PROCEEDINGS of the
23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

The exposure of musicians to sound assessed by
two-channel noise dosimetry
Agnieszka Paula PIETRZAK1; Jan ŻERA2
Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology, Institute ofRadioelectronics and Multimedia Technology, Nowowiejska 15/19, 00-665 Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACTThe sound exposure doses of musicians may significantly differ depending on the ensemble, repertoire andthe intensity of their daily professional activity. In solo performance the sound levels are often asymmetricbetween the two ears, which mostly results from the directional characteristics of the instrument’s soundradiation, with only a small effect of reverberation, as the player is exposed to the instrument’s sound in thenear field. In ensemble playing the sound of all the other instruments is usually the main factor influencing
the sound exposure dose. In this study a two-channel noise dosimetry was used to assess the sound exposure
doses in the left and in the right ear of music students. The measurements were conducted during rehearsalsof chamber music ensembles, symphonic and wind instrument orchestras, big-band, and during individual
practicing. The results show an interaural asymmetry in sound level, up to about 6 dB, in musicians playing
instruments held asymmetrically to the player’s head and in cases when the musicians were exposed tointense sound of the neighboring instruments. It also was observed that the spread of sound levels was larger
during individual practicing (78–105 dBA) than in large ensembles (79–99 dBA).
Keywords: sound exposure, noise dosimetry, asymmetric sound exposure

1. INTRODUCTION
Studies on the exposure to musical sounds have been conducted for more than 40 years (1) and,among others, resulted in implementing into the Directive 2003/10/EC (2) the same requirements fornoise limits and good hearing conservation practice in the entertainment sector as those that apply toindustrial branches. This was followed by specific regulations, coordinated with the Directive in each
EU member state (in Poland by (3) The Regulation of the Minister of Economy and Labor, of August
5, 2005). However, the effect of exposure to musical sounds, as a factor causing hearing loss, is still
being researched in musicians who play classical music. The percentage of musicians who suffer fromsome degree of hearing loss varies, depending on the study. For musicians or music students who playclassical music, this percentage ranges from 30 to 60% (4–8). Other studies, e.g. (9), reported that thathearing loss occurs in a much smaller part, 5-25% of classical musicians, with the largest amount ofhearing loss caused by brass instruments. Among musicians who play music of other genres 20-50% of
the population have various symptoms of hearing loss. Several studies suggest that the most common
hearing problems of musicians are tinnitus, hyperacusis, and diplacusis (10–13).
A large body of research has been devoted to the measurement of sound levels encountered duringperformances, rehearsals and individual music practice, (e.g. 8,14–19). The reports show that thelevels are usually highest for brass instruments (85-105 dB), woodwinds (85-95 dB), and percussion(90-95 dB). Flutist can be affected by levels reaching or exceeding 100 dB (14). In some cases (16),high sound levels, amounting to 108 dB, may occur at the place occupied by the conductor on the stage.
Lower levels (85-90 dB) were measured in the string section in the symphony orchestra with thesecond violins affected by the sound of neighboring wind instruments. The differences between thereported sound levels in music (see 5,20 for a comprehensive review of the literature) depend on the
acoustical conditions in which musicians work, on the location of instruments in the orchestra on the
1

2

A.Pietrzak@ire.pw.edu.pl
J.Zera@ire.pw.edu.pl2021

stage, and on the performed repertoire.
Recent studies (20–22) have also employed two channel measurement, separately for the left andthe right ear, to estimate the asymmetry in sound exposure expected for such instruments as the flute,French horn, strings, or the harp. In individual music practicing (20) largest interaural exposure
differences, with higher sound level in the right ear, were found for the flute (4 dB), the piccolo (7 dB)
and the bassoon (3 dB). In the case of the tuba the sound level was higher by 4 dB in the left ear. In
orchestral playing (5,21), an interaural asymmetry of sound level was found for the bassoon (3 dB),
strings (5-6 dB), French horn (2-4 dB) and the flute (4 dB).
The aim of this study was: (a) to estimate the exposure of musicians to sound during various
activities during their typical work day, such as individual practicing, playing in ensembles of different
sizes, from chamber ensembles to a large orchestra, and (b) to measure the asymmetry of soundexposure between the right and the left ear, at different overall sound levels.

