Overloading the SM57 ? [Archive]

Mark

August 14th 04, 02:09 PM

Hi,
I recently recorded some distorted electric guitar with an SM57 on a
Marshall amp. I'm fairly new to recording, and think I may of positioned
the mic incorrectly. I'm finding I have to roll off *alot* of bass, and the
upper end doesn't seem to "sparkle" for lack of a better word, its not as
clear as I would like I guess.

I had the SM57 right up to the grill, which I think was my first mistake. I
did not have it pointing directly into the middle, and I did fiddle with the
position, but I don't think I got it to an optimum position (time
restrictions!). Also I measured the A weighted output at that range to be
120dB ... so I'm wondering if it was perhaps a bit too loud ...

Could all this be the reason behind a bit of a muddy sound ? I'm finding I
need to boost around 3 to 4db around 4 or 5k, cut quiet a lot around 250hz
and high pass around 120. Even with that, the higher end sounds almost like
I have a cloth over my speakers compared to a CD.

I'm hoping my condensor mic (U195) will help with the upper end "sparkle"
when I try again. I will place this at a distance, and I will try the SM57
about 4" away, sound about right ? I know I will need to experiment with
the condensor mic distance to deal with phase problems, but what rough
distances should I be looking at just as a guide to experimentation ?

Sorry, I know its a little generic and vague.

Cheers,

Mark.
--

Martin Quinn

August 14th 04, 04:06 PM

If it was too bassy and it was right up against the grill then you should
back it off a few inches. You have just experienced the proximity effect
(the closer a mic is to a sources the more it captures bass).

Besides that, you should try and change the settings on your amp to get the
desired sound (less bass, more treble).

Do all of this BEFORE going for EQ on the desk. I wouldn't use the U195 on
an amp, though go ahead and try it! I'd be a little afraid of damaging the
diagphram if you have the amp loud. SM57 is more than adequate for getting a
distorted rock guitar sound. For a clean sparkly strat sound you should
either think about DIing or using your U195. Oh, and ompress the hell out of
it!

Martin

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
> I recently recorded some distorted electric guitar with an SM57 on a
> Marshall amp. I'm fairly new to recording, and think I may of positioned
> the mic incorrectly. I'm finding I have to roll off *alot* of bass, and
the
> upper end doesn't seem to "sparkle" for lack of a better word, its not as
> clear as I would like I guess.
>
> I had the SM57 right up to the grill, which I think was my first mistake.
I
> did not have it pointing directly into the middle, and I did fiddle with
the
> position, but I don't think I got it to an optimum position (time
> restrictions!). Also I measured the A weighted output at that range to be
> 120dB ... so I'm wondering if it was perhaps a bit too loud ...
>
> Could all this be the reason behind a bit of a muddy sound ? I'm finding
I
> need to boost around 3 to 4db around 4 or 5k, cut quiet a lot around 250hz
> and high pass around 120. Even with that, the higher end sounds almost
like
> I have a cloth over my speakers compared to a CD.
>
> I'm hoping my condensor mic (U195) will help with the upper end "sparkle"
> when I try again. I will place this at a distance, and I will try the
SM57
> about 4" away, sound about right ? I know I will need to experiment with
> the condensor mic distance to deal with phase problems, but what rough
> distances should I be looking at just as a guide to experimentation ?
>
> Sorry, I know its a little generic and vague.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark.
> --
>
>

Arny Krueger

August 14th 04, 04:50 PM

"Mark" > wrote in message

> Also I measured the A
> weighted output at that range to be 120dB ... so I'm wondering if it
> was perhaps a bit too loud ...

It's darn hard to overload a SM57. you're probably 10-20 dB south of
actually doing so.

More likely, the sound is muddy because your mic is too close to the
speakers to capture all of the interesting things they do.

Mark

August 14th 04, 05:18 PM

Yeh thats what I figured. When I was "researching" a lot of sites said put
the mic right against the grill cloth. I've now realised, after
experimenting, for me at least that isn't the best way to go. I've managed
to get a reasonable sound with lots of eq cutting so I'll live with it until
the next session.

Cheers !

