Ship of Fools: Hearing is fragile: should churches try to protect hearing?

Thread: Hearing is fragile: should churches try to protect hearing? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024184

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

This is a thought I've been pondering since I was part of the live audience at The Forum on listening ten days ago. It was brought back to mind as a thread by my poor sore ringing ears this morning after attending a happy clappy service yesterday.

During The Forum programme, Professor David McAlpine was talking about hearing, how it worked, how fragile it is as a sense, and how important it is to us socially. He said we are sitting on a time bomb. Evolutionarily it hasn't mattered as by the time our hearing starts failing in our 40s and 50s we've reproduced and weren't expect to live that long. Nowadays with longer life expectancies it is becoming a huge issue because people are living for 50 years with impaired hearing. That situation is not going to improve with the way we abuse our hearing - concerts, night clubs, headphones ...

Going back to the happy clappy service, until three or four years ago, I could (I know it's unusual) hear social calls of bats. I did a lot of bat surveying. I've since had my hearing damaged by church sound systems. I can tell from my newly acquired tinnitus, how it is triggered by services and how it reduces again if I avoid those triggers.

Should churches be aware of the damage they may be doing to their congregations' ears? With this in mind, is it a good model for churches to produce sounds as would be found in a night club or concert for a Sunday service?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Should churches be aware of the damage they may be doing to their congregations' ears? With this in mind, is it a good model for churches to produce sounds as would be found in a night club or concert for a Sunday service?

Yes. I'd also say, if you go into a church and see the drum kit enclosed in a perspex box, go straight out again. Not only will it be bad for your hearing. It's an infallible indicator that here lives a drummer without no sense of music.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

Blackbeard spent much of professional career concerned with the effect noise on human hearing. Noise from amplified music was a known risk about 20 or 30 years ago and, frankly, AFAICS not a lot has changed since then. We know there's a risk but very little seems to have been done about it. Noise in the workplace is subject to legislation, but that's only for people at work.

I'm not up to speed with the latest on this ... some of the larger events probably try to limit noise exposure, and of course outdoor events have to be careful about noise nuisance, but I'm not aware that organisers of events in smaller clubs and churches actually give the matter much thought.

I'm completely in agreement that the churches should try to protect hearing, but I suspect that very few really want to recognise the problem. Yes, of course they should do something about it, but few will have much knowledge of the topic, and there's a real problem in that the audience/congregation WANT noise and the musicians WANT to make it. I rather suspect that any suggestion that the volume might be turned down a bit will meet a very unenthusiastic reception, maybe with a denial that there is actually a problem.

There is a huge body of data on the relation between noise and hearing loss and the basics are well established. But there is also quite a lot of individual variation, so some individuals will be little affected while others will be much more affected; also there are sources of hearing loss other than noise. This makes it quite difficult to say with any confidence that X's hearing loss is due to noise, rather than some other cause, especially since Y might be unaffected. So a civil action could be difficult. Also, of course, if an individuals knows there is a risk but chooses to participate anyway, there is probably no grounds for civil action. On the other hand of course, we are looking at young - perhaps very young - people to whom there is a duty of care, and volunteer helpers (to whom there might also be a duty of care) who feel that they have little choice and must participate. And of course clergy who are technically employed are therefore in principle covered by existing legislation.

It's now a long time since I had any direct interest in any of this, and I don't know the current state of play regards the law. Perhaps someone can tell me. I do know that workplace noise legislation was to an extent driven by civil actions.

Meanwhile I have a feeling that the proverbial is about to hit the fan. Do church insurance policies cover civil actions?

And for anyone finding themselves at such services - I advise one of two courses of action -
use hearing protection (foam ear plugs are good, make sure they fit well into the ear) - or else walk out. And if someone says there isn't a problem - they are not well informed, I leave it at that for the moment.

And as a very rough rule of thumb - if your ears are ringing, or your hearing is a bit dulled, afterwards - that is definitely a sign that all is not well. Do this too often and the damage is permanent.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

No longer being able to hear bat calls isn't necessarily a sign of damage, it is simply a matter of age. The top range of your hearing naturally degrades over time. Usually only children and young adults can hear bats.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

No, but tinnitus is definitely a sign of damage.

And no, I have no intention of suing anyone, but I have no plans to put myself into situations that aggravate the damage already done.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My husband plays drums in a rock band. Are his ears damaged? Yes, for sure.

Will he give up drumming? Never!

(I'll be investing in a light for doorbell and telephone then [Roll Eyes]

)

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

It's a problem everywhere, not just church. The habit of talking while watching tv has become ubiquitous so everything has to be louder just to get people's attention.

I just carry earplugs in my handbag at all times, since apparently no one else cares about their hearing.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

A friend told me (couple decades ago) she has hearing loss from playing music loud, but she likes it loud and she's not going to quit turning the stereo all the way up so she can feel the vibrations in the floor and furniture and her bones. "That's how I like it!" BTW, she's a health care professional.

A few years ago I walked into a Christian conference, was assaulted by the loudness of the band, wandered around the room looking for a seat with my hands over my ears. People smiled at me, some pointed to their ears, one finally showed me -- ear plugs. Another told me I could buy them at the hotel desk. A room full of people who need ear plugs to be in the same room as the band? But I'll bet the babies weren't given ear plugs! I worried about the babies, the parents probably think the kid is OK if he's asleep. Hours of exposure to deafening music at that age!

The next day I waited outside the hotel while the band played. One of the conference workers saw me, said "come on in!" I said "I'm waiting for the noise to stop." He said "that's not noise, that's worship!" I said "not when it damages hearing." He left me, obviously writing me off.

