Subject: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 01:54 AM This one is for the techies!!! I'm still laughing - and crying - crying that we have this sort of person as an elected member of Government... I have lodged a complaint about the excess level of noise from a certain musical event. I discovered that the legislation refers to all noise - no matter what source is to be measured on the "A" frequency weighting network - even though this cuts off massive amount of Bass and middle and 'Music' should really be measured on the "C" frequency weighting network... I have just received the following delightful paragraph in a letter from the Minister for Environment & Multiculturalism Quote Mr Hayes has suggested that the "A" frequency weighting network as prescribed in the Environmental Protection Regulation Regulation 1998 and Queensland Environment Protection Agency - Noise Measurement manual for the measurement and control of environmental noise is inappropriate for measurement of music that is performed in a C scale. However the "A" weighting network is applied across the entire spectrum of audible frequencies and should not be mistaken as having any relationship to a musical scale. Unquote ROFL... Now, I don't have an engineering degree (even thought I DO know EXACTLY what I am talking about with regard to this!), so who can help me make them understand?.... :-) Some lawyers who have experience internationally wouldn't go astray either.... :-) As a free-lance journalist - what with an election coming up soon, I can see that I am going to have some fun with this... |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 08:22 AM I'm serious about this - I'm looking for an Audio Engineer, or even a Physisicist to assist me... |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: Peace Date: 14 May 07 - 09:32 AM Try showing them with wavelength. |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: Willie-O Date: 14 May 07 - 12:34 PM More evidence that The Day The Bass Players Took Over The World has already occurred. Just as before, no one notices the bass players running everything. W-O |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: Amos Date: 14 May 07 - 01:35 PM You might want to suggest that the frequency has NOTHING to do with the problem; the problem is one of DECIBELS, which are scaled orders of magnitude of INTENSITY in watts/meter^2. In other words, you don't care very much WHAT notes they play, as long as they don't play them above xxx decibels...I would suggest 65. Threshold of Hearing 0 dB Rustling Leaves 10 dB Whisper 20 dB Normal Conversation 60 dB Busy Street Traffic 70 dB Vacuum Cleaner 80 dB Large Orchestra 98 dB Walkman at Maximum Level 100 dB Front Rows of Rock Concert 110 dB Threshold of Pain 130 dB Military Jet Takeoff 140 dB A |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: JohnInKansas Date: 14 May 07 - 05:24 PM The problem Foolestroupe is fighting is that the dBA scale discounts low frequencies strongly, so that compared to the dBC scale a sound at 200 Hz has to be 12 dB louder on the dBA than on the "real sound level" dbC scale in order to be considered "obnoxious" under an ordinance that merely states a "decibel level." 12 dB = 16 times the power, if my mental arithmetic is functioning1. At 100 Hz, the difference is 20 dB, or ~44 times as "loud" to be a violation. (For those who need a refresher, see the curves at the bottom of Frequency Weighting Equations.mht.) Depending on on where the offense occurs, one Australian Live Music2 limit allows 35 to 50 dBA for live music "after hours." For a 100 Hz sound to register 35 dB on the dBA scale, it has to be at ~55 dB on the dBC scale, which measures actual acoustic power. The "rolloff" in the dBA is supposed to accomodate the lessened damage to hearing by lower frequency continuous sounds, but a 50 dBA sound at 100 Hz will make the coffee in your cup ripple, and may kill the head on your ale. If it's "rhythmic" it can be incredibly annoying. 1 As I'm only on my fourth cup of coffee, my mental arithmetic may not be fully functional today so I take no responsibility for calculated values. 2 For reason cited immed. preceding, I think this is an Australian thing but it could be from Austria or Aukland for all I know at this time. John |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: Bill D Date: 14 May 07 - 06:06 PM sit the Minister for Environment & Multiculturalism in a room, start the music, turn up the volume, and tell him to tell YOU when it hurts, then show him the scale. |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 07:43 PM Thanks JiK That's EXACTLY the line I want to take - you have given me a brief start - but even though I have read everything relating I could find in Wikipedia1 there was nothing appropriately specific enough. I'm dealing with Queensland legislation here John. I have a piece of paper with the words... I'll search for a link when I get a ROUND TUIT... The result of mixing multiple tones (it's called "music"!2) also has an effect not taken into account with the design of the dB(A) scale.... Some 'expert' quoted this on a local forum This from the University of NSW, Physics Department. The filters used for dBA and dBC The most widely used sound level filter is the A scale, which roughly corresponds to the inverse of the 40 dB (at 1 kHz) equal-loudness curve. Using this filter, the sound level meter is thus less sensitive to very high and very low frequencies. Measurements made on this scale are expressed as dBA. The C scale is practically linear over several octaves and is thus suitable for subjective measurements only for very high sound levels. Measurements made on this scale are expressed as dBC. (snip) They say the "C" weighting scale is only good for "subjective measurements only for very high sound levels". In Queensland, the acceptable level for most licensed venues is 82 dBA at the nearest residence likely to be effected. Hardly what you'd call a high sound level. To which I responded... "only for very high sound levels" While most audio engineers are familiar with the A-weighting curve, which is said to