Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › My impressions of HE-6 vs HD800 vs Stax SR-007
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My impressions of HE-6 vs HD800 vs Stax SR-007 - Page 20

post #286 of 290

Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post

Danz03 wrote:
..."most recording systems nowadays record at 24bit, which is roughly 144 dB dynamic range (a drum kit is around 115 dB), more than what a human can possibly hear, and it is definitely possible to reproduce that especially in a studio environment.
However, it is near impossible to find something non-classical nowadays on CD that is not heavily compressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InnerSpace

Are you kidding? I must say, for an engineer, you make a lot of very unrealistic statements. You seriously think that today's gear can reproduce the real-life dynamic range of a drum kit? An orchestra? Even a flute? Or maybe you just argue for the sake of it."...

---

HM...
AudioCD dynamic max is theoretically 96dB, SACD is little better with over 120dB
so its impossible to put "drum kit with 115db" with original dynamic to AudioCD , and you can put this to SACD but then noise floor will be very high (so if you cranck up volume knob on "dead silent" superlownoiseflooramplifier to max then it should be possible to hear quite strong backgound noise in recording...

Things are even more complicated when we want that those super low level signal components must be audible non distorted (very low signal level on digital recording/source is always more distorted than normal level recordings, because there could be used less informatin bits for particular moment of time)...

So we need even more (audible usable) dynamic range during recording and "distribution"

No, i'm not an audio engineer, and don't know how recording industry (with all its varyeties) is solving all those "things".

there is one intersting link connected to this subject:
http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-cd-dvd-a-sacd-part-1

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dharma View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post

There are errors of attribution in your citation methodology.  There seem to be errors in your understanding of dynamic range vs. max SPL based upon your previous posts.  In any live venue the noise floor is never "0."


1) What errors i produced ? (from my point of view this simple copy-paste style is best, because it keeps things/outlook simple and citation is also always correct; actually this method like ..."[copied text]"... is used in academic area...)
2) Something is misunderstood, i never said anything about ..."dynamic range vs. max SPL".... and none about ..."live venue"rolleyes.gif

 

1.)  Your original sequence of events attributes innerspace's post as a response to a post by Danz03.  innerspace's post was actually a response to a post made by me, as shown below.  In the ensuing conversation, we got the misunderstanding worked out, so maybe it was hard to follow by some.

 

CM Capture 3.png

 

2.)  Secondly, my comment had to do with what looks like some confusion on your part with regard to your understanding of what exactly dynamic range is vs what maximum sound pressure level is.  The confusion is common to many because of the rampant misuse of terms in fora like these.  I, myself, have even misused the terms out of laziness to correct someone else's misuse of the terms.  So my comments were not meant to denigrate you in any way, merely an observation of the convolutions of this thread.

 

With regards to dynamic range and max SPL...

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is no such thing as true "silence" in any live venue, therefore in capturing the full dynamic range of any acoustic instrument be it a drum kit or a grand piano, one must add the dynamic range capability of a given instrument to the "0" level chosen by the recording engineer.  The lowest level resolutions are aided by dithering, and the highest levels are typically compressed or limited somewhat in most recordings.  The real dynamic range mastered in most recordings today rarely exceeds 60-80dB which is easily within the capability of even 16 bit resolutions of standard redbook format.

 

To this "local" (our listening venue) noise floor then, we must add the dynamic range represented by the reproduced recording to arrive at an understanding of the maximum SPL that must be reproduced for faithful playback.

post #287 of 290
All i was saying was just improvisational "add-on" or my "two cents" about recording/audio industries problems/solutions to give music lovers what they want/expect...

PS. My mother tongue (or language) for sure is not english, so i try to keep things simple, but this simplifying can lead to misunderstandings (both way)
Edited by dharma - 3/30/11 at 12:27pm
post #288 of 290

still, most listening environments have a LOWER ambient noise floor than a packed concert hall, even when everyone has their mouths shut.  even if your room is loaded with noise at 35-40db, recordings with the highest dynamic range would "only" need a 120db ceiling.  most people would use a 110db ceiling, and some a 100db ceiling.  this talk about 50 watt amplifiers is simply bogus, from a power perspective. 

 

of course, you may simply enjoy the sound of these particular amp topologies more - in which case, all the power to you! 

post #289 of 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Doug View Post

still, most listening environments have a LOWER ambient noise floor than a packed concert hall, even when everyone has their mouths shut.  even if your room is loaded with noise at 35-40db, recordings with the highest dynamic range would "only" need a 120db ceiling.  most people would use a 110db ceiling, and some a 100db ceiling.  this talk about 50 watt amplifiers is simply bogus, from a power perspective. 

 

of course, you may simply enjoy the sound of these particular amp topologies more - in which case, all the power to you! 


Well said Doug!

 

post #290 of 290
OK.
in my previous post i was saying ..." background noise in recording"..., what I wanted to say with this was: noise produced by recording system itself (because they are not "dead silent"). So there was obviously wrong terminology from my side.

In next sentence I wrote..."low level signal components must be audible non distorted "..., here I was speaking about audible very quiet sounds in recording environment (a'la breathing, finger sliding on strings, people whispering in concert, mehanical sounds in harpsichord, or nature made sounds etc.).

So it was my "home-made" broken minimalistic uncomprehensive English + problems with terminology and incomplete understandings about recording engineers practical problems or needs with recording technology (24bit or 32-64bit recording/editing systems etc).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › My impressions of HE-6 vs HD800 vs Stax SR-007