Tinnitus! The bane of my life at the moment!

[HairyScaryMark]

I am amazed! Wireless in-the-ear monitoring can cost as little as 150 and still there are people out there destroying their ears with screeming monitors that are driven to distortion. Then they say, ooh-err, I've damaged my hearing! Now what do I do?

In Ear monitoring is the future (as well as already being a reality) for professional touring musicians.

It isn't practical for local venues to buy in ear monitoring systems and having everyone who plays there sharing ear wax. I realise that you get replacement foam? things that go on the end of the earphones but there is a cost involved in that also. Some people have particualrly dirty ears and even with replacing the ends, extensive cleaning would be required and lets face it, people would forget to clean (or just wouldn't clean) them.

It also is quite inflexible if you have a band that has say 8 people? They would really have to use wedges unless the venue has 8 in ear monitor systems (which they most likely would not).

I would personally never use in ear monitors without some form of limiter (incase of feedback) and a competant sound engineer (which are less widespread than you might expect). When in ear monitoring goes very wrong, your hearing could be gone for good, just like that. Not so likely (although still possible) with wedge monitors.

Also, I notice when you introduce something like headphone monitoring, people instantly expect a lot more and become far more picky about their monitor mixes. Also expect large quantities or reverb in their ears also.

Isn't one of the main reasons big acts use in ear monitoring is because they spend half the gig moving around their gargantuan stage, thus never standing in front of the same monitor for long enough to set it up correctly?

Not really, that is only one reason. The best overall reason is the improved sound quality at reduced volume levels.

How do in ear monitors work anyway, where does the feed come off? Do they just take a line off the desk that would normally go to the stage monitor and stick it in the sending box for the IEM?

There is a number of ways of doing this. Some in ear monitoring systems are used in conjunction with 8 channel mixers so you make adjustments to your monitor mixes, by yourself. Some come with 2 inputs and a control to mix the levels between them. The idea being one comes from the main monitor mix (without your instrument) and one is just your instrument. Otherwise you just use the conventional aux send form the mixing desk.

[soundian]

In Ear monitoring is the future (as well as already being a reality) for professional touring musicians.

Most professional touring musicians don't use IEMs, it's far from a reality, in fact, I haven't seen much more in the past two years than I did between 94-96.

It isn't practical for local venues to buy in ear monitoring systems and having everyone who plays there sharing ear wax. I realise that you get replacement foam? things that go on the end of the earphones but there is a cost involved in that also. Some people have particualrly dirty ears and even with replacing the ends, extensive cleaning would be required and lets face it, people would forget to clean (or just wouldn't clean) them.

In practice , IEMs are only really valuable if the artist has their own moulded plugs, otherwise there's normally too much bleed so the volume has to be turned up and your back where you started . Sharing earphones is too icky to contemplate so everyone would have to have their own .

It also is quite inflexible if you have a band that has say 8 people? They would really have to use wedges unless the venue has 8 in ear monitor systems (which they most likely would not).

That's another problem, if everyone has IEM's, you need more monitors because people can't share, like brass sections for example, you can normally do a 3 piece with 1 aux and 1 pair of wedges, with IEMs you'd need 3 separate auxes and units.(unless of course you match up frequencies on the receivers)

I would personally never use in ear monitors without some form of limiter (incase of feedback) and a competant sound engineer (which are less widespread than you might expect). When in ear monitoring goes very wrong, your hearing could be gone for good, just like that. Not so likely (although still possible) with wedge monitors.

Another problem, which is probably why I hardly ever see IEMs without an engineer attached. All decent IEMs will have a limiter.

Also, I notice when you introduce something like headphone monitoring, people instantly expect a lot more and become far more picky about their monitor mixes. Also expect large quantities or reverb in their ears also.

Another disadvantage, monitor mixes take longer to set up.