2. MEASUREMENT METHOD
The sound level measurements were carried out with the participation of music students, majors in
instrument playing at The Fryderyk Chopin University of Music in Warsaw (FCUM). The group
included students who played the flute, clarinet, trumpet, trombone, percussion, harp and the double
bass. For all of them a full day two-channel noise dosimetry was performed to assess the soundexposure. The students were provided with a personal two-channel noise dosimeter, and the two
microphones were mounted on their arms, on both sides of the head. The dosimeter was used to record
the equivalent sound level, Leq , and the waveform (for later analysis) during all their activities, such asindividual playing and playing in various instrumental ensembles. Before setting the day on which themeasurements will be conducted the students were asked to specify the days during which represent
their typical activity at the university, in terms of the number of hours and type of classes. The students
were also asked to fill out a questionnaire in which they specified the instrument they played, the type,
and the start and the end time of each activity.
The measurements were carried out with the use of two Svantek SV 102+ personal dual-channel
dosimeters, equipped with SV 25D microphones, suitable for mounting on the arms, by attaching themto the clothes. The dosimeters were calibrated with a Brüel & Kjaer 4231 calibrator. The microphones
were mounted on the musicians’ shoulders, as symmetrically as possible, and as close as possible to theear. In the case of certain instruments, the microphones were somewhat shifted to the back of theshoulder because the way the musician was holding the instrument prevented the placement of the
microphones on the top of the shoulder.
The instruments tested included: the flute, clarinet, trumpet, trombone, tuba, percussion (drums),
harp, and the double bass. This work is in progress and other instruments (i.e., French horn, bassoon
and instruments of the bow family) will also be tested. The data analysis was done for five types ofstudents’ activity: individual (solo) practicing, playing in a chamber ensemble (quartet, quintet, etc.),
playing in a large symphony orchestra (usually FCUM student symphony orchestra, 40-80 musicians,
depending on the repertoire), in a wind orchestra (FCUM student wind orchestra, 40-80 musicians),and in the FCUM student big-band (40 musicians, use of sound reinforcement).
The analysis of data was carried out using the Svan PC ++ program, which is a standard software
for post processing of data obtained from the SV 102+ dosimeter. The material was first checked forthe presence of artifacts, such as overloads caused by accidental hitting of the microphone by themusician. For each measurement condition A-weighted equivalent sound pressure level in 1-s timeintervals was determined, separately for the right and the left ear. The interaural level difference wasdetermined for each L Aeq,1s value using the calculation scheme in the Matlab program.

3. RESULTS
3.1 Monitoring time
Table 1 shows the percentage of time the instrument players have devoted to various types ofactivities, calculated in reference to the total time of monitoring. The overall data (column marked‘Avg.’) indicate that the musicians spent 42% of their work time on individual practicing. However,this distribution is uneven across the instruments. In the case of five instruments (flute, clarinet,trumpet, trombone and percussion) for which the data exceed 10 hours of recording, individual
practicing accounted for 26-28% (percussion and flute) to 47-50% (tuba and clarinet) of the time of2022

monitoring. If we assume that in chamber music playing the musician is much less exposed to thesound of other instruments than in large ensembles, such as the symphony orchestra, wind orchestra,and big-band, then it can be estimated that for about 40% of the time musicians play in large orchestras
and for 60% of the time they play solo or in small ensembles. An exception from that are the dataobtained for the percussionist. The distinction between individual playing and playing in an orchestra
or in an ensemble is important; in individual playing the musician is exposed only to the sound of
his/her own instrument whereas in the exposure experienced in ensemble playing predominates thesound of neighboring instruments. However, it has to be stressed that in many cases, due to theshortage of practice rooms at the university, the students practice individually in the presence of otherstudents playing in a medium size room at the same time.
Table 1 – Percentage of time devoted to a given activity referred to the total time of monitoring
Monitoring time [%]1)
fluteclarinet

trumpettrombone

percussion

harp

Individual

28

50

42

47

26

60

doublebass
16

Chamber ensemble

40

32

16

5

-

-

33

16

Symphony orchestra

32

4

27

10

64

40

33

22

Wind orchestra

-

14

5

19

-

-

-

9

Big Band

-

-

10

19

10

-

18

9

68

82

58

52

26

60

49

58

32

18

42

48

74

40

51

42

10.7

21.6

19.5

33.6

13.1

4.2

5.7

108.4

Individual andChamber
Orchestras andbig bandNumberof hours

Avg.
421) The data obtained for the tuba player were omitted as the recordings were made only during solo playing