Mark.
--

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Mark" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Also I measured the A
> > weighted output at that range to be 120dB ... so I'm wondering if it
> > was perhaps a bit too loud ...
>
> It's darn hard to overload a SM57. you're probably 10-20 dB south of
> actually doing so.
>
> More likely, the sound is muddy because your mic is too close to the
> speakers to capture all of the interesting things they do.
>
>

Raymond

August 14th 04, 06:54 PM

Mark wrote
>Yeh thats what I figured. When I was "researching" a lot of sites said put
>the mic right against the grill cloth. I've now realised, after
>experimenting, for me at least that isn't the best way to go. I've managed
>to get a reasonable sound with lots of eq cutting so I'll live with it until
>the next session.

This will all depend on how you play (loud or soft) and how you set your amp.
As far as mic placement, yes, it is the big factor on what kind of recording
you'll get. But if you place your mic towards the edge of the speaker you'll
get more bass response than if you set it dead center. Do a bit of
experimenting with placement (of mic and amp) and you'll find out just what the
sweet spot is for your guitar sound and the room your in.

Mark

August 14th 04, 06:59 PM

Yep I'll give that a try. I do not have any closed headphones at the
moment, so I have to keep running between my monitoring room and where the
amp is, and its fairly hard to remember the difference sometimes. I could
record each position and compare I guess.

I did actually mess around with positions the last time but I kept the mic
right up against the grill cloth, I didn't play with distance so much, thats
the next thing to try !

Cheers,

Mark.
--

"Raymond" > wrote in message
...
> Mark wrote
> >Yeh thats what I figured. When I was "researching" a lot of sites said
put
> >the mic right against the grill cloth. I've now realised, after
> >experimenting, for me at least that isn't the best way to go. I've
managed
> >to get a reasonable sound with lots of eq cutting so I'll live with it
until
> >the next session.
>
> This will all depend on how you play (loud or soft) and how you set your
amp.
> As far as mic placement, yes, it is the big factor on what kind of
recording
> you'll get. But if you place your mic towards the edge of the speaker
you'll
> get more bass response than if you set it dead center. Do a bit of
> experimenting with placement (of mic and amp) and you'll find out just
what the
> sweet spot is for your guitar sound and the room your in.

Pooh Bear

August 14th 04, 10:39 PM

Martin Quinn wrote:

> If it was too bassy and it was right up against the grill then you should
> back it off a few inches. You have just experienced the proximity effect
> (the closer a mic is to a sources the more it captures bass).

Very good point.

The effect is common to all directional mics.

Since you don't need the rear rejection in this application it would make much
more sense to use an omni to do 'micing up'.

Sadly few ppl are adequately aware of this. Most sound engineers I know wouldn't
even know what proximity effect was.

Graham,

Scott Dorsey

August 16th 04, 04:12 PM

Mark > wrote:
>Hi,
>I recently recorded some distorted electric guitar with an SM57 on a
>Marshall amp. I'm fairly new to recording, and think I may of positioned
>the mic incorrectly. I'm finding I have to roll off *alot* of bass, and the
>upper end doesn't seem to "sparkle" for lack of a better word, its not as
>clear as I would like I guess.
>
>I had the SM57 right up to the grill, which I think was my first mistake. I
>did not have it pointing directly into the middle, and I did fiddle with the
>position, but I don't think I got it to an optimum position (time
>restrictions!). Also I measured the A weighted output at that range to be
>120dB ... so I'm wondering if it was perhaps a bit too loud ...

If you put it in the middle, it will be brighter than at the edge.

The SM57 does not overload easily at all, and 120 dBA should be fine, but
at that level it might well be clipping the mike preamp. What were you
plugging it into, and did you try putting a pad on it?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mark

August 17th 04, 01:42 AM

I was going into an RNP, I didn't need much gain on as you might of guessed
! The red clip light didn't come on, and I made sure I wasn't overloading
the digital input of my Detla 1010LT.