reflect the 'equal-loudness contours' derived initially by Fletcher and Munson (1933) and later Robinson and Dadson (1956), few seem to realise that these curves relate only to the subjective loudness of pure tones, not noise. Furthermore, recent experimental work casts doubt on their accuracy. Nevertheless, it will be noted that A-weighting would be a better match to the loudness curve if it fell much more steeply above 10 kHz (and thus gave more relative emphasis to the lower frequencies), and it can be assumed that a better match was not aimed for originally because steep filters were more difficult to construct in the early days of electronics. Topology also can amplify the perceived level off the premises, including reinforcinment due to reflection and echos. Also lower frequencies carry further - and 'rock music' has the lower frequencies boosted massively, which the A scale is highly inefficient at capturing. This factoring - the A scale to put it simply - is not relevant when the bass frequencies are massively artifically boosted. 'Music' as played comprises many simultaeneous tones, and also much percussive energy with amplified drum beats too. At one stage before calling The Mayor personally on her mobile, I measured an amplified drum solo at over 90 Db(C) several hundred meters off the premises, and in an area shielded by houses and trees. While people are considerably more sensitive to noise in the region of 6 kHz than they are to tones of equivalent level the music pumped out at 'rock music festivals' tends to have massive bass boosting - which is clearly shown by Mr Pidgeon telling me on the mobile that he was reading nearer the 60Db level at the source on the A scale, while several hundred meters away levels in excess of 90 Db werere read on the C scale. This means that since there is an expected increase in sound level with increasing proximity, the sound level could clearly be well in excess of 100 dB (C) at the source - last year I received information that some stall holders on site had headaches and temporary deafness - irrespective of what the meter was reading on tee dB (A) scale! The A scale discards massive amounts of the bass boost! Levels of 90 Db (C) and 60 dB (A) were noted under the streetlight next to the Olive 'Peace Tree' in East Creek Park - a few hundred meters off the premises. Similar levels were also recorded between houses several hundred meters from the source which should have shielded the noise - but because of the massive boost given to bass frequencies, and the massive wattage of amplification used, there was no attenuation with distance - something that is to be expected with low and ultra low frequencies. Levels approaching the 90 dB level were also noted at the far south end of East Creek Park - a considerable distance further - no noticeable dropoff in level was noted over that distance, which makes me believe that the topology has an efect. So wanted now are 1) more (professional references would be good!) along the line John has already taken 2) anything specific that shows the relative difference between dB(A) and db(C) especially with 'rock music' which has massive bass boosting 'so you can feel it in your chest' "Come feel the noise" - Slade!!! 3) any research that shows that massive bass levels actually cause medical or mental problems (Wiki has not much in teh way of citations) 4) anything that refers to just what sort of 'sound distribution' is used by US authourities when the blast people with high levels of 'music' to 'torture' them into submitting when a 'seige' is on - how much bas boost is used, etc Bill, she is unfortunately well known for that sort of clanger in the past... 1 and thus am now an instant expert .... :-P 2 Wiki 'Noise Music' for elucidation.... ;-) |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 08:01 PM "The "rolloff" in the dBA is supposed to accommodate the lessened damage to hearing by lower frequency continuous sounds, but a 50 dBA sound at 100 Hz will make the coffee in your cup ripple, and may kill the head on your ale. If it's "rhythmic" it can be incredibly annoying." John, I'd like to be able to use that... :-) it would be even more useful if such a statement were made by someone quoting alphabet soup after their name... :-) PM me (or anybody else who wants to help this way!) so I can use a real world name - if that's ok with you... "annoying"!!!! This particular festival goes on for several days over the Easter Weekend Holiday period. Inside!!!!! a 100 year old standard sort of Queenslander - wood frame, weather board clad, lined house corrugated iron roof (unusually with ceiling insulation!)with all doors and windows shut at several hundred meters distance and shielded by other houses and trees - I have observed objects like VHS cassettes 'dance' on shelves, pictures fall off the nails on the walls, and feelings in my body cavities (chest, you fools!!!!!) of panic attack or heart attack! at less than 70 dB(C) observed - level were at least 5 dB(C) higher outside the house. |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 08:07 PM "at less than 70 dB(C) observed" obviously the house fabric (material from which it is constructed) is providing high frequency filtering... an appropriate citation of research would be useful... |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: Amos Date: 14 May 07 - 08:11 PM Well, by Gawd, thank you JiK and Foulestroupe for adding to my small store of wisdom about the physical world. I must have missed class that day. Appreciate the lesson! A |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 08:35 PM "JiK and Foulestroupe" "Foulestroupe"!!!! "Foulestroupe"!!!! Look mate - just like when elephants start to mate, when geniuses start to argue, stand well back eh? ;-) |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: Peace Date: 14 May 07 - 08:43 PM Mating elephants is lots like most decision-making in people's jobs. 1) Decisions are made at a high level. 2) They are made with a great deal of roaring and screaming. 