Usual way to set up an IEM is to use an aux, most venues are spec'ing desks with more auxes than they need ( for their FX and stage monitors) nowadays, IF they have a significant amount of IEM owning artists playing there.

[Flash@TMB]

The main cause of hearing damage is poor quality sound not excessive volume.

Here's a question for anyone who has (during the past 3 years) either played on The Moorings Stage, or been present at one of our gigs:

Have you ever left with sore, dulled or ringing ears?

I have been there listening to loud music 3x every week and have never experienced any problems with my hearing. Yet we are regularily pushing out sound at 120dB and perhaps louder.

The biggest complaint we get is that "it's not loud enough", meaning "my ears are not hurting yet". People are used to going to or playing at gigs then being left with ringing ears for hours later, they associate this feeling with high volume, when in actual fact it's caused by poor quality sound. Here's are links that explain this way better than I can:

Pro Audio Asia - Nov 2002

ProSoundWeb | Distortion Truths pg. 1

It is important to protect the ears of your performers and customers. We devoted a lot of time and attention into both our room and stage, in addition to installing extremely good PA. If everywhere bothered to do this, then perhaps there wouldn't be Eurocrats threatening to impose dB limits etc.

[Guest lime ruined my life]

The main cause of hearing damage is poor quality sound not excessive volume.

i'm not trying to be picky here but...

Total bullshit

hearing damage is directly associated with excessively loud music.

i think i know what you mean though, bad sound/distortion is more harmful BECAUSE it produces more overtones and therefore a wider spectrum in the mid-high range where the ear is more responsive to sound. The wider the spectrum, the more the energy, therefore more damage. Good sound may also be eq'd better to reduce the overall high db's at harmful frequencies.

But the statement quoted is pretty much bullshit, the primary if not SOLE reason for hearing damage is a high db spl endured for a period of time, although "bad sound" may add to the high decibels and broad spectrum.

sorry if seem to come across too harshly.

[Guest Gasss]

If I understand Flash (and the articles) correctly, he is saying that for a given SPL, a sound reinforcement source with high amounts of distortion (through speaker overdrive, poor gain structure and other artefacts) will contribute relatively more high frequency harmonics which can be damaging to hearing.

I guess another factor is the type of music. I imagine a metal band will cause more hearing damage than a dub reggae band at the same volume. But you're right, the MAIN cause of hearing loss is exposure to high SPLs, intentional or not.

[Flash@TMB]

i'm not trying to be picky here but...

Total bullshit

Distorted sound is more damaging to the hearing than clean sound. At a typical local gig the high volumes are only endured for intervals of 30 minutes at a time. The peak volume is typcially less than 120 dB, and the mean volume lower still. And not everybody stands within 5m of the FOH for the entire gig. There's also generally some gaps between tunes.

Compare this with exposure to 300 riveting hammers banging away for 10 hours each and every day over the course of several years - that type of exposure is what results in frequency loss and industrial deafness. Our ears are getting a relatively easy time. Ever experienced the ferocity of even one riveting hammer? It's appalling!

If, like me, you have a sound pressure meter, then try going round some venues and take measurements at a fixed distance (say 5m) from the FOH. The results may surprise you. Most places output less than you'd expect. You'll also find that he reading on the SPM has no correlation whatsoever to ringing ears. If your ears are ringing then your hearing has been slightly damaged.

Might also be worth reading the links I posted. If you still disagree then email Tony Andrews and tell he's talking total bullshit.

Excessive volume can damage the ears, but I would argue that local gigs do not fall into the category of excessive... yet I've been to places that have caused my ears to ring for 12 hours afterwards, and left them feeling dull for 3 days... and that was after only 20-30mins exposure.

[Flash@TMB]

If I understand Flash (and the articles) correctly, he is saying that for a given SPL, a sound reinforcement source with high amounts of distortion (through speaker overdrive, poor gain structure and other artefacts) will contribute relatively more high frequency harmonics which can be damaging to hearing.

