[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

I know that, it's was just another way to give a sense of scale to the OP.
 
 

 
Oh I agree, 160 dB and you shouldn't worry about reproducing that, not even 120 dB really.  The max I listen at (at least with speakers) is about 90 dB average...  And that's LOUD.  Peaks reach, oh, 100 dB, maybe at the very loudest 110 dB.

 

[Willakan]

I agree that peaks could be louder, even potentially approaching 160db close-up (they certainly hit 150) but the wording of the OP implied that he thought 160db was the average volume, which would be off-the-wall insane - get 20db louder and you can instantly pulverise the hearing tissue upon exposure - watch out for those peaks!

 

[RexAeterna]

160db? What? you probably die with that type of spl. i still get baffled when people say spl in the 90's as quiet. people my age in this generation must be deaf then or something. also to answer your question. expensive amps and audio gear is only necessary when listening to anime soundtracks.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

i still get baffled when people say spl in the 90's as quiet. people my age in this generation must be deaf then or something. also to answer your question. expensive amps and audio gear is only necessary when listening to anime soundtracks.

I don't get baffled anymore but I still agree its not quiet.  90-something dBSPL average is around my "crank it for a few songs" level.  That's also why I hate live music.  Its often a lot louder than that and goes on for a lot longer.

 

[Chris J]

 
Quote:

I heard that because sometimes some rock music can instantaneously go to 160dB, so an amp is necessary to prevent clipping at such instants.
 
But what if I mostly only listen to light Jazz music that tops out at 100dB?? Does that mean I don't need an amp even if I use HD650?

I listen to a fair amount of light jazz, for example, Jane Monheit, which probably has as much dynamic range as an small jazz ensemble.
I prefer to listen to this stuff (and any other music for that matter) thru a good headphone amp for the improvement in syound quality.
I always try to listen at a low volume level, which probably works out to a few milliWatts thru the 'phones.
 
I find that an average level of 90 dB thru my speaker system is LOUD, which I've measured using an SPL meter.
 

 

[Shike]

Quote:

I don't get baffled anymore but I still agree its not quiet.  90-something dBSPL average is around my "crank it for a few songs" level.  That's also why I hate live music.  Its often a lot louder than that and goes on for a lot longer.

Glad I'm not weird, 78-80 is my normal listening and 90 is my "rocking out".  Going to theaters at times can be painful so I really don't enjoy them as much anymore.
 
*loves his hearing*

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Glad I'm not weird, 78-80 is my normal listening and 90 is my "rocking out".  Going to theaters at times can be painful so I really don't enjoy them as much anymore.

There's also the question of weighting.  I just remeasured what I consider a loud enough level that I'd only listen to a few songs at that level with the "Radio Shack meter and a CD" method.  With A weighting it was peaking in the high 80s and with C weighting it was peaking just over 100.
 
I'd think that A weighting would be better for this application since the hair cells that detect higher frequencies are damaged by lower SPL levels than the ones that detect lower frequencies.  A weighting does roll off the top octave some but there's usually not a tone of energy there anyway and C weighting does that too.  I don't know exactly what the relationship is between threshold of damage and frequency either.
 
A probably under-weights the lower mids but C over-weights the bass.  Maybe if you killed everything under 150Hz or so with EQ before measuring with C or something similar.
 
I wonder...

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

There's also the question of weighting.  I just remeasured what I consider a loud enough level that I'd only listen to a few songs at that level with the "Radio Shack meter and a CD" method.  With A weighting it was peaking in the high 80s and with C weighting it was peaking just over 100.
 
I'd think that A weighting would be better for this application since the hair cells that detect higher frequencies are damaged by lower SPL levels than the ones that detect lower frequencies.  A weighting does roll off the top octave some but there's usually not a tone of energy there anyway and C weighting does that too.  I don't know exactly what the relationship is between threshold of damage and frequency either.
 