I'm going to be recording again this weekend, I'll let you know how it goes.
I'll perhaps head more for the center of the cone this time, or maybe just
mix with a more distant condensor mic and see how that sounds. I've
probably got a lot of the day to experiment :-) Unfortunately I cannot play
the guitar (I'm a drummer) but the guitarist doesn't mind trying different
things at all.

Cheers,

Mark.
--

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Mark > wrote:
> >Hi,
> >I recently recorded some distorted electric guitar with an SM57 on a
> >Marshall amp. I'm fairly new to recording, and think I may of positioned
> >the mic incorrectly. I'm finding I have to roll off *alot* of bass, and
the
> >upper end doesn't seem to "sparkle" for lack of a better word, its not as
> >clear as I would like I guess.
> >
> >I had the SM57 right up to the grill, which I think was my first mistake.
I
> >did not have it pointing directly into the middle, and I did fiddle with
the
> >position, but I don't think I got it to an optimum position (time
> >restrictions!). Also I measured the A weighted output at that range to
be
> >120dB ... so I'm wondering if it was perhaps a bit too loud ...
>
> If you put it in the middle, it will be brighter than at the edge.
>
> The SM57 does not overload easily at all, and 120 dBA should be fine, but
> at that level it might well be clipping the mike preamp. What were you
> plugging it into, and did you try putting a pad on it?
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles

August 17th 04, 03:31 PM

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:42:17 +0100, Mark > wrote:
> I was going into an RNP, I didn't need much gain on as you might of guessed
> ! The red clip light didn't come on, and I made sure I wasn't overloading
> the digital input of my Detla 1010LT.
>
> I'm going to be recording again this weekend, I'll let you know how it goes.
> I'll perhaps head more for the center of the cone this time, or maybe just
> mix with a more distant condensor mic and see how that sounds. I've
> probably got a lot of the day to experiment :-) Unfortunately I cannot play
> the guitar (I'm a drummer) but the guitarist doesn't mind trying different
> things at all.
>

During my first Church Musician stint, our music director (Decent Folkie
Voice) started taking voice lessons. Fortunately, he gained power and
control but did NOT start trying to do "Opera Folk" or any nonsense like
that.

downside: He had to be VERY conscious of parts of range, as he was now
loud enough to overload an SM58 easily.

david

August 18th 04, 01:04 AM

In article <IEoUc.19721$ZY3.9013@trndny08>, U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles <
> wrote:

> He had to be VERY conscious of parts of range, as he was now
> loud enough to overload an SM58 easily.

I'd bet he was overloading the preamp it was plugged into.

I use 57's on unbelieveably loud guitar amp stacks - you don't want to
be in the same room when the guy's hitting a chord. The 57 is plugged
into a very nice pre.

All you almost-old timers remember those years of 421 ads with the
starter gun?

David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

www.CelebrationSound.com

Pooh Bear

August 18th 04, 02:59 AM

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> 120 dBA should be fine

Surely the concept of A weighting at 120dB is somewhat redundant ?

Graham

Mark Simonetti

August 18th 04, 11:23 AM

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Surely the concept of A weighting at 120dB is somewhat redundant ?

Whats that ? I could use C weighting to test the loudness if need be.

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

Arny Krueger

August 18th 04, 11:25 AM

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> 120 dBA should be fine
>
> Surely the concept of A weighting at 120dB is somewhat redundant ?
>

Ironically, that's what OSHA does.

Pooh Bear

August 18th 04, 08:41 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>
> > Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
> >> 120 dBA should be fine
> >
> > Surely the concept of A weighting at 120dB is somewhat redundant ?
> >
>
> Ironically, that's what OSHA does.

Don't you just love *officialdom* ?

Bless them.

Graham

Jay Kadis

August 18th 04, 09:05 PM

In article >,
Pooh Bear > wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> >
> > > Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > >
> > >> 120 dBA should be fine
> > >
> > > Surely the concept of A weighting at 120dB is somewhat redundant ?
> > >
> >
> > Ironically, that's what OSHA does.
>
> Don't you just love *officialdom* ?
>
> Bless them.
>
>
> Graham
>
>

You want an example of "officialdom"? Our county supervisors (Alameda County,
California) have decided it's too difficult and expensive for the Sheriff's
Department to use a sound level meter to document noise complaints and want to
change noise ordinances so that measured sound levels are no longer the
definition of excessive noise.