3) It takes two years to get results. |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 08:51 PM And that Peace, is exactly what I am expecting to have to go through with this attempt to get the legislation amended... sigh! |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: JohnInKansas Date: 14 May 07 - 09:13 PM DocumentFile,34430,en.ppt from Solicitors/Univ College Cork may have something(?) Since it's a Power Point document, it's all bullets with little information; but it does appear to cite some regulations that might be applicable, or might be similar to applicable ones in your area. If you don't have Power Point, you should be able to download the PowerPoint97 Viewer to take a look at it. If this particular document requires a later version check the left sidebar for something appropriate. The "authoritative specs" in the US are in ANSI Standards S1.4-1983 and S1.42-2001, and my recollection is that they discussed theory and logic(?) for the standards; but I don't have copies and don't know a way to get them except by purchase from ANSI. The "see the curves" page I linked above has a link to ANSI, but it goes just to a "click to purchase" button. Libraries may have copies. Some past experience with UK and Aussie people indicates that ANSI specs are generally accepted, but I was dealing with engineers and not politicians. My searches, which may go to a different Google server than yours, seem to imply that the UK and AU are "leaders" in sound exposure regulations, but unfortunately my results are much like yours -- vague and vacuous rules with no useful content. John |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 11:10 PM Thanks John, that's a very useful start. Will have to share a beer with you one day - long as we don't try to pour them during the "Gospel 'Industrial Noise' Festival"... since I can't currently bring my self to call it the "Gospel 'Music' Festival" due to the scientific technical niceties... :-) By the way, when measuring the levels next to the 'Peace Tree', I learnt something new - I hadn't previously realised that "Gospel Music" could include a rock band (with amplified drum solos!) heard far away at 90 dB(C)+ with a female 'singer' "Orgasming for Christ".... :-) You just had to be there, really... When I have progressed further with a basic draft layout of a document that covers the whole area, I will post it here for any further useful comments - anybody can comment - those who do not feel they have the technical background can still comment on the logical order of the layout of the bullet points, for instance! When I get a ROUND TUIT... Don't mean to insult people, but while a sense of humour is fine, this subject needs some real 'scientific meat' to use as ammo, otherwise we are all (including the politicians) just going to waste everybody's time going endlessly round in useless circles. This discussion may be useful for others in other countries, which is why I did it this way instead of a PM direct to JiK... :-) ANSI is fairly well accepted in Australia - we used to have all sorts of separate "Australian Standards" years ago, when we thought we were a big fish, but these days an "International approach" is seen as sensible by most intelligent Australians - we just don't have the resources to do everything on our own. Often used to waste incredible amounts of resources due to differences... |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 11:45 PM Amos - thanks - I reasonably assume that the figures you quote are in strict dB(A) ratings... (refer John & me discussing the dB(A) vs dB(C) and other low frequency discrepancies). BTW, - I am also looking for a strong (web) citation for such a similar table which I can use. ~~~~~~~~~~~ On that other forum I also got a response according to our dB sheet we got in [Aus] music industry, 120dB is the average sound for a plugged in rock band to get to. and it would maybe also be 82 dB as that level of sound can cause hearing damage after eight hours. and that's a pretty lengthy space of time. Interesting points of view - especially if in dB(A)- 120 dB(A) is bloody painful... and medically dangerous... note the word "average"... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For those who - unlike JiK - have not yet grasped the precise point I am working on - the whole basic argument about modifying the legislation rests on the very large (20 - 30 dB SPL) discrepancies from the dB(A) scale which appears to be scientifically inappropriately misused in much world legislation to deal with 'Music' which has at least a 'flat frequency response' vs a 'bass cut shaped frequency response' based upon certain ancient research which I am in the process of demonstrating is not appropriate for 'rock music' with much low and middle frequency boosting blasted at high volumes - with hundreds, if not thousands of watts RMS. An unexpected but very important spin off is the "doof-doof" boys with their high powered hundreds of watts RMS per channel car amps, and also home sound systems with hundreds of watts RMS per channel, including dedicated 'sub-woofer' channels with hundreds of watts RMS. These beasties can be heard for extremely long distances. Their occurrence and potential public annoyance is expected to increase in the future. If anything, some sort of 'inverted A' type scale which compensates for the massive amounts of low frequency boosting over 'unprocessed natural sound' seems appropriate, but that would require even more 'trampling of elephants' by large slow moving bodies such as the IEEE. I am, unfortunately talking "cutting edge" scientific thinking... John - background downloading the PP 2003 & 2007 viewers now... |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 May 07 - 11:56 PM BTW, as a matter of comparative interest, on the very same site used for this several day long 'festival', I have personally witnessed a group of a dozen - 20 black powder enthusiasts performing the 'standing', 'advancing', and 'retreating' 3 rank firing drills - nice and noisy, but totally unable to be heard any distance off site! When I say this 'festival' is 'loud' I mean 'bloody loud'! ... and goes many hours a day for days - including 'technical warm