Is God honored when we "worship" in a way that sacrifices the health of our fellow worshipers? I say no, but the people who organize loud band events like it loud and, like my friend, don't care what it does to anyone's hearing.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

It is possible to hear bats when you're older. Last year, on a visit to Italy, I found the noise of the bats in a city square in the evenings unpleasantly loud and shrill, and I'm 46!

But back to the OP. Yes, I absolutely agree that churches should not be inadvertently causing physical harm. It wouldn't be acceptable if it was visible harm; why should it be acceptable if it's the invisible effects on hearing?

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
It is possible to hear bats when you're older. Last year, on a visit to Italy, I found the noise of the bats in a city square in the evenings unpleasantly loud and shrill, and I'm 46!
....

Yes, rate of hearing loss (like many other aspects of human performance) with age varies a lot between individuals, and you are evidently one of the lucky ones.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Hearing impairment is a subject dear to my heart, as I am profoundly deafened, and have been all my life.

I once left a church which had electric guitars and two very large amplifiers. I cannot tolerate organ music played fortissimo. It's cacaphony.

I attend a church now which has a piano and a choir. Just about tolerable.

I was talking with my audiologist when I went in for tests for a new hearing aid this summer. She mentioned that she had just seen a 12 year old boy whose hearing had been irreparably damaged by the very loud music his family listened to. He now wears two aids.

I said that she will never be out of a job. Very sad.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

If you're worried about hearing damage, carry a set of earplugs.

It's not that hard, I usually have a dozen or so on my person at any time. I've whipped them out and put them on in trains, at work, and at sporting events. And I guess if I was in a church and it was too loud, I'd put them in then, too!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Spiffy - the service I found painful had about 20 children attending. Choosing as an adult to protect my hearing by acting individualistically is not ethical in that situation.

When I was originally thinking about starting this thread it was to wonder why we were ignoring the risks to our hearing in our behaviour. But having come out of a family service attended by a lot of children that was too loud I started wondering less about individual responsibilities but more about what we were doing to our youngsters and other vulnerable people.

I can choose to walk away and not participate. The five year olds present, couldn't.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
If you're worried about hearing damage, carry a set of earplugs.

It's not that hard, I usually have a dozen or so on my person at any time. I've whipped them out and put them on in trains, at work, and at sporting events. And I guess if I was in a church and it was too loud, I'd put them in then, too!

Actually, it is hard. My ear interiors are so small I have great difficulty inserting ear plugs effectively.

More important, if ear plugs are advisable, they should be required of all people (including the babies!) entering the room with the loud noise. Those creating the noise level have a responsibility to make it a generally safe level or else provide and insist on use of safety equipment.

As for me, wouldn't occur to me to think I should bring earplugs to a church! (Unlike you, I don't have need of them more than once every year or two, so I don't carry them.) How would I wear what I don't have with me?

Most people would trust that a church surely wouldn't do anything physically harmful, so the noise level must be safe.

Interesting thought -- could a church be successfully sued for hearing loss contributed to by loud bands and insufficient warning of the danger of exposure to that noise level?

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Quite often on trains, I can hear people's music perfectly when they are sitting next to me and even from across the carriage. How it must be in their ears, I don't know.

And yes, I do sometimes ask if they would turn it down and people are usually happy to do so.

M.

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :

Since people's ears seem to differ, I'm wondering how a church would objectively know if their noise level was too loud. Is there a recognised standard level beyond which is considered dangerous, and can equipment be easily found to measure the noise?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

The church is a working environment for the clergy, is it not covered by the relevant Health and Safety legislation ? (That gives decibel levels.)

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Perky Ears there are relevant working levels legally for working environments. According to Professor David McAlpine in the recording in the OP (I hope it was then not the Q&A session afterwards) the people who work in nightclubs legally have to wear earplugs to work in that environment. Sound outside work is recognised as a serious risk factor in hearing loss.

My daughter who is an engineer spent her university training being told that the biggest cause of death in engineers was suicide in middle age when they lost their hearing as a way to encourage them to wear ear protection in the workshops. I can't find a reference for that, but I can find a reference linking depression and social isolation in the elderly to untreated hearing loss.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

In Brazil, I often pass by churches with people shouting on the top over their voices over an over-amped PA system.

This always makes me think: "God isn't deaf you know!"

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Quite often on trains, I can hear people's music perfectly when they are sitting next to me and even from across the carriage. How it must be in their ears, I don't know.

Blasting. I know, because that's how my husband listens to music. Borrow his headphones and your ears get blasted.

My Dad was deaf and needed lights for phone and doorbell, plus a loop system in the house. He had to stop listening to music entirely in the last 10 years of his life.

You'd think Mr Boogs would have learned from this - he hasn't.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

A lot of the research into sound pressure levels was done into industrial noise. It is a given that music of the same sound pressure level does not damage the hearing to the same extent as working in a noisy factory or walking alongside a busy road does.

As far as church music is concerned, there's nothing can compare to the sound of a 32' organ pipe turned up so that you can feel the bass. The same goes for rock led worship.

Distorted music is more damaging than non distorted music, so a small P A system flat out could be less damaging than a large P A with lots of headroom, even if the latter is actually louder. It could be the problem is that the P A is not large enough.

Back in the '70s Leeds City Council installed devices which would cut the power to amplifiers if the sound pressure level went above 93dB. It didn't last long. It led to people going in to classical concerts with dB meters and interrupting the performances when the orchestra went above that volume. A symphony orchestra can get bloody loud.