I guess another factor is the type of music. I imagine a metal band will cause more hearing damage than a dub reggae band at the same volume.

Yeah. The more compressed the music the harder it is on the ears. This is even evident when listening to modern CDs, which have been over-mastered, at low volumes. They are very wearing on the ears. Jane's Addiction - Strays is one such example. I like the music but the compression spoils it. Probably why I find myself listening to more funk and reggae these days LOL Up the dynamics!

[soundian]

" This is almost a health issue"

"To many, like myself, distortion is more damaging than the actual sound levels being pushed"

What you have there is opinions, not facts.

Before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, they may be facts, they may not, but those article prove nothing, except that he wants to sell some speakers.

[Guest Gasss]

Flash,

Having enjoyed the excellent sound at the Moorings I respect your commitment to providing high quality audio in a small venue. However, I disagree with some of your points. Thresholds for hearing loss vary and just because your own hearing is not affected by the FOH sound does not mean that neither is your customers. As someone whose threshold for noise exposure is so low they experience tinnitus just from being in a crowded pub for less than an hour, I find it difficult to believe that high quality sound, no matter how loud, will not damage hearing.

World Health Organisation guidelines suggest that exposure to 100dB for 4 hours can cause permanent damage - As a doctor, I reckon that's a pretty conservative figure, especially when distorted guitars are involved.

Increased compression = increased RMS volume/peak volume ratio = overall increased SPL. In the case of over-zealous compression/limiting at the premastering stage, it is the increased SPL and not the quality of sound which is causing the damage.

[The Byre]

This is one of the two subjects in music that I feel strongly about (the other being schools like SAE and Full-Sail taking young people's money and destroying their future).

Of all the senses you may loose or damage, your hearing may be the one that will effect you the most. Blind people lead full lives, use telephones, computers and are fully able to work just like everybody else. The same goes for every other disability - except deafness. My father went deaf and I could no longer talk to him. He could not use a telephone or even watch television. He could not hear the doorbell or talk to people in shops. He went deaf because as a young man he was exposed to loud noise - explosions during the War.

When you go deaf, you are completely alone.

Because this is such an important subject, I shall deal with some of the more foolish statements made that serve only to misinform and obfuscate.

Who uses IEM?

The only people I can think of who still do not use it are Iggy Pop and Till from Rammstein. Every other fully professional rock musician that I have ever seen uses IEM. If you want disability insurance, then you will have to use it. Every contract requires the artist to 'take reasonable measures to protect his or her health.' That means either keeping the volumes on stage right down, or using in-the-ear monitoring. The same goes for venue and event liability insurance. It may not state "Thou shalt use in-the-ear monitoring!" in the contract, but a claim made as a result of hearing loss when they were not used will be turned down.

Who provides it?

EVERY major PA company has a range of IEM sets as it is on the technical rider of just about every larger band out there.

Is it difficult to set up?

It is far, far, far easier to use than wedges. The only people who tell you it is difficult are people who have never used it. If you are mixing in digital (DiGiCo etc) then the very act of switching on the system sets up the monitoring in the way you had it for the last gig. For a touring band, then is a God-send, because IEM systems do not have to be altered to suite the venue. If you are a fixed venue, then you will have a set of presets according to the make-up of the act (four guitars and a drummer, three guitars, keys and drums etc.). If the signal path is all analogue, then you set up a series of stem mixes to feed the stage just as you do now, only they go to the transmitters.

Is this only relevant, if you are a big rock star?

Hell, no. A full set of transmitter and belt pack with additional phones and batteries can cost as little as 200. That comes to 800 for a four-piece band. Try getting a set of wedges and amplifiers for that kind of money.

Do I need a monitor engineer?

No, of course not. The best and easiest way to go is to have every musician use a small mixer that feeds just his or her monitor. This is fed by a series of stem mixes and possibly a split from his or her amp or mic. This is what we use in the studio and it works a treat and is the ideal solution for a small pub band, regardless of whether they use IEM or not. Yes the big boys all have their own monitoring crew, but then they always did - IEM has just made life easier for the monitor engineer, that's all!