They want to accept any single complaint as sufficient evidence of violation.
This is to be applied to any source of sound, including music, animals, and
power tools. I guess my band and the neighbor's roosters are going to have to
fight city hall.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

Mark Simonetti

August 19th 04, 11:23 AM

> California) have decided it's too difficult and expensive for the Sheriff's
> Department to use a sound level meter to document noise complaints and want to
> change noise ordinances so that measured sound levels are no longer the
> definition of excessive noise.

Difficult ? To point a device at a sound source and see what it says on
the display ? Its about as difficult as taking a dump after eating a
curry and taking a laxative overdose.

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

Phil Allison

August 19th 04, 11:54 AM

"Mark Simonetti"

> > California) have decided it's too difficult and expensive for the
Sheriff's
> > Department to use a sound level meter to document noise complaints and
want to
> > change noise ordinances so that measured sound levels are no longer the
> > definition of excessive noise.
>
> Difficult ?

** Often it is *very* difficult.

> To point a device at a sound source and see what it says on
> the display ?

** Nothing to do with proving the legal validity if a noise complaint.

You should read the wording of noise control laws and see that an offence
is defined in terms of the noise being so many dB above the average
background level under specified test circumstances and must be made within
the residential premises occupied by the persons complaining at certain
hours of the day etc etc.

What if the noise is a neighbour's German Shepard dog that barks insanely
at 3 am every other night ????????????

> Its about as difficult as taking a dump after eating a
> curry and taking a laxative overdose.

** Full of **** is just what you are.

.......... Phil

Mark Simonetti

August 19th 04, 12:03 PM

> ** Full of **** is just what you are.

I was going to reply and say "ok so I was wrong and there is more to it
than meets the eye". Then you had to end what I thought was an
informative reply by being insulting about a comment that was merely
meant to be humorous. Lighten up.

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

Phil Allison

August 19th 04, 12:10 PM

"Mark Simonetti"
> > ** Full of **** is just what you are.
>
> I was going to reply and say "ok so I was wrong and there is more to it
> than meets the eye". Then you had to end what I thought was an
> informative reply by being insulting about a comment that was merely
> meant to be humorous. Lighten up.
>

** My comment was humorous too.

Yours was just plain gross.

.......... Phil

Mark Simonetti

August 19th 04, 12:50 PM

> ** My comment was humorous too.

It certainly felt insulting ! If it was not meant to be then, okay..

> Yours was just plain gross.

Oh I know, but it was meant to be. I think us british perhaps like our
toilet humour more than others ! It is however less offensive than a
(possible) personal insult, which is what I thought you were giving me.

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

Scott Dorsey

August 19th 04, 01:21 PM

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
> You should read the wording of noise control laws and see that an offence
>is defined in terms of the noise being so many dB above the average
>background level under specified test circumstances and must be made within
>the residential premises occupied by the persons complaining at certain
>hours of the day etc etc.

Our local ordinances require noise to be below a certain A-weighted SPL,
which basically means that kids with nuclear bass boxes in their car
stereos can drive around all day long and don't even come close to being
at the limit.

It's not important JUST that the law require a certain objective measure,
it also is important that the measure be useful.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Phil Allison

August 19th 04, 02:01 PM

"Mark Simonetti"

> > ** My comment was humorous too.
>
> It certainly felt insulting ! If it was not meant to be then, okay..
>
> > Yours was just plain gross.
>
> Oh I know, but it was meant to be. I think us british perhaps like our
> toilet humour more than others ! It is however less offensive than a
> (possible) personal insult, which is what I thought you were giving me.
>

** Your ill informed and arrogant assumptions concerning the complicated
topic of noise annoyance and how it might be dealt with appropriately by
local authorities did you no credit.

Topping it of with a gross and crass " toilet " remark was the mere icing
on the cake.

Playing the victim now is just plain pathetic.

NGs are not for the timid.

.............. Phil

Mark Simonetti

August 19th 04, 02:15 PM

Phil Allison wrote:
> topic of noise annoyance and how it might be dealt with appropriately by
> local authorities did you no credit.

