| previous topic :: next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ronald lynch
Active Member
Joined: 11 Feb 2003
Posts: 12
Location: altoona pa
|
 Posted: Monday Jul 17, 2006 |
|
|
i think noise issue is one sided by plcb
bars cant have music heard on side walk out side bar
thenthey discriminate by allowing burgis to have outside bands which whole neighbor hood can hear whats wrong with this picture
we need plcb to reorganize and concentrate on liqor violations and not be trying to destroy local band scene
_________________
ronald lynch rwl3616@aol.com |
|
| Back to top » |
|
 |
Craven Sound
Platinum Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2003
Posts: 695
Location: Cambria County, PA
|
| Posted: Monday Jul 17, 2006 |
|
|
Burgi's went through a lot of shit to make that happen. Search this site, you'll find everything you want to know about this issue. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Jim Price
Moderator
Joined: 07 Dec 2002
Posts: 4817
Location: Altoona, PA
|
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
tonefight
Diamond Member
Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 1409
Location: Ebensburg
|
| Posted: Monday Jul 17, 2006 |
|
|
Although if you are a competeing bar you may be a little disgruntled with Burgi's being allowed to have outdoor entertainment. However as a musician I see it as one small battle won in the fight. Lets focuse on getting more positive results and not be jealous because someone won a battle.
_________________
Don't bitch to me about the economy while you're still buying Chinese products. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
Lisa
Platinum Member
Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 638
Location: Houtzdale
|
| Posted: Wednesday Jul 19, 2006 |
|
|
| As another bar...I'm glad that burgi got approval passed. It took a lot of hard work to do it. Saw in the news that there was another band going for some outdoor music ... was it in Johnstown maybe???? In my mind, this is not a plcb issue and shouldn't be...its a local noise ordinance issue and plcb should stay out of it. The license to have alcohol outside was approved...they need to focus on their own area after that. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
DATASOUND
Active Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 86
Location: CUmberland,MD
|
| Posted: Wednesday Jul 19, 2006 |
|
|
Been following the post about this noise ordinance problem. Personally I think anyone that is against it(having music in their neighborhood), before they even give it a chance, has issues. I erased the rest of what I was going to say about them.
I'm not sure of the laws in my neck of the woods, but they have bands all over the place playing outside. I have never heard of a problem in this area. In fact I know of one situation where a SC had called in a complaint and she was told by the police nothing could be done about it till after a certain time. I think 9 or 10 o'clock at night. I can't remember, to long ago. The police dropped by, informed us there was a complaint. But they didn't shut us down or even tell me to turn down. That's when I was told the about the response the ol'bag was given by the police. Got to love it. But they did inform me that after that curtain time (9 or 10), if they get multiple complaints, we would have to shut down. But if we didn't get any complaints, they would be back to join the party and have a drink. I think that was fair.
I think it used be like that around here, but things are changing for the better.
My grandmother is 87, tires easily, and takes regular naps. She would never complain or petition to have something like that stopped. She would endure allot before she even consider hampering what someone else enjoys. Me too for that matter.
"Change the things you can control, don't try to control the things you can't change."
One thing I have noticed. The ones that complain are a very small number. You would think that would tell them something. Like they are being self centered and selfish.
Just curious, but if it was a bluegrass band(and maybe it is) would the "gray-haired neighbor" still make a stink? Oh, and why would the state Liquor Code address any issues about noise? That's like revoking a drivers license for not paying your child support. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
"62dB", give me a break. I can f**t louder then that.
"no house for at least 1/2 mile". They ain't neighbors.
Just my $0.02 worth, But it sounds like some old retirees are hoping to get their palms greased.
_________________
***** My boots may be new, but this ain't my first rodeo. *****
Dean Riley
DATA SOUND
301-707-6488
Sound,Lighting,Staging,Roofing |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6249
Location: Anywhere, Earth
|
| Posted: Wednesday Jul 19, 2006 |
|
|
| DATASOUND wrote: | | Just my $0.02 worth, But it sounds like some old retirees are hoping to get their palms greased. |
Its important to distinguish between a local noise ordinance and the PLCB Noise Rule.
