[Strangelove424]

Again, how did you determine that your system isn't capable of that and that you have never listened to that level? No, you can't use your dumb SPL meter for any of that analysis. What is important here is instantaneous levels not slow average.

At LA audio show, someone asked Andrew Jones what the SPL levels were that his ELAC speakers were producing in that setting. He first asked the listeners to give numbers. People were like you, throwing small numbers like 80 and 90 db around. His answer was that the peaks were hitting in the neighborhood of 115 db! The music was dynamic and maybe "loud" by some standards but not at all what you are assuming.

In these discussions people take these SPL numbers as if we are sitting there listening to continuous tone at 120 SPL. We are not remotely doing that. We are talking momentary peaks that may last just a few milliseconds.

And no, you don't remotely damage your hearing because two things are needed for that: loudness and exposure time. Here is the recommendation from US workplace safety standard, OSHA: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9736



On the left is the SPL number, on the right are the duration in *hours*. Converting 0.125 for 120 db in minutes we get 7.5. In other words, you need to listen for 7.5 minutes to the same constant noise, not a few milliseconds as we have in music, to hurt your ears.

So please don't keep talking like these are unheard of numbers. Can't be done. We will go deaf, etc., etc. These are forum objectivists talking points we need to leave behind.

Yes, we are talking about reference level playback. If you listen to very modest level, your needs will be different. But again, in the context of what is audible we need to include the full population and their usage of technology.

Andrew Jones makes great speakers, I own some that he designed. You never responded, but remember I asked before about the acoustic source and micing? The reason for this is that any kind of amplified venue performance, whether a rock concert or an Andrew Jones demo is an artificial example of dynamic range. The peak level is simply what they decide to crank it to. For very large audiences, the amplification required is immense, and nowhere close to the SPL created by the original instrument, assuming it was acoustic. And again, if it was an electronic guitar or something that needed amplification, the measure would be just as subjective.

Regarding OSHA standards, if you feel it is necessary to push your hearing health to the absolute limits prescribed for industrial conditions for workers who are machining and welding, be my guest. If you still end up with hearing damage, despite limiting yourself to .11 of 120db hourly doses, well... you were warned. Most people find a comfortable music volume, peaks included, to be well under that. And you still haven't provided proof of acoustic sound sources from normal listening positions to show that these people aren't listening loud enough.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Impossible? In reality it's one of the most trivial things to quantify. A simple histogram shows the distributions and reliably picks out the over compressed/clipped tracks, additionally an entire track with the same consistent level peaks regardless of RMS level or frequency (the classic 'brick' shape) is a classic tell. Clearly you have never studied the subject.

In addition to that one can easily see the flat tops, no 'perfectly acceptable' amount of compression squashes down a 6dB peak into a small range of around -40dB or less. If you'd actually bothered looking at some waveforms you'd not be making these daft statements. Indeed your statements lead me to conclude that you may have heard the phrase 'loudness war' but have no real idea or grasp of the problem; just an observation, because like many you simply have decided your opinions trump any research. I have nothing against ignorance, but it's not working for you here.



No specific stipulation no, but it's known for not suffering from clipping/over-compression. Because I've actually researched the Mastered by iTunes masters I knew this which is why I mentioned it as a good example of Apple 'doing something' about the shoddy mastering product record companies pass off, your casual implication that they are poorly mangled is false, sorry.

The number of egos on this forum supporting the total lack of QA by the record companies is sad to see in a HiFi forum and is perhaps the reason why the industry is in such decline. Bigshot even claimed that record companies aim for earbuds and car systems as an excuse for their dreadful output, despite that fact that Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' CD tracks play perfectly both in the car and on any MP3 player I've tried, whereas the modern loud continuous drone pumped out today sounds awful on any playback system.

Other industries have reduced product quality until people stopped buying it, I don't see the record industry bucking the trend. Justifying the destruction of a product may be justifiable to some but for the rest of us it's baffling as it's fraudulent for the buyer, hurts sales and re-sales and would be as easy to avoid as not pressing a few buttons. No one who likes music of sound can support this wilful vandalism.

"The number of egos on this forum supporting the
total lack of QA by the record companies is sad to see
in a HiFi forum and is perhaps the reason why the
industry is in such decline. Bigshot even claimed that
record companies aim for earbuds and car systems as
an excuse for their dreadful output, despite that fact that
Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' CD tracks play perfectly both in
the car and on any MP3 player I've tried, whereas the
modern loud continuous drone pumped out today sounds
awful on any playback system."


Could not have put it better myself, Cutestude!

The snake oil excuses that bigshot and other industry insiders tout about no longer hold water, because technology has leveled the playing field between the record makers and the music buyers. DAW software is readily available, at cost, as shareware, and for free or donation, for installation and use on desktop or mobile platforms. We all can hear and see the damage inflicted on our musical legacy, and sold to us as "new and improved", and "remastered at 24bit for your enjoyment."