But worship is not a Motörhead concert. It is, among a lot of other things, a corporate experience. If the band or organ or whatever are so loud that the congregation cannot hear themselves then it is too loud. If the congregation are singing so loud that the accompanying music cannot be heard then the music is too quiet. What works for a tent full of thousands at Spring Harvest will be too loud in a congregation of 30.

As for screens around a drum kit, they allow the drummer to use dynamics, to play both loud and soft; it increases the range of the instrument without the other musicians having to turn up. Drum screens are to allow people to play quieter.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Some good posts here. I'm a music lecturer and also a lover of rock music. I have to warn my students to be vigilant with ear protection. As Blackbeard already mentioned, the warning signs were there from decades ago when very loud music became a normal occurrence. Overall, I'm rather pessimistic about changing attitudes to high-volumes. I am classical musician ('tut') but have also played a lot of jazz and rock music. In studio settings those volumes are much easier to control for yourself. Two years ago I was at the HTB away event Home Focus where the rock band played in a massive circus-style tent. I took a number of decibal readings, but as I didn't have ear protection I was unwilling to get too close. From about row 20 toward the speakers the sustained level hovered around 95+db with some sections and peaks close to 100db. Even the children's service hovered around 90db--which is shameful.

This is not a new issue. When confronted with this concern the performers are quick to assure you (me?) that the volume is kept at a 'safe' level (which is a blatant porky--safe levels stay below 80db for extended periods). I suspect that the truth of the matter is that they have no idea what the safe levels really are. The fact is, in most areas of pop/rock music, the volume is part of the 'experience' (and I think there is something to that claim) and without volume, some kinds of music just doesn't have the same 'effect'. Therefore, they're not going to change even in the full knowledge that attending such services results in permanent hearing loss.

If you quit smoking, the cilia in your lungs can grow back. In the case of your hearing, once it's damaged (and prolonged exposure to high db levels is the key) it doesn't return.

K.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

I say, what fun this thread is! just like old times for me ...

Anyway.

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
A lot of the research into sound pressure levels was done into industrial noise. It is a given that music of the same sound pressure level does not damage the hearing to the same extent as working in a noisy factory or walking alongside a busy road does.

Yes, I have seen some speculation along these lines but nothing that could be called proof - but then, I haven't been active in this field for a good few years now. Do you have any evidence which could support the assertion? and would it still hold if the "music" was not desired by the listener, in which case it would technically be considered noise?

quote:

Distorted music is more damaging than non distorted music, so a small P A system flat out could be less damaging than a large P A with lots of headroom, even if the latter is actually louder. It could be the problem is that the P A is not large enough.

Do you mean that the smaller system is more damaging?
and is the effect simply that the distorted music contains more high frequency, or is there something else?

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Hi Folks

Noise control is what I do for work.

Current legislation is uniform accross the EU ('Physical Agents Directive'), and reflects the principles of the UK noise at work regs (1989) whilst bringing down the thresholds of two of the action levels at which an employer has a responsibility to 'do things'. Though people *working* around amplified music were exempt from the regs for the first few years (there was a 'derogation' to allow the industry time to sort itself out and research to be done), for the last 2 years or so, they are included.

The regs reflect the two known mechanisms of hearing damage:

1) How much sound *energy* do your ears soak up over the course of a (nominally 8-hour) working day,

and

2) What *peak* (instantaneous) levels are your ears exposed to, such that instantaneous and perhaps permanent damage might result?

With regard to 1) - if your employer leads you to be subjected to 80dBA average over 8 hours, they must make hearing protection available. 80dBA is not so loud - a busy road perhaps. If you are exposed to an average of 85dBA over 8 hours at work, they must not only provide protection, but make sure you wear it (properly, and in the right areas around noisy kit at work).

Because of the way decibels work (a log scale) then 80dBA exposure for 8 hours = 83 for 4 hours, 86 for 2 hours, 89 for one hour, 92 for 30 mins; so in an average church service the energy threshold would probably be between 89 and 92 dBA assuming between 30 mins and one hour of loud music. This also assumes that for the rest of Sunday, people are exposed to levels less than about 80dBA (this won't do much to the overall measure, owing to the log scale. You don't have to spend the rest of Sunday on silent retreat!).

With regard to 2), no-one is to be exposed to >140dB peak. This doesn't happen with amplified music, for reasons you can PM me for if you want to be entirely bored.

Note that it only applies to working personnel - so doublethink's point about clergy is a good one. As a 'punter' you have no redress under the regs, though if it was a commercial gig there should be a line on the ticket somewhere saying 'loud music can damage your ears'. As an unpaid worship leader (or door steward?) I think the church might have a duty of care towards you.

As to what level you are likely to be exposed to - my experience in concert noise control suggests people start to chat / complain when a pop/rock gig falls below 90-94dBA (short-term average) - jazz and classical are of course different. 95-98dBA would be loud but not unusual. All these numbers are above the threshold we worked out earlier where in a paid situation an employer would have to make protection available - though perhaps only approaching the levels at which they would have to ensure you wore it.

This is too long already...but plastic boxes for drummers are a good sign and borrow from theatre practice. They mean the drummer can hear himself, the on-stage level is lower (since the guitar and bass amps don't have to be 'up' for the right balance with the acoustic drum output), and most of the sound power is coming through the main PA, which has a trained guy on it who can turn things down on the main faders beacuse he's a professional and doesn't need to prove something by making everyone's ears bleed...right? [Big Grin]

[Nightmare scenario is un-boxed acoustic drum kit and 'big amp' backline on stage, with only vocals through PA. Sound man can turn the PA off, and it will still be deafening. One then has to walk onstage and start fighting with the musicians over the knob settings on their amps... [Killing me]

Not a happy way to earn a crust.)

