Hi all,
Apologies if I've missed a related thread, appreciate being directed to any if I have.
My query is, are there recent EU directives/legislation governing the volume level of earphones/buds and/or headphones?. If so, is it rendering these kind devices useless, particularly with IEM applications?
Thanks for any info.
J.
Full Version: Ear device regulations?
Surely as long as the artist is happy with the level, this wouldn't even be a concern anyway?
QUOTE (Ben Langfeld @ 29 Jul 2008, 9:25 PM) 
Surely as long as the artist is happy with the level, this wouldn't even be a concern anyway?
Obviously, but I didn't ask if the artist is happy, my query is based upon the effectiveness and if/how any regulations might affct this. Also, you will find different artist require higher/lower level of monitoring for a variety of reasons. As an example (not a topic for this forum), many people are now complaining that personal MP3 players and such have crippled volume levels in the EU, making these devices practically useless for the intended purpose!
Bands keep using them worldwide, so what regulations are you thinking of?
I think that you've actually missed the point about in-ear systems.
The reality is that in-ear systems (as well as being designed to allow the user to hear their own personal mix) is about ear protection. A top quality, properly fitted in-ear system will shut out all outside noise, so that you can have them set at safe and sensible levels to suit yourself. The best devices also have a limiter fitted so that you don't get huge unexpected peaks if your sound man accidentally hits a wrong fader. Also, no monitors means less feedback issues, so sound men tend to like the idea.
The only real concern expressed by users are that you can feel detached from the crowd. The answer to that is to either use a bud in just one ear, or to have a mic on the audience to pick up some sound from them. My biggest gripe when I tried them was comfort - I simply don't like things shoved in my ears. That said, what I was using wasn't a top level system with a personalised ear mould. The rule with in-ear is to try on approval and buy if it suits you. I was in a band with two girl singers. One loved it: the other couldn't get it off fast enough.
With IEM the guitar cabs don't even to be on stage, so life is easier for the sound man and the stage levels don't have to be crazy. So rather then legislating against the things, which I suspect that the EU aren't, they should be in favour.
I recall that at sometime they expressed concerns about children's hearing and there was talk of reducing / limiting the levels that IPODS could play at, but they aren't designed to with the same use as IEM systems on stage.
Regards
WAL
I think that you've actually missed the point about in-ear systems.
The reality is that in-ear systems (as well as being designed to allow the user to hear their own personal mix) is about ear protection. A top quality, properly fitted in-ear system will shut out all outside noise, so that you can have them set at safe and sensible levels to suit yourself. The best devices also have a limiter fitted so that you don't get huge unexpected peaks if your sound man accidentally hits a wrong fader. Also, no monitors means less feedback issues, so sound men tend to like the idea.
The only real concern expressed by users are that you can feel detached from the crowd. The answer to that is to either use a bud in just one ear, or to have a mic on the audience to pick up some sound from them. My biggest gripe when I tried them was comfort - I simply don't like things shoved in my ears. That said, what I was using wasn't a top level system with a personalised ear mould. The rule with in-ear is to try on approval and buy if it suits you. I was in a band with two girl singers. One loved it: the other couldn't get it off fast enough.
With IEM the guitar cabs don't even to be on stage, so life is easier for the sound man and the stage levels don't have to be crazy. So rather then legislating against the things, which I suspect that the EU aren't, they should be in favour.
I recall that at sometime they expressed concerns about children's hearing and there was talk of reducing / limiting the levels that IPODS could play at, but they aren't designed to with the same use as IEM systems on stage.
Regards
WAL
With respect Wal, I know the function/use of IEM, I also fully appreciate the H&S implications, none of which I want to decry or circumvent in any way.
My query is simply as stated, are there any recent EU directives (I've heard talk that there is) that limit the output of such devices and if so is it detrimental to the function.
If you are agreeing that there may be concerns over Ipod devices etc., then I can't quiet see that the IEM stage situation can be separated… ie one legislation for each application/age group!???
If everyone is saying there is no legislation, that answers my query and I bow to superior knowledge.
My query is simply as stated, are there any recent EU directives (I've heard talk that there is) that limit the output of such devices and if so is it detrimental to the function.
If you are agreeing that there may be concerns over Ipod devices etc., then I can't quiet see that the IEM stage situation can be separated… ie one legislation for each application/age group!???
If everyone is saying there is no legislation, that answers my query and I bow to superior knowledge.
A quick search of the net brought up this:
"iPods sold in Europe cap the volume at 100 decibels; uncapped iPods can reach more than 115 decibels"
This is indeed due to EU legislation. Apple in the US have also started supplying software to cap the volume on American models "for concerned parents". In other words, they are scared stupid about getting sued by someone mad enough to crank up their IPOD loud enough to make their ears bleed. It's not quite like selling crack cocaine to kids outside school gates, but I guess that knowingly giving folks the tools to destroy their hearing is clearly likely to set off some clever lawyer somewhere on a money chase.
Somebody else here can probably tell you whether a reduction from 115 to 110dB in your IEM (which I assume will be covered by the regulations) will make a difference, but I would refer you back to my previous comment, that if the in-ear is properly fitted using a personalised ear mould, which will block out all external sounds, you can safely listen to your IEM at a more than safe level and not have to worry. Obvously, there is no limit on the volume that you can use with a wedge or sidefill, so if you don't think your IEM is loud enough then you an always buy them instead. LOL
Oddly, enough you can find ways to bypass the limits on European 4th generation IPODs, so that's more money wasted by European burocrats legislating. One way of hearing the difference may be to listen to a US IPOD and then a European, but as the owner of a European model, I can confirm that they are plenty loud enough and if you went for the extra volume they would probably distort anyway.
