Simon Lewis

I'll send you contact details for my colleague who can do this...

- Use a waterproof coating? - perhaps bitumous type paint? - Seal in a watertight cover? - such as a plaster cast protector - Consider whether an alternative waterproof antenna might be suitable? I'm aware that there are (e.g.) waterproof GPS antenna for marine use but couldn't say if their wide bandwidth woudl be an issue for you....

A little pedantry here... unless you are referring the pieces (mainly) by Purcell and Beethoven from Kubrick's Clockwork Orange film, I suspect you meant Castle Groups' Electronic Orange Entertainment Noise Controller, rather than Formula Sounds' Sentry Noise Controller device ?

Just make sure you sell your persona, not yourself.... :-) Lorraine Kelly tax judgement

Anyone gearing up to meet HMRC's new mandatory requirement to file VAT online directly from a compatible software package? If so, what approach are you taking? If not, sorry if this comes as a surprise! HMRC 'making tax digital'

The major "good" concert halls (e.g. in the lists such as derived by Beranek, Cox etc.) tend to have RT60 in the 1.8s to 2.2s band, and many manage to maintain this reasonably well, occupied or unoccupied. Loudness (expressed as Gmid = Hall spl - Free field spl at 10m for an average of 500Hz and 1kHz bands) does vary by hall (see below). Of course, not every venue is a world class hall with controlled acoustics.... In the cases discussed here, the problem is more to do with musicians in an orchestra pit where there are issues of limited space and proximity. Fixing that problem is what GridGirl is describing in her post and what the appellant seems not to have done Concert Hall G(mid) (dB) Amsterdam, Concertgebouw 6.0 Boston, Symphony Hall 4.7 Vienna, Gr. Musikvereinssaal 7.0 Basel, Stadt-Casino 7.5 Berlin, Konzerthaus 6.0 Cardiff, Wales, St. David's Hall 3.8 New York, Carnegie Hall --- Tokyo, Hamarikyu Asahi 9.3 Zurich, Großer Tonhallesaal 8.0

The August 2007 copy of HSE's Mythbusters provides some interesting reading... including these two salient sections: edit... And just to cap it all, the Association of British Orchestras published this work - " THE CONTROL OF NOISE AT WORK REGULATIONS 2005 AND THEIR IMPACT ON ORCHESTRAS" in February 2008. For an institution to turn round years later an say that those regulations simply do not apply to them, because "this is art" ignores the law and the industry guidance that was written to address this very issue.

Excellent - thank you!

Hence the reason why so many stakeholders share an interest in this case and its appeal. Claims for industrial hearing loss is Big Business, with individuals seeking compensation for occurrences after 1963 (the date of guilty knowledge) and Jan 1990 and April 2006 when Noise at Work and Control of Noise at Work respectively became law. If a business cannot prove that it took reasonable steps to protect hearing and there is reasonable evidence that noise induced hearing loss has occurred, the claimant may have a successful case. CONAWR 2005 does not differentiate between noise and music, but goes out of its way to include music. There were cries of "the end of orchestras as we know them" in the press in 2008, but that went quiet when either the orchestra found ways to mitigate risk or just paid lip service to the new regs. Now that a decision in music has gone pretty much as would be expected under CONAWR, the law will be seen to be impotent if not applied. If the appeal wins, I suspect it will be on only a related matter or on a fine distinction in interpretation of one point....

GridGirl, Your feedback and detail on how you manage noise exposure in such a demanding professional environment is not only inspirational and a great example of good practice, but also provides a wonderful case study... I hope you won't mind if I quote your work in one or two lectures on venue acoustics and noise exposure control ? :-) Simon Lewis