ups'... |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: JohnInKansas Date: 15 May 07 - 12:09 AM Mullins Letter Alaska Legislation appears to be a consultant's comments on pending Alaskan noise regulations. It's a pdf, so right click and Save Target As for a permanent copy. There is some discussion of "philosophy of noise regulating" although it's pretty brief. The writer cites some other "typical regulations" which might be useful, although thus far I havent' found any of them to be easily accessible. Note that the signature is by a "PE" meaning licensed "Professional Engineer." This means the author is qualified to screw individual clients by charging them lots of money, and probably meanst that he's a qualified - or could be easily qualified - as a courtroom expert witness. The "opinion" may have been requested by someone representing the State of Alaska, suggesting that he, or his firm, were hired by Alaska to review public comments on the proposed ordinance, although I haven't found any background to put it firmly in that context. They could just be a "citizen comment" (paid for by an unknown interested party?). John |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 May 07 - 12:24 AM Thanks John - there's 2 ways to run this - 1. Throw lots of money at it. Those with a vested interest in the 'Music Industry' will not want to turn the volume knob down (after all they are only supplying what 'the yobbo public' apparently want - to be deafened!), so they will see funding any opposition to this course as just a good 'business investment' anyway... 2. Create a strong scientific based case worded simply so that the average non-technical public can grasp it easily and apply political pressure. Number 2 takes much longer, but actually is far more effective in the long term, and unless I win a big casket prize of several millions (low odds of that!) - it will be far more fun to play it the cheap way... and many more others can play too... I actually personally know quite a lot of 'professional people' barristers, engineers, etc, but of course, they want to make a living (although friends do offer a bit of 'free advice' occassionally!)... and I don't actually know any 'specialised audio engineers' personally so far... but the more background research laid out for them to start, the less they can justify charging anyway... we seem to have less 'pro bono' spirit here in Australia than in the USA... |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 May 07 - 12:43 AM "a courtroom expert witness" If it has to go to court, that sort of unpredictable lottery is hugely expensive, time consuming, and financially wasteful - and as in the "McLibel" case - the odds are still strongly in favour of 'the money' - even though there are 'points of Law' and 'points of Fact'. It's the 'points of Fact' that this thread is all about... and they seem pretty vague at this stage - being mostly "cutting edge" thinking at the moment... Funnily enough though - a local Policeman did claim that I could lodge an "Assault by Noise" criminal charge (people have been found guilty of assault here by breathing smoke and spitting!) - and gave explicit details of how to ensure that I would not be turned away before I got to meet the Sargent in Charge who would have to take my complaint seriously! The Mayor seemed rather nervous when I mentioned this in a face to face meeting, because, the Council being the licensing authority for the 'Noise Permit' that would seem to imply that the Council may be dragged in as an 'accomplice' (or sued by the festival organisation for allowing them to suffer loss!) ... Great fun for spectators probably, but noting just how much 'mating of elephants' it recently took politically to get a Queensland Police Officer in charge of someone who died in their custody in goal even put on a charge, I have dim hopes of the Public Prosecutor really taking the case seriously, or at least not stuffing it up 'by accident' due to all the local politics involved! the there would be a 'legal precedent', and the whole mess would be even more difficult... :-) |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: JohnInKansas Date: 15 May 07 - 01:50 AM BINGO! Well maybe - or maybe THUD. Take your pick. Abstracts and/or pdf of most. The site calls itself noisepollution.org, and has a collection of EPA documents specifically applicable to "noise pollution." Most PDF links are to complete documents, and some have a separate link to an Abstract. I've only looked at a few, and haven't found anything more recent than late 1970s. I can't say whether EPA just hasn't published much since then, or whether the site is a bit dated. Note that some of the documents are fairly large - a little over 5 MB being the biggest I've hit so far. I'd suggest being fairly selective about what you try to look at until an opinion can be developed on whether this stuff is current enough to be really worthwhile - there's a lot of "stuff" but it may be mostly "just stuff." There's a very similar (maybe identical?) bunch of very similar documents at Nonoise EPA by some people calling themselves nonoise.org. Same comments apply. John |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: Richard Bridge Date: 15 May 07 - 03:18 AM I'm sure I found some Scottish discussions of the issue when somewhat similar things were being mentioned in connection with the Licensing Act 2004. I think I remember that Glasgow had set a sound limit of "inaudible" inside the nearest dwelling house, and the discussion was about how much more readily bass could be heard over long distances and how once detected it was hard to ignore and thus had a higher nuisance potential. Does NZ not have nuisance and public nuisance laws? In the UK these are not circumvented by performance licensing.. |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 May 07 - 06:52 AM "the discussion was about how much more readily bass could be heard over long distances and how once detected it was hard to ignore and thus had a higher nuisance potential. " Thanks Richard - that's EXACTLY what I'm after, for one... especially the "how much more