 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Acoustics / August 2005Loudest concert you ever attended
Not exactly "acoustics" but might be of interest to those concerned about the hearing damage sound reinforcement can inflict. http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=55342&page=1&pp=20 WVK > Not exactly "acoustics" but might be of interest to those concerned > about the hearing damage sound reinforcement can inflict. It's quite much acoustics! Sounds above 80 dBA will start to erode anyone's hearing. Above 90 it will definitely erode anyone's hearing. Concert (amplified popular, not classical) venues routinely do that with relish. Even casual part entertainment will do that. The performers are not conscious of the damage they can inflict. Another name for it is masochism (self-inflicted disability). It's more than pain; it's permanent disability. How can we get the attention of the young (and not-so-young) in the world to then tell them that this is fundamentally incorrect behavior? As far as unintentional harm, or damage by accidental exposure to sound, just put yourself in the position of OSHA inspector, or any other approving agency, where they would consider the risks of any employment or normal civil occupancy of public space... Imagine the limits they would impose to be properly safe... I'm sure there are two sides to that question. But then consider one's life expectancy - quality of life - personal desires over their life span. As one would expect to retain all fingers and their use as well for that conscious life span and accordingly take due precaution so as to not loose any, so also should one carefully guard their hearing. As a passive participant by using earplugs. As an active participant in PA system design and hard rock music promulgator, in duly throttling the sound levels emitted to the audience. Angelo Campanella > It's quite much acoustics! Sounds above 80 dBA will start to erode > anyone's hearing. Above 90 it will definitely erode anyone's hearing. > Concert (amplified popular, not classical) venues routinely do that with > relish. Even casual part entertainment will do that. The performers are > not conscious of the damage they can inflict. That is a rather simplistic way of putting it. 8-hour equivalents of 80 dB over a certain number of years will induce hearing loss in a certain percentage of the population. But it is a question of statistics, so some people will not be affected while others will. best regards Peter >> It's quite much acoustics! Sounds above 80 dBA will start to erode >> anyone's hearing. Above 90 it will definitely erode anyone's hearing. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > best regards > Peter That doesn't matter because the day is rapidly approaching when all newbornes will be implanted with a device that will monitor and report to Big Brother what he/she eats, drinks, smokes, breathes, injects, craps and, (ultimately) thinks. > That is a rather simplistic way of putting it. > 8-hour equivalents of 80 dB over a certain number of years will induce > hearing loss in a certain percentage of the population. > But it is a question of statistics, so some people will not be affected > while others will. I was stating the risk in the simplest of terms (so that there is no excuse for not understanding it). Consider seat belt laws, guard rails and EPA air quality standards. Consider that the OSHA 90 dBA rule allows that "only" 1/6 (16%) of the working populations will suffer serious hearing loss over a career of working. Consider that now smoking indoors is prohibited in many public (commercial included) buildings on account of health risks. Consider that many young (and not so young) adults freely consent to sound exposure greater than the 90 dBA rule allows. Consider that this promises that perhaps 10% of our present-day population is allowed to deafen themselves and thereby become a burden to themselves, to their family and to the public services they will need. Certainly a form of reckless foolishness, if not downright insanity, I say. Angelo Campanella > Consider that many young (and not so young) adults freely consent to sound > exposure greater than the 90 dBA rule allows. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Angelo Campanella Rather than thinking about the young who go to loud events, what about the many millions of walkman/ipod/mp3 users who wander the planet blasting noise straight into the ears! The levels associated with this make the concept of a mere 90 dB(A) at a music event laughable. Or those that go to motor race meetings and commonly experience levels as high as 150 dB peak and don't wear hearing protection. As for a loud concert, my trousers visibly flapped when attending a Teardrop Explodes gig in Newcastle many many moons ago. MalcolmX > I was stating the risk in the simplest of terms (so that there is no > excuse for not understanding it). Well, it is a matter of giving information or not. Hearing loss from loud music has been an issue at least since I was a youngster. However, in spite increasing sound levels in private music listening, we haven't seen a similar growth in hearing loss prevalence. Some researchers have suggested that music may not be as harmful as noise. This could be related to higher metabolism during loud music events or it could be related to stapedius reflexes attenuating beats in the music or it could be something else. I don't pretend to know. But I want to object to a statement like "Sounds above 80 dBA will start to erode anyone's hearing". That is simply not true. best regards Peter snip...snip > But I want to object to a statement like "Sounds above 80 dBA will start > to erode anyone's hearing". That is simply not true. > best regards > Peter That may well be true, but it's only important to the busybodies who tell the rest of us how we should live our lives. Personally, I stopped attending live rock concerts about fifteen years ago....for two reasons. One was that the sound reinforcement was way too loud and unpleasant. The other was the unpleasant and uncontrolled behavior of the drunk/drugged audience as a whole. I now listen exclusively to recorded recorded music (vinyl only, of course). Recorded music has its limitations, but at least I determine the level and I determine the listening enviroment. If I want to play it louder than 80dBA, that's my choice and I am prepared to accept the consequences. For me, it's all about personal choice and personal responsibility. But, personal responsibility doesn't mean doing what some busybody says what is right/wrong. Personal responsibility is accepting the consequences of the choices that one makes. And for the busybodies who claim that sounds above 80dBA will start to erode anyone's hearing, it's time for them to get a reality check and to start working on legislation that either bans or limits the output of all personal entertainment devices that use either in the ear or over the ear transducers. The real problem it isn't with live concerts which someone may attend once or twice a month. The real problem is with the personal entertainment devices that idiots are listening to at high sound levels for several hours a day. There are some fools who think that the solution to the problem is education, I suggest that they look at the recent increase in AIDS in the US. Bottom line....educate all you want, but the record clearly shows that all the education in the world won't stop idiots from knowingly engaging in personally destructive behavior. > Bottom line....educate all you want, but the record clearly shows > that all the education in the world won't stop idiots from knowingly > engaging in personally destructive behavior. Ah, the delicious irony in that statement! LOL! :-) Bob  Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein >> Bottom line....educate all you want, but the record clearly shows >> that all the education in the world won't stop idiots from knowingly >> engaging in personally destructive behavior. > > Ah, the delicious irony in that statement! LOL! :-) > Bob We all know that you are both technically and morally challenged, that you are a liar and a hypocrite, that you still have not gotten over the "Bob Cain Goes Down and Out in Defeat" and associated posts regarding the Doppler distortion issue, and that you have a never-ending love/hate relationship with The Ghost. Nonetheless, you really need get off the drugs if you ever expect to bring your perception of reality into agreement with reality itself. BTW, did you ever patch things up with Art Ludwig? You really shouldn't have publicly misrepresented his position on the Doppler distortion issue. At the very least, you should have offered a public apology and corrected your misrepresentation of his position once it was called to your attention. >> That is a rather simplistic way of putting it. It needs to be said simple. The spelling of deafening appears to be too complicated for the word to be understood. >> 8-hour equivalents of 80 dB over a certain number of years >> will induce hearing loss in a certain percentage of the >> population. But it is a question of statistics, so some >> people will not be affected while others will. OK, let us assume that we permit motorists with car number plates that begin with the letter D to cross red ligths assuming they minimize the risk by always doing it with more than 40 mph. This could be seen as unsafe, but it is easy to understand that some people will not be adversely affected