Music to your ears?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
This is what happens when Terry Wogan is taken seriously.

130 db is generally regarded as pain threshold. Rock concerts are normally capped at 115db, pneumatic drills come in at around 125 db at 4" away. Short term exposure to 140db (about twice as loud as 130db) can cause permanent damage.

The Beeb is monitoring noise levels during performance and rehearsals during the season (and it is 2 months of performances + pre-season and day time rehearsals) so they can manage the risk to performers' hearing. How dare they - down with the EU and H&S "brigade" I say!!! Boo hoo hoo.

"birgade" huh - seriously? I struggle daily with the notion that people a) write this rubbish, b) read this rubbish and c) that the Togmeister exists at all let alone gets paid.
 
Digit":3kia7wgs said:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Health/The-Proms-Performers-Pipe-Down-Royal-Albert-Hall-Hearing/Article/200808415088549?lpos=Health_0&lid=ARTICLE_15088549_The%2BProms%253A%2BPerformers%2BPipe%2BDown%2BRoyal%2BAlbert%2BHall%2BHearing

Roy.

The accoustics in the RAH are rubbish anyway ask any BBC Radio technician. In fact there was very little understanding of accoustics when these Victorian halls where built and it wasn't until the 60's that venues like the South Bank and the Barbican showed the way and the South Bank has been refitted out because of later knowledge and understanding
 
Not sure about the acoustics of the RAH being poor.....a friend of mine is a baritone who regularly gives solo recitals there, generally without a microphone! He says the acoustics are good. Maybe it is different when trying to make arecording? Or maybe the acoustics suit the voice but not an orchestra?

Acoustics are a black art!

Mike
 
kenneth cooke":1i62lpf5 said:
Digit":1i62lpf5 said:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Health/The-Proms-Performers-Pipe-Down-Royal-Albert-Hall-Hearing/Article/200808415088549?lpos=Health_0&lid=ARTICLE_15088549_The%2BProms%253A%2BPerformers%2BPipe%2BDown%2BRoyal%2BAlbert%2BHall%2BHearing

Roy.

The accoustics in the RAH are rubbish anyway ask any BBC Radio technician. In fact there was very little understanding of accoustics when these Victorian halls where built and it wasn't until the 60's that venues like the South Bank and the Barbican showed the way and the South Bank has been refitted out because of later knowledge and understanding

Infinitely better since they put in the flying saucers and as for the organ......I loathe the Barbican...each to their own, I guess.
 
Mike Garnham":1446khb1 said:
Not sure about the acoustics of the RAH being poor.....a friend of mine is a baritone who regularly gives solo recitals there, generally without a microphone! He says the acoustics are good. Maybe it is different when trying to make arecording? Or maybe the acoustics suit the voice but not an orchestra?

Acoustics are a black art!

Mike

Acoustics not Microsoft Accoustics are a very personal thing. I certainly do not rate the RAH acoustics and quite a few loudspeaker manufacturers are in agreement. I must say, however, I have never heard unaccompanied solo voice in the hall
 
In the hospital where I work, 98Dcb is considered the maximum, ie, fire alarms, this may be different than other places due to the nature of the patients (psychiatric) even I find that a bit too loud.

Regards,

Rich.
 
I find it difficult to believe that an orchestra could exceed such a high figure.

Roy.
 
Compare that to the "whispering gallery" in St Pauls cathedral.
Now that's what you call acoustics.

Rich.
 
Digit":bml7jvkb said:
I find it difficult to believe that an orchestra could exceed such a high figure.

Roy.

Depends how far away you measure from of course. Guiness has stopped maintaining a record for loudest musical performance for fear of encouraging stupid people, but when it did the record was 126dB - which was measured ~30m from source. Apparently orchestras have been recorded peaking at 137dB up close which is bloody loud. You'd still have to play ~30% louder again, mind you, to top 140dB.
 
I'm struggling to see why taking steps to protect the hearing of performers is 'rot'. It occurs to me that a proportion people are so bent in their fervor to attack the health and safety 'brigade' and the EU ad-nauseam that they will gladly abandon reason - that orchestra musicians face a significantly increased risk to their hearing which can be managed unobtrusively - in favor of getting all in a flap and demanding to maintain the status-quo (lol) whereby performers continue to be at unnecessary risk. It's a bankrupt argument whichever way you pose it.

Looks to me like the HSE have done, of all things, a good job at increasing understanding of the risks and promoting sensible solutions.
 
The H.S.E have done a great job,protecting us from
risks............but they are gradually loosing the plot. :(
 
It is worth noting that the head of the HSE Mr Jay has pointed out, correctly, that they are not responsible for many of the daft decisions that are blamed onto them. Petty bureaucrats have latched onto the idea and frequently take matters to extremes.
One that they are responsible for was suing the Met 'cos they hadn't carried out a risk assessment before an Officer chased a burglar across a roof if you recall.
Bit like in Northern Ireland, a soldier who shot an IRA bomber advancing with a primed nail bomb in his hand was prosecuted as he hadn't requested permission to open fire from an officer!
Another occasion an officer was disciplined for making an IRA bomber defuse his own bomb!
Nowt to do with the HSE, but they were the excuse.

Roy.
 
Back
Top