Conference Room Acoustics Benchmarks: RT60, Noise, and Coverage

Benchmark snapshot

This benchmark is intentionally narrow: it reports anonymized aggregate measurements from the current RoomScore research collection, not customer names, room names, GPS coordinates, floor plans, or photos.

The verified snapshot contains 159 research records, with the oldest included timestamp on January 2, 2026 and the latest included timestamp on May 13, 2026.

Because the dataset is still early, treat these numbers as screening benchmarks for IT and facilities prioritization rather than formal acoustic standards.

• RT60 sample count: 159 rooms
• Noise floor sample count: 159 rooms
• Coverage sample count: 45 rooms
• Score sample count: 157 rooms

What the current dataset says

The median measured RT60 is 0.44 seconds. The middle half of rooms fall from 0.37s to 0.52s, while 9.4% of measured rooms are above 0.8s, a range where speech clarity complaints become more likely in many hybrid meeting rooms.

The median device-relative noise floor is -62.5 dBFS, with the middle half from -70.2 dBFS to -57.8 dBFS. Device-relative dBFS is useful for comparing RoomScore scans, but it is not the same as a calibrated dB SPL reading.

The median microphone coverage result is 58.6%. Coverage is the least mature metric in this snapshot because only 45 records include a completed coverage walk test.

• Median Room Score: 88 across 157 scored records
• 10.8% of scored records are below 60
• Median C50 clarity estimate: 13.6 dB across 156 records
• Median glass-to-wall ratio: 4.5%

Benchmarks by room size

Room volume changes the interpretation. A 0.56s RT60 can be acceptable in a large room, but the same value may be more noticeable in a small huddle room used for daily calls.

Small rooms in this snapshot are under 30 m3, medium rooms are 30-150 m3, and large rooms are above 150 m3. The current dataset is strongest for small and medium rooms; large-room data should be treated as directional only.

• Small rooms: 51 records, median RT60 0.43s, median coverage 82.4% from 9 coverage samples
• Medium rooms: 102 records, median RT60 0.46s, median coverage 53.9% from 35 coverage samples
• Large rooms: 6 records, median RT60 0.56s, median coverage 28.1% from 1 coverage sample

Coverage is the visible gap

RT60 and noise are broadly captured because they are part of the core acoustic test. Coverage requires a walk test, so fewer records include it.

Among rooms with coverage data, 40.0% are below 50% coverage and 68.9% are below 70% coverage. That does not mean every room is unusable; it means the microphone pickup pattern often deserves room-specific verification instead of brand-level assumptions.

For facilities teams, this is the operational signal: a room can have acceptable reverberation but still fail remote participants if the microphone coverage misses seats.

How to use these benchmarks

Use the benchmark page to set triage thresholds and explain why repeatable measurements matter. It is especially useful when a room sounds bad but hardware dashboards show no obvious error.

Compare RT60 against room size, compare noise against past scans from the same building, and treat coverage results as a seating-position check rather than a generic device score.

As the dataset grows, RoomScore can publish stronger percentile bands by room type, equipment class, and treatment condition. Until then, transparent sample counts are more trustworthy than over-precise claims.

FAQ

How many records are in the current RoomScore benchmark snapshot?
The public benchmark page uses 159 anonymized research records verified from the RoomScore research collection, with 45 records containing completed microphone coverage data.

Are RoomScore noise measurements calibrated dB SPL readings?
No. RoomScore reports device-relative dBFS in this benchmark snapshot. It is useful for comparing RoomScore scans and trends, but it is not a replacement for a calibrated sound level meter.

Why publish sample counts next to every benchmark?
Sample counts protect trust. RT60 and noise have full coverage in this snapshot, while microphone coverage has fewer records and should be interpreted more cautiously.

Related Guides

• RT60 Targets for Conference Rooms
• Meeting Room Noise Floor
• Audio Coverage Mapping
• Acoustic Assessment Framework
• Conference Room Acoustics Glossary