3.2 Overall levels
The L Aeq levels averaged over dosimeter samples recorded during all measurements are shown in
Figure 1. The graph shows the values recorded for all instruments and separately for the left and rightear (these details are not distinctively shown in Figure 1). The highest and lowest values of L Aeq wereobserved in individual practicing (Figure 1, circles). This confirms that this type of daily activity is nota negligible component of total musicians’ daily exposure to sound. It is worth to mention that the twohighest values of 104.9 dB and 99.4 dB were obtained, respectively, for the right and left ear of theflutist. The lowest values of 78.4, 79.1, and 80.2 dB are, respectively, for double bass player, left andright ear, and the harpist’s left ear. Midrange of considerably high level values of 90.7 to 96.6 dB is
occupied by other instruments, mainly woodwinds and brass instruments.
In the case of chamber music (Figure 1, squares) the lowest level of 76.7 dB (left ear) and 77.4 dB(right ear) was also recorded for the double bass player. It is clear that the effect of neighboring
instruments in chamber music ensemble was at minimum for this instrument. The highest value of 99.4
dB was obtained for flutist’s right ear, and next to it, for the trumpet (98.2 dB, right ear). However, thelevel measured at the flutist’s left ear was 93.8 dB. The difference of about 6 dB between the right andthe left ear was same as in the solo playing condition. Thus, the asymmetry of exposure of the left andright ear of flutist was not affected by the presence of chamber ensemble. It is apparent that in chamber
ensemble playing exposure of the flutist was by about 5 dB lower than in solo playing what is likely
related to the repertoire, less demanding from the flutist in ensemble playing.
For symphony orchestra condition (Figure 1, triangles), the spread of levels is reduced to a range2023

between 79.2 dB (double bass) and 96.5 dB (flute, right ear). As in previous conditions, the double
bass player was less exposed than other musicians for which the level values start from 88.6 dB (harp,
right ear). For the wind orchestra (Figure 1, diamonds) the level range is even more compressed tolevels from 91.0 to 96.1 dB and, on average, is slightly higher than for the symphony orchestra. These
results, however, include data only from three instruments – the clarinet, the trumpet and the trombone.
For the big band (Figure 1, crosses), higher level values of 94.5 dB (double bass) to 98.6 dB(percussion) are likely a result of electroacoustic reinforcement of sound on the stage and in theaudience area. In contrast to solo and chamber conditions, the musicians are more influenced by theoverall sound than by the sound of their own instrument.
In summary, the highest and the lowest levels are at their extremes for the soloistic playing, ranging
from less than 80 to over 105 dBA, which is likely due to the repertoire . For large number of musiciansin the ensemble, the average level is high but the span of levels is narrow, because of high influence ofsound of neighboring musicians.

Measured Level Range
110
105

LAEQ [DBA]

100
95
90
85
80
75
70
Individual

ChamberSO

WO

Big BandFigure 1 – Ranges of L Aeq measured for every type of activity

3.3 Right-left ear level difference
Panels a-e in Figure 2 show the asymmetry in sound exposure between the right and the left ear.
Each panel represents one measurement condition: (a) individual practicing, (b) chamber ensemble,(c) symphony orchestra, (d) wind orchestra, and (e) the big band. Different lines represent the dataobtained for different instruments. The asymmetry in sound exposure was assessed by calculating thelevel difference between right and left ear, ΔL RL = LAeqR – L AeqL. Positive values of ΔLRL represent
conditions in which right ear was more exposed, and negative ΔLRL those in which the left ear was
more exposed. The graphs plotted in Figure 2 show how the ΔLRL changes with the overall L AeqL levelof samples recorded in the left ear, averaged over 1-s intervals. Thus, the level in the right ear can beobtained by adding the values on the abscissa to the values on the ordinate.
In the solo playing condition (Figure 2a) a different degree of asymmetry in noise exposure (larger
than 1 dB) is apparent for the flute, percussion, tuba, trumpet and the double bass. The largest
asymmetry, with the right ear more exposed, is seen for the flute at high levels of 90-115 dB. Thisasymmetry reaches 5 dB for the loudest sounds what may be an indicator of high risk of hearing loss as
it occurs for the left ear LAeqL of about 112 dB, which means that right ear exposure reaches almost
120 dBA.
Percussion is the second instrument in row in terms of the size of asymmetry with the level in theright ear by 3 dB higher (at L AeqL = 80 dB) exposure. The data for percussion show an asymmetry of
1-2 dB with the right ear more exposed, for the entire range of levels during playing.

