KB2015 - Noise Logger Report

[Oliver Macro]

Morena whanau,

Wonderfully, after perpetual schedule clashing and missed opportunities, Curt at Marshall Day Acoustics and I managed to meet up and go over the data from the noise logger we employed this year to record a continual stream of SPL data over the course of the festival.

Accordingly, here's a few points and summaries from our findings, along with some notes on how we wish to approach this for KB2016. 

Observations:

Overall, the data was more or less as it was to expected to be - relatively quiet during the day and considerably louder at night. The overall volume levels at night were fairly consistent, and were comfortably within the limits laid out in our Operational Noise Management Plan.

There was a period of lost data on the Saturday day and night, which as I described at the ExCom Summit was to be expected after finding the external battery on the device disconnected on the Sunday. I'm still unsure as to whether this was a case of interference or probably more likely, me accidentally pulling the cable out when checking the device and not ensuring it was properly connecting when departing on routine checks, however irrespectively if we assume that the noise levels on burn night were on par with all other nights, then we can safely predict that we remained within our limits. 

I found myself surprised that the noise logger itself recorded waveform data as well as a series of measurements, and so we were able to listen back to periods of data. Unsurprisingly I discovered that Barrio del Chur were without a doubt the noisiest thing on site, but more surprisingly I found that despite the noise logger being placed quite far behind the camp, mid and high range output from the camp was still very audible, something which I'm finding a bit baffling at present given that that part of the frequency spectrum appeared to be in phase with the low end, and can thus be concluded that it wasn't a case of the device picking up reflections from the cliff faces west of the site.

Conclusions:

Basically, all is well, and I can happily continue refining sound camp placement and monitoring without worrying too much about us exceeding the limits laid out in the ONMP. 

I'm still curious as to what the situation will be if we get another camp with a sound system the size of what Chur brought along this year, which I do expect will happen before long, but I think we're in the clear for the time being. 

I'm still a little baffled as to why we didn't receive any complaints from the neighbouring property of concern, as I'm fairly sure we were much louder than we were in 2014, and given how trigger happy with complaints the neighbour has been suggested to be it was almost certainly expected. I have heard a rumour that she took the hint and went away but I can't rely on hearsay as being a reason to relax about these matters.

KB2016:

Firstly. I queried Curt on whether we may access the device for KB2016 and whether or not a budget would be required. I'm very thankful to report that he has stated that we may, and no budget is required. For this I am very grateful.

The first port of call here is that we'd like to find a way to get the noise logger over the river, closer to the neighbouring property. I'm not too sure what would be required to do this with regards to legalities as I'm not sure who owns that land and thus, how we can get over there (disclaimer: I'm not wading through a river with $20k's worth of sensitive electronic equipment that I don't own), and keep it safe (i'm thinking placing it inside a tent would be wise for weather protection).

I also want to get it remotely connected. Hippie has suggested that he's wishing to submit a proposal to the Innovations Grant Committee to set up an on-site intranet system, but as far as i'm aware his intended network is unlikely to extend as far as we'd require to be able to access the noise logger via WIFI. 

My personal opinion is that I'm in favour of the proposed intranet system regardless, but if the intended system can be modified to permit access to the device either in the location it was in this year, or the desired location over the river, then I think it's a proposal that needs approval irrespective of whatever else it may allow. To me, remote access is invaluable if it means I can respond to a complaint, internal or external, by pulling out my cellphone, pressing a button and receiving an immediate reading. 

I've attached a spreadsheet of the recorded data should anyone wish to have a look through. Also, transparency.

[Brendan Stafford]

Good work Oliver. Thanks for the report. Carry on.

[Wendy]

Thanks for this comprehensive report Oliver.  

It'd probably be a good idea to upload this to Dropbox.

On 16 September 2015 at 23:10, Brendan Stafford <introvert...@gmail.com> wrote:

Good work Oliver. Thanks for the report. Carry on.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kiwiburnExComLIVE" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kiwiburnexcoml...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Oliver Macro]

Affirmative. I'll put together an appropriate edit and upload it.