Regards
WAL
"iPods sold in Europe cap the volume at 100 decibels; uncapped iPods can reach more than 115 decibels"
This is indeed due to EU legislation. Apple in the US have also started supplying software to cap the volume on American models "for concerned parents". In other words, they are scared stupid about getting sued by someone mad enough to crank up their IPOD loud enough to make their ears bleed. It's not quite like selling crack cocaine to kids outside school gates, but I guess that knowingly giving folks the tools to destroy their hearing is clearly likely to set off some clever lawyer somewhere on a money chase.
Somebody else here can probably tell you whether a reduction from 115 to 110dB in your IEM (which I assume will be covered by the regulations) will make a difference, but I would refer you back to my previous comment, that if the in-ear is properly fitted using a personalised ear mould, which will block out all external sounds, you can safely listen to your IEM at a more than safe level and not have to worry. Obvously, there is no limit on the volume that you can use with a wedge or sidefill, so if you don't think your IEM is loud enough then you an always buy them instead. LOL
Oddly, enough you can find ways to bypass the limits on European 4th generation IPODs, so that's more money wasted by European burocrats legislating. One way of hearing the difference may be to listen to a US IPOD and then a European, but as the owner of a European model, I can confirm that they are plenty loud enough and if you went for the extra volume they would probably distort anyway.
Regards
WAL
A couple of things....
1) the level of attenuation achieved with a custom ear mould can vary between ~ 20dB and 40dB. This is a worthwhile reduction, and allows the sound of the IEM mix to be heard over the stage sound, but it may not reduce the background noise to a "safe" level. Of course, if all musicians are on IEMs, then the stage level may be pretty quiet, and the external noise level isn't then a problem. IEMs should allow the musician to monitor at relatively lower levels, so a combination of some isolation and (hopefully) lower listening levels should achieve the improvement WAL mentions.
However, if generic buds are being used, the degree of isolation realised can be much less. Also, some bands use a mix of IEM and wedges - leading to potentially high background levels that then require high IEM levels. Furthermore, if the musician wishes to monitor at high levels (whatever else might be going on), there is little to stop him or her doing this. It is considerably easier to achieve high sound pressure levels at the ear drum using a tight fitting efficient earpiece than it is to achieve the same SPL from a stage monitor.
Therefore, there is a risk arising from prolonged use of IEMs at high listening levels.
2) In answer to the OP, if the user is "at work" in this country, then yes, use of earpieces, headphones, IEMs etc. are subject to the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. These have been discussed at some length on these pages. Edit... Of course all noise exposure at work (including playing / working on a stage with loud wedges or mixing FOH) is also subject to these regulations!!The problem is that although it is fairly easy to measure exposure on stage, it is harder to do this for IEMs. The only acceptable measurement would be to use an earpiece fitted to a measurement mannequin, determine the typical output, and then work out the user's exposure over a working day.
Given that an IEM user could listen at an average of 85dB(A) for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week and be within the CONAWR limit, means that these devices are very useful.
If the user wants to listen at higher levels, then the time / intensity trade off means halving the exposure time for every 3dB increase LEP,d.
The CONAW regulations do not state that IEMs must be limited in output. However, they do require that you assess the exposure level and the risk to hearing, and take appropriate action to minimise such exposure and risk. The BBC's approach to this was to fit inline limiters to headphones made available for staff.
Overall, IEMs have the potential to improve monitoring clarity and reduce noise exposure, but like most things in life, they have to be used responsibly.
Simon
1) the level of attenuation achieved with a custom ear mould can vary between ~ 20dB and 40dB. This is a worthwhile reduction, and allows the sound of the IEM mix to be heard over the stage sound, but it may not reduce the background noise to a "safe" level. Of course, if all musicians are on IEMs, then the stage level may be pretty quiet, and the external noise level isn't then a problem. IEMs should allow the musician to monitor at relatively lower levels, so a combination of some isolation and (hopefully) lower listening levels should achieve the improvement WAL mentions.
However, if generic buds are being used, the degree of isolation realised can be much less. Also, some bands use a mix of IEM and wedges - leading to potentially high background levels that then require high IEM levels. Furthermore, if the musician wishes to monitor at high levels (whatever else might be going on), there is little to stop him or her doing this. It is considerably easier to achieve high sound pressure levels at the ear drum using a tight fitting efficient earpiece than it is to achieve the same SPL from a stage monitor.
Therefore, there is a risk arising from prolonged use of IEMs at high listening levels.
2) In answer to the OP, if the user is "at work" in this country, then yes, use of earpieces, headphones, IEMs etc. are subject to the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. These have been discussed at some length on these pages. Edit... Of course all noise exposure at work (including playing / working on a stage with loud wedges or mixing FOH) is also subject to these regulations!!The problem is that although it is fairly easy to measure exposure on stage, it is harder to do this for IEMs. The only acceptable measurement would be to use an earpiece fitted to a measurement mannequin, determine the typical output, and then work out the user's exposure over a working day.
Given that an IEM user could listen at an average of 85dB(A) for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week and be within the CONAWR limit, means that these devices are very useful.
If the user wants to listen at higher levels, then the time / intensity trade off means halving the exposure time for every 3dB increase LEP,d.
The CONAW regulations do not state that IEMs must be limited in output. However, they do require that you assess the exposure level and the risk to hearing, and take appropriate action to minimise such exposure and risk. The BBC's approach to this was to fit inline limiters to headphones made available for staff.
Overall, IEMs have the potential to improve monitoring clarity and reduce noise exposure, but like most things in life, they have to be used responsibly.
Simon
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.