbing materials under a synthesized diffuse acoustic
field
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136, EL13 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4881321

Introduction to the Special Issue on Room Acoustic Modeling and Auralization

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 145, 2597 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5099017

A round robin on room acoustical simulation and auralization

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 145, 2746 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5096178

Perceptual evaluation of headphone auralization of rooms captured with spherical microphone arrays with
respect to spaciousness and timbre
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 145, 2783 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5096164

An investigation of listener envelopment utilizing a spherical microphone array and third-order ambisonics
reproduction
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 145, 2795 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5096161

Data clustering analysis of early reflections in small room

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 144, EL328 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5065073
S. Cusa

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics

Volume 19, 2013 http://acousticalsociety.org/

ICA 2013 Montreal

Montreal, Canada
2 - 7 June 2013

Architectural Acoustics
Session 2aAAb: New Materials for Architectural Acoustics

2aAAb1. Deciphering the decibels of STC ratings

Stephen A. Cusa*​

​ *Corresponding author's address: Sales & Marketing, National Gypsum Company, 2001 Rexford Rd, Charlotte, NC 28211,
stevec@nationalgypsum.com
Understanding how to better evaluate the acoustical performance of an assembly consisting of gypsum board and where acoustically enhanced
gypsum board is most effective in reducing airborne sound.

Published by the Acoustical Society of America through the American Institute of Physics

© 2013 Acoustical Society of America [DOI: 10.1121/1.4801039]

Received 29 Jan 2013; published 2 Jun 2013
Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 19, 015040 (2013) Page 1
S. Cusa

DECIPHERING THE DECIBELS OF STC RATINGS

It’s ironic that the construction industry spends so much time discussing STC’s when they’re trying to meet
a specific need or requirement of an assembly, such as for walls or for floor/ceiling assemblies, yet STC’s really
limit the conversation and understanding of how an assembly may actually perform. While STC’s may be a good
starting point in evaluating a clients or a projects acoustical needs, it’s so important to understand that STC’s
only tell a portion of the story and so much more can be derived from a little bit more information. So why is it
important to look beyond the Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating when you’re considering different
assemblies or components to meet a desired acoustical result? STC ratings are simply a weighted average and
two different assemblies may perform as equivalents according to the STC calculation but when you look deeper,
you’ll find that they may perform quite differently. Acoustically enhanced gypsum board provides a great
opportunity to evaluate an assembly compared to traditional construction methods and a window into why STC’s
are a bit misleading.

Let’s evaluate ½” and 5/8” gypsum board, standard building products used in everyday construction, and
compare them to SoundBreak XP, an acoustically enhanced gypsum board that incorporates a viscoelastic
polymer. When comparing these products, it becomes apparent that understanding the source of your sound and
the desired acoustical performance of the assembly is just as important as the STC rating.

For starters, let’s refer to a very basic residential assembly as illustrated in Figure 1. The two assemblies in
this chart are both constructed using 2” x 4” wood studs, 16” on center and insulated. One assembly is
constructed with ½” gypsum board on both sides and the other assembly is constructed with ½” gypsum board
on one side and a layer of ½” acoustically enhanced gypsum board on the other. Both of these assemblies were
tested and rated with an STC of 39. When evaluating the chart and looking beyond the STC, it becomes pretty
clear that these two assemblies certainly don’t mirror one another as you move along the various frequencies. At
125 Hz, a very low pitch that proves to be the most challenging due to its longer and more powerful sound waves
(such as a bass drum or thunder), the two assemblies perform the same. However, as the frequencies increase, the
results dramatically improve with the ½” acoustically enhanced gypsum board product. Beginning at 160 Hz, the
assembly with acoustically enhanced gypsum board is 6 decibels (dB) better. At the mid to higher frequencies,
this increases to 8 dB and is 14 dB better at 2500 Hz (see FIGURE 1).

Wood more readily transmits vibration, making it perform worse at lower frequencies. This limits the
overall STC rating of the assembly. However, in all but the lowest frequencies, the wall using acoustically
enhanced gypsum board would be noticeably quieter. In this example, the fact that both assemblies have the
same STC rating is not a good indicator of comparable acoustical performance.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 19, 015040 (2013) Page 2

S. Cusa

FIGURE 1
70

60

Transmission Loss in dB 50

40

30

20

NGC 2009023 - 1/2" Gypsum Board Both Sides -

10 STC = 39
NGC 2009024 - 1/2" Gypsum Board Source Side / 1/2"
SoundBreak XP Receiving Side - STC = 39
0
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
Frequency in Hz