Well bigshot, gregorio, et al, to paraphrase Peter Finch yelling out that window in the film "Network":

'WE'RE MAD AS HE L L, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUY IT ANY MORE!!'

 

[castleofargh]

Andrew Jones makes great speakers, I own some that he designed. You never responded, but remember I asked before about the acoustic source and micing? The reason for this is that any kind of amplified venue performance, whether a rock concert or an Andrew Jones demo is an artificial example of dynamic range. The peak level is simply what they decide to crank it to. For very large audiences, the amplification required is immense, and nowhere close to the SPL created by the original instrument, assuming it was acoustic. And again, if it was an electronic guitar or something that needed amplification, the measure would be just as subjective.

Regarding OSHA standards, if you feel it is necessary to push your hearing health to the absolute limits prescribed for industrial conditions for workers who are machining and welding, be my guest. If you still end up with hearing damage, despite limiting yourself to .11 of 120db hourly doses, well... you were warned. Most people find a comfortable music volume, peaks included, to be well under that. And you still haven't provided proof of acoustic sound sources from normal listening positions to show that these people aren't listening loud enough.

120dB isn't an issue, most people don't have gear to output those levels anyway, and the few who can only have a handful who can do it without massive noise/distortions. my active speakers are rated at 112 dB SPL C-Weighted, and I use replaygain . guess I'm not ready to be an audiophile just yet(the last time my speakers played at 90dB, it was to measure them).
also using 120dB output while arguing that the LSB of a file are significant, brings the question about noise and distortions again. or stuff like messed up frequency response and how dramatic it must be in proportion.
it's the issue with specific and extreme situations used to argue a point, we're bound to come face to face with a situation that contradicts it.
we need 120dB because music could contain that much. ok, why not. then we need to listen super loud, else the low amplitude content would get lost below the least noticeable sound we determined while listening to super quiet sounds because that's how contradictory we are. then we need the music signal to be overall super quiet because the instantaneous dynamic range of the ear is much closer to 60dB than it is to 120. I remember reading something suggesting that the best listening level for a test was around 60 to 70dB(depending on when ou tympanic response is triggered). so we're back arguing about super quiet music content encoded super low for no reason while playing it with a lot of gain somehow. yeah it stopped making any sense a while back.
but there is better, if I'm playing stuff at 120dB on most of my gears, I will get well over 1% THD from the transducer. which is crap added above 120-40=80dB. so we're back to questions about masking and fidelity levels. how fun it is to debates the need for 20bit resolution when the output is starts being messed up in the -40 to -60dB area for almost all playback systems. only possible when looking at everything in isolation, else it's absurd, but look at all the fun we can have worrying about irrelevant stuff. ^_^



@Cutestudio and @TheSonicTruth this is more relevant and has helped fighting against the loudness https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r128.pdf
if you want better mastering and no more clipping, go fight for a more global embrace of such standards, as they are a much better deterrent to brick walled compression than bitching on an consumer forum and putting the blame on people who never said they were favorable to the extremities of what was called the loudness war. you're picking a fight with the wrong people here. and when you assume they say the opposite of what you say simply because they come to point out some obvious flaws in your correlation to causation arguments. you're the ones in the wrong.
having a noble goal doesn't justify using nonsense arguments to push it. the day the loudness war comes to an end, we'll all open a cool drink and cheer to the arrival of a better world.

[troll mod ON] @bigshot worked on the Chipmunk albums, so he know all there is to know about high fidelity and high dynamic recordings. checkmate! [/troll mod OFF]

 

[amirm]

Andrew Jones makes great speakers, I own some that he designed. You never responded, but remember I asked before about the acoustic source and micing? The reason for this is that any kind of amplified venue performance, whether a rock concert or an Andrew Jones demo is an artificial example of dynamic range. The peak level is simply what they decide to crank it to. For very large audiences, the amplification required is immense, and nowhere close to the SPL created by the original instrument, assuming it was acoustic. And again, if it was an electronic guitar or something that needed amplification, the measure would be just as subjective.

Content doesn't have to be acoustic to be considered content. For reasons you mention, we can in post production create much louder and much softer signals. So when considering what the acoustic world looks like, we are being kind to the topic at hand. Ultimately, "content can be whatever it wants!"

And in the context of playback, I can have very small rooms with high efficiency which readily allows high SPL playback.

As to your question, I must have missed your question. In what context are you asking about micing and acoustic source?

 

[amirm]

but there is better, if I'm playing stuff at 120dB on most of my gears, I will get well over 1% THD from the transducer. which is crap added above 120-40=80dB. so we're back to questions about masking and fidelity levels. how fun it is to debates the need for 20bit resolution when the output is starts being messed up in the -40 to -60dB area for almost all playback systems. only possible when looking at everything in isolation, else it's absurd, but look at all the fun we can have worrying about irrelevant stuff. ^_^

Again, this is the same issue as using single value SPL numbers for room noise. THD is not a measure of audibility. It is a single number and psychoacoustically blind.