That article is pretty good - and substantiates GridGirl's assertion that in partially assuaging one problem, it exacerbates another. The shields by and large do not absorb sound, they redirect, and the relatively small size means that for them to be effective at the receiver, they must be positioned within a few inches of the receiver's ear. The reflected noise is heard by the sound producer. For a screen to offer some level of noise reduction, it would need to be of suitable size and most likely opaque from sound absorbing material / cloth cover etc. which would disrupt sight lines. I would not want to try and second guess the outcome of the overall legal process, but the argument that a concert has to be of a certain sound pressure level because of its artistic merit does appear somewhat specious. It has been used before (a judge dealing with an environmental noise complaint, said that the outdoor opera "would only be as loud as it needed to be". His remarks were met with some bemusement by those who wondered what the outcome would have been, were it an outdoor electronic dance music event. Specifically, I would like to hear the legal argument in the context of the following parts of CONAWR 2005: Employers must ensure that risk from the exposure of his employees to noise is either eliminated at source or, where this is not reasonably practicable, reduced to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.If any employee is likely to be exposed to noise at or above an upper exposure action value, the employer must reduce exposure to as low a level as is reasonably practicable by establishing and implementing a programme of organisational and technical measures, excluding the provision of personal hearing protectors, which is appropriate to the activity. (a) other working methods which reduce exposure to noise; (b) choice of appropriate work equipment emitting the least possible noise, taking account of the work to be done; © the design and layout of workplaces, work stations and rest facilities; (d) suitable and sufficient information and training for employees, such that work equipment may be used correctly, in order to minimise their exposure to noise; (e) reduction of noise by technical means; (f) appropriate maintenance programmes for work equipment, the workplace and workplace systems; (g) limitation of the duration and intensity of exposure to noise; and (h) appropriate work schedules with adequate rest periods.The provision of hearing protectors is a last resort, to be used where the preferred methods of reducing noise exposures are not reasonably practicable. Hearing protection zones must be marked and employees must wear the protection provided when in the zones.The exposure limit values (87 dB(A) LEP,d or 87 dB(A) LEP,w ; 140 dB© LCpeak ) must never be exceeded. If a limit value is exceeded the employer must identify the reason and take steps to ensure that it cannot happen again.If the risk assessment indicates that there is a risk to the health of his employees who are, or are liable to be, exposed to noise, the employer shall ensure that such employees are placed under suitable health surveillance, which shall include testing of their hearing.(as part of the explanatory note to the Regulations) The Regulations provide for transitional periods for the commencement of their operation as follows — (a) for the music and entertainment sectors only they shall not come into force until 6th April 2008 and the provisions listed for amendment and revocation in regulation 15 and Schedule 3 shall remain in force unaltered until that date (regulations 1(a) and 15(3)); (sections in bold = my emphasis)The judge noted that " the ROH showed failure to undertake any monitoring of noise levels in the cramped orchestra pit with a new orchestral configuration which had been chosen for artistic reasons". whilst the ROH claims that, "the music peaked at a volume well below that specified under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005". The fact that the music and entertainment sectors were deliberately and explicitly included in the 2005 regulations is rather telling, and somewhat confronts the "noise vs music" argument.

... one of the very good reasons why companies should carry out a baseline audiometric test when new employees start. It's not unheard of for workers to try and claim compensation for industrial noise induced hearing loss, when they've engaged in hobby based clay pigeon shooting without ear protection.

Also watching with considerable interest... Accepting a defence that ‘the noise produced by the professional orchestra is not a by-product of its activities, it is the product’ and therefore has to be that loud for artistic reasons is likely to throw up a host of complications. By and large, neither the human ear nor the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 differentiate between wanted and unwanted sound...

Gov.uk helpfully state you'll need to : advertise your application for a licence advertise your proposed operating centre(s) (designate a transport manager if you’re applying for a standard licence) provide information about your financial situation draw up a maintenance contract with a garage or agent to do safety inspections and repair vehicles if you don’t do this yourself (or get proof that the hire co will do this) You don't need a transport manager for a restricted licence but you do still need to know current regulations and legislation and carry out any required audits, training etc... If the driver is carrying out other duties, beware of the situation that Tom highlights. If the driver is a 'professional driver' they'll need Driver CPC. The exemption is, "carrying material or equipment to be used by the driver in the course of his or her work, provided that driving the vehicle is not the driver's principal activity" The restricted licence limits you to carrying your own goods but not other people's. Be careful how you describe hired in or third party equipment... You'll probably need proof (via the hire company) that the truck is subject to a maintenance/service schedule and that the facilities/resources to do this are in place. You'll still need to meet operating centre requirements... and the Police, Council, Joe Public etc. can make representations

The key thing there though, was that the original NAW 1989 regs applied to music, and continued to do so up to 2008.... :-)

unlike some German radio receivers which put out +18dBu straight out of the box... :-)

I think that there was also a slide on wire pop shield available for the CK1 capsule? If not, the one I have in the mic junk drawer is a fortuitous fit for the CK1!