Do I need an aux-send and a separate transmitter for every musician on stage?

Of course not! You just need as many transmitters as you have monitor mixes now. In other words, if the horn section all use one set of wedges right now with one mix on it, then you will need one transmitter. Of course every musician needs a receiver, but these are fairly cheap.

Do I need moulded plugs?

The soft ear-pieces cost pennies and come in all sizes and there really is no need for any special moulded plugs to be used, but if you feel the need, you can DIY them using plasticine to make a plaster mould and then form the plug out of silicon. All this talk about musicians having to use other peoples plugs is just silly.

What about the law?

Health and safety regulations state that you have to be within certain volume limits that vary according to the length of time of the exposure. By handing over total control of the on-stage volumes to the musicians and at the same time protecting them from any on-stage noise, you are complying with the law. Exposing them to 120dB (distorted or otherwise - the law is not fussy) even at their request, is to not comply with the law. So very soon, every promoter, venue and PA company will have no choice in the matter.

Am I liable for any damage to hearing as a promoter or venue?

If one of your employees is putting 120dBA on stage right now and the musician cannot control that volume, then yes you are - 100%. That means that if a venue is using wedges and a musician can prove that in part or in total, some hearing damage occurred whilst playing that venue, then you are leaving yourself wide-open to litigation. If feedback occurs, then this has already been used in an English court as an instance of negligence. IEM systems puts the volume control 100% in the hands of the musician.

Do I need additional limiters and feedback killers?

No, the ones you are using now for the monitor mixes will do exactly the same job and in the same way, for your IEM system.

What about availability of frequencies?

The IE4 D-Band system has 1,440 available channels. Even the very cheapest IEM systems are switchable between 16 frequencies.

What about distortion and hearing damage?

As I stated above, the law does not care whether noise comes from a church organ or a chain saw, but your ears do. The more distortion, the greater the likelihood of damage. However, a loud noise is still a loud noise and constant exposure to 120dBA, even if it is a pure sine wave, will cause some damage.

Are IEM systems more or less likely to distort?

The cheapest are more likely to distort because good headphone amps cost money. My suggestion would be to buy a cheap system and feed a separate 12V headphone amp from the same battery pack as the receiver. This does add slightly to the overall weight, but it is not much. This is what we do in the studio for the drummer. All other musicians just use the headphone output from the mini-mixers that we provide on a chunky music stand, but the drummer gets an additional small 12V amp so that I am 100% sure that he gets as completely clean signal when he cranks the volume to 11.

Do I have to buy my own system?

If I were a gigging musician and not working tours where that sort of thing (along with all the other bells and whistles) are provided, then I would definitely buy one of the better budget systems and add an amp and additional batteries and a spare set of phones and plugs etc., so that, no matter what happens, I know my hearing is protected. I would possibly add a mini-mixer to that, so that I have total control of my monitor mixes and can hear myself clearly as well. That would bring the total cost of protecting my hearing AND GETTING A PERFECT MIX EVERY TIME up to 250. If a venue or touring engineer pulls a long face, then I would just insist. I would definitely tell him or her that it is the proper and professional thing to do and by not using IEM, he is showing himself to be less than professional.

[Flash@TMB]

" This is almost a health issue"

"To many, like myself, distortion is more damaging than the actual sound levels being pushed"

What you have there is opinions, not facts.

Before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, they may be facts, they may not, but those article prove nothing, except that he wants to sell some speakers.

EVERYTHING is someone's opinion. It's just down to whose expert is the most believable. Everyone has something to sell.

