Versagi Voice

Contact us     Home Page      Ongoing Discussions

Sound oThe f Music/Noise

The human dimension
The Sound of Music at CITCOM meetings: Part 3

in the early 60s I wrote a 17-week series on sound/noise. The series was reprinted and distributed internationally. In the years since, the technology of measurement has both changed and stayed the same. That's also  true about the arguments re the validity of
cities' sound ordinances. Now, as then, debates about the source and intensity of sound -- about when "sound" becomes "noise" -- reflects as much emotion as science.

It was the rapid growth of air conditioning, especially residential central air conditioning, which generated the need for my writing back then. Neighbors fought neighbors. And the increasing appearances of cooling towers and "machine rooms" on rooftops in commercial districts generated noise complaints and aesthetic objections.

"If the sound of my air conditioner bothers you, close your windows or buy one yourself," was a common rebuttal to a next door neighbor's complaint. More and more people bought their own unit and the new argument became what I named "patio privacy." The sound of a neighbor's central air conditioner could destroy the enjoyment of one's backyard. The dialogue, especially in the South, reached humorous extremes. In Texas, drivers were teased for driving around with their windows closed, sweating profusely to avoid being identified as not having car air conditioning.

Cities were forced to address the widespread noise complaints and immediately encountered problems with a just-emerging technology in terms of sound measurement:  How does the laboratory measurement of the sound of an air conditioner compare to the sound  that same unit emits outside, close to the wall of a house? How far away from the unit should measurement be taken? What about ambient sound -- in the neighborhood, downtown, in commercial/industrial districts?

Florida was a hotspot (that's a pun, I guess) for all this, so I assigned one of my editorial staff to go there -- I think it was Coral Gables -- accompanied by a sound expert loaded with instruments to take all kinds of measurements. They arranged for neighbors to turn their air conditioners on and off during the test -- daytime and nighttime. They took reading on patios, on the front sidewalk, down the street. He recorded the manufacturer of the cooling units.

The net effect? Late one night it rained. And for a couple of hours the loudest noise in the neighborhood was that from wet tires on wet pavement from a main street a couple blocks away. When the light changed and the traffic stopped, the noise stopped. Standing in a neighborhood street the sounds of nearby air conditioners were inaudible, or at least not discernible when the traffic was moving. One became aware of an air conditioner only when standing near it. The hard-to-measure interaction of ambient sound and the human ear came into play.

Today, of course, I hear one next-door neighbor's air conditioner; my other next-door neighbor hears mine; her neighbor . . .

That degree of mutual acceptance of a recognizable sound will probably never come about in debates about commercial downtown impact on neighborhoods, so the battle will have to be fought using today's more meaningful measurement technology available to all competing parties.

Royal Oak needs to re-think its permissible sound levels. One has to wonder who or which reference sources the City used to come up with its decibel levels. As this is written, one expert who had sent several authoritative documents to the a couple of city officials tells VersagiVoice that his communication has yet to be acknowledged by City Hall. -- 05 July 2010

The Sound of Music at CITCOM meeting: Part 2
Near-downtown neighborhoods have been unevenly successful protecting themselves from noise generated in Royal Oak's vibrant downtown, especially from the sound of very amplified contemporary music. Last week, VersagiVoice summarized the situation which involves the prospective successor to Memphis Smoke and the noise-control specifications in Royal Oak's to-be-amended Zoning Ordinance.

One immediate result of that summary was the following communication sent to City Engineer Elden Danielson and Planning Director Tim Thwing by Ed Wolfrum, a sound/recording expert who has recorded everyone from the original Motown crowd, through church choirs, to the Detroit Symphony:

"As a resident of Royal Oak I read Frank Versagi's "Versagi Voice" regularly. The recent page pointed out the re-writing of a Royal Oak noise ordinance.

"Being an Electro-Acoustic Engineer (I hold a Ph.D. in the field.) and having testified in numerous trials regarding this subject, I was concerned that my community not fall into the mire that I have on more than one occasion been forced to traverse.

"Nuisance noise ordinances are in most cases poorly written, legally indefinable and therefore from a practical position legally and in most cases scientifically unsupportable.  I know, as I have helped legally defeat numerous noise ordinances in Cities and Municipalities around the country.  The contrary problem is, in today's society they are necessary.

"This being the situation I would like to forward some data which may be of assistance in 'crafting' a hopefully effective and sensible law that will work for the City. ( I sometimes wonder whether 'Effective' and 'Sensible' are mutually exclusive.)

"In any case attached are some documents that may be of some help.  If you wish to discuss the matter at greater depth then feel free to contact me at 248.544-1793 (Audio Graphic Services) and I will be happy to help."

Wolfrum submitted four technical documents with his email.

Related
A discipline (an art, not a science) labeled "psychoacoustics" was introduced decades ago in the attempt to accommodate the fact that sound measurements and the human ear don't always agree. A high frequency and a low frequency sound, for example, may measure the same in decibels, but humans will say the high frequency sound is louder. In terms of city ordinances, it is
of more than  academic interest whether measurements are taken across the street from the source of the sound, a block away, or outside a bedroom window in the complaining neighborhood. Sound technology is complex.

A flower growing where it is not wanted is a weed. Think of violets.
Music heard where or when it is not appreciated is noise. Think of hard rock at 2 a.m.
Keeping in mind that zero decibels ( 0 db) is the "faintest audible sound,"  here is a basic list against which to compare Royal Oak's proposed loudness limits.

  • rustling leaves . . . 8 db

  • whispering . . . 10-20 db

  • average home . . . 20-30 db

  • automobile . . . 40-50 db

  • conversation . . . 50-60 db

  • heavy street traffic . . . 70-80 db

  • riveting gun . . . 90-100 db

  • thunder . . . 110 db

The Sound of Music at CITCOM meeting: Part 1
How to measure the sound-level of music in near-downtown neighborhoods became important at CITCOM's 21 June meeting. At issue was the confluence of a request for a rooftop band shell at Memphis Smoke when the facility is converted to a Diablo venue, if it is, and of the First Reading of proposed amendments to the noise-control portion of the city's Zoning Ordinance.

The Liquor Control Committee had already decided to require a Public Hearing about the Memphis Smoke/Diablo matter. And former commissioner Jeanne Sarnacki, during Public Comment, cited lower permitted sound-levels in nearby communities than are in Royal Oak's proposed amendments. The proposed amendments were pulled from the agenda. -- 21 June 2010

Aug 2010
How far away does someone's music remain noise to others?

And, how much difference should there be between daytime and nighttime sound levels?

Ferndale is poised to decide whether those questions should be answered by elected officials or by referendum. The basic debate is very much like that in Royal Oak:

  • A vibrant downtown versus nearby neighborhoods. (There's little sympathy for downtown condo owners or apartment renters who "chose to live the urban life.")
  • Where to measure sound for violations. (Residents prefer the measurement be taken at the homeowner's property line.)
  • Wherever the measurement is taken, how loud is too loud? (Ferndale's 10-year-old ordinance sets daytime levels at 75 decibels and nighttime at 65 decibels.)
  • Petitioners are seeking reductions of 10 decibels during the daytime and of 5 decibels at night, and one official has labeled such reductions "unrealistic."
  • "Keep the sound inside your establishment" seems undoable, given these days of sidewalk cafes and rooftop entertainment.

Ferndale officials hope that they can deal with the problem and avoid having it appear on the ballot. [See The Sound of Downtown Music (noise ordinances).

 

 

21 June 2010

28 June 2010

05 July 2010