History 1. Statement of Intent 2. Street Performance 3. General Considerations 4. Policy Standards 4.1. Enforcement 4.2. The Permit 4.3. Hours 4.4. Length of Performance 4.5. Locations 4.6. Distance Requirements 4.7. Animals 4.8. Dangerous Objects 4.9. Equipment Mobility 4.10. Amplification Sources 4.11. Sound Levels 4.11.4 The use of a Monitor 4.11.8 Sound Meter 4.12. Tapes and CDs 4.13. Special Events 4.11. Sound Levels Policy complaints of excessive volume should effect overall policy only if current standards are being consistently enforced there should be consistent monitoring during peak performance times of a reasonable decibel level decibel levels should be measured at an average reading or combination of average and peak readings for a more accurate description of the sound level created Particular concern surrounds this issue of sound levels. 4.11.1. Performers need a certain level above the background noise in order to effectively communicate their message. But when sound levels become excessive they impose on other individualsÕ rights. In the case of a complaint, an acceptable community standard is required. If the standard is too low it does not allow for the success of an audio, or sound-based, performance. If the standard is too high, it will precipitate excessive complaints. Performers are concerned about the alleged proposal for a more strict decibel level. 4.11.2. There has been infrequent monitoring for sound-levels in the Promenade area. A general rising of Performer sound levels has occurred as new acts join in the mix. When a Monitor has been present, the Performers operate at a generally quieter level. 4.11.3. If the desire for a more restrictive standard is driven by complaints and complaints are driven by the lack of enforcement of the current standard, it seems that changing the standards is not what will make a difference. It also seems that it would place unnecessary restrictions on the Performers. The use of a Monitor 4.11.4. In a performer rich area such as the Third Street Promenade, a monitor at peak performance times could help take the edge off volume issues and reduce complaints. 4.11.5. The Performers suggest routine monitoring for compliance with a sensible decibel limit at peak performance times. 4.11.6. Performers are unable to monitor their own performances for a decibel level. The Performer has nothing like a speedometer in a car. The Performer relies on the Monitor to assist him/her in meeting the standards. The Monitor should aid the Performers in adjusting the sound levels as they move to new locations. 4.11.7. Performers feel more comfortable, and able to provide better performances, knowing that the Monitor is there to help them to adjust to community standards. A Performer feels uncomfortable if a Monitor does not communicate the findings and is only perceived as writing tickets if a violation occurs. Another concern is how the meter is read. 4.11.8. If a peak level is used to define the limit, perhaps only an occasional moment will exceed that level while the majority of the program is far below the limit (particularly true of acoustically based instruments). This act could be performing noticeably softer than an act with an average reading just a little below the maximum, but which hits few peaks (an electronic synthesizer). 4.11.9. Performers strongly recommend the use of the average meter reading, or secondarily, the inclusion of both the peak and the average reading to give a more accurate picture of what is really happening with the sound level.   NEXT

Go to the Top of the Page

© Ned Landin 1998 all rights reserved