All licensed taverns in the state of PA. are under the jurisdiction of the PLCB Noise Rule, enforced ad hoc by the PLCE. This rule states that if the PLCE officer can hear anything outside the licensed premesis, they are in violation of the noise rule and can be prosecuted. The licensed premesis is usually the building itself--not the surrounding outside property. That means a PLCE agent can walk up to the door of a club and if he even hears one bass drum thump, he can write them up.
Local authorities can now petition the PLCB to get local jurisdiction over tavern noise, like Burgi's did. This must be done by the municipal government on behalf of the tavern(s) and approved by the PLCB. Not an easy task.
In reference to 62db. The difference here is that it would be measured from another property outside of the property line. If it was measured on a property line 50 feet from the building, it would require an SPL of 74db at the building to get a reading of 62db at the property line.
If you can find a noise ordinance in the state of Pennsylvania that is higher than 62db please let me know. We could then show legal precedent for a higher SPL value. Right now, the highest one that I'm aware of is 62db in the State College Business district. Lawyers won't listen to physics, they want legal precedent.
_________________
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time... |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
DATASOUND
Active Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 86
Location: CUmberland,MD
|
| Posted: Wednesday Jul 19, 2006 |
|
|
| lonewolf wrote: | | DATASOUND wrote: | | Just my $0.02 worth, But it sounds like some old retirees are hoping to get their palms greased. |
Its important to distinguish between a local noise ordinance and the PLCB Noise Rule.
All licensed taverns in the state of PA. are under the jurisdiction of the PLCB Noise Rule, enforced ad hoc by the PLCE. This rule states that if the PLCE officer can hear anything outside the licensed premesis, they are in violation of the noise rule and can be prosecuted. The licensed premesis is usually the building itself--not the surrounding outside property. That means a PLCE agent can walk up to the door of a club and if he even hears one bass drum thump, he can write them up. |
I'm pretty sure I understand it? And I thinks it's very vague & rediculous.
PLCB=(Pennsylvania Liquor Controll Board) is an independent administrative board consisting of three members appointed by the Governor. Under the Act, the Board's duties are to buy, import and sell liquor through a system of state-owned liquor stores, and to control the manufacture, possession, sale, consumption, importation, use, storage, transportation and delivery of all alcoholic beverages in Pennsylvania. The Board also fixes wholesale and retail prices at which liquor is sold.
The Board has the authority to issue licenses and to suspend and revoke all permits authorized under the Act. The Board has additional powers relating to the management of liquor stores and may make regulations deemed necessary for the administration of Act 21.
BLCE=(Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement) The Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, was created on July 1, 1987, under Section 211 of the Liquor Code. BLCE is responsible for enforcing Act 21 and any regulations pursuant thereto. Officers assigned to the Bureau investigate when there is reason to believe alcoholic beverages are being sold on premises not licensed, or any other violation of Act 21. Enforcement officers may arrest on view, except in private homes, any person in violation of certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Criminal Statutes. Enforcement officers also investigate and issue citations to licensees for violations of the Liquor Code, other laws of the Commonwealth relating to alcoholic beverages, or any regulations of the Board adopted pursuant to the laws.
Enforcement officers are civilian personnel of the State Police. The Office of Chief Counsel for the State Police represents BLCE in all proceedings before the Office of Administrative Law Judge or any other adjudicatory body.
And the local ordinance refers to 64dB spl.
Also another interesting read for me was this. http://www.modeweekly.com/2002/02.08.01/02.08.01_second%20Street.htm
| lonewolf wrote: |
Local authorities can now petition the PLCB to get local jurisdiction over tavern noise, like Burgi's did. This must be done by the municipal government on behalf of the tavern(s) and approved by the PLCB. Not an easy task. |
What you're trying to do is great. I support you 100%. Unfortunately I'm not a PA voter. So my support only has a moral marit. Thumbs up to Burgi's.
| lonewolf wrote: | | In reference to 62db. The difference here is that it would be measured from another property outside of the property line. If it was measured on a property line 50 feet from the building, it would require an SPL of 74db at the building to get a reading of 62db at the property line. |
I understand your local ordinance, and think that needs addressed also. But not as much as the PLCB's out-dated laws.
| lonewolf wrote: | | If you can find a noise ordinance in the state of Pennsylvania that is higher than 62db please let me know. We could then show legal precedent for a higher SPL value. Right now, the highest one that I'm aware of is 62db in the State College Business district. Lawyers won't listen to physics, they want legal precedent. |
Sorry, but I'm not up on all the laws in PA. Just the ones you have been educating me on. You would hope a passionate lawyer would want to SET precedent, not ride the coattail of an old one.