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The church is a working environment for the clergy, is it not covered by the relevant Health and Safety legislation ? (That gives decibel levels.)

I would have thought it would be - but the chance of an HSE inspector getting involved is probably fairly slim. There are too many uncertainties, too many variables, and not enough people involved, to make it an effective target; industrial noise is much easier!

But if a clergy person (or anyone else) were concerned about hearing loss and brought a civil action, that might be another matter (though under current legislation, I'm not sure how this might go). It wouldn't be a way of getting rich, certainly. And you would need evidence in addition to a noise survey; preferably "before" and "after" audiometry.
Which is a hint for anyone worried; get your hearing checked, now, by an audiologist, and be sure that the results are recorded.

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Having hearing aids is an advantage when encountering loud music in most upscale restaurants. I can just turn them off. Too bad about the youngsters but they'll soon enough have their own hearing aids at age forty instead of 80.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
This also assumes that for the rest of Sunday, people are exposed to levels less than about 80dBA

Oops - should read 'less than about 70dBA'. Not unlikely, for most people.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Is this just another excuse to have a go at modern-style praise bands, or are you perfectly happy to get the noise meters out when the organ's playing as well?

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Ummm...for me, noise is just acoustic energy. Praise bands, organs, aircraft, sexually-unrestrained neighbours - it's all the same to me [Razz]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is this just another excuse to have a go at modern-style praise bands, or are you perfectly happy to get the noise meters out when the organ's playing as well?

I have to say I've never heard an organ anything like loud enough to make be think it'd be worth getting the meter out, but in principle, yes.

To be fair, I've never heard a "praise band" that was particularly loud either, but that's my intentionally limited experience.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Both Marvin.

The service I attended on Sunday, all the sound was too loud, the words in the spoken parts and the music. My damage is from feedback on a sound system in a traditional church. Too high for most people to hear, excruciatingly painful if you could - mosquito levels and pitch.

I wondered about organ music and wondered if the difference is that the time it's playing is shorter. Usually for say 5 minutes 6 or 7 times during the service (introit, Gloria, gradual, offertory, communion, post communion, voluntary). Organists are not exempt from hearing damage. So say 30 minutes maximum and for several of those the organ will not be going full pelt.

The services I've attended with praise bands tend to have music continuously for 10 to 20 minutes, 3 or 4 times during the service. So nearer an hour of full sound.

Of the main factors in hearing damage, one is the time of exposure and another is the volume.

[ 27. November 2012, 13:34: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is this just another excuse to have a go at modern-style praise bands, or are you perfectly happy to get the noise meters out when the organ's playing as well?

Of course other types and styles of music can also be loud, though most classical (and other) styles have greater dynamic variety.

K.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is this just another excuse to have a go at modern-style praise bands, or are you perfectly happy to get the noise meters out when the organ's playing as well?

Very rare is a church organ which can prevail above so much as a brass quartet in the building, let alone guitars etc. with heavy amplification.

Concert-hall organs, designed to hold their own against an orchestra, must be scaled and voiced much more boldly. I don't hear many complaints about these; in fact a surprising number have been built within the past twenty years. (Maybe I don't hear them because I'm deaf [Confused]

)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is this just another excuse to have a go at modern-style praise bands, or are you perfectly happy to get the noise meters out when the organ's playing as well?

I think you're spot on here.

We've faced these sorts of "concerns" at our church as part & parcel of our "worship wars". fwiw, my husband (a sound engineer) has, in fact, pulled out his meter and measured on numerous occasions-- including the youth band which in our place is by far louder and more percussion driven. He has yet to measure a reading even close to what audiologists have determined to be dangerous. ymmv-- but color me suspicious.

Having the meter is handy though, in dismissing this argument and moving the discussion along to what is really underlying those concerns.

[ 27. November 2012, 15:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is this just another excuse to have a go at modern-style praise bands, or are you perfectly happy to get the noise meters out when the organ's playing as well?
I think you're spot on here.

But the loud organ music is not sustained over long periods, unless perhaps you're doing a mass setting by Philip Glass. In contrast, a loud praise band will blast its music steadily for 15 or 20 minutes before things settle down.

As for the damage sustained loud noises can do, my old piano tuner ended up hardly able to hear a thing by the time he retired.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is this just another excuse to have a go at modern-style praise bands, or are you perfectly happy to get the noise meters out when the organ's playing as well?

Marvin, the main problem is electronic amplification, leading to much higher sustained levels than are possible "unplugged". The levels can be and have been measured. Sorry, but if you think this is nothing more than prejudice against modern music then you are ill informed.
I have nothing against modern praise music and I deeply regret that there is a problem; I would like to be convinced that there really isn't a problem; I would like to think that particpants are both praising and enjoying, without ill effects; but the evidence says otherwise.

I don't know of any measurements of volume from a pipe organ but, subjectively, I would be surprised if there's a serious problem. I have never heard an organ (not even the Albert Hall one) which gave me cause for anxiety. But maybe I should get a meter out.

For the record, and a bit off topic, there have been studies of noise and noise-induced hearing loss from "classical" musicians and, yes, there is a problem (which seems to be at its worst in reverberant over-crowded practice rooms), but I'm not convinced that it is especially serious one. And "classical" orchestras can produce some pretty high levels though, generally, not for long periods.

And a bit more off topic: the classical orchestra, defined more strictly in the sense Mozart/Haydn, was nothing like as loud as the modern symphony orchestra; it was much smaller with maybe 30 players, and (so far as I can gather) instruments were not as loud; violins, for instance, had gut strings, and lower string tension than is now the case.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is this just another excuse to have a go at modern-style praise bands, or are you perfectly happy to get the noise meters out when the organ's playing as well?
I think you're spot on here.