The original post to me implied that they thought using an SPL meter was
too difficult. I was not evaluating how hard it was applying those
results to the law.

If I misinterpretted the post, then I appologise, simple as that. I'm
not about to go off on one swearing and blinding at you. If that makes
you think I'm timid, then you are incorrect.

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

Jay Kadis

August 19th 04, 04:01 PM

In article >, Mark Simonetti >
wrote:

> > California) have decided it's too difficult and expensive for the Sheriff's
> > Department to use a sound level meter to document noise complaints and want
> > to
> > change noise ordinances so that measured sound levels are no longer the
> > definition of excessive noise.
>
> Difficult ? To point a device at a sound source and see what it says on
> the display ? Its about as difficult as taking a dump after eating a
> curry and taking a laxative overdose.

In practice, it does require someone being there while the noise source persists
with the proper equipment and expertise. It's the issue of being present during
the possibly transient noise that's the problem. But requiring no form of
documentation isn't any better from a fairness standpoint. Some people are
annoyed by the quietest sounds and they shouldn't be made the standard.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

Yuri T.

August 19th 04, 04:29 PM

"Phil Allison" > wrote in message >...
> "Mark Simonetti"
>
> > > California) have decided it's too difficult and expensive for the
> Sheriff's
> > > Department to use a sound level meter to document noise complaints and
> want to
> > > change noise ordinances so that measured sound levels are no longer the
> > > definition of excessive noise.
> >
> > Difficult ?
>
>
> ** Often it is *very* difficult.
>
>
> > To point a device at a sound source and see what it says on
> > the display ?
>
>
> ** Nothing to do with proving the legal validity if a noise complaint.
>
> You should read the wording of noise control laws and see that an offence
> is defined in terms of the noise being so many dB above the average
> background level under specified test circumstances and must be made within
> the residential premises occupied by the persons complaining at certain
> hours of the day etc etc.
>
> What if the noise is a neighbour's German Shepard dog that barks insanely
> at 3 am every other night ????????????
>

Get real and don't generalize. It all depends on the municipality
where you live. Every country/county/city has different noise laws.
For example in the county where I live here are the relevant excerpts
from the code book.

(a) Noise sources . Noise levels from stationary sources and
mobile sources while stationary shall not exceed those noise limits
presented in Table I for each of the zoning districts listed there
during the time of day indicated. The maximum permissible noise level
shall be that associated with the zoning district classification of
the receiving property, except for vehicles on public or private
streets.

(d) Measurement standards . Noise measurements made to determine
compliance with section 15-6(c) shall be taken on a level surface at a
distance of not less than fifty (50) feet from the noise.

(4) Continuous noise shall denote a noise whose intensity remains
essentially constant during the period of observation. Continuous
noise for measurement purposes shall be defined as noise which is
measured by the slow response setting of a sound level meter.

(9) Impulsive noise shall denote noise characterized by brief
excursions (usually less than one (1) second) of sound pressure which
significantly exceed the ambient environment sound pressure.

(6) Daytime shall denote the local time of day between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.

(7) Decibel (dB ) shall denote the unit of sound magnitude equal
to twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio
of the sound pressure being measured to a reference sound pressure,
twenty (20) micronewtons per square meter (20 micropascals).

(8) Decibel-A-weighted (dBA ) shall denote the sound level, in
decibels, measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighting
network or scale as specified in ANSI S1.4-1974 specification for
sound lever meters.

You go to the stationary chart and depending on your zoning and time
of day you get something like this.

