[amirm]

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.

I think there is still some misunderstanding about the data. The numbers I have presented from research are peak SPLs. All this other data you see and measurements people use are averaged numbers, not instantaneous peaks.

With respect to what has to exist in a digital channel, we have no choice but to use peak numbers because that is what the information is that must be stored. Average SPL numbers are used for other uses but not here.

In general, you have to add 5 to 10 db to go from average SPL to peak.

It is for this reason I say that many of you have been exposed to much higher peak SPLs than you imagine since you impression of loudness comes from averaging SPL values that are always lower.

The same is true of that link you provided, putting aside the fact that it has no details on how any measurement was performed.

 

[gregorio]

[1] We cannot impose limits on fidelity of music by assuming people sit in their living room to listen.
[2] And to what end anyway? The music industry has already started to distribute higher resolution music. What is the point of campaigning against it? You want them to stop? To what end?
[3] It is for this reason I say that many of you have been exposed to much higher peak SPLs than you imagine since you impression of loudness comes from averaging SPL values that are always lower.

1. Of course we can, that's what we do, that's what mastering is for!
2. The music industry started to distribute higher res over 15 years ago and continues to distribute higher and higher res, we've got DACs out there capable of 768/32 and 368/32 or DSD64 content. It will never end and audiophiles will continue to be scammed on equipment and content ad infinitum because a higher res is always assumed to be better than a lower res. That's why we argue against it. I ask you AGAIN, what do you need that's beyond the 120dB limitation of 16bit?
3. No, we haven't been exposed to much higher SPLs than we imagine. Taking your own figures from the previous sentence, we've been exposed to peak levels 5-10dB higher than our average levels. So, if our average levels are say 80dB, which would be high in a near 0dB noise floor environment, the peak SPLs are at say 90dBSPL, about thirty times lower than 16bit can provide!

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

While not condoning over-compression, what would be the point of paying a mastering engineer to create a remaster which sounds exactly the same as an already existing, previous master? The whole point of a remaster is to make it sound different!

You say you don't oppose entirely the use of compression but I'm saying that's a bizarre statement! Compression is a vital tool, it's used at numerous stages/places in the process of creating a commercial song; at the individual channel level, at the sub group level, on the final mix and then again during mastering. If you object to compression, then you object to all rock and pop music from the early mid-1960's to the present day. The question/problem is not and cannot be about whether compression is used, because it must be, the problem is over-compression and that is extremely hard to define because it varies, from track to track and genre to genre. In other words, exactly the same amount of compression on one song which sounds great, may sound like a completely ridiculous amount of over-compression on another song.

G

I'm going to post the following on audio forums, pages, and newsgroups all over the internet:

While not condoning over-compression, what
would be the point of paying a mastering engineer
to create a remaster which sounds exactly the
same as an already existing, previous master?
The whole point of a remaster is to make it sound
different![i/]

You just torpedoed the ENTIRE music remastering business with tha statement, and don't know it yet! You confirmed everything I already knew about 'remastering': that what is actually done is just a ploy to get people to think they are paying for and owing a better version when what they have is good enough.

I was trained to believe remastering was part of a restoration and preservation process, not one akin to adding 40 stories to the Empire State and selling it as new and improved. Be careful what you type next time.

 

[Cutestudio]

And I suggest that he struggle to understand that the use of compression in a mix is not the same as the loudness war. Compression is a tool that is used in almost all mixes, even the ones from the golden past that he's championing.

Amirm, our ability to hear is directly related to how sound engineers mix. They mix to what the human ear can hear. The goal is clarity and organization of sound. They don't create a mix according to numbers on a page. Commercial mixes stay in a dynamic range of 45 to 50dB because that is what ears can hear without having to adjust. Do some simple googling and you'll figure it out. I'm not going to the trouble to scribble on a book with yellow highlighter and scan it when you really aren't interested in anything but your own words.

I've explained both of these things many times and it doesn't seem to register. Ignorance is OK. As Mark Twain said, "Everyone is ignorant... just on different subjects." I know stuff. You know stuff. We should find a way to communicate, not throw up roadblocks like you're doing. I'm here to communicate, not to go in circles repeating the same thing over and over again. When people do that, I start skimming over the repetitive parts of their posts and speak past them in my replies for the benefit of the lurkers. I'll start talking past you and the witch hunt duo too soon.

You and Greg are the ones who are deliberately confusing studio compression with over-compression and clipping used to ruin masters for todays Loudness War.

Only you two. Everyone else here know perfectly well what we are discussing.