We've faced these sorts of "concerns" at our church as part & parcel of our "worship wars". fwiw, my husband (a sound engineer) has, in fact, pulled out his meter and measured on numerous occasions-- including the youth band which in our place is by far louder and more percussion driven. He has yet to measure a reading even close to what audiologists have determined to be dangerous. ymmv-- but color me suspicious.

Having the meter is handy though, in dismissing this argument and moving the discussion along to what is really underlying those concerns.

Yes, you seem to be fortunate in your praise band. Of course they will vary.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

My original idea for this thread was to discuss how we are sitting on a hearing time bomb - and wonder about the way we use music and amplification generally.

I know that the teenagers I've worked with have been listening to music through earphones at sound levels I suspect are damaging. And the lack of awareness of hearing loss and the way ears cannot repair themselves is something we're oblivious to

I grew up with a grandfather who was deafened in his 20s at the Battle of the Somme and saw how that deafness affected him and left him isolated. I remember how hard it was to hold a conversation with him, and how we avoided doing so.

Professor David McAlpine said George Martin is profoundly deaf now, cannot hear any of that music he produced.

Do we really wish this on ourselves? Should we not be aware of these issues as churches?

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Yes, Curiosity KTC, we should, but there is a pretty consistant pattern of presenting to both the young and old compelling evidence of what they are doing to themselves--and them ignoring it. We've tried awareness campaigns, even involving celebrities like Pete Townsend and others. A significant part of the church is devoted to amplified pop music in church and it is a massive business. The whole culture that goes with it insists on loud volumes. I can tell you that I have spoken to several very well-known worship leaders in the UK and they only play lip service to the idea--they go right back out there in the full knowledge that as they play they are permanently doing damage to the hearing of their congregations. The bond between that segment of evangelical culture and pop culture cannot easily be broken. The last thing they want is to be told to turn it down. They won't do it.

K.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Marvin, the main problem is electronic amplification, leading to much higher sustained levels than are possible "unplugged". The levels can be and have been measured.

Can you provide any evidence to back this up? So far the only person who has mentioned actually using a decibel meter in a service has reported that there was nothing to worry about.

I strongly suspect that any evidence that gets produced will be from rock concerts and/or nightclubs, where the music really is so loud that you can't hear yourself shout. But I've never once been to a church service where the praise band played anything like so loudly, amplified or not. The only time I've had anything like the same "can't hear myself shout" experience in a church service was when the only instrument in the building was an organ, and even then it wasn't as loud as a concert or nightclub.

I'm still not convinced that this is anything other than prejudice against modern-style music. All the talk of "amplification" is just code for "electric guitars". My reasons for thinking that? Well, in one church I used to play in the band at we used to get the same complaints about "amplified music". So we did one service where only the cello and piano were used, and the complainers all said how nice it was to be without "amplified music". Of course, they weren't aware that the electric piano and the cello (via a pick up) were being piped through exactly the same amplification system as the band the week before. At a louder setting. The complainers didn't give a shit about sound levels or amplification, they just didn't like the guitars and weren't honest enough to come out and say so.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

I reported using a decibal metre in a number of services at dangerous levels.

K.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

And Marvin, I've said I've found speech painful too, amplified to too high a volume.

(I actually play guitar, don't have an issue with it)

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Marvin, I appreciate your feelings on this and I would love it if we could avoid another worship wars thread. I confess my musical preferences for devotional music (though I don't have a record of keeping those opinions to myself). Back to the topic…

There is a perception amongst some musicians that loudness is about perception; some things seem louder to some than others. There is a bit of truth in this, but the science is a little different. One very worrying pattern is that once your hearing is damaged, even a little, you need louder and louder volumes to get the same 'effect' that lower levels once had. Each of these steps, in turn, leads to an increase in the loss of hearing. I know a rock musician in London who became a composer (and composed many high-profile works for TV and film). His public career is basically over, although he is not even 50--the reason is that he has lost all of his hearing from prolonged exposure to excessive volumes.

I would agree that rock/pop music loses much of its effect when played at safe volumes. However, you cannot have it and not have it.

K.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

There's no way known that music in a church needs to be loud enough to set my ears ringing. It's not a concert.

I can't recall it ever HAPPENING in church, mind you. But I certainly wouldn't stick around if it did.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
One very worrying pattern is that once your hearing is damaged, even a little, you need louder and louder volumes to get the same 'effect' that lower levels once had. Each of these steps, in turn, leads to an increase in the loss of hearing.

I have a theory that each generation of sound engineers deafens the next. They turn it up for themselves, and in doing so start the damage in the next group of people seriously into music who will consider that career.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is this just another excuse to have a go at modern-style praise bands, or are you perfectly happy to get the noise meters out when the organ's playing as well?
I think you're spot on here.

We've faced these sorts of "concerns" at our church as part & parcel of our "worship wars". fwiw, my husband (a sound engineer) has, in fact, pulled out his meter and measured on numerous occasions-- including the youth band which in our place is by far louder and more percussion driven. He has yet to measure a reading even close to what audiologists have determined to be dangerous. ymmv-- but color me suspicious.

Having the meter is handy though, in dismissing this argument and moving the discussion along to what is really underlying those concerns.
Yes, you seem to be fortunate in your praise band. Of course they will vary.

Yes-- hence my "ymmv". But I think there are also a couple of underlying truth here:

1. Our perceptions of "too loud" are at least to some degree related to our perception of whether the sound in question is pleasurable or not.