I think we have a city ordinance about spitting on the city sidewalk, but I have never heard of anyone getting nail for it.
Personally I don't think the PLCB laws should have any input or control over noise. What does Noise Control have to do with Liquor Control? I realize one may bread the other. That is the case with most things. This is obviously an outdated law. IMHO, I don't think it should be amended, I think it should be abolished. At least from the control of the PLCB. Leave it solely up to local jurisdiction. I can't really say I have any good arguments or facts to back it up. Other then just plain common sense.
_________________
***** My boots may be new, but this ain't my first rodeo. *****
Dean Riley
DATA SOUND
301-707-6488
Sound,Lighting,Staging,Roofing |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
LHSL
Gold Member
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Johnstown
|
| Posted: Thursday Jul 20, 2006 |
|
|
| lonewolf wrote: | | In reference to 62db. The difference here is that it would be measured from another property outside of the property line. If it was measured on a property line 50 feet from the building, it would require an SPL of 74db at the building to get a reading of 62db at the property line. |
How did you calculate that?
Sound falls off at a rate of 6dB per doubling of distance. If you measured the source at 1 meter, and the sound at the edge of the property was 62 dB, the source would be 85.6dB, or 23.6dB louder.
It doesn't seem far off... but 85dB is a LOT louder than 74dB. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 6249
Location: Anywhere, Earth
|
| Posted: Friday Jul 21, 2006 |
|
|
Pardon my numbers...I have an excel spreadsheet with several pages of sound formulas that allows you to plug in numbers and get the answer. I went back and checked and I had erroneously used one for vertical arrays rather than a single point source. Since vertical arrays eliminate the dissipation in the Y direction, they are calculated at -3db for each doubling of distance.
That brings me to another question: Since we are talking about a building that would emanate roughly the same SPL at any height for a given wall location, would it not act more like a vertical array than a single point source? Also, if the the wall was also emanating the same SPL along its entire length, would that not tend to cancel out the dissipation of the X component and bring the dissipation down to -1.5db/doubling of distance?
In other words, isn't an exterior wall a model of a 2 dimensional (vertical and horizontal) array? Any thoughts?
_________________
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time... |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
LHSL
Gold Member
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Johnstown
|
| Posted: Friday Jul 21, 2006 |
|
|
| lonewolf wrote: | Pardon my numbers...I have an excel spreadsheet with several pages of sound formulas that allows you to plug in numbers and get the answer. I went back and checked and I had erroneously used one for vertical arrays rather than a single point source. Since vertical arrays eliminate the dissipation in the Y direction, they are calculated at -3db for each doubling of distance.
That brings me to another question: Since we are talking about a building that would emanate roughly the same SPL at any height for a given wall location, would it not act more like a vertical array than a single point source? Also, if the the wall was also emanating the same SPL along its entire length, would that not tend to cancel out the dissipation of the X component and bring the dissipation down to -1.5db/doubling of distance?
In other words, isn't an exterior wall a model of a 2 dimensional (vertical and horizontal) array? Any thoughts? |
You bring up a good point. I do not know how a building would act. I will not have equal pressure on all walls so it will not "resonate" at the same SPL in all places. However, it still could lend itself to an arraying of sorts. However, you could argue that it would do so in the horizontal plane also, and this would turn the cylinder wavefront into a "sheet" and never die off with distance. We know this not to be true.
But I digress... Vertical arrays only act as such in the near to mid field. After a certain point they act like a traditional point source. Unless the line is infinitely high, LOL.
Therefore, at some critical distance the sound would begin to fall off at 6 dB per doubling again. The best line arrays in the world can achieve the 3db loss per doubling for a few hundred feet. I don't think a building would exhibit this specific behavior for very far. |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
KMFDM ROB
Gold Member
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 151
Location: Altoona
|
| Posted: Tuesday Aug 01, 2006 |
|
|
Some pretty educated guys here on the math issue 
I think outdoor shows are great, and if Burgi's has them, that just means that we can hope to have another spot do it. I'm sure Burgi's location helped quite a bit though.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/theconquererreturns
www.roblynn.org |
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
|
|
