april 2008 new sound regs

[mostlyharmless]

The bit that causes the adrenaline rush is low frequencys, over a certain volume. (I can't remember the exact levels, but you can look them up). Its these addrenaline rushes people go to nightclubs for.

And you need to keep the top end loud to make it sound right.

[Simon Lewis]

I gather that the sound level on the main stage at Glastonbury was turned right down this year for around 5 minutes, following complaints from neighbours. However this did not reduce the overall volume of noise( so it was not the cause of the complaints ) and the organisers had to raise the volume back up to what it was to avert a riot... Yes the punters have got used to a certain level of noise and will settle for nothing less.

 

Almost...

 

The company who act as consultants and monitor the off site noise level recorded readings over the agreed limit at a nearby dwelling. The prevailing weather conditions gave rise to a temperature inversion, which meant that sound from the site carried much further than usual. They requested the main stage level be lowered, (although other stages were making a significant contribution too) but the sound level was reinstated when crowd complaints rose. However, this isn't directly a noise at work issue, more of an environmental impact problem.

[Rob_Beech]

The bit that causes the adrenaline rush is low frequencys, over a certain volume. (I can't remember the exact levels, but you can look them up). Its these addrenaline rushes people go to nightclubs for.

And you need to keep the top end loud to make it sound right.

 

True, though there is alot to be said for extending LF response to create a more linear pattern to a lower frequency, this means that the higher frequencies (the ons that tend to do more damage where our ears are more senstivie) don't have to be pushed quite as hard.

 

Poor response from speakers can cause alsorts of problems, they are often more sensitve at the frequencies that our ears are more sensitive, this by default makes them sound alot louder where as what it really does is makes them sound rather poor. I believe that a more linear system is better on the hearing at a given spl than a non linear one, The effects of frequency selective hearing loss seem to agree with this. I find it incredibly difficult to listen to a system that is in no way linear (ie nothing above 8kHz, nothing below 120Hz and a mass of pure disturbance between 1kHz and 3kHz at any level be it 105dB 85dB or 60dB.

[niclights]

Two points:

1) If the bar staff are wearing hearing protection, how loud will I have to shout to order a drink? Surely that's going to give me laryngitis? Can I claim for that?

 

I usually find that in a noisy environment I can hear people talking to me better when wearing earplugs (ever the cheap disposable ones) than without.

 

Indeed. Still I try to convince the bar staff of this!

 

2) Imagine the situation in court: "I suffered hearing damage due to excessive noise levels in bars/clubs. The owners clearly knew the levels were excessive because they insisted that all their staff wear hearing protection. As they did not insist on the punters wearing hearing protection they were clearly failing in their duty of care to their clients. I therefore claim damages against the owners."

 

There is nothing to stop you using protection if you want to when you go to a gig. I often do. I have worked also at gigs where earplugs have been made available to the audience. Take up has been about 1 - 2%, and most of them have been in the upper age range of those attending.

 

Exactly - make earplugs available. Something we have done for a very long time although similarly very few ever ask for them and they are usually, er, more mature. And regarding the insistence that staff wear, surely the reason is about exposure time?

[pisquee]

The regs protect workers - i.e. people exposed to the noise not necessarily through choice but because it is their job, ad because it is their job are likely to be exposed to it on a regular basis.

 

On the other hand, the public choose to go to these type of events/venues, and are free to wander in and out as they please. Decent venues will have appropriate warning signs up and have hearing protection available. Also average joe public will on average not be exposed to as much noise/time as someone working in the venue everyday.

[J Pearce]

The following is not my views, but I could see this being put forward if a test case ever came to court.

 

Even if the public choose to be there we owe them a duty of care, and as such should not expose them to dangerous SPLs. Do we say that our rigging can be sloppy and dangerous and that the public choose to stand under our truss and if they are worried about falling shackle pins etc they should bring hard hats?

PPE should be a last resort, and if the area contains a hazard that warrants PPE should the general public be allowed into such an area.

 

Again, not my views, but I could see that view being put forward.

[Jivemaster]

The problem seems to be that the paying public demand the familiar sound level so that anyone offering "Bleeding Ears" rock band at 83dB will not be in a commercial position for long. And "Ear Splitting loud'n disco" is now quieter that Victor Silvester!

[Just Some Bloke]

The following is not my views, but I could see this being put forward if a test case ever came to court.

 

Even if the public choose to be there we owe them a duty of care, and as such should not expose them to dangerous SPLs. Do we say that our rigging can be sloppy and dangerous and that the public choose to stand under our truss and if they are worried about falling shackle pins etc they should bring hard hats?

PPE should be a last resort, and if the area contains a hazard that warrants PPE should the general public be allowed into such an area.

 

Again, not my views, but I could see that view being put forward.