***

To anyone interested in testing this theory out: Go get a sound pressure meter and, take some measurement at the gigs you go to, note how long your ears ring for afterwards (if at all), and rate the sound quality. You will find that there is little correlation between ringing ears and volume, but a close correlation between ringing ears and sound quality. Of course this approach is not really scientific, and would therefore not be accepted as factual, but at least you'll know the truth

[Flash@TMB]

As someone whose threshold for noise exposure is so low they experience tinnitus just from being in a crowded pub for less than an hour

I experience the same effect in certain pubs, especially Archibald Simpsons which is full of hard surfaces, and the problem does not seem to be helped much by filling it with people. So from this I would guess that the accoustics of the room play a big part.

We have worked hard to control these nasty frequencies, and the stage especially incorporates a lot of absorbtion. In the old days the sound was painful and the music incoherent... and that was rental bands using nasty 1K vocal rigs plus backline pumping out maybe 100dB. Things improved after we hung curtains round the stage walls, and laid a carpet on the stage floor. Since fitting the auralex foam on the ceiling, bands have commented on how the "drums have gotten quieter."

On the compression thing, I find that it fatigues my ears almost regardless of the volume, and my ears get slightly painful if subjected to it for a long time. Highly compressed music is very tiring to listen to.

[Guest lime ruined my life]

just as i said before, i strongly beleive that high db levels are fully responsible for hearing damage, not the content of sound. Having said that the content does play a roll.

More compressed = higher overall levels

distorted = more overtones produced, and therefore damaging more of the hairs within the inner ear.

Saying distorted sound damages ears more than level is ridiculous, it's cause and effect, not one or the other.

[Guest lime ruined my life]

Might also be worth reading the links I posted. If you still disagree then email Tony Andrews and tell he's talking total bullshit.

i read it, it seemed perfectly correct, but some of it isn't worded very carefully, particularly the statement that "levels don't contribute to eharing loss as much as the quality of sound"

a lot of the stuff you've posted is right, i also agree that bad sound (if by this you mean distorted) can have an adverse effect on hearing, but it's not the quality that damages hearing it is the LEVELS.

[Flash@TMB]

World Health Organisation guidelines suggest that exposure to 100dB for 4 hours can cause permanent damage - As a doctor, I reckon that's a pretty conservative figure, especially when distorted guitars are involved.

Please know that I'm not picking on you - it's just that you're coming up with the most intelligent points. And this is more of a discussion than an argument.

For a period of a few months I was obliged to take dB readings at every gig, as we were having emissions issues (now sorted). A typical Moorings gig takes place over a 5 hour period. There will be 3-4 bands each playing 30-40 mins. So between 1.5 and 2.5 hours of music or therefabouts, usually around 2 hours. The sets will typically consist of 7-8 tunes each, and there will be a few minutes break between each tune which brings us back to 1.5 hours. There is usually 20-30 minutes between bands.

The volume during the gig will peak at around 120dB, but please take into account that this is peaks. The average volume is around 100dB, perhaps a little higher. In our case this is occuring twice a week Sat and Sun.

So average exposure at a gig is around 1.5 hours at 105dB spaced over a 4-5 hour period. In between bands the volume drops to a more reasonable level.

The worst affected people are the sound engineer and barstaff. The sound engineer can be excluded because he's the fucker controlling the volume LOL. Different barstaff work both nights, so they get a week long break in between exposure. Barstaff are also partially isolated from the sound, as the bar is out of the firing line so to speak, and volumes there are substantially less that at FOH.

On that basis I'm fairly sure that my barstaff's exposure falls within WHO guidelines.

I suspect that 4 hours at 100dB of a riveting hammer (assuming one could be used that quietly LOL) producing a narrow frequency band, with brutal on/off dynamcs is going to be worse than 4 hours of music operating a wider frequency band softer dynamics.

In my opinion this whole subject is something needs to be studied in much more detail. As things stand the science does not appear to be sophisticated enough to be representative of the real world.