In another example, let’s look at a typical commercial wall assembly constructed with 3 5/8” metal studs, 24” on
center and with an insulated cavity as illustrated in FIGURE 2. In this case, one wall assembly is constructed with
5/8” Type X gypsum board on each side and the other wall assembly is constructed using 5/8” Type X on one side
and 5/8” acoustically enhanced gypsum board on the other. The wall constructed with 5/8” Type X on both sides
achieved an STC rating of 47. The wall constructed with a layer of 5/8” acoustically enhanced gypsum board
achieved an STC rating of 53. By simply replacing one layer of 5/8” Type X gypsum board with a layer of 5/8”
acoustically enhanced gypsum board, the STC rating improved by 6 points (as a rule of thumb, you can hear a 3
STC point difference). There are a few factors contributing to the better acoustical performance of the system.
Outside of the benefits from the acoustically enhanced gypsum board, the metal studs are assisting in the effort to
minimize sound from vibrating through the wall. The metal studs are flexing rather than transmitting vibration,
unlike wood framed walls as mentioned earlier. The 6-point STC difference, which is significant, again only tells a
portion of the story. When evaluating the two assemblies (see FIGURE 2), the actual difference in performance is
greater than advertised, by as much as 11 dB at 2500Hz.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 19, 015040 (2013) Page 3

S. Cusa

FIGURE 2
70

60

50

Transmission Loss in dB
40

30

20
5/8" Wallboard Both Sides- STC 47

10 5/8" wallboard Source Side Soundbreak Receiving

Side- STC 53

0
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
Frequency in Hz

One may ask, what are the different frequencies that are most likely to make a noticeable difference? Well, it all
depends on the source. For example, in a classroom you pay more attention to performance at the higher
frequencies, which mimic conversation and higher pitched younger voices. The same would be true in most
commercial or residential settings. The toughest challenges, as mentioned earlier, are the lower pitched sounds.
These sounds are not as common as people’s voices or equipment sound sources, such as a printer or audio-visual
equipment. It’s crucial to understand the source of your sound, so you can understand what to design for or even
what to expect as a result. Installing acoustically enhanced gypsum board on the walls of a classroom or on the walls
of a meeting room will be highly effective versus installing acoustically enhanced gypsum board on the walls where
the percussion section of the band practices for the weekend’s home football game.

So what about simply doing multi-layer construction using more sheets of gypsum board? Let’s again evaluate
two separate multi-layer assemblies. In this case, it will be a 2 hour wall constructed with 3 5/8” metal studs, 24” on
center and with an insulated cavity. One assembly consists of two layers of 5/8” Type X gypsum board on both sides
of the framing. The other assembly consists of two layers of 5/8” Type X on one side and a layer of 5/8” Type X and
a layer of 5/8” acoustically enhanced gypsum board on the other. In other words, we’re simply replacing one layer
of 5/8” Type X with a layer of 5/8” acoustically enhanced gypsum board. When evaluating FIGURE 3, it’s easy to
see that the assembly with 5/8” acoustically enhanced gypsum board outperformed the basic 2 hour wall by 4 STC
points. Additionally, as you quickly glance at the transmission loss of both assemblies, it might lead you to believe
that the two walls perform relatively close to one another. However, as your frequencies begin to increase beyond
2000 Hz, the assembly containing acoustically enhanced gypsum board is able to maintain its performance. At 2500
Hz, for example, the basic 2 hour wall containing double layer 5/8” Type X achieves an STC of 53 whereas the
SoundBreak assembly achieves an STC of 61, an 8 point difference.

The multi-layer assemblies, just like the other assemblies discussed, provide a great window into the
effectiveness of acoustically enhanced gypsum board. With acoustically enhanced gypsum board, you see the
improved performance because you don’t see the typical “coincidence dip,” meaning significant drops in
performance. The dip typically occurs in the mid to high frequencies in conventional assemblies whereas
acoustically enhanced gypsum board consistently outperforms other assemblies in these same frequencies,
sometimes by as much as 13 dB. Effectively, the acoustically enhanced gypsum board product and the way it’s

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 19, 015040 (2013) Page 4

S. Cusa

manufactured, provides 4 critical things that are needed when trying to stop sound transmission- mass, damping,
isolation and limpness. These 4 components allow it to perform unlike other sound reducing methods.

FIGURE 3
80

70

60
Tranmission Loss in dB

50

40

30
NGC 3022- Double Layer 5/8" Both Sides-
STC = 56
20
RAL-TL07-168- 5/8" Both Sides- Replace
one layer w/ 5/8" SoundBreak XP- STC =
10 60

0
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
Frequency in Hz

With the opportunity to assess these basic assemblies and comparing them to a performance product such as
acoustically enhanced gypsum board, the evaluation process for acoustical performance must evolve. What’s the
STC still remains a legitimate question but it’s important to ask other relevant questions such as: What’s the source
of your sound? What are you trying to accomplish? And can I please see a 3rd Party, Independent acoustical test
report, per full scale ASTM E 90, so I can evaluate my options with more information? By requesting a bit more
information and understanding what to look for, mistakes can be avoided, performance expectations can be set and a
project’s or client’s requirements can be properly addressed.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 19, 015040 (2013) Page 5