A probably under-weights the lower mids but C over-weights the bass.  Maybe if you killed everything under 150Hz or so with EQ before measuring with C or something similar.
 
I wonder...

C weighting is more of a broadband measurement........................A weighting and C weighting roll the top two octaves the same.  A weighting rolls the the bass substantially.
I would argue that you would not be measuring the bass energy properly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-weighting
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I would argue that you would not be measuring the bass energy properly.

That'a kind of the point though.  Since we're concerned about what sort of levels will cause hearing damage and not the total amount of energy we need to weight it by susceptibility to damage which isn't equal across the frequency spectrum.  I was wondering if anyone had more concrete information about how the SPL necessary for hearing damage varies with frequency.  Wikipedia doesn't get very specific.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Glad I'm not weird, 78-80 is my normal listening and 90 is my "rocking out".  Going to theaters at times can be painful so I really don't enjoy them as much anymore.
 
*loves his hearing*

 

This is pretty much exactly my listening levels as well.  Oh, and when I'm listening quiet (or to a quiet song) it's maybe 70 dB plus or minus a few.  I haven't ever had any problems at theaters, though.  The worst is bad bars/clubs where the PA speakers are way too loud.  Oh, and spending an hour testing a diesel-powered pump that is running at 100 dB...
 
I'm talking C-weighted, for the record.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

There's also the question of weighting.  I just remeasured what I consider a loud enough level that I'd only listen to a few songs at that level with the "Radio Shack meter and a CD" method.  With A weighting it was peaking in the high 80s and with C weighting it was peaking just over 100.

90dB c-weighted is my high end, it may go up or down a little but not by much.

 

[umvue]

Quote:

 


I listen to a fair amount of light jazz, for example, Jane Monheit, which probably has as much dynamic range as an small jazz ensemble.
I prefer to listen to this stuff (and any other music for that matter) thru a good headphone amp for the improvement in syound quality.
I always try to listen at a low volume level, which probably works out to a few milliWatts thru the 'phones.
 
I find that an average level of 90 dB thru my speaker system is LOUD, which I've measured using an SPL meter.
 

If I understand correctly how amps improve SQ, there are two ways: 1) increase the impedance of the system similar to adding a 75ohm adapter to ER4P; 2) to reduce clipping during peaks.
 
I am sure an amp can improve SQ a bit due to 1) but 2) shouldn't play much a role for light Jazz.
 
Am I right???
 

 

[Willakan]

 
Quote:

If I understand correctly how amps improve SQ, there are two ways: 1) increase the impedance of the system similar to adding a 75ohm adapter to ER4P; 2) to reduce clipping during peaks.
 
I am sure an amp can improve SQ a bit due to 1) but 2) shouldn't play much a role for light Jazz.
 
Am I right???
 

You would choose an amp with a very low output impedance for best performance, but I suppose it is perfectly possible some people could enjoy the giant FR error that a given headphone exhibits driven from a high impedance. Additionally, a semi-decent amp (and I do mean semi-decent) shouldn't clip at all with peaks.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

If I understand correctly how amps improve SQ, there are two ways: 1) increase the impedance of the system similar to adding a 75ohm adapter to ER4P; 2) to reduce clipping during peaks.
 
I am sure an amp can improve SQ a bit due to 1) but 2) shouldn't play much a role for light Jazz.
 
Am I right???
 

There is a difference between increasing the impedance of the load and increasing the impedance of the amp's output. The amp has nothing to do with load impedance (though amps will perform worse into difficult low impedance loads, which may be one reason why an extra 75 ohms helps the Etymotics). Output impedance is almost always to be avoided, because it offers little benefit to a well designed amp and can only cause (objective) problems with low impedance loads.

 

[Iniamyen]

An amp will increase the input impedance that is seen by the source, which will improve the performance of the source. It will also decrease the output impedance that is seen by the headphones, which will improve the response of the headphones. The general rule of thumb is that you want very high input impedance and very low output impedance in all components in your signal chain, in relation to what they're hooked up to.