Incidentally, despite 2 years of intense Walkman use whilst at college, followed by 60,000 miles exposure the the exhaust tone of a Laverda Jota (officially the loudest production motorcycle ever made), plus my time spent attending gigs... the only damage to my hearing (that I am aware of) occurred in 1999 at Westhill swimming pool. A girl swam past me in close proximity using flippers and the resulting pressure wave caused some damage, fortunately my brain has learned to compensate by filtering most of this out. The ringing not the water LOL

[Chris]

Is this only relevant, if you are a big rock star?

Hell, no. A full set of transmitter and belt pack with additional phones and batteries can cost as little as 200. That comes to 800 for a four-piece band. Try getting a set of wedges and amplifiers for that kind of money.

Aside from some covers bands (who get paid a lot more than normal bands for gigs), who'll own their own PA for the pubs and hotels they gig that invariably don't own one of their own, the vast majority of bands do not own any wedges. The venue provides them.

Almost every band that uses this website would consider an 800 payout as an excessive and unnecessary expense when they could just buy a decent pair of earplugs for 20 (the ones that cut out harmful frequencies, not the muffling 2 foam ones you mentioned) and protect their ears that way.

I understand your point and it is important to protect your hearing, but the money and system you're talking about just doesn't seem a realistic option for most local bands.

[Flash@TMB]

i read it, it seemed perfectly correct, but some of it isn't worded very carefully, particularly the statement that "levels don't contribute to eharing loss as much as the quality of sound"

a lot of the stuff you've posted is right, i also agree that bad sound (if by this you mean distorted) can have an adverse effect on hearing, but it's not the quality that damages hearing it is the LEVELS.

Just for clarity:

Are you claiming that the sound quality makes absolutely no difference then? Because that is how you are coming across.

Ringing or painful ears is an indicator of hearing damage.

I have attended gigs with terrible sound quality, where despite standing right at the back, and leaving after 20-30 minutes my ears were ringing. Yet every week in my own venue I am standing close to the front, the levels are undoubtedly louder, yet I experience no difficulty. So sound quality (I'm not using the term distortion as some people will find it misleading), clearly makes a huge difference. I do not dispute that high levels are worse than low levels. But I sincerely believe thay by improving sound quality it is possible to host gigs at the appropriate level without risking the health of staff and customers. And that is how it should be.

Nobody has EVER complained to me of ringing or painful ears after one of our gigs.

[Guest lime ruined my life]

I suspect that 4 hours at 100dB of a riveting hammer (assuming one could be used that quietly LOL) producing a narrow frequency band, with brutal on/off dynamcs is going to be worse than 4 hours of music operating a wider frequency band softer dynamics.

heres some nice trivia for you...

last year i did a little experiment with a sound level meter and a man using a pneumatic drill.

the pneumatic drill actually produced a pretty broad spectrum due to the impulse nature of the sound. we took a reading of 86.5dB at 20 metres away.

assuming the drill is a point source this can be calculated to be 119.72dB @ 1 metres away.

using a table obtained from Dangerous Decibels: About Hearing Loss this sort of continuous level will cause permamentn damage in under 30 seconds.

Are you claiming that the sound quality makes absolutely no difference then? Because that is how you are coming across.

no, i mean the quality of sound plays a roll, distorted sound produces more overtones and therefore affects your hearing only if the levels are high.

put it this way, a piano produces a massive amount of harmonics compared to even a guitar on full fuzz mode, but how many people have damaged their hearing playing a piano?

I do not dispute that high levels are worse than low levels. But I sincerely believe thay by improving sound quality it is possible to host gigs at the appropriate level without risking the health of staff and customers. And that is how it should be.

agreed, but personally, i'd still like to be wearing ear plugs at a gig peaking at 120db...

[The Byre]

In my opinion this whole subject is something needs to be studied in much more detail. As things stand the science does not appear to be sophisticated enough to be representative of the real world.

Quite the opposite - the science of acoustics and psychoacoustics is very well studied indeed. The problems arise when people do not understand the science. The distortion-damage connection is a very typical example here of this happening. Acoustics is one of the more difficult branches of physics, but possibly the most interesting.