readily bass could be heard over long distances" stuff. And the 'once detected' stuff too. Have you ever heard a "doof-doof boy" drive past your house in a quiet street in the dead of night - makes you think you are having a heart attack... "Inaudible", of course is 'relative' - if you are a Buddhist monk meditating, your requirements would be different than the teenager with the Ipod plugged in the ears at 100 dB + .... :-) they are the "tish-tish-tish-tish boys" - the rhythm sounds much faster than the "doof-doof boys", btw... :-) Thanks John - will browse there sooner or later... none of the referenced pdfs, so far have been spot on the 20-30 dB SPL difference thesis yet - but all vaguely useful as an educational experience... ;-) there's a lot of 'just stuff' around... |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 15 May 07 - 07:11 AM Re: "The writer cites some other "typical regulations" which might be useful" above John - they probably wouldn't be very helpful... at least for the moment... 1) Guess they will all have db(A) units. 2) A set of dB maximum numbers by itself from a bunch of other places probably won't be much help, especially if, as per your previous suggestion, "Australia seems in the forefront" anyway... Anything that proves the exception will of course help greatly... Robin |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 19 May 07 - 09:37 AM The Attorney General and Minister for Justice. toowoomba.north@parliament.qld.gov.au Dear Sir, I refer to your letter and attachments of 11 May 2007. I quote from the comments by the Minister for Environment & Multiculturalism: QUOTE "Mr Hayes has suggested that the "A" frequency weighting network as prescribed in the Environmental Protection Regulation 1998 and Queensland Environment Protection Agency - Noise Measurement manual for the measurement and control of environmental noise is inappropriate for measurement of music that is performed in a C scale." UNQUOTE I am appalled and disappointed at such utter technical gibberish and total ignorant misrepresentation of the technical information I submitted. I have been a practicing musician (multiple various instruments and Musical Exams) since the 1950s and been involved in many various technical fields since that time, including, but not solely restricted to, Motor Sport (a founding member of the Queensland Rescue Squad), TUTA trained Occupational Health and Safety Union Representative, Commonwealth Building Emergency Warden, Ham Radio, Electronics, Computing, Theatrical Lighting and Sound, Journalism, ASMF Sports Trainer, and was for a time a Student Representative for Mature Age and External Students on the University of Queensland Student Council where I worked with some of those who even subsequently went on to hold various elected positions in Government, as well as being on the University of Queensland Computing Advisory Board. I even studied for my Pyrotechnical License. I do most sincerely hope, as a voter and taxpayer, that the technical expert who drafted that unfortunate gibbering nonsense is now looking for new employment! I shall treat that rubbish with the contempt and ridicule it so richly deserves. QUOTE "However the "A" weighting network is applied across the entire spectrum of audible frequencies" UNQUOTE This is only partly true - and highly misleading to the technically deficient. What I originally submitted to you was the technical argument that the "A" frequency weighting network does not adequately represent the correct aural experience of experienced loudness as perceived, since it heavily cuts the lower frequencies (based on ancient and now potentially obsolete scientific research) - which are also heavily boosted in much modern amplified music, whereas the "C" frequency weighting network has a flat frequency response and generates a scale which is much closer to what is experienced by listeners (taking into account the attenuation of high frequencies with distance and the higher annoyance factor of lower frequencies at high levels), especially at a distance from the origin, as lower frequencies 'travel better', in layman's terms. I have been advised that in some other countries such as Scotland, public discussions on such related serious technical matters of public importance have already taken place. The public there, however decided to want that sound from such events was "inaudible" inside the nearest affected residence. I sincerely hope that does not occur here, as the technicalities and financial costs involved in such a policy would be a nightmare. Common sense would seem to indicate that a certain degree of unwanted sound of appropriate levels of various frequency ranges can be tolerated for reasonable periods by normal people - my simple suggestion to amend the Legislation to have dB(C) used instead of dB(A) seems a reasonable compromise. QUOTE "and should not be mistaken as having any relationship to a musical scale." UNQUOTE This is just nonsensical gibberish and almost insulting. I was clearly referring to the specific audio engineering matter of the "C" frequency weighting network which is also applied across the entire spectrum of audible frequencies, but does not deliberately de-emphasise the bass and middle frequencies as does the "A" frequency weighting network. The staff of the Minister for Environment & Multiculturalism has unfortunately demonstrated a complete lack of the necessary technical knowledge essential to understand the serious Public Safety and Occupational Heath & Safety Issues involved: because I am representing the apparently technical misuse of the "A" frequency weighting network in recording the levels of modern highly processed amplified Music - which I already submitted would be better and more effectively measured in the Legislation on the "C" frequency weighting network 'scale'. This is why I originally approached the Attorney General and Justice Department Minister after personally meeting with the Toowoomba Mayor and her staff. As far as the attached advice from the Minister for Environment & Multiculturalism to contact the Toowoomba Council, this is clearly