 

Exactly the point I was making earlier. Ignore this specific law for a moment. If we force our staff to wear PPE because of a known H&S problem then why do we allow the public to be subjected to the same H&S problem? As you say, if the known problem was something falling on a building site, then we'd make the public wear a hard hat to access the site. If the known problem is that prolonged exposure to high SPLs (and, allegedly, less than an hour can count as prolonged exposure) then why allow the public to damage their hearing?

 

I'm not saying I think we should close all clubs or anything, I'm just wondering how you could defend the status quo in court.

[Big Dave]

I have posted about this before on here somewhere - I can't remember the exact details, but a year or so ago a punter successfully sued the promoter of a concert in Germany for the damage caused to their hearing.

 

Edit: Found it, it was a Bon Jovi Gig in 2005.

[mostlyharmless]

How about orchestras?

Does anyone have any figures on what they produce SPL wise in the front row?

 

I can imagine having to put up perspex screens, then mic everything so that the level can be sensibly controlled to 80dB in the future :)

[paulears]

Have a read here. Some useful stuff also here. when this topic aired before.

[Simon Lewis]

..... If we force our staff to wear PPE because of a known H&S problem then why do we allow the public to be subjected to the same H&S problem? ....

 

Because the new limits are based on noise exposure for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for a worker's lifetime, not 30 minutes at Disco Dave's party. Now, if the punter regularly goes to the party, and Disco Dave runs his wheels of steel at a level which equates to the noise dose for 1 week, then the punter may end up with hearing loss. If he sticks to the levels recommended in the Purple Book (event Leq of 107dB(A) etc.) then the risk to the public is managed.

 

Simon

[Mr.Si]

Mostlyharmless, that 80dB is an 80dB Leq over an 8 hour period. I don't think an orchestra will be playing straight for 8 hours, unless it's a practice. (I could be wrong)

 

So everyone, just a quick one about exposure time, for those who do not know. The figures below are valid for both the LEPd and the LEPw (daily and weekly exposures). These Figures, I should add, are with regard to the employees/staff only)

 

Lower Action Value

 

80dB over a period of 8 hours

83dB over a period of 4 hours

86dB over a period of 2 hours

89dB over a period of 1 hour

92dB over a period of 30 mins

95dB over a period of 15 mins

 

 

Upper Action Value

 

85dB over a period of 8 hours

88dB over a period of 4 hours

91dB over a period of 2 hours

94dB over a period of 1 hour

97dB over a period of 30 mins

100dB over a period of 15 mins

 

 

Upper Exposure Limit - any more noise exposure for the employee in the work place is not acceptable

 

87dB over a period of 8 hours

90dB over a period of 4 hours

93dB over a period of 2 hours

96dB over a period of 1 hour

99dB over a period of 30 mins

102dB over a period of 15 mins

 

Hope it puts things more into perspective.

 

With Regard to Clubs, as in bars with a dance floor etc, I can see "Sound Ceilings" becoming a very profitable industry to work in for a while. They're very effective at keeping the sound much more contained to the dance floor area and away from the bar / where the staff are.

 

Si

[mostlyharmless]

Mostlyharmless, that 80dB is an 80dB Leq over an 8 hour period. I don't think an orchestra will be playing straight for 8 hours, unless it's a practice. (I could be wrong)

As someon said earlier. The only you can ensure a punter has not been exposed to that much, is to keep the level low. As they could have been in any noisy enviroment for the rest of the week.

 

There is also a level where the hearing damage is perminant straight away, and its lower than you think.

 

I expect the safest thing to do though, would be to have an interval in most gigs. This would allow your ears to recover, and might help save a lot of peoples hearing.

[Andrew Edwards]

The only you can ensure a punter has not been exposed to that much, is to keep the level low. As they could have been in any noisy enviroment for the rest of the week.

 

Although morally the right thing to do, that is not our responsibility. I'm sorry I am afraid I cannot serve you tonight sir, as I believe you have already been out and got mullered every night this week already.

 

Maybe loud places should have a health warning slapped on he side of the building which will get bigger and bigger as attitudes towards it change.

 

From

 

'Loud noises can damage your ears'

 

to

 

'Warning do not enter this building if you have already been exposed to high SPL for more than 3 hrs in the past week (ps may also cause impotency'

 

How on earth to we prove/police it anyway. They only way I see is for the punters to sign a legally binding waiver.

 

Perhaps we could build special heated shelters for the High SPL addicts to go into for a few minutes to get their fix.

 

Sorry, got carried away...

 

"There is also a level where the hearing damage is perminant straight away, and its lower than you think. "

 

In terms of very loud transients it is all relative anyway. If you are in almost silence and some only single clapped as hard as they could, you would know it all right. As the ear's natural compressor cannot react quickly enough. Fire a starter pistol just before the clap and the clap would seem insignificant. Psychoacoustics.

 

oh yes and the interval would have to be hours rather than minutes to be effective.