Your defence of the loudness war and 16 bit is contradicted by both of you are various times, none of us have ANY idea what you are trying to achieve by this and I suspect neither have you, the only thing I can think of is a sad compulsion to argue for the sake of it or that that somehow you both rely on the sales of CDs and CD players, which are the only possible use for obsolete formats that you spend even your Saturdays to vigorously defend. Grow up. Embrace the future. Your views are outdated, irrelevant and frankly wrong. Badly wrong.

SonicTruth: You are correct of course, but various people including you Amirm have done some fantastic posts which outweigh the tiresome luddite element here.

 

[gregorio]

[1] You just torpedoed the ENTIRE music remastering business with tha statement ...
[2] You confirmed everything I already knew about 'remastering': that what is actually done is just a ploy to get people to think they are paying for and owing a better version when what they have is good enough.

1. No I didn't. You didn't answer the question, what's the point of paying a mastering engineer to create a master which sounds exactly the same as a previous master they've already paid for?
2. Some remasters are better, not all of them are severely over-compressed. And, in addition to what seems obvious there's the question of better for whom, better for the audiophile in his silent room and 40k speakers or better for the average Joe listening on his ear buds on the way to work?

G

 

[RRod]

What is a "normal living room?" People listening with headphones which has no rooms. And they have dedicated listening rooms. We cannot impose limits on fidelity of music by assuming people sit in their living room to listen.

And to what end anyway? The music industry has already started to distribute higher resolution music. What is the point of campaigning against it? You want them to stop? To what end?

What is the logic of this discussion anyway? It is not like we are 20 years ago and fighting over SACD/DVD-A vs CD. We are in digital age where there is no barrier to distribution of high-resolution music and its playback. You guys want to turn the tide back? Why?

Most headphones do not have the isolation of the Etymotics you've referenced, and even then, I have yet to find an amp that powers mine with a noise floor as low as you seem to be expecting. And yes, many people consider speakers to be the actual gold standard for playback, and those speakers tend to be in houses that aren't Skywalker.

I am fine with hi-res, and some sites even sell it as reasonable prices which I happily buy, because why not? Other sites want to charge double price for *each* of the stereo and surround mix!

Funny you bring up SACD an DVD-A, two formats designed to provide multichannel audio and to need special hardware that disallowed digital copying: not exactly headphone friendly material, that.

 

[Strangelove424]

I think there is still some misunderstanding about the data. The numbers I have presented from research are peak SPLs. All this other data you see and measurements people use are averaged numbers, not instantaneous peaks.

With respect to what has to exist in a digital channel, we have no choice but to use peak numbers because that is what the information is that must be stored. Average SPL numbers are used for other uses but not here.

In general, you have to add 5 to 10 db to go from average SPL to peak.

It is for this reason I say that many of you have been exposed to much higher peak SPLs than you imagine since you impression of loudness comes from averaging SPL values that are always lower.

The same is true of that link you provided, putting aside the fact that it has no details on how any measurement was performed.

Bigshot is right, you are disingenuous. I never mentioned the word average, I always said peak or max. This entire discussion, and the paper you’ve scanned snippets from, are all in context to peak level. You know full well that I was referring to peak levels. And you know full well the UCSD link I gave you referred to peak levels too. I hate to backtrack in conversation - redefining the obvious - because people play dumb.

correction: upon checking my post, I did use the word average once, but was referring to the average peak level from multiple performances measured, not average SPL. You are twisting my use of the term as it applies to the data.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

You and Greg are the ones who are deliberately confusing studio compression with over-compression and clipping used to ruin masters for todays Loudness War.

Only you two. Everyone else here know perfectly well what we are discussing.

Your defence of the loudness war and 16 bit is contradicted by both of you are various times, none of us have ANY idea what you are trying to achieve by this and I suspect neither have you, the only thing I can think of is a sad compulsion to argue for the sake of it or that that somehow you both rely on the sales of CDs and CD players, which are the only possible use for obsolete formats that you spend even your Saturdays to vigorously defend. Grow up. Embrace the future. Your views are outdated, irrelevant and frankly wrong. Badly wrong.

SonicTruth: You are correct of course, but various people including you Amirm have done some fantastic posts which outweigh the tiresome luddite element here.

Thanks, CS:

I might be a luddite too: I have and enjoy my aforementioned mostly pre-remaster CD collection, and have no issues with 16bit 44.1k audio fidelity. And for gegorio's and bigshot's information: there is no need to over-compress or peak-limit dynamic material to make it *fit* within the redbook palette.