Day Zone R-A
Max continuous 60 dBA
Max impulsive 95 dB

Night Zone R-A
Max continuous 55 dBA
Max Impulsive 90 dB

>
> > Its about as difficult as taking a dump after eating a
> > curry and taking a laxative overdose.
>
>
> ** Full of **** is just what you are.
>
>
>
>
> ......... Phil

Phil Allison

August 20th 04, 03:50 AM

"Yuri T."
> "Phil Allison"
> >
> > > > California) have decided it's too difficult and expensive for the
> > Sheriff's Department to use a sound level meter to document noise
complaints and
> > want to change noise ordinances so that measured sound levels are no
longer the
> > > > definition of excessive noise.
> > >
> > > Difficult ?
> >
> > ** Often it is *very* difficult.
> >
> >
> > > To point a device at a sound source and see what it says on
> > > the display ?
> >
> >
> > ** Nothing to do with proving the legal validity if a noise complaint.
> >
> > You should read the wording of noise control laws and see that an
offence
> > is defined in terms of the noise being so many dB above the average
> > background level under specified test circumstances and must be made
within
> > the residential premises occupied by the persons complaining at certain
> > hours of the day etc etc.
> >
> > What if the noise is a neighbour's German Shepard dog that barks
insanely
> > at 3 am every other night ????????????
> >
>
>
> Get real and don't generalize. It all depends on the municipality
> where you live. Every country/county/city has different noise laws.
> For example in the county where I live here are the relevant excerpts
> from the code book.

(snip selective quotes from some book)

** You get real and go find out how complaints made by residents about some
annoying noise are really defined and handled. In most codes the offending
noise must show a reading of 6 dBA above background as measured inside the
complainant's premises or the complaint is not deemed as valid.

Mechanical devices may have noise limits applied that must be met or they
cannot be sold - eg lawn mowers and edge trimmers - their use may also be
limited by times and days.

............. Phil

Mike Rivers

August 20th 04, 02:01 PM

In article > writes:

> In most codes the offending
> noise must show a reading of 6 dBA above background as measured inside the
> complainant's premises or the complaint is not deemed as valid.

That may be true somewhere but it certainly doesn't jive with what
those of us who deal with eliminating extraneous noise deal with on a
regular basis. Noise that's well below the ambient background is quite
audible and annoying. Noise that's 6 dB above the background is well
above the "cocktail party effect" threshold.

It really makes more sense to define "illegal" noise in terms of SPL
at the source, but temper that with the occurrence of complaints. The
city set up a leaf-mulching station on park land very close to a
community around here and residents half a mile away are complaining
about the noise, which is well below 70 dB at any weighting at that
distance. Still, it's always there and it's in a particularly annoying
portion of the spectrum. The county agrees that it's annoying, but
it's well within the defined limits of the established noise
ordinance level.

The local residents are thinking about sneaking in and filling the
hopper with rocks one night.

> Mechanical devices may have noise limits applied that must be met or they
> cannot be sold - eg lawn mowers and edge trimmers - their use may also be
> limited by times and days.

There were a couple of cities in California that tried to outlaw the
use of gas powered mowers and week whackers but the hired gardeners
(everyone out there has one) objected and won.

I don't have a soundproofed recording room, so recording season is
pretty short here. I need to work around lawn mowers, snow blowers,
heating, and air conditioning. It's what I get for living within
walking distance of the bank, post office, grocery store, and Home
Depot.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Phil Allison

August 20th 04, 02:29 PM

"Mike Rivers"

Phil Allison:
>
> > In most codes the offending
> > noise must show a reading of 6 dBA above background as measured inside
the
> > complainant's premises or the complaint is not deemed as valid.
>
> That may be true somewhere but it certainly doesn't jive with what
> those of us who deal with eliminating extraneous noise deal with on a
> regular basis.

** Now the NG dancing Parrot can do the Jive ????

> Noise that's well below the ambient background is quite
> audible and annoying.

** Only to noise neurotics and cranks - like Mike Rivers.

> Noise that's 6 dB above the background is well
> above the "cocktail party effect" threshold.

** Blowing it out straight his arse as usual.

>
> It really makes more sense to define "illegal" noise in terms of SPL
> at the source,

** That makes no sense at all.

Noise is only a problem in the legal sense when it harms people. The 6 dB
above background rule is based on research and experience with what folk can
easily tolerate and what they cannot because it interferes with their life.