2. When it comes to "worship wars", as with so many conflicts, what is presented as the concern/ problem is not always the real issue. Christians don't like to say "I don't like that style of worship/ coffee/ music/ whatever and I wish you'd do what I like" so they often frame the issue differently-- sometimes by putting the concern in someone else's mouth ("I am fine with it, but I think the older folks will feel excluded...") or focusing on something else. Getting at the real problem is essential to resolving the conflict.

In this case, being able to measure the actual volume enabled us to dismiss the red herring issue and move to the uncomfortable conversation that the hearing (herring) issue was trying to evade.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Can you provide any evidence to back this up? So far the only person who has mentioned actually using a decibel meter in a service has reported that there was nothing to worry about.

.....

Marvin, we have on this thread measurements by Komensky, report of tinnitus by CK, and a report on use of ear plugs by Belle Ringer. Now I know the latter two are not meter measurements, but tinnitus is associated with long term damage, and a perceived need for hearing protection is unlikely to occur at safe (or anywhere near safe) levels.

And of course other reports showing that levels at other services can be "safe".

From which we can deduce two things - that the levels can vary greatly from one worship service to another (which shouldn't surprise us); and that a service with "safe" levels is possible.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

One of the main ways that ears get damaged is too much being pushed down the mid mix. Underpowered PAs, not having a wide enough FOH rig, to allow for frequencies to be properly generated, without the harsh clipping that does the damage.

There's also a perfect storm where you have dB limiting without a decent EQ curve boosting the bottom and top... meaning that everything is more ear-pummelling.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

If you stick with what I suggested earlier, that the volume levels of a worship service should not go above where people can hear themselves sing*, then I'd be surprised if sound pressure gets into the high levels that cause hearing loss. This applies equally to rock bands and organists who play all stops out.

*I mean sing, not scream at the top of your voice to be heard.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

USeful information here. I work in a church and we get organists practising and currently drilling which can get pretty overwhelming. I think I need to put a decibel meter on my phone and record the levels. ORgans can get very loud, especially when the 32ft pedal pipes are outside your office door!

Carys

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is this just another excuse to have a go at modern-style praise bands, or are you perfectly happy to get the noise meters out when the organ's playing as well?

I like happy clappy music. I don't like music too loud for physical health. Does that answer your question about whether this thread is just having a go at style?

I've never heard an organ sustain 45 minutes at blast volume like some praise bands do. But also, I do hear complaints -- frequently -- about the organ being too loud, when the organ is playing at volumes well below rock band level.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I like happy clappy music. I don't like music too loud for physical health. Does that answer your question about whether this thread is just having a go at style?

I've never heard an organ sustain 45 minutes at blast volume like some praise bands do. But also, I do hear complaints -- frequently -- about the organ being too loud, when the organ is playing at volumes well below rock band level.

I noticed something interesting on Organ/Band relative volumes a few years back at my church. It was an Easter evening service - really rather noisy. At the end of one song, I suddenly realised that the organ was playing: the organist held the last chord longer than the band. I was quite near the organ as well, and not in direct line of the PA speakers. In other words, the band was several dB louder than the organ.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
...volume levels of a worship service should not go above where people can hear themselves sing*...

*I mean sing, not scream at the top of your voice to be heard.

YES!

But alas the local organist says if people aren't singing loudly enough he turns up the organ volume to make up for that lack. To me that's backwards, the instrumentation needs to be quiet enough for people to hear themselves and others sing.

Any organists here able to explain why he would think the organ should "make up for" singing that is "too quiet"? Traditional service, old hymns, small pipe organ.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
...volume levels of a worship service should not go above where people can hear themselves sing*...

*I mean sing, not scream at the top of your voice to be heard.
YES!

But alas the local organist says if people aren't singing loudly enough he turns up the organ volume to make up for that lack. To me that's backwards, the instrumentation needs to be quiet enough for people to hear themselves and others sing.

Any organists here able to explain why he would think the organ should "make up for" singing that is "too quiet"? Traditional service, old hymns, small pipe organ.

tangentally, my personal peeve is the almost obsessive need of organists to fill every single silence-- including in the middle of meditative prayer-- with some sort of musical filler.

Sometimes the silence is intentional, folks!

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But alas the local organist says if people aren't singing loudly enough he turns up the organ volume to make up for that lack. To me that's backwards, the instrumentation needs to be quiet enough for people to hear themselves and others sing.

Any organists here able to explain why he would think the organ should "make up for" singing that is "too quiet"? Traditional service, old hymns, small pipe organ.

I agree, that organist has things the wrong way around, and needs somebody confident who will dictate the volume to him so he's set free to worship through his skill rather than concerning himself with whether it's loud enough for God to hear all the way up in heaven.

I would add that while you don't want the music to go beyond the point that the collective singing can't be heard, it also needs to be loud enough at a minimum to allow those who are self-concious about their singing to worship joyfully without feeling they have to restrain themselves in case somebody else hears their voice out of the crowd. People who have taken on board disparaging comments from choir teachers or not-funny "jokes" from friends/family deserve to be included by the church no less than those who do have the self-confidence to have their voice heard individually.

Finding the middle ground where it's neither too loud for the massed voices of the crowd or too quiet for the individual voices can be an interesting experience, especially since those with high self-confidence in areas such as singing are also usually the ones who are more confident in asserting themselves in a power struggle. Or to put it bluntly, having an assertive organist ruling the roost might be bad, but it also could be bad if it's the singers calling the shots.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Related to that thing about playing loud enough that the unconfident to join in, overall volume seems to fall into a continuum. Too quiet and people sing quietly, which is hard if you're not a good singer. Too loud and people are deafened and give up. But there's then a fairly wide range in between where it's loud enough to encourage confidence, and if you nudge it a little bit louder, the congregation will sing with more gusto and go with it.