while others will. An extreme example yes, but its innner logic is identical to the one you appear to advocate for hearing safety. Go read a bit in alt.support.tinnitus if you fail to compremend what hearing damage is about. > I was stating the risk in the simplest of terms (so that there is no > excuse for not understanding it). The industrial hearing safety standards, including comfortably filtering high frequency out by using the A weighting as standard instead of the more risk-conformant D weighting so that high frequency noise can be skipped when designing machinery, are designed so as to not in effect, if not by intent, be unduly problematic for builders of machinery and production plants. A part of this is no doubt caused by the standards still reflecting what could be easily measured 60 years ago instead of what is it easy to measaure in this millenium, be it noise or hearing damge. It adds to this problem that hearing damage is still not defined in terms of loss of hearing, but only in terms of loss of capability to understand speech, ie. a telephone or AM frequency range is seen as completely satisfactory. > Angelo Campanella Kind regards Peter Larsen Signature******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* > It needs to be said simple. The spelling of deafening appears to be too > complicated for the word to be understood. This group is not the world. This is a group in a hierachy named sci.physics. We are not adressing the tabloids here, so a certain level of professionnel complexicity must be expected. > An extreme example yes, but its innner logic is identical to the one you > appear to advocate for hearing safety. Go read a bit in > alt.support.tinnitus if you fail to compremend what hearing damage is > about. I know what it is about ... I have been working almost 20 years in the hearing aid industry. And my job was not to promote hearing damage. And I didn't advocate for any particular logic in hearing conservation. I was just critisizing som false statements. best regards Peter > And I didn't advocate for any particular logic in hearing > conservation. I was just critisizing som false statements. I then misread you, please accept my apology. > best regards > Peter Kind regards Peter Larsen Signature******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* >> It's quite much acoustics! Sounds above 80 dBA will start to >> erode anyone's hearing. Above 90 it will definitely erode anyone's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > best regards > Peter We have two different situations, one is a permanent threshold shift (PTS) the other temporary threshold shift (TTS). I think the latest research has shown that the danger of short term high SPL has been overestimated. As long as the fibres attached to the coclea do not break off, as it happens with close gunshots, fireworks etc., the ear can recover completely, -as long as it has a long enough quiet time afterwards. Another danger is the continuous high sound levels as in certain work/environment situations, or the continuous use of Ipod/MP3-player at high levels. Luckily the modern gadgets work on only 1 or 2 AA-cells, the output power is generally lower then those old walkmen. Maybe someone can contribute some links, I don't have them at hand. Signatureciao Ban Bordighera, Italy >> Not exactly "acoustics" but might be of interest to those concerned >> about the hearing damage sound reinforcement can inflict. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Angelo Campanella The levels of self inflicted noise amazes me. Monitoring an open air "rave" a couple of years ago I arrived at the secluded valley location and parked 200 metres from the the 5-stage "venue". At 200 metres from the main stage area the sound level was 80 to 85dB(A). I had the ear plugs in very quickly as I knew I was going to have to go into the central performance area. During the next 24 hours I recorded consistent Leq noise levels of 110dBA (132dBLin) and LAmax noise levels of 114dBA (136dBLin) in the "mosh pit". The energy was mainly in the 63 & 125 Hz bands. Uniformly across the 500 m by 200m site the Leq levels was about 80dBA (98 dBLin) with LAmax noise levels of 87dBA (102dBLin)for all of the 24hrs. I even earned a never-ending coffee mug from the local police after I had their on-site van moved away from the speaker stacks, and threw them a couple of handfuls of ear plugs. Every panel of their van had been resonating to the bass. I was still picking up the bass levels 3 kilometres away in the next valley despite an intervening ridge. > > Not exactly "acoustics" but might be of interest to those concerned > > about the hearing damage sound reinforcement can inflict. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would impose to be properly safe... I'm sure there are two sides to that > question. I don't like loud concerts, I hate the neighbors and his damn loud drums, but what I find myself worrying about is being out in the open downtown when ambulances go roaring by. All those tall buildings amplify the already painful sound. Has anyone ever done a study to find out how much sound those ambulances do produce under such circumstances? Ron > I don't like loud concerts, I hate the neighbors and his damn loud > drums, but what I find myself worrying about is being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ambulances do produce under such circumstances? > Ron Yes. And I hear (no pun intended) that it's upward of 143dB SPL. I undertand that it's done "using off-the-shelf Radio Shack piezo "buzzers" with no internal drive circuitry, but driven with square waves at 100 volts (or more)peek-to-peek." But you already know that, right? It is expected that so called conditioning or toughening (those attending concerts use to listen music at lower levels) protects audience from permanent hearing loss. This is: Reapeated music noise exposures at reasoable levels (=conditioning) before high level exposures in real concerts improve ear's resistance to acoustic trauma. Those interested in this phenomena might consult papers bellow. Another issue is that noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) criteria developed for occupational noise exposures (8 hours a day, 5 days a week, at least 10...20 years) seem to over estimate the risk of the NIHL of typical concert audience. The NIHL sensitivity of human ear varies widely. Literature know some cases where a concert attendant has got permanent hearing loss in one session, but temporary tinnitus is much more common "health" effect. Kari Pesonen Horner K C et al., Sympathectomy improves the ear's resistance to acoustic trauma - could stress render the ear more sensitive?, Eur. J. Neurosci. 13(2001)2, 405 - 408. Liberman M C, Kujawa S G, Role of the olivocochlear system in conditioning-related protection, http://web7.mit.edu/HSTSHS/predocs/aro/kujawa98.html, http://epl.meei.harvard.edu/~shencc/New_EPL_Site/Posters/Efferent_Feedback/aro98 _liberman_kujawa.pdf Attanasio G et al., Protective effect of the cochlear efferent system during noise exposure, Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 884(1999), 361 - 367. Maison S F, Liberman M C, Predictiong vulnerability to acoustic injury with a nonivasive assay of olivococlear tefles strength, J. Neurosci. 20(2000)12, 4701 - 4707. Rajan R, Centrifugal pathways protect hearing sensitivity at the cochlea in noisy environments that exacerbate the damage induced by loud sound, J. Neurosci. 20(2000)17), 6684 - 6693. Milbrandt J C et al., GAD levels and muscimol binding in rat inferior collius following acoustic trauma, Hear Res. 147(2000)1-2, 251 - 260. Canlon B, Borg E, Flock A, Protection against noise trauma by a pre-exposure to low level acoustic stimulus, Hear Res. 34(1988)2, 197 - 200. Cambo P, Subramaniam M, Henderson D, The effect of 'conditioning' exposure on hearing loss from traumatic exposure, Hear Res. 55(1991), 195 - 200. Subramaniam M et al., The effect of 'conditioning' exposure on hearing loss from a high frequency traumatic exposure, Hear Res. 58(1992), 57 - 62. Subramaniam M, Henderson D, Henselman K, "Toughening" of the mammalian auditory system: spectral, temporal and intensity effect. in Salvi et al. (eds.), Auditory system plasticity and regeneration. Thieme. New York 1996. ss, 128 - 143. Pukkila M et al., The "toughening" phenomenon in rat's auditory organ, Acta Otolaryngol Suppl, 529(1997), 59 - 62. Yoshita N, Liberman M C, Sound conditioning reduces noise-induced permanent threshold shift in mice, Hear Res. 148(2000)1-2, 213 - 219. Miyakita T et al., Effect of low level acoustic simulation on temporary threshold shift in young humans, Hear Res. 60(1992), 149 - 155. Fiorino F G et al., Development of active resistance to noise induced hearing loss. Julkaistu kirjassa Salvi et al. (eds.), Auditory system plasticity and regeneration. Thieme. New York 1996. ss, 181 - 189. Subramaniam M, Combo P, Henderson D, The effect of the exposure level on the development of progressive resistance to noise, Hear Res. 56(1991), 65 - 68. Ahroon W A, Hamernik R P, The effects of interrupted noise exposure on the noise-damaged cochlea, Hear Res. 143(2000)1-2, 103 - 109. Hamernik R P, Wei Q, Davis B, Cocler toughening, protection, and potentiation of noise-induced trauma by non-Gaussian noise, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113(2003)2, 969 - 976. > It is expected that so called conditioning or toughening (those attending > concerts use to listen music at lower levels) protects audience