2024

L Aeq,L [dB]

L Aeq,L ) [dB]b) Chamber ensembles

L

Aeq,L

[dB]

L Aeq,L [dB]a) Individual practiced) Wind orchestra

L Aeq,L [dB]c) Symphony orchestrae) Big band

Figure 2 – Interaural sound level difference for various typical daily music activities
The data for the trumpet, tuba, and the double bass show higher levels in the left ear but thedifference in level does not exceed 2 dB. For the tuba, exposure of the left ear if consistently larger by
about 1 dB at all playing levels, from 40 to 110 dB. In the case of the double bass, largest asymmetry
associated with higher level in the left ear occurs for the highest playing levels, 90-93 dB. Thisasymmetry is likely related to a change in the player’s body position during articulation of the loudest
instrument sounds. Average difference over all L AeqL levels was 5.7 and 1.5 dB respectively for the2025

flute and percussion (right ear more exposed), and -1.5 dB for tuba (left ear more exposed). In the caseof the remaining instrument the exposure difference was not larger than 0.7 dB.
In chamber ensemble condition (Figure 2b), asymmetry seen for flute player is similar to thatobserved for the individual condition, with an increase in ΔLRL to about 5 dB for levels L AeqL between
85 and 110 dB. For other instruments, the pattern of results differs from that obtained in the individual
playing condition. Stronger asymmetry with larger right ear exposure is seen for the trumpet, withΔLRL reaching about 2 dB for L AeqL exceeding 90 dB, and somewhat larger exposure (ΔL RL = -1 dB) of
the left ear is apparent for the clarinet player for L AeqL exceeding 75 dB, and the trombone at 90-95 dB.
The average asymmetry over all levels is 5.6 dB for the flute and 1.5 dB for the trumpet. Differences
for other instruments are less than 1 dB.
For symphony orchestra (Figure 2c) significant asymmetry with right ear more exposed remains forthe flute player at L AeqL of 90-100 dB. There is also a right ear exposure consistently stronger acrosslevels for the trumpet, with maximum ΔLRL exceeding 2 dB for L AeqL at about 80 dB. Stronger left-ear
exposure with ΔLRL exceeding -2 dB for L AeqL larger than 90 dB is observed for the harpist. Average
differences are smaller than for the previously discussed conditions: 1.8 dB for the flute and -2.4 dB
for the harp, with less than 1 dB for the remaining instruments.
As mentioned earlier for the symphony orchestra, there is larger influence of sound of neighboring
instruments on an exposure than in the two previously discussed conditions of solo and chamber
playing. Whereas for the flutist there is still a dominating right-ear exposure at high levels which must
be related to the dominating sound of his/her own instrument, the symmetric exposure at lower levels
is due to the influence of other instruments. For the trumpet, consistently larger exposure of the rightear is likely due to the sound of other instruments of the brass section (such as the French horns ortrombones). Domination of left ear exposure for the harpist at high levels is likely related with thesound of neighboring instruments (such as percussion or woodwinds) because in solo playing theharpist exposure is more intense in the right ear which is positioned closer to the body of the
instrument.
For wind orchestra (Figure 2d) the three considered instruments (clarinet, trumpet and trombone)
do not show large left-right ear asymmetry in the exposure, which is due to the overall high levelproduced by large number of wind instruments. In this kind of orchestra there are no violins, violas andcellos. In transcriptions of symphonic pieces, which are often played, the role of bow instruments istaken over by woodwinds and brass instruments. For instance, as many as 16 clarinets may play theparts of the first and second violins. General high levels occurring during performances produce fusedsound and strong domination of sounds of other instruments over the own instrument sound. In the data
shown in Figure 2d, strong asymmetry up to ΔL RL = - 3 dB (left ear more exposed) is seen only for thetrombones. The likely reason is that trombone players sit in the last row of brass instruments withpercussion instruments on the left side behind them. Overall asymmetry in wind orchestra condition,
ΔLRL, is 1.6 dB for the clarinet player (right ear more exposed) and -2 dB for the trombonist (left ear
more exposed).
In the data obtained for the big band (Figure 2e), there is an asymmetry with higher by about 2 dB
exposure in the left ear dB at high L AeqL (>100 dB) seen for trombonist, similar to that observed for this
instrument in wind orchestra (Figure 2d). It is likely that the reason for this is the exposure to the soundof percussion placed just behind the trombonists. For other data in Figure 2e, there is a slight shift
towards right ear being more exposed. This is most likely a result of centrally positioned loudspeakerin the back of the stage used by the sound reinforcement system during the big band performances. For
this reason the overall asymmetry in the big band is +0.7 dB (right ear more exposed) except for thetrombone in high level condition (ΔLRL = -1.4 dB, left ear more exposed) due to its position close topercussion instruments.

4. CONCLUSIONSMusicians performing classical music are exposed to high-level sounds, often exceeding 90 dBA,
during their typical working day. Such exposure may exceed acceptable daily exposure level of 85 dB.
In solo practice, due to the directional pattern of the instrument and depending on the repertoire, thelargest spread of levels occurs, from 78 to over 105 dBA. For large ensembles, the variability in level
decreases with increase lowest levels and decrease of the high levels. For chamber ensembles the level
range is 77-99 dBA, for symphony orchestra 79-97 dB. In wind orchestra and big band the variability
in level is limited to 5 - 6 dB, from 91 to 96 dBA, and from 94 to 99 dBA, for wind orchestra and big
band, respectively.