inappropriate in the circumstances, as The Toowoomba Mayor and her staff advised me during our face to face meeting that the matter of the Legislation regarding the technical appropriateness of specification of the sound levels is clearly not their responsibility, but that of the Department of the Attorney General and Justice - or perhaps the Premier's Department. I wish to commend Mr Pidgeon and his staff in Toowoomba on the understanding way they have dealt with this matter. He clearly understood the technical and legal points involved. I note that you did already refer the matter to the Premier's Department and refer to your letter of 10 May 2007, in which you advise that Mr Rob Whiddon is dealing with the matter - if the Attorney General and Justice Department staff is also not capable of directly understanding the necessary technical details, should I perhaps then just deal solely with The Premier's Department in future? I have found that it is much more efficient to only deal with those who are competent in technical matters when a technical point needs to be handled, otherwise far too much in the way of time and other resources are wasted by the technically ignorant playing "mind games" or 'politics' just to shield their ignorance - and the real problem is then still no closer to solution, merely made more difficult to wade through by all the irrelevant "pissing in the pot" by the obstructive ignorant anyway. I am also not impressed by the inept bumbling already displayed to date of the staff of the Department for Environment & Multiculturalism in dealing with this matter - if this Legislation is deemed to need their input, I am now not confident that anything practical would occur except much useless time wasting, so would it be better to just have the Premier's Office deal with the whole thing? I can then use that Department as the sole contact point to refer people to when I issue any future press releases on the matter. I am currently in the process of asking for help in preparing a more detailed response (should you feel that is necessary before the Legislation is amended) based on the technical aspects. I have now put out a call for help to some of my international acquaintances who have more relevant accredited technical experience in the fields of Engineering and Law to assist me in gathering, analysing and compiling such information, should you have any questions you wish to forward to me. I did point out in my initial contact with you that much more than one small local unimportant social event such as the AGMF is relevant - I also have personal experience of such similar Musical events such as "The Big Day Out" (RNA showgrounds) - and many other such similar highly amplified "doof-doof-music" events. Even Motor Sporting events may be relevant - large engines with unmuffled output emit large quantities of sound in the lower frequencies ranges - low frequencies carry further and cause more public annoyance, it has been found. There are the "doof-doof boys" with their high powered hundreds of watts RMS per channel car amps, and also newer home sound systems with hundreds of watts RMS per channel, including dedicated 'sub-woofer' channels with hundreds of watts RMS. These beasties can be heard for extremely long distances. Their occurrence and potential public annoyance is only expected to increase in the future. Then there are matters of 'Night Clubs' - for just one relevant case, I point to the ongoing complaints and public unrest from Fortitude Valley - the sound levels are being measured as dB(A), but nearby locals are still complaining about excess and annoying perceived sound levels - the dB(C) scale will simply be technically much more in alignment with what they are perceiving. It seems highly hypocritical that The Toowoomba Show was moved from the original showgrounds, which are almost adjacent to the Queens Park AGMF site, on the claimed basis that the then historically much lower emitted amplified sound levels were then considered unacceptable. I have currently found no records of what meter level readings were used to justify this. I have no desire to have any event cancelled or moved, merely that the Legislation be amended to deal appropriately with the apparent scientific inadequacies. Dealing with this matter appropriately now in a timely and efficient matter will save much future annoyance and grief. Obviously, there may have to be a period of some months before the coming into effect of such changes once publicised, so that operators of "music festivals" and other events can plan to operate under much clearer and less scientifically confusing guidelines that should cause far fewer public complaints (and potential medical damage) in the long term. I refer you to some quotes taken from Wikipedia - an on-line source of much technical information, which while it has its acknowledged deficiencies, is considered a reasonable source of basic information and a very powerful pointer to more strongly accredited sources. QUOTE These noise sources expose millions of people to noise pollution that creates not only annoyance, but also significant health consequences such as elevated incidence of hearing loss and cardiovascular disease. UNQUOTE QUOTE Annoyance. Though it pales in comparison to the health effects noted above, noise pollution constitutes a significant factor of annoyance and distraction in modern artificial environments: 1. The meaning listeners attribute to the sound influences annoyance, so that, if listeners dislike the noise content, they are annoyed. What is music to one is noise to another. 2. If the sound causes activity interference, noise is more likely to annoy (for example, sleep disturbance). 3. If listeners feel they can control the noise source, the less likely the noise will be annoying. 4. If listeners believe that the noise is subject to third-party control, including police, but control has failed, they are more annoyed. 5. The inherent unpleasantness of the sound causes annoyance. 