But if you had never changed from the original Powercon... ;-)

Pete, Lots of stuff online - look for Control of Noise from Licenced Premises / Pubs and Clubs / Control of Entertainment Noise / Control of Noise from Outdoor Events etc. Most councils have a guidance page. Environmental Noise is covered by a number of regulations, there's a list here. A lot still hinges on EPA1990. With the licencing procedures now in place, these can actually work in your favour. If a time and event LEq limit is agreed, set and adhered to, then the council may be "less sensitive" to noise nuisance complaints as they have allowed you to run at that level. Exceed it, and you will be asked to turn down or stop, and possibly jeopardise future events... Simon These are the words that they will want to see.... planned mitigation, with prediction and monitoring... Hopefully you have an SLM that will measure L(A)eq? If not, look for a suitable integrating meter (I like the NTI XL2) or if you have an iDevice, consider the Studio Six Digital software, preferably with a proper mic / preamp. Failing that, Smaart with an external mic and a calibrator is good...

The Music Noise Level at the nearest noise sensitive dwelling is 65dB LAeq(15min). As the 1995 guidance suggests, it's meant to be measured in the relative absence of background noise, or at least a correction made for it. Gareth - thanks for your wise comments. I'm not advocating calling out the "less experienced" EHOs, but just being aware that some may default to more predictable positions ;-) I do sometimes wish that slightly more emphasis was placed on electroacoustics in the IoA diploma. There used to be a "sound systems" module many years back, but sadly it was dropped. We discussed noise control at some length at the Reproduced Sound conference in 2015, and a telling fact from one of the SSE guys was that 90% of the effort they spend in planning for festivals is the noise control aspect.

The guidance is from 1995 but is still used because not so much has really taken its place. However, it's designed to help control noise from concerts held in stadiums or football grounds, and arose after their popularity spread in the 1980s. The idea is a good and simple one - the noise level at (2m from the facade of) the nearest noise sensitive dwelling from the stadium should not exceed the stated value. The level is lower if the numerical frequency of such concerts is higher or if the venue is sited in a more urban location. It was designed to let major gigs take place at such venues without them being completely overpowering and giving rise to multiple complaints. In this case, it seems as if the code may be being applied somewhat incorrectly. It's also worth noting that " First published in 1995, the code does not take account of the Licensing Act 2003 and, until it is possible to up-date it, it should only be used with caution. ". Have a look at the guidance that the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services produce. Work out what the likely attenuation will be from your stage to the measurement points. Consider what mitigation can be achieved in terms of reducing stage level and bleed from PA (directivity of main PA and subs etc.) Noise control is a fact of life, but I suspect that if the levels for this event have not been set sensibly, you will need some outside help to negotiate. Do bear in mind though, the original guidance is not discussing 65dB LEq at mix position.

Has the council quoted this figure directly to you, or has it come via the festival organiser? I would want to know at what point noise would be measured, the weighting and time period for Leq (which they must surely be using!). If the council is not well versed in this, it's conceivable that they are (badly) quoting from the now defunct Noise Council's guidelines for music from open air events in urban areas. Here's the document If they really do not know what they are doing, then one of the acoustic consultancies specialising in batting for festivals may be worth contacting (Vanguardia is probably the best known).

Ofcom say that in addition to the VHF licence exempt range which runs from 173.700-175.10 MHz there is "UK wide shared access to 15 spot frequencies in the range 175.250 to 209.800 MHz internally or externally and licensed on a non-protected basis for one year only"...

Dave, I searched for "loudspeaker impedance vs frequency" in Google images until I found one that was usable and could be linked to. The page it is from is here.

Technically (and pedantically) 'volume' or loudness is better expressed in Phons. However, 'volume' does pyschoacoustically relate to sound amplitude, spectral content and duration.... Sound Pressure Level is used because it does a reasonable job of correlating with what we hear and because it is fairly easy to measure. <pedant mode off> :-)