A Louder Big House
Bumped from the diaries; I'm a sucker for footnotes.
In my opinion, from reading the few articles I could find on stadium noise, the lack of noise in Michigan Stadium is because of the fans.
First of all, from scanning the internet, many articles claim noise levels, but do not describe how they were measured. The best I could find on other stadiums was quotes of "the ESPN Crew measured noise levels of XdB. But at least for the Big House, the Michigan Engineering department stepped in for something scientific.
"A Louder Big House", The Michigan Daily
First the bottom line is that the noise measured 100 dB. Which changes to the stadium they estimate an improvement to 110 dB. Unfortunately this is still far behind the Oregon claim of 127.2 dB. Now to the best of my memory, 3dB is a doubling of noise level. so with Autzen (Ducks) Stadium at 27dB higher, that's 9 Doublings of noise level!! Or 2 to the 9th power for the computer engineers. Looking at the pictures of Autzen stadium I can't see how the shape can possibly be responsible for all that, although admittedly I'm not a sound engineer, and don't have any experience making these measurements in different shaped enclosures.
But check out the images at that page yourself. Here's the quote from the section on crowd noise. Notice that when anyone wants a measuring stick to prove how "awesome" they are, it is frequently Michigan that serves as that stick.
"Autzen is known for its crowd noise. On October 27, 2007, during a 24-17 defeat of the USC Trojans, a record crowd of 59,277 fans was recorded at 127.2 decibels. A similarly-loud 31-27 upset of third-ranked Michigan in 2003 prompted a Michigan Daily columnist to write[5]
“ | Autzen's 59,000 strong make the Big House sound like a pathetic whimper. It's louder than ... The Swamp at Florida, The Shoe in Columbus, and Death Valley at Louisiana State. Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die. | ” |
Michigan coach Lloyd Carr later said that Autzen Stadium was the loudest stadium he'd ever been in.[6]
In 2006, a Sporting News columnist named Autzen the most intimidating college football stadium in the nation.[7]
Lee Corso of ESPN College Gameday frequently says that; "Per person Autzen Stadium is the loudest stadium that I have ever been in my entire life!"[8] "
Autzen Stadium seats just under 60,000 fans.
And here's the quote from the Daily article when the Professor measured the Big House.
"Crowd participation was almost entirely located in the student section. If all 109,840 individuals had yelled at the same intensity, Navvab said the measurement would have increased to 102 or 103 decibels - a significant sound increase."
In conclusion, I think the Big House will definitely look more impressive when the construction is completed, but I don't think it's going to come close to sounding imtimidating.
So finally here is a link to Top 15 Stadiums that provides good pictures of the "conventional wisdom" on most intimidating stadium.
Top 15 College Football Stadiums
August 17th, 2008 at 11:48 AM ^
August 17th, 2008 at 11:50 AM ^
August 17th, 2008 at 3:28 PM ^
Ditto.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:47 AM ^
August 17th, 2008 at 11:49 AM ^
August 21st, 2008 at 12:06 PM ^
I totally agree with the Autzen Zoo awning idea. It would totally make Michigan Stadium a hell of a lot louder. They could just simply add the to the top of the luxury boxes on each side when they are done. Picture this added to the new boxes: http://www.uoregon.edu/~afurlong/ashleyamanda/oregonfootball_files/image005.jpg
August 17th, 2008 at 11:52 AM ^
August 17th, 2008 at 1:18 PM ^
I should have been more specific, actually -- an increase of 3 db at any volume does double the sound pressure, but to the ear, plus or minus 3 db at 100 db is hardly noticeable. However, it is noticeable at lower volumes. This has more to do with the ear's perception of sound than the nature of a decibel:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99325.htm
The perceived loudness is NOT proportional to the intensity of the sound. It is more nearly proportional to the logarithm of the intensity. This is what makes decibels such a useful measure. It also illustrates the cleverness of evolution and explains why we can clearly hear the quietest whispers and the buzz of a mosquito and still understand and survive the sounds made by subways, jackhammers, and even rock concerts with our hearing almost intact. An increase in the sound intensity by a factor of 10 does increase the decibel rating by adding 10. However, it is perceived by the ear as less. For example, an increase of the decibel rating from 100 to 110 would be perceived as roughly a 10% increase and NOT a factor of 10, which would be a 1000% increase. Technical details: Decibels are defined as B = 10 log (I/H) where I is the sound intensity (usually measured in watts/m^2) and H is a reference intensity, generally taken to be 1.0 E-12 W/m^2, which is about the threshold of hearing for a normal ear in good health. To gain a feeling for this equation, I find it very useful to do a few simple calculations with a calculator which has a log function (base 10) and can take powers with base 10 (log (x) and 10^x). Note that these are inverse functions: log(10^x) = 10^(log(x)) = x. 100 db gives I = 10^10*H while 110 db gives I = 10^11*H.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:56 AM ^
August 17th, 2008 at 12:59 PM ^
August 17th, 2008 at 1:57 PM ^
August 17th, 2008 at 2:53 PM ^
August 17th, 2008 at 5:36 PM ^
Now that you mention it I do remember being at that game. When they rolled out the equipment everyone in our section got noticeably quieter because everyone just turned to each other to ask what that might be. I had no idea it was a sound tester until I read this thread. We always thought it was something that was measuring the weather. And while I will be the first to admit the the Big House is way to quiet much of the time I also remember the 2004 triple overtime game against MSU and the 1997 OSU game and I would put the noise in the stadium at clutch times in those games against any other stadium in the nation.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:26 PM ^
The seats at Autzen were designed to keep as much of the sound in as possible.