6. Contextual sound. If the sound is appropriate for the activity it is in context. If one is at a [motor] race track the noise is in context and the psychological effects are absent. If one is at an outdoor picnic the race track noise will produce adverse psychological and physical effects. UNQUOTE I refer you particularly to numbers 1, 3, 4 & 6. Number 3 & 4 seems to be very relevant to the AGMF - there have been previous public false claims over the years of 'no noise complaints' - extremely annoying and frustrating false claims when not only have I personally made complaints, but have talked with many others of the public who have also told me that they even had their sanity questioned and told they were the only complainant when they rang up to complain - and that no record seemed to be kept of any of their complaints. I note that recently, Researchers at University College London analysed responses from a few thousand people. A nagging sense of being unfairly treated at work or at home can raise a person's risk of heart attack; it was reported. People with the strongest feelings of being treated unfairly were 55 percent more likely than those in the moderate [annoyance] category and twice as likely as those in the low category to have serious heart disease, the study found. A buildup of frustration, suppressed anger, humiliation, and other such negative feelings can impact the nervous system, harm the health, impair the efficiency of bodily processes, and damage the heart (and other parts of the body). Stress causes bodily breakdown over a period of time. This is hardly news. It should be noted that the notion of "injustice" causes no impact on the body itself, until its owner gets pissed off. Then you see stress, which in turn impacts bodily function in well-documented ways. Fairness is an important factor in promoting a healthier society, the U.K. team concluded. They published their findings in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. One of the people I have been consulting with internationally has made the following brief comments. QUOTE The problem is that the dB(A) scale discounts low frequencies strongly, so that compared to the dB(C) scale a sound at 200 Hz has to be 12 dB louder on the dB(A) than on the "real sound level" dB(C) scale in order to be considered "obnoxious" under an ordinance that merely states a "decibel level". For a 100 Hz sound to register 35 dB on the dB(A) scale, it has to be at approx 55 dB on the dB(C) scale, which measures actual acoustic power. The "rolloff" in the dB(A) is supposed to accommodate the lessened damage to hearing by lower frequency continuous sounds, but a 50 dB(A) sound at 100 Hz will make the coffee in your cup ripple, and may kill the head on your ale. If it's "rhythmic" it can be incredibly annoying. UNQUOTE Annoying!!!! This particular festival (which serves no alcohol) goes on for several days for many hours each day (and past children's bedtimes) over the Easter Weekend Holiday period. Inside!!!!! a 100 year old standard sort of Queenslander - wood frame, weather board clad, lined house with corrugated iron roof (unusually also with ceiling insulation!) with all doors and windows shut at several hundred meters distance and shielded by other houses and trees - I have observed objects like VHS cassettes 'dance' on shelves, pictures fall off the nails on the walls, and feelings in my chest of panic attack or heart attack at around 70 dB(C)+ observed - levels were at least 5-15dB(C) higher outside the house - depending on the 'musical' content, and apparently also according to Mr Pidgeon depending on where any particular set (of several at the AGMF) of loudspeakers were aimed - obviously the house fabric (construction materials) is providing some degree of high frequency filtering, but can do very little to affect the very high low frequency sound levels. This obnoxious and highly disturbing level of sound continues unabated (in spite of repeated complaints to all various attempted contacts) for hours at a time for several days. Simultaneous levels of 90 dB(C)+ and 60 dB(A) were observed under the streetlight after dark next to the Olive 'Peace Tree' in East Creek Park - a few hundred meters away from Queens Park. Similar levels were also recorded at various times over the whole weekend between houses several hundred meters from the source which should have shielded the noise - but because of the massive boost given to bass frequencies, and the massive wattage of amplification used, there was no noticeable attenuation with distance - something that is to be expected with high levels of low and ultra low frequencies. Levels approaching the 90 dB(C) level were also noted at the far south end of East Creek Park - a considerable distance further - no noticeable drop-off in level was noted over that distance, which makes me believe that the topology may also have an amplifying effect. I have also clearly heard the 'music' at The Hospital Casualty Entrance, where I dropped a friend having a panic attack. I have personally heard of reliable reports of the sound "miles away". Thus the concept of "topology external to the emitting site affecting perceived sounds levels" also seriously needs dealing with in the Legislation. The use of dB(C) instead of dB(A) would simplify this too. When personally measuring the sound levels next to the 'Peace Tree', I also learnt something new as a practicing musician with a long term practical interest in Gospel Music - I hadn't previously realised that "Gospel Music" could now include a rock band (with amplified drum solos!) heard far away at 90 dB(C)+ with a female 'singer' "Orgasming for Christ" in full Janis Joplin style. You just had to be there, really. As a matter of comparative reference, on the very same site used for this several day long 'music festival', I have personally witnessed a group of a dozen to 20 black powder enthusiasts performing the 'standing', 'advancing', and 'retreating' 3 rank firing drills - nice and noisy close up, but totally unable to be heard any distance off site! At one stage before calling The Mayor directly on her personal mobile, I measured an amplified lengthy drum solo at over 90 dB(C) several hundred meters off the emitting premises, and