Some folks on here need to visit this site regarding the 16 VS 24bit deliverable debate:

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

And watch the video!

 

[Arpiben]

I think there is still some misunderstanding about the data. The numbers I have presented from research are peak SPLs. All this other data you see and measurements people use are averaged numbers, not instantaneous peaks.

With respect to what has to exist in a digital channel, we have no choice but to use peak numbers because that is what the information is that must be stored. Average SPL numbers are used for other uses but not here.

In general, you have to add 5 to 10 db to go from average SPL to peak.

It is for this reason I say that many of you have been exposed to much higher peak SPLs than you imagine since you impression of loudness comes from averaging SPL values that are always lower.

The same is true of that link you provided, putting aside the fact that it has no details on how any measurement was performed.

By the way, those with no access (free) to the peak SPLs` research papers you partially presented keep having no idea at all about SPLs peak measurement resolution for instance !
Add the out of context sentence you partially mentioned from a Xivero MQA`s white paper, it doesn`t help either:
#Nevertheless, during our statistical analysis we have learned that sometimes well dithered native high resolution audio files still have audio information within the 2nd LSB and it would be only viable to throw away one bit to avoid losing any critical bit-depth.#
Why should one lose time reading documents you are presenting if like the one above the statistical analysis is limited to the sentence?

 

[amirm]

2. The music industry started to distribute higher res over 15 years ago and continues to distribute higher and higher res, we've got DACs out there capable of 768/32 and 368/32 or DSD64 content. It will never end and audiophiles will continue to be scammed on equipment and content ad infinitum because a higher res is always assumed to be better than a lower res. That's why we argue against it.

There is no "scamming" on equipment. I have $120 DACs that play DSD64.

What we should all be bothered by is what your industry is delivering to us in that larger container. So far it looks like a ton of garbage in a number of instances. See my videos here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVRhwKlWccYyoCcS3r0TZ0Q?view_as=subscriber

[watch this full screen]


You need to get your house in order as far as I am concerned. I sure as heck don't expect to pay more for high-res and then get handed tones from computer monitors as such inside it.

Why not start a campaign in your industry to perform QC on what is produced? That is a real problem that needs sorting out rather than telling audiophiles what is good for them.

I ask you AGAIN, what do you need that's beyond the 120dB limitation of 16bit?

There is no "120 db" limitation of 16 bit. That only happens with noise shaping. Maybe you come back and tell me what percentage of the music you own has noise shaping in it. But I will put my money on you not having that data and just throwing this number out.

Second, to take proper advantage of noise shaping, you need somewhere to push the noise up to. Higher sampling rates allow that because we can park the noise in ultrasonics.

But yes, if I had any confidence that the people creating music understood noise shaping and utilized it correctly, you would kind of, sort of, have an argument. But I don't.

So better to not rely on them making any conversion from 24 bits for me. Give me the 24 bits, and I can convert it to 16 bits with noise shaping if I want. Or play as is since every equipment these days plays that just fine. Thank you very much.

You see the message here? We want less finger in the soup that are not washed.

 

[gregorio]

[1] You and Greg are the ones who are deliberately confusing studio compression with over-compression and clipping used to ruin masters for todays Loudness War.
[2] Your defence of the loudness war ...
[3] Your views are outdated, irrelevant and frankly wrong. Badly wrong.

1. What is the difference? Go on, explain it to me ... This should be amusing!
2. Still can't read then, sad.
3. Of course they are, what else can you say when arguing from a position of complete ignorance?

G

 

[RRod]

Yes. Making a great sounding recording usually involves using compression. Especially with vocals.
Yes, the conductor is up there adjusting balances to keep the range within a comfortable level.

More isn't better. Just right is best. A dynamic range greater than 50dB in a single song is uncomfortable to listen to. You'd be running to grab the volume control to turn it up in the quiet parts and turn it down in the loud parts- essentially manually compressing it.

Yes, for instance, something like this:


really doesn't give you much leeway for where you set the pot. If you try to take an edge off that blast, the soft part sounds insipid.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Yes, for instance, something like this:


really doesn't give you much leeway for where you set the pot. If you try to take an edge off that blast, the soft part sounds insipid.

Could that be from a certain Telarc Tchaikovsky release?

 

[Strangelove424]

Is that not exactly what you've been clamoring for? Do you really expect that to sound good?

 

[Strangelove424]

While you're at it, maybe you can knock some sense back into yours. You see the 20db worth of dynamics before the peak? That's *some* dynamics. The peak is *some* headache. There's such a thing as too much. Too much, too little, and just right.