The bulk of the energy in music is in low frequencies. Harmonic distortion generated there doesn't necessarily rise to 2 to 4 Khz where your ears are most sensitive. To know that it does, you need to evaluate its full spectrum, and then compare that to threshold of hearing. Without this kind of psychoacoustic analysis, the conclusion are bound to always be wrong. You just can't go there if you want audio science to back you.

Importantly, no one cares if we can hear low level noise during that peak. That peak can be all distorted for all it wants. We care that once the peak has passed, do we hear the channel noise during quiet portions of music.

Also, one type of distortion doesn't mask another. I can readily hear my tape deck background noise at 80 db signal to noise ratio in my system. It has nowhere to hide no matter how much distortion my speakers have.

Finally I keep having to say this: isn't this a headphone focused forum??? Here you can get incredible SPLs without even trying. You can also assure absolutely low noise levels. So much of the arguments here are moot.

 

[Strangelove424]

Content doesn't have to be acoustic to be considered content. For reasons you mention, we can in post production create much louder and much softer signals. So when considering what the acoustic world looks like, we are being kind to the topic at hand. Ultimately, "content can be whatever it wants!"

And in the context of playback, I can have very small rooms with high efficiency which readily allows high SPL playback.

As to your question, I must have missed your question. In what context are you asking about micing and acoustic source?

In that case, dynamic range is whatever you decide it to be. 140db of instant deafness? Sure! Just crank it up higher! If you are willing to be such a subjectivist about how to establish max SPL in a music listening scenario, what are you arguing with everyone about then? Obviously there has to be an objective standard, an original upon which all the simulations must be based. And the accuracy of the reproduced simulations is reliant on standard you set for the original. Without an original standard (acoustic source) you are arguing on a slippery slope, and deciding dynamic range based upon a whim of how to set your volume.

From post #4324, page 289:

"How is the "loudest real life music" instrument measured? I'm assuming acoustic sources only, then which instrument and how was it mic'd up? Did they stick a mic directly into the drums, or rest it on the skin? These numbers are insanely high for a music listening scenario."

 

[pila405]

Have a crack at this to check your hearing - how far can you go and hear the attenuated sample while still being comfortable with the original:
http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_dynamic.php

I cave at around 60dB.

And I can pass this test without a problem:
http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit.php

 

[Darren G]

Frampton Comes Alive?

It was quite the treat when I heard this concert live in the 70's, but hey, I am old

My music collection is utterly incomprehensible. So are my tastes in who I'll go see live. Tech N9ne and E-40 live... talk about energy, bass that you could feel, slam. Why I honestly don't care about shaving off another 10db of noise at home. The money is better spent on saving some $'s for another live music experience.

 

[bfreedma]

I hope you are satisfied now. I don't feel the obligation to always answer your multi-part questions. My interest in engaging only go so far and I don't want to bore the membership with such detailed back and forths. So please don't read much into me not answering everything you say.

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that on a Friday afternoon. Amir, I've seen your posting style on multiple forums (AVS, Hydrogenaudio, ....) - for you to post that you aren't interested in detailed back and forth (mostly focused around word parsing and using unlikely extremes as "examples") truly made me LOL. If you were really interested in the discussion, you would respond to questions asked, even if they force you to consider that you may not be entirely correct.

You can have the last word - I'll have you on ignore as usual going forward.

 

[amirm]

In that case, dynamic range is whatever you decide it to be. 140db of instant deafness? Sure! Just crank it up higher! If you are willing to be such a subjectivist about how to establish max SPL in a music listening scenario, what are you arguing with everyone about then? Obviously there has to be an objective standard, an original upon which all the simulations must be based. And the accuracy of the reproduced simulations is reliant on standard you set for the original. Without an original standard (acoustic source) you are arguing on a slippery slope, and deciding dynamic range based upon a whim of how to set your volume.

From post #4324, page 289:

"How is the "loudest real life music" instrument measured? I'm assuming acoustic sources only, then which instrument and how was it mic'd up? Did they stick a mic directly into the drums, or rest it on the skin? These numbers are insanely high for a music listening scenario."

No, the dynamic range is not whatever I decide to be. It is actual measured peak loudness of real instruments playing vs threshold of noise detection. All the details are in the JAES paper I referenced. Here is a bit of it:
Dynamic-Range Issues in the Modern Digital Audio Environment*
LOUIS D. FIELDER, AES Fellow
Dolby Laboratories Inc., San Francisco, CA 91403, USA

Here is figure 2:

More detail is provided in the reference in that paper, "PRE-& POST-EMPHASIS TECHNIQUES AS APPLIED TO AUDIO RECORDING SYSTEMS By louis D. Fielder"

Here is a bit from that:

As you see, none of this is simulation or arbitrary data. There is fair bit more in the papers so I recommend reading them if you want more information. The author is one of the luminaries in this space and is ex-president of AES, an AES fellow, etc. So please don't be so flippant about it.