............... Phil

George

August 20th 04, 02:36 PM

In article >,
"Phil Allison" > wrote:

> "Mike Rivers"
>
> Phil Allison:
> >
> > > In most codes the offending
> > > noise must show a reading of 6 dBA above background as measured inside
> the
> > > complainant's premises or the complaint is not deemed as valid.
> >
> > That may be true somewhere but it certainly doesn't jive with what
> > those of us who deal with eliminating extraneous noise deal with on a
> > regular basis.
>
>
> ** Now the NG dancing Parrot can do the Jive ????
>
>
> > Noise that's well below the ambient background is quite
> > audible and annoying.
>
>
> ** Only to noise neurotics and cranks - like Mike Rivers.
>
>
> > Noise that's 6 dB above the background is well
> > above the "cocktail party effect" threshold.
>
>
> ** Blowing it out straight his arse as usual.
>
>
> >
> > It really makes more sense to define "illegal" noise in terms of SPL
> > at the source,
>
>
> ** That makes no sense at all.
>
> Noise is only a problem in the legal sense when it harms people. The 6 dB
> above background rule is based on research and experience with what folk can
> easily tolerate and what they cannot because it interferes with their life.
>
>
>
>
> .............. Phil
>
>
>
>
>

It never ceases to amaze me the number of things PA is dumb as a bag of
hammers about
note to self
add noise ordinances to that expansive list
George

Phil Allison

August 20th 04, 02:38 PM

"George"

> It never ceases to amaze me the number of things George is dumb as a bag
of
> hammers about
> note to self
> add noise ordinances to that expansive list

.......... Phil

George

August 20th 04, 02:41 PM

In article >,
"Phil Allison" > wrote:

> "George"
>
> > It never ceases to amaze me the number of things George is dumb as a bag
> of
> > hammers about
> > note to self
> > add noise ordinances to that expansive list
>
>
>
>
> ......... Phil
>
>

Sqwak, polly want a cracker Sqwak

Stu Venable

August 20th 04, 06:46 PM

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1092999138k@trad...
> There were a couple of cities in California that tried to outlaw the
> use of gas powered mowers and week whackers but the hired gardeners
> (everyone out there has one) objected and won.

FWIW, most of the ordinances I recall were outlawing gas-powered leaf
blowers, not mowers or weed whackers.

Stu.

Mike Rivers

August 20th 04, 08:19 PM

In article > writes:

> Noise is only a problem in the legal sense when it harms people. The 6 dB
> above background rule is based on research and experience with what folk can
> easily tolerate and what they cannot because it interferes with their life.

OK, next time you record an acoustic guitar solo, I'll come over and
talk 5 dB louder than the guitarist is playing. Let's see if it
doesn't interfere with your life.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Roger W. Norman

August 20th 04, 09:29 PM

> They want to accept any single complaint as sufficient evidence of
violation.
> This is to be applied to any source of sound, including music, animals,
and
> power tools. I guess my band and the neighbor's roosters are going to
have to
> fight city hall.

It's even worse than that because it makes the presumption that one who
complains is in the right, which puts us right back into the 1970s. I was
living in an apartment during college after coming back to the world, and I
had an upstairs neighbor that would constantly complain about my stereo.
Police knocking at my door at 4 in the afternoon, Saturday mornings after 10
AM, whatever. Finally I simply invited them in and said, "does this seem
loud to you?" in a conversational voice, to which they had to answer no.
But that didn't make any difference. My rights to listening were subject to
anyone else's complaints, meaning I didn't have any rights at all. In fact,
it was proven when cops came to both the front and back doors (I lived in a
ground floor garden apartment), of which the back door was open so I knew a
cop was there. He didn't hear anything untoward, the cop out front didn't
hear hardly anything (steel door), I hadn't adjusted the volume once the
cops came, and yet I HAD TO TURN DOWN THE MUSIC. I even had cops there when
nothing was on.

It's indemic of the world today. If there's a complaint, there must be a
reason and that means a culprit. Welcome to the backswing of the pendulum.
If you live long enough, you see it all too often.