from permanent > hearing loss. This is: Reapeated music noise exposures at reasoable levels (=conditioning) > before high level exposures in real concerts improve ear's resistance to acoustic > trauma. Those interested in this phenomena might consult papers below. Obviously, one must be careful to read papers completely before using their inferred results. I have not read them so I cannot comment very much. Throughout the years I have come to realize that there are three prospects for a notion or "fact" presented; Was it done and the result is being reported? or Is it now being performed and this is a progress report? or Is it a proposed mechanism that might or might not have merit? Several of the entitled papers listed below, on the basis of their title wording alone, leave this matter still in question. > Another issue is that noise induced hearing loss (NIHL) criteria developed > for occupational noise exposures (8 hours a day, 5 days a week, at least 10...20 years) seem > to over estimate the risk of the NIHL of typical concert audience. Music concerts are transient affairs, so the majority of rest/recovery mechanisms are in place. However, is this something that you will preach to your children? This would tell them that it is OK to freely expose one self to such harm. Compare the present day attitude toward sun exposure for tanning, or by accident. > The NIHL sensitivity of human ear varies widely. Literature know some cases > where a concert attendant has got permanent hearing loss in one session, but > temporary tinnitus is much more common "health" effect. The best paradigm I can think of for this matter is the experience of the young adult volunteering or being drafted into their country's army. They all perform rifle and pistol firing practice. There may be enough documented hearing results to make the distinction of damage threshold. But we must be very, very careful at interpreting the subsequent "no effect" data/conclusions. Many reporting agencies use a 5 dB or 10 dB "fence" below which they report "no effect". We all know that 5 is not equal to zero. The data that I am most familiar with is the 1950-1980 US Air Force studies, where large numbers of enlisted men and women were quantitatively evaluated and followed for several years. It was not too long after those results were formalized that the US Air force adopted the uniform policy that any USAF duty noise fields (correct me if I am wrong) above 84 dBA merited hearing protection. The "dose doubling rate" was also uniformly declared by all US military to be 4 dB for dose doubling, thus discounting the USOSHA 5dB per dose doubling, and straddling between the latter and the ISO 3 dB dose doubling value. Thus, it is clear to me that there is reason to accept that hearing damage can start in the 80+ dBA range. I have no desire to move from that logical position, and I tell my children that, and also my grandchild as well. > Horner K C et al., Sympathectomy improves the ear's resistance to acoustic > trauma - could stress render the ear more sensitive?, Eur. J. Neurosci. > 13(2001)2, 405 - 408. One might conclude from this title that this is a response likely in the normal young healthy adult. It may not be extended to the entire population. I think that this interpretation is applicable to the rest of the papers listed below: These are all interesting ventures into damage mechanisms, and damage avoidance mechanisms. But they are are not clear rationales to allow higher noise exposure. Paper titles must be read very carefully. > Liberman M C, Kujawa S G, Role of the olivocochlear system in > conditioning-related protection, [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > potentiation of noise-induced trauma by non-Gaussian noise, J. Acoust. > Soc. Am. 113(2003)2, 969 - 976. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Kari Pesonen wrote: >> It is expected that so called conditioning or toughening (those attending >> concerts use to listen music at lower levels) protects audience from >> permanent hearing loss. This is: Reapeated music noise exposures at >> reasoable levels (=conditioning) before high level exposures in real >> concerts improve ear's resistance to acoustic trauma. Those interested >> in this phenomena might consult papers below. >Obviously, one must be careful to read papers completely before using their >inferred results. I have not read them so I cannot comment very much. Here you can find more astonishing new research results concerning regeneration of hair cells http://www.kuulonhuoltoliitto.fi/tiedoston_katsominen.php?dok_id=181 and development of anti-NIHL-pills http://www.kuulonhuoltoliitto.fi/tiedoston_katsominen.php?dok_id=130 Kari Pesonen |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.