What you refer to is the field of 'Integrated Noise Dosage' As far as I am aware the WHO refers to a level of 90dB(spl) over eight hours, 93dBA for four hours, 96 for two and 99 for one hour. These are SPL A-weighted values.

Tinnitus usually occures at around 4kHz as this is the resonant frequency of the ear canal and is therefore the F to which we are most sensitive and therefore the F at which the cochlea are most easily damaged.

[The Byre]

Almost every band that uses this website would consider an 800 payout as an excessive and unnecessary expense when they could just buy a decent pair of earplugs for 20 (the ones that cut out harmful frequencies, not the muffling 2 foam ones you mentioned) and protect their ears that way.

I understand your point and it is important to protect your hearing, but the money and system you're talking about just doesn't seem a realistic option for most local bands.

I completely agree with every word you say.

Of course a young band who are gigging at weekends are not going to be able to stump up something like 1,000 for a monitoring system. In this case it is the venue who has to comply with the law and the venue who will get sued if there is hearing damage - so it is up to the venue to either ensure that every musician wears those hearing protectors that atenuate the overal sound level properly (and indeed are under a legal obligation to do so) or to provide a proper in-the-ear system. As in-the-ear is cheaper and easier to use than wedges, I am somewhat baffled by the resistence to its use by many - who are largely completely uninformed.

Also I must point out that an employer is fully liable for any employee who is not wearing ear defenders.

[Flash@TMB]

Quite the opposite - the science of acoustics and psychoacoustics is very well studied indeed. The problems arise when people do not understand the science. The distortion-damage connection is a very typical example here of this happening. Acoustics is one of the more difficult branches of physics, but possibly the most interesting.

What you refer to is the field of 'Integrated Noise Dosage' As far as I am aware the WHO refers to a level of 90dB(spl) over eight hours, 93dBA for four hours, 96 for two and 99 for one hour. These are SPL A-weighted values.

Tinnitus usually occures at around 4kHz as this is the resonant frequency of the ear canal and is therefore the F to which we are most sensitive and therefore the F at which the cochlea are most easily damaged.

There is a big difference between 100dB of 4KHz continuous, 100dB of 40Hz continuous, and ~100dB of dynamic music. The WHO guidelines to not make that type of distinction.

It's hard to convince me with science. The science of how eating eggs affects your health is well studied and understood. I'll sum it up like this:

1970 - eggs are good for you

1985 - eggs are bad for you, eat a maximum of 1 egg a week

2000 - eggs are good for you, it's a different kind of cholestoral

2015 - fuck knows?

With eggs I have survived and prospered by (quite literally) trust my gut instincts.

Likewise I trust my ears:

If they are ringing then they have probably been damaged.

If they are clear then they are probably OK.

I'm parking it there.

[Alkaline]

I lost the hearing in my left ear for a full day after seeing The Bled at Moshulu a few years ago. All i could hear in it when i put my hand over it was a high pitched constant noise. However, it suddenly came back (my hearing,that is) and i have never had any further problems. Even when i put my hands over my ears now to block out all other sounds i don't even get the faintest of ringing etc.

I must've been lucky but having said that i am a quick healer.

[The Byre]

For a period of a few months I was obliged to take dB readings at every gig, as we were having emissions issues (now sorted). A typical Moorings gig takes place over a 5 hour period. There will be 3-4 bands each playing 30-40 mins. So between 1.5 and 2.5 hours of music or therefabouts, usually around 2 hours. The sets will typically consist of 7-8 tunes each, and there will be a few minutes break between each tune which brings us back to 1.5 hours. There is usually 20-30 minutes between bands.