2026

For some instruments, exposure to sound is strongly asymmetric. The right ear is more exposed inmusicians playing the flute, the left ear in musicians playing the trombone and the tuba. In the case ofother instruments the degree of asymmetry is smaller and depends on the conditions in whichmusicians play.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the statutory grant 504/04064/1034/40.00 from the Warsaw Universityof Technology.

REFERENCES
1. Lebo CP, Oliphant KP. Music as a Source of Acoustic Trauma. J Audio Eng Soc., 1969;17(5):535–8.
2. Directive 2003/10/EC of European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum
health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physicalagents (noise). 17th individual Directive within meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), No
L42/40, 2003. Official Journal of the European Union.; 2003.
3. Regulation of the Minister of Economy and Labour of 5 August 2005 on Occupational Safety and
Health for Works Related with Exposure to Noise or Mechanical Vibrations (Dz.U. z 2005 r. Nr 157,
poz. 1318).
4. Phillips SL, Henrich VC, Mace ST. Prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss in student musicians. Int J
Audiol. 2010;49(4):309–16.
5. Zhao F, Manchaiah VKC, French D, Price SM. Music exposure and hearing disorders: An overview. Int
J Audiol., 2010;49(1):54–64.
6. Axelsson A, Lindgren F. Hearing in Classical Musicians. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh).
1981;91(sup377):1–100.
7. Ostri B, Eller N, Dahlin E, Skylv G. Hearing Impairment in Orchestral Musicians. Scand Audiol.
1989;18(4):243–9.
8. Smith KH, Neilsen TB, Grimshaw J. Full-day noise exposure for student musicians at Brigham Young
University. W Boston, Massachusetts; 2017., s. 035002.:
http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/2.0000568
9. Chesky K. Schools of music and conservatories and hearing loss prevention. Int J Audiol.,2011;50(sup1):S32–7.
10. Morais D, Ignacio Benito J, Almaraz A. Acoustic Trauma in Classical Music Players. Acta
Otorrinolaringol Engl Ed., 2007;58(9):401–7.
11. Jansen EJM, Helleman HW, Dreschler WA, de Laat JAPM. Noise induced hearing loss and otherhearing complaints among musicians of symphony orchestras. Int Arch Occup Environ Health.,
2009;82(2):153–64.
12. Laitinen H. Factors affecting the use of hearing protectors among classical music players. Noise
Health., 2005;7(26):21.
13. Laitinen H, Poulsen T. Questionnaire investigation of musicians’ use of hearing protectors, self
reported hearing disorders, and their experience of their working environment. Int J Audiol.,
2008;47(4):160–8.
14. Laitinen HM, Toppila EM, Olkinuora PS, Kuisma K. Sound Exposure Among the Finnish National
Opera Personnel. Appl Occup Environ Hyg.,2003;18(3):177–82.
15. Lee J, Behar A, Kunov H, Wong W. Musicians’ noise exposure in orchestra pit. Appl Acoust.,
2005;66(8):919–31.
16. Miller VL, Stewart M, Lehman M. Noise Exposure Levels for Student Musicians. Medical Problemsof Performing Artists 2007;160-5.
17. Phillips SL, Mace S. Sound level measurements in music practice rooms. Music Performance
Research 2008;2:36-47.

2027

18.

Rodrigues M, Freitas M, Neves M, Silva M. Evaluation of the noise exposure of symphonicorchestra musicians. Noise Health. 2014;16(68):40.
19. MacDonald E, Behar A, Wong W, Kunov H. Noise exposure of opera musicians. Can Acoust.
2008;36(4):11–6.
20. O’Brien I, Driscoll T, Ackermann B. Sound exposure of professional orchestral musicians duringsolitary practice. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;134(4):2748–54.
21. Wenmaekers R, Nicolai B, Hornikx M, Kohlrausch A. Why orchestral musicians are bound to wear
earplugs: About the ineffectiveness of physical measures to reduce sound exposure. J Acoust Soc Am.,
2017;142(5):3154–64.
22. Schmidt JH, Pedersen ER, Juhl PM, Christensen-Dalsgaard J, Andersen TD, Poulsen T, et al. Sound
Exposure of Symphony Orchestra Musicians. Ann Occup Hyg., 2011;55(8):893–905.

2028