in an area shielded by houses and trees. The sound was echoing off the surrounding houses! Funnily enough though - a local Policeman did claim that I could lodge an "Assault by Noise" criminal charge (people have been found guilty of assault by breathing smoke and spitting!) - and gave explicit details of how to ensure that I would not be turned away before I got to meet the Sergeant in Charge who would have to take my complaint seriously. The Mayor seemed rather nervous when I mentioned this in the face to face meeting, because, the Council being the licensing authority for the 'Noise Permit' that would seem to imply that the Council may be dragged in as an 'accomplice' (or sued by the festival organisation for allowing them to suffer loss!). Great fun for spectators probably, but noting just how much 'mating of elephants' it recently took to get a Queensland Police Officer in charge of someone who died in their custody in goal even put on a charge, I have dim hopes of the Public Prosecutor really taking the case seriously, due to all the local politics doubtless involved. Then there might be even a 'legal precedent', and the whole mess would be more difficult to deal with easily later on. The music pumped out at 'rock music festivals' tends to have massive bass boosting - I am young enough to remember Slade singing "Come Feel the Noise!" - which is clearly shown by Mr Pidgeon telling me on the mobile that he was reading no more than the specified Legislated maximum dB(A) level at the source, while several hundred meters away levels in excess of 90 dB(C)+ were read by me on the dB(C) scale. This means that since there is an expected increase in sound level with increasing proximity, the sound level could easily be well in excess of a medically damaging 100 dB(C) for very long periods at the source - last year I received some private information that some stall holders on site had headaches and temporary deafness - irrespective of what the meter was reading on the dB(A) scale! On the "Chaser" net forum I also got a response QUOTE according to our dB sheet we got in [Aus] music industry, 120dB is the average sound for a plugged in rock band to get to. UNQUOTE This alleged promoted 'average' level of 120dB(A) is thus a very disturbing figure, especially when compared with the figures quoted in the Legislation I am referring to, and the known SPL dB(C) levels that cause temporary and permanent medical damage. I point out to you that I'm not currently interested in any of the other complaints and rumours I have heard about the AGMF - parking, public safety, damage to public property, rumoured claims that attempts to verify the financial dealings have met with lack of cooperation, that AGMF is still trading while publicly admitting that they may be insolvent due to massive publicly claimed losses, etc, - I am currently only interested in dealing with your Department regarding the Legislation that currently seems to deal inadequately with the practical situation of Noise Pollution. The general public in Australia has not yet become fully aware of the personal ramifications of my thesis to you as yet - when sufficient do, there may likely be the usual "hysteresis effect" whereby an apparent sudden large external change in public opinion will occur - as it often does on many things, global warming, for example. I had hoped that the Queensland Government, with its hard earned reputation of pragmatically looking to the future would embrace the chance to be seen as forward looking in a relevant matter. I may respond further on this matter in the future. Yours Sincerely, Robin Hayes. 19/05/2007 |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 19 May 07 - 09:39 AM For those who recognise any contributions you have made to the conrent - I thank you most heartily. Round one... |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Jun 07 - 12:19 AM The proper authorities have acknowledged receiving my response.... that's all so far... :-) |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Jun 07 - 04:00 AM The thread Tech: CD sound - has anyone noticed this?? has something interesting in it. - the comments on compression. While listening to the AGMF - by the third day - I noticed that I could detect speaker cone breakup "rattle" (and this is heard at 90 dB(C) at several hundred meters!) - if they are riding the gain and tone controls so hard, I suspect that they could also be riding the compression too - to the point where the speakers "just canna take it any more Captn"... anybody have useful comments on just how much would this be commonly done on live music concerts? BTW, in spite of being called "Gospel Music" - many of the pieces played are Top 40 Rock/Pop pieces - eg "Love is a Battlefield", etc. I wonder just how this would affect my case - it would seem to make it more compelling that the dB(SPL) or dB(C) is more appropriate than the dB(A) scale, surely - especially as the sound would also contain more distortion high frequency components too. |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: Rowan Date: 07 Jun 07 - 01:16 AM I've only just now discovered this thread Robin but I have some suggestions that might help. 1 A screwdriver across the speaker terminals will provide instant relief; most output transistors fail permanently. Less liable to get you into trouble, though, if you're seeking citable references, Check your local reps in the Australian Audiological Association, Check with WorkCover, Check with Standards Australia. Change your spellchecker to read metres; they sound like they may be ignoring you on the basis that you're not using correct SI units. I'll try and find out some more myself, later. Cheers, Rowan |
Subject: RE: Tech: Noise in the Scale of C !!! From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Jun 07 - 08:52 AM Thank - have thought seriously about your practical technical suggestion, but seem to have lost my cloak of invisibility... A look at the Victorian Noise leglislation has proved interesting.... :-) |
Share Thread: |
Subject: | Help |
From: | |
Preview Automatic Linebreaks Make a link ("blue clicky") |