this design is used to put the maximum number of people as close as possible to the field.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:43 PM ^
August 17th, 2008 at 5:16 PM ^
August 18th, 2008 at 2:10 AM ^
August 18th, 2008 at 9:42 AM ^
August 18th, 2008 at 3:05 PM ^
August 21st, 2008 at 11:52 AM ^
August 21st, 2008 at 12:08 PM ^
August 21st, 2008 at 12:10 PM ^
August 21st, 2008 at 12:13 PM ^
August 21st, 2008 at 12:17 PM ^
August 21st, 2008 at 12:23 PM ^
Yeah, sommy mentioned it before but your concept on decibels is off. 140 dB (shooting a machine gun) is not 2^9 = 512 times louder than 100 dB (operating a jackhammer) If you could ever generate something that was 512 times louder than operating a jackhammer, you would probably produce enough vibration to start your own earthquakes, level cities, etc.
As for 3 dB being a signficant sound increase, most people probably couldn't quantify that, at that level everything sounds the exact same: really loud. Maybe the writer wasn't a stats person and the prof said "Statistically Significant"
August 21st, 2008 at 2:25 PM ^
Well, not quite. A 20 dB increase does correspond to a 10 times increase in sound pressure. So shooting a machine gun (140 dB) is in fact a 100 times (not 512) "louder" (in terms of sound pressure) than operating a jackhammer (100 dB) at close range.
The way the human ear perceives it is another story though. I have seen various rules of thumb, and as you say percentage increases are a factor. But the most commonly used factor that relates sound pressure - perceived loudness is a factor of 2 for every 10dB increase in sound pressure (reference - http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/2004-About-dB). So you are still looking a stadium of 60,000 being perceptually 4 times louder than a stadium that holds 110,000. Which is, anyway you look at it, quite stunning.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:31 PM ^
August 21st, 2008 at 3:58 PM ^
I scream more than most, and no one has ever asked me to quiet down (other than my wife). But what does happen is people asking for people in front of them to sit down (not on third downs or other dramatic moments).
I sit in good seats (row 5 towards the middle) and the people around me yell frequently. I just don't think that the acoustics allow for much noise to reach the field.
If people felt that their effort resulted in something other than a head ache and sore throat, people would participate more.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:27 PM ^
Just to throw some thing out there.
1. Is the crowd noise at Autzen aided by architecture? Let’s just put some numbers out there. 59K people in Oregon are louder than 110K in Ann Arbor. Do you really believe each individual Oregonian is more than 2X louder their Michigander counter part? Coupled with the fact that anecdotally those Beaver fans are louder than every other crowd, including others nearly twice as large and not handicapped by the legendary recumbancy of Michigan alumni, and it is necessary to conclude that the percieved noise level at Autzen is significantly aided by architecture. You could make it more ridiculous by removing 20K or so students from each side, because it was my experience that the student section at the Big House was sufficiently loud and DMZ-like, and you’ve got the remaining 39K completely overshadowing Michgan’s 90K.
2. There is no point to measuring ‘crowd noise’ at a time when the crowd is not making noise. Unless, of course, Lee Corso has testified that the ambient crowd noise at Autzen is akin to a jet taking off. Talk about having a headache after the game.
3. Will the stadium renovations increase perceived crowd noise? Since it appears the Big House will be ‘deeper’ or more concave it follows that will trap or reflect noise better. So, yes. Will the human ear or Kirk Herbstreit sitting in the press box perceive the difference? Who knows and since it is my experience that engineers are shit-awful at predicting non-intended effects that they don’t have 9 text books of data on, I think we’ll just have to wait and see. I’m sorry if I’ve offended any engineers. Take heart in the fact that you’re better at predicting things than economists who basically make shit up.
4. Sorry, NinjaFootball, I do not think offensive philosophy will increase actual crowd noise. You could make an argument that more exciting plays might increase perceived crowd noise but I doubt it. People like to win and cheer for winning and whatever method brings the winning because it’s all about winning. Crowd noise when David Cone hands off to Elijah Bradley in the 4th quarter of a MAC blow out is not important. When the Wolverines take the field against Notre Dame, that’s when the marker is set. When Troy Smith takes over inside the 10 down 9 late in the 4th (in the 2005) is a good time to learn how loud it can get. Or, in the case of the ‘shoe, any time Mike Nugent trots out on the field is a perfect time for Buckeye fans to cheer (or so they think).
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 AM ^
Check these guys out (and no, it's not a rickroll)
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 AM ^
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 AM ^
Comments