Please bear the following in mind - I have in front of me the time to damage graphs for various volumes of music and complex sounds. There are two effects - loss of sensitivity (level at which a person is able to first hear a sound) and loss of acuity (level at which a sound is first understood - e.g. speech intelligibility).

loss of sensitivity

At 88dBA and after 100 mins, a sound has to be 4dB louder before it can be heard. For 106dBA a sound has to be 40dBA louder before a person can hear it. 10dB is a doubling of volume, so after 100 mins of exposure to 106dBA of noise a sound has to be a massive 16 times louder before it can be heard. Immediately after 4 to 5 hours, a person is clinically deaf and it can take several days for the hearing to recover. These figures were collected at Surrey University by Howard and Angus and under Prof Francis Rumsey using recorded music.

loss of acuity

This is a more subtle affect, but more severe. A crucial part of our ability to hear and analyse sounds is our ability to separate out sounds into distinct frequency bands called critical bands - (which is also why Fourier analysis works). These bands are very narrow due to an active mechanism of positive feedback in the cochlea. This enhancement system is easily damaged and is far far more sensitive to excessive noise than the main transduction system. It is this mechanism that is more readily damaged by dissonant sounds (such as machinery or distorted music through a poor sound system) that by consonant sounds such as clean and pure harmonies in a tuned piano. When this mechanism is overloaded, we may still be able to hear at a certain sensitivity, but our ability to understand speech or perceive musical harmonies is permanently damaged.

There is absolutely nothing mysterious or unknown about these phenomena and the damage caused by loud music and other loud noises has been researched at depth in universities and other institutions all over the World. Damage to the cochlea feedback system by distorted or dissonant sounds is perfectly understood.

This all sounds as if I am one of those po-faced killjoys who want everybody to sit in silence whilst some pocket Hitler from Health and Safety sits next to him with an SPL meter in his hand, just in case he farts too loudly.

But quite the opposite is true - in fact I managed to head-butt the fireplace yesterday by accident whilst listening and watching to Rammstein's new concert DVD (much to the amusement of the film music people who are recording here at the moment).

I wish all this were not true and I could crank up the volume on Rammstein, Grandaddy and Government Mule and all the other noises that I like to some totally silly level. But I can't, so I don't. Even I have to turn it down - though I wish I did not have to . . . and even the dog likes Rammstein - well he would, he's a German Shepherd!

[jalepeano death]

Elacin er 15's are great ear plugs.

They are expensive but they sound great.

I used to use them every day when working with nasty PA systems.

The ones with the nasty horns that produce very little of the original source material.

That rig sounded fucking disgustingly loud at only 105db.

Now I get to use a louder Pa that produces at least another 10db and does not use that nasty compresion driver horn to produce the high mid's.

My ears never feel fatigued so I don't wear my ear plugs unless I am mixing monitors.

A nice snare drum still makes me blink from 20 metres with no amplification.

I love that sound.

[David]

On the sound quality note, an easy enough test...

Get two hifi's, one good high quality system, one wee nasty job from argos or the like. Try listening to the same cd at a decent volume on each system, with the cheap one your ears will become easily fatigued, where you can crank up the volume much higher on the good system while still listening comfortably, - I will admit I have no scientific backing to this, only practical experience

Doc's proplugs, I have a set of these, and didn't think too much of them tbh, I would definately try to get yourself a set of the ER20's off the net, the same price (10 for the ER20's online) and a pretty huge step up in sound quality

Flash, When you mentioned the volumes you have been exposed to, and how happy with your hearing you are, from what you said that is only as far as not having tinnitus, I wouldn't be surprised if a full hearing test would show losses, it's not always noticable, but the loud volumes can easily take out some of the high end from your hearing, and gradually so you don't notice a sudden change (like an obvious ring from Tinnitus) - Maybe you are fine though, everyones ears are different, from what I have heard my ears are fairly girly in that sense, me walking out of gigs ears ringing where nobody else seemed bothered, so I wear earplugs always (and have done when I have been at the Moorings) when I am going to be intentionally exposed to loud volumes

David