I wouldn't say the musicians should ever make up a lack in volume, but you do need to avoid that you don't get into either an arms race or a race to silence.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

In most churches, it's really hard for the organist to anything more than guess whether the balance between organ and congregation is correct during hymns, even if it's an instrument they play regularly. This is for one simple reason it can be hard to get over: very few organists get to be in the congregation regularly in their "own" churches, or get a true version of what the congregation hears when they play. Organists have their own pet theories about how to register the gentle and delicate art of accompanything hymns, but how that interacts with any given instrument can be a matter of chance, at least for a surprisingly long time, until theories are refined by experience and observation (at the same time as actually playing the hymns, of course).

I too am greatly peeved when organists cover every single silence. Sadly, many celebrants get very twitchy if this isn't done.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
In most churches, it's really hard for the organist to anything more than guess whether the balance between organ and congregation is correct during hymns, even if it's an instrument they play regularly. This is for one simple reason it can be hard to get over: very few organists get to be in the congregation regularly in their "own" churches, or get a true version of what the congregation hears when they play. Organists have their own pet theories about how to register the gentle and delicate art of accompanything hymns, but how that interacts with any given instrument can be a matter of chance, at least for a surprisingly long time, until theories are refined by experience and observation (at the same time as actually playing the hymns, of course).

I too am greatly peeved when organists cover every single silence. Sadly, many celebrants get very twitchy if this isn't done.

So... digital organ, and put it through FOH, and let the sound techs control the SPL, as they're standing with the congo. Job done.
They can also balance it with the band.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

But most people on the sound desks haven't been educated in decibel levels or have any awareness of hearing damage. So that's not necessarily going to work, always assuming people want to destroy their amazing historic organs and replace them with digital organs that need to have reverb added back through the sound desk to make it sound right.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
So... digital organ, and put it through FOH, and let the sound techs control the SPL, as they're standing with the congo. Job done.
They can also balance it with the band.

Organ WITH a band?

eeeewwwwww [Frown]

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
always assuming people want to destroy their amazing historic organs and replace them with digital organs that need to have reverb added back through the sound desk to make it sound right.

Something which would occur only after the last breath has left my protesting body.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I don't have any church experience, but back in the day when I was trashing my ears with large movie sound systems, it was pointed out to me that there is a class of earplugs that let you hear normal level stuff but cut out the very loud stuff. They're usually sold on gun shops and by music shops catering to professional rock musicians. They are useful if you're trying to hear the sermon but not the band. ;-)

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

How big is your organ?

The problem for an organist, especially one with a large instrument, is that the console is often far from the congregation, even let into the wall of the organ enclosure. Hearing what the singing level of the congregation can be difficult.

I've been to weddings and funerals where hardly any singing was done, but the sound level was such that should someone have chosen to sing they would have been able to hear themselves. There is no need to race for silence.

Band worship is different. If someone at the back of the building is mixing a band so that it drowns everyone out there is no excuse.

In both cases, traditional and contemporary, you are not there to put on a show, you are there to help people to worship God. If you lose sight of that you are not doing your job right.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

... is it a good model for churches to produce sounds as would be found in a night club or concert for a Sunday service? ...

Surely not! People should stay away from churches like that. Such places are most unseemly, and perhaps will die out on their own if people don't atttend them because of hearing or other issues.

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
...most of the sound power is coming through the main PA, which has a trained guy on it who can turn things down on the main faders beacuse he's a professional and doesn't need to prove something by making everyone's ears bleed...right?

Most of the professional PA operators I've met like to demonstrate just what their kit can do [Biased]

A frequent problem for me is not the volume but the balance. I cannot make out the words that are being sung over the volume of the accompaniment.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
Most of the professional PA operators I've met like to demonstrate just what their kit can do

Just like organists who like to show off their organs [Biased]

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
.... there is a class of earplugs that let you hear normal level stuff but cut out the very loud stuff. They're usually sold on gun shops and by music shops catering to professional rock musicians. They are useful if you're trying to hear the sermon but not the band. ;-)

Once upon a time, I had quite a lot to do with earplugs which cut out VERY loud noise. Another useful trick for musicians' ear plugs is to adjust their response to different frequencies so that it's more even than is usually the case with hearing protection.

While some, at least, of the earplugs of this type will probably work as claimed, I can't offer you anything which will filter out music from sermon - or, indeed, vice versa.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:

While some, at least, of the earplugs of this type will probably work as claimed, I can't offer you anything which will filter out music from sermon - or, indeed, vice versa.

No, they cut frequencies or levels but do not separate talk from music. However a lot of people find adjusting frequency response can make speech intelligible.

Years ago, in the predigital era, there was a tube based audio processor that would take a tape and separate speech from background music. In order to work, you had to run the tape backwards to detect rapid decay, It's hard to see how to use that technique without degenerating into black masses. [Biased]

Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In Brazil, I often pass by churches with people shouting on the top over their voices over an over-amped PA system.

This always makes me think: "God isn't deaf you know!"

Same in Fiji, but it's worst at open air "revival meetings". On one occasion , I was about to complain to our next door neighbour about his radio being too loud, when I realised that the noise was coming from a revival meeting 2 kilometers away!! I conclude that members of the "All Nations Christian Fellowship" are convinced that God is deaf because they themselves are all deaf after only one of their meetings.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

It's pretty straightforward: louder volumes affect the nervous system more than safer/quieter ones. In the pop-rock worship music field, this can often mean 'effective worship' has to be loud. Go to loud church (HTB, many Vineyard churches, Hillsong, etc.), present them with a decibal reading and watch what happens (or rather, doesn't happen). The same goes, by the way, for many kinds of concerts. I doubt that the Stones will turn it down either… and for similar reasons.