--
-----------

Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Jay Kadis" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > > "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 120 dBA should be fine
> > > >
> > > > Surely the concept of A weighting at 120dB is somewhat redundant ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ironically, that's what OSHA does.
> >
> > Don't you just love *officialdom* ?
> >
> > Bless them.
> >
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
>
>
> You want an example of "officialdom"? Our county supervisors (Alameda
County,
> California) have decided it's too difficult and expensive for the
Sheriff's
> Department to use a sound level meter to document noise complaints and
want to
> change noise ordinances so that measured sound levels are no longer the
> definition of excessive noise.
>
>
> -Jay
> --
> x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
> x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
> x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
> x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

Phil Allison

August 21st 04, 01:34 AM

"Mike Rivers"
>
Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > Noise is only a problem in the legal sense when it harms people. The 6
dB
> > above background rule is based on research and experience with what folk
can
> > easily tolerate and what they cannot because it interferes with their
life.
>

** To which in complete ****wit style Mike Rivers responded.

> OK, next time you record an acoustic guitar solo, I'll come over and
> talk 5 dB louder than the guitarist is playing. Let's see if it
> doesn't interfere with your life.
>

** What does this idiot think the term "background" means in relation to
noise complaints ??

Why does this idiot imagine *real* recording studios are all sound
proofed ??

Why does this idiot think he is not an idiot ?

............ Phil

Scott Dorsey

August 21st 04, 01:45 AM

Phil Allison > wrote:
>
> Why does this idiot imagine *real* recording studios are all sound
>proofed ??

Run that by me again, Phil?

Just what is your definition of a real recording studio anyway?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

George

August 21st 04, 01:47 AM

>
> Why does this idiot think he is not an idiot ?
>
>
>
>
>
> ........... Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>

And we now know what Phil says to himself every morning,looking in the
mirror, while brushing his teeth.
george

Pooh Bear

August 21st 04, 01:53 AM

Phil Allison wrote:

> "Mike Rivers"
>
>
> > Noise that's well below the ambient background is quite
> > audible and annoying.
>
> ** Only to noise neurotics and cranks - like Mike Rivers.

Noise whose own level is below background is certainly capable of being audible.

To use a recent example in the electrical domain - I could hear various
harmonics of 50Hz in the output of a mixer but a 400Hz HPF made no appreciable
difference to the measured audio band noise figure.

You have to consider the 'noise spectrum'.

Graham

Phil Allison

August 21st 04, 02:05 AM

"Scott Dorsey"
> Phil Allison
> >
> > Why does this idiot imagine *real* recording studios are all sound
> >proofed ??
>
> Run that by me again, Phil?
>

** You have to learn to keep up - Mr tape recorder mechanic.

> Just what is your definition of a real recording studio anyway?

** So you do not know what a recording studio is ??

............. Phil

Phil Allison

August 21st 04, 02:07 AM

"Pooh Bear"
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
> > "Mike Rivers"
> >
> > > Noise that's well below the ambient background is quite
> > > audible and annoying.
> >
> > ** Only to noise neurotics and cranks - like Mike Rivers.
>
> Noise whose own level is below background is certainly capable of being
audible.

** Never said it was not.

If context shifting was an Olympic sport - Pooh would be in Athens
right now.

............. Phil

............... Phil

david

August 21st 04, 02:56 AM

In article >, Roger W. Norman
> wrote:

> I was
> living in an apartment during college after coming back to the world, and I
> had an upstairs neighbor that would constantly complain about my stereo.
> Police knocking at my door at 4 in the afternoon, Saturday mornings after 10
> AM, whatever. Finally I simply invited them in and said, "does this seem
> loud to you?" in a conversational voice, to which they had to answer no.
> But that didn't make any difference. My rights to listening were subject to
> anyone else's complaints, meaning I didn't have any rights at all. In fact,
> it was proven when cops came to both the front and back doors (I lived in a
> ground floor garden apartment), of which the back door was open so I knew a
> cop was there. He didn't hear anything untoward, the cop out front didn't
> hear hardly anything (steel door), I hadn't adjusted the volume once the
> cops came, and yet I HAD TO TURN DOWN THE MUSIC. I even had cops there when
> nothing was on.

Man, I am glad I didn't have the cops hanging around my place back in
college. And not cuz of the cranked stereo.

David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island

www.CelebrationSound.com