 

[RRod]

What were the noise levels in the venues?

Edit: to put it another way, you are basically saying that rock has more dynamic range than classical, which isn't the actual experience of listening to them…

 

[Strangelove424]

It appears that the people who did this study differentiated between acoustic and “electronically augmented” sources just as I am. The problem is that “augmented” is a distortion of the language and the truth. A rock concert, electronic guitar, electronic violin, or keyboard is not merely “augmented” by electronic amplification, it’s entirely composed of it! To include measurements of ‘electronically augmented’ performances is the snake eating its own tail, for the reasons I mentioned above. And for those reasons, you’ll notice how in figure 2, the average SPL curve for electronically augmented material is shifted about 10db higher. Since one rock concert (Metallica) might be arbitrarily louder than another (Paul Simon) I’m going to focus on acoustic sources like classical music, where SPL has no electronic amplification and comes from acoustic resonance only. Instruments I can’t simply pour more watts into it till everyone is deaf, gorged out on SPL.

I am not sure what the author means by “favored listening position”. That is too vague to be of any use. I have been to many symphonies, often getting to sit in what I personally consider “favored listening positions” within the lower third of the hall. I am also very sensitive to loud noise. 120db is enough to cause me extreme discomfort, ear ringing, and muffled sound for a duration afterwards. At no time at any symphony was I uncomfortable with the loudness. And after the symphony, I am always able to enjoy a drink with friends and conduct quiet conversation with ease. A max of 127db for a "non-augmented" acoustic source sounds crazy high to me, and I've attended concerts and worked with recording equipment for many years. Your numbers sound like they're about 20db too high. And I am not alone, you can check this link to the music program at UCSD: http://musicweb.ucsd.edu/~trsmyth/level175/Example_SPL_Levels.html They peg classical music to peak around 105db. That sounds a whole lot closer to my experience in reality.

 

[bigshot]

That said, people of your stripe always try to justify the post 2000 sausage-fest by pointing out the 'sins of the past' in mixing and mastering terms. That don't cut the muster with people of my stripe.

You and your ilk!

The truth is that when it comes to intentional distortion and compression, it's a creative issue. I'm going to judge a remaster at how well it expresses the spirit of the music. I'm not going to assume the remaster is better or that the original is better, I'm going to listen and decide for myself. In the case of the Stones, the original is better. In the case of David Bowie, the remasters are better. There's no hard and fast rule to this stuff. You have to open your mind and ears and listen to the music.

Then why on earth did you say you support the statement Bigshot made that there is no more than 50 db of signal to noise ratio in music?

You're a real piece of work. You know darn well that isn't what I said. I said that in commercial recordings, a 50dB dynamic range is about the most dynamics you're going to find. Dynamic range in music is NOT the same as signal to noise and you know that. You're just prevaricating again.

I hope you are satisfied now. I don't feel the obligation to always answer your multi-part questions.

No, you refuse to answer the questions that would make you admit you're fudging. You are a remarkably disingenuous person.

What were the noise levels in the venues?

If the classical music was recorded in Carnegie Hall, the sound of the subway train passing underground is clearly audible on live recordings!

 

[bigshot]

The snake oil excuses that bigshot and other industry insiders tout about no longer hold water.

If you get to call my comments snake oil, I get to point out that you are a duffer- an armchair quarterback who has never made anything but feel like you're qualified to tell other people how to make it.

[troll mod ON] @bigshot worked on the Chipmunk albums, so he know all there is to know about high fidelity and high dynamic recordings. checkmate! [/troll mod OFF]

Man! You listen to the album I produced! It was the most complex recording/mix I ever worked on. I had to make double speed vocals sound like Michael Jackson, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Elton John and Bruce Springsteen- all within the space of a single three minute song. I have the CD here somewhere. It was a royal bitch to make! I was very lucky to have first class musicians, singers and engineers to work with on that. The Chipmunks may not be Mozart, but there are a lot of work to get right. I learned a hell of a lot on that. And of course it'll please all the luddites that it was a glorious AAD analogue recording made on 24 track tape.

 

[amirm]

You're a real piece of work. You know darn well that isn't what I said. I said that in commercial recordings, a 50dB dynamic range is about the most dynamics you're going to find. Dynamic range in music is NOT the same as signal to noise and you know that. You're just prevaricating again.

Once more, whatever the 50 db number is, how did you measure it? How much music did you test? And do you have any references to back that in literature?