K.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

When a rock band plays at the local football stadium we can only just hear it at 2 miles away if we turn the television off and strain our hearing. Events in the park at half a mile away are never loud. Are the All Nations Christian Fellowship really louder than Bon Jovi?

Shouty style preaching was one time the solution where there was no amplification. To be heard in a large building or in the open air you had to shout. Pentecostal preaching, especially American Black Pentecostal preaching comes from this tradition.

It has become a tradition of this is how you preach.

The more traditional solution to this same problem is chanting. You sing up the scale until you find the note that reverberates around the building, then you chant on that note. (Not the note given by the organist as this is almost always the wrong note.) Every building and auditorium has it's own chanting frequency. There is nothing new about this, and nothing particularly spiritual either, chanting was used by actors in ancient Greek auditoria.

Like amplifiction, these are techniques to enable those taking services to be heard, using it to be overheard is not good practice.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

A few interesting comments here about volume impeding congo singing. At the local evangelical C of E church, the loudest and most unified singing is--by far--done without any instruments or amplification at all. It's also the most beautiful.

Just sayin' [as the yoof say…]

K.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Go to loud church (HTB, many Vineyard churches, Hillsong, etc.), present them with a decibal reading and watch what happens (or rather, doesn't happen).

Or, as noted before, conversely as well. Go to your local "it's too loud!" griper, present them with a decibal reading and watch what happens... or rather, doesn't happen.

[ 03. December 2012, 13:50: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Go to loud church (HTB, many Vineyard churches, Hillsong, etc.), present them with a decibal reading and watch what happens (or rather, doesn't happen).
Or, as noted before, conversely as well. Go to your local "it's too loud!" griper, present them with a decibal reading and watch what happens... or rather, doesn't happen.

I don't get it… oh wait, I see: you think that safe/unsafe decible readings are relative. Is that it?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Go to loud church (HTB, many Vineyard churches, Hillsong, etc.), present them with a decibal reading and watch what happens (or rather, doesn't happen).
Or, as noted before, conversely as well. Go to your local "it's too loud!" griper, present them with a decibal reading and watch what happens... or rather, doesn't happen.
I don't get it… oh wait, I see: you think that safe/unsafe decible readings are relative. Is that it?

Actually, if you read upthread, you will see a somewhat lengthy discussion. I describe how my husband (a sound engineer) has done precisely that on numerous occasions including our loud youth band, and has yet to find a reading even remotely close to the range determined by audiologists to be dangerous.

As I said, ymmv, but from my experience, complaints about the volume being dangerous for hearing are rarely really about that. At the very least, your "gotcha!" moment may turn out to be a bust for reasons far different than the one you envision.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

One of the problems I've come across - admittedly in venues rather than churches - is that the sound man (and it nearly always is a man!) listens through their cans all the time rather than taking them off and experiencing whatever the audience is hearing.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

We overcome this problem in the C of E by sitting at the back.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Ah, we had that problem, but we cured it by removing the back pews last year. [Two face]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The more traditional solution to this same problem is chanting. You sing up the scale until you find the note that reverberates around the building, then you chant on that note. (Not the note given by the organist as this is almost always the wrong note.) Every building and auditorium has it's own chanting frequency. ...

Thanks for that. A music director told me chant was used as a substitute for using a mic (which didn't exist) because chant carries the sound of the human voice better -- farther and clearer -- than the spoken words. But he didn't go into the detail about each hall having it's own best frequency to use.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
But he didn't go into the detail about each hall having it's own best frequency to use.

There's such a small possibility of me ever being able to polish my kn*b about my technical specialism on the ship ever again, that I feel overwhelmingly compelled to make another gratuitous post.

Buildings have resonant frequencies just like waves propagating in a musical instrument. Most instruments are one-dimensional - and although some (eg clarinets, stopped organ pipes) behave differently, many resound at a lowest (fundamental) frequency, then 2x, 3x, 4x etc this frequency. This gives rise to a harmonic series - tonic, octave, octave-plus-fifth, two octaves, two octaves plus maj 3rd, etc etc etc. A tin whistle behaves this way as you blow harder without changing fingering, for example.

Buildings, being three-dimensional, have three of these series going on at once, with relative fundamental tones set by the aspect ratio for a simple rectangular-cuboid shape. But we can play 3D snooker with energy bouncing off multiple walls, floor, cieling etc - so the possible resonant frequencies rapidly get very out of hand, hard to predict, and close together in frequency. At some limiting frequency (a fairly low one in a big room) we give up trying to find individual resonances, and call it 'reverberation'.

If you have a small toilet (not-knocked-through), try singing the lowest note you can, and then sliding the tone up slowly. You'll find a number of strong isolated resonances as the room is so small, and reverb (confusion) does not kick in until a comparatively high frequency. Men, typically having an extra octave at their disposal, may find this easier.

In a big room, one may find a resonance - but it will be very close in pitch to many, many others, so finding the 'magic tone' is less useful than when singing (alone, or in a choral setting) in the toilet.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Typically in charismatic mixed-band places, the soundman will balance the PA against the congo so they're about the same sonic weight...

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Typically in charismatic mixed-band places, the soundman will balance the PA against the congo so they're about the same sonic weight...

If they have been trained properly. If they haven't been, they are just as likely to get into penis contests as organists are.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0