[InnerSpace]

Quote:

Yes, it certainly can, 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. 

 


 

There's more to "gear" than recording systems.  No domestic replay even approaches 115 db over ambient.  Most struggle to reach half that.
 

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

As I just said to a friend of mine, you have to open your mind before you can open your ears.  So I guess, we'll have to agree to disagree.  The facts back up what I said, the rest is up to you to accept or not.
 

I like facts.  Give me the catalog # for one of your "uncompressed and natural" recordings, and I'll measure its dynamic range.  The numbers will back up what I said, and you'll accept it - or not, of course.
 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

I like facts.  Give me the catalog # for one of your "uncompressed and natural" recordings, and I'll measure its dynamic range.  The numbers will back up what I said, and you'll accept it - or not, of course.

Sounds like maybe you have a new toy...  Like PM, which has an option to show dynamic range...   Just enjoy the music...  That's the best advice I can give you.  Check out the huge catalog of material on the HD Tracks web site.  There is a lot of wonderful material there.
 

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

Sounds like maybe you have a new toy...  Like PM, which has an option to show dynamic range...   Just enjoy the music...  That's the best advice I can give you.  Check out the huge catalog of material on the HD Tracks web site.  There is a lot of wonderful material there.
 

An old toy, actually - one that I used to produce one or two of the tracks that show up on the HD Tracks web site, which is why I know they don't approach real-life dynamic range.  I very much appreciate your best advice, and mine to you is - enjoy the music too, and the great gear we have now, but don't fall into the trap of thinking it's anything but heavily compromised.
 

 

[grokit]

Quick fact-check: The dynamic range of music as normally perceived in a concert hall doesn't exceed 80 dB. In 1981, researchers at Ampex determined that a dynamic range of 118 dB on a dithered digital audio stream was necessary for subjective noise-free playback of music in quiet listening environments. Modern microphones and recording systems can exceed that but practical considerations of acceptable distortion levels in microphones combined with typical practices in a recording studio result in a useful operating range of 125 dB.

 

[Danz03]

In fact 64 bit floating point DAW systems can deal with dynamic range many times over 24 bit.
I believe many head-fiers here are actually listening to 24 bit music downloaded via the Internet, they are commercially available. As for reproduction gear, many inexpensive active near-field monitors that cost much less than what most Head-fiers here spend on headphone amps alone, can blast out 120 dB SPL easily, not that I'd ever listen to anything over 90 dB. Like what grokit mentioned, most of the loudest orchestral music has a dynamic range around 70 dB, a normal CD is capable of reproducing that with no compression.

There's more to "gear" than recording systems.  No domestic replay even approaches 115 db over ambient.  Most struggle to reach half that.
 

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

Quick fact-check: The dynamic range of music as normally perceived in a concert hall doesn't exceed 80 dB. In 1981, researchers at Ampex determined that a dynamic range of 118 dB on a dithered digital audio stream was necessary for subjective noise-free playback of music in quiet listening environments. Modern microphones and recording systems can exceed that but practical considerations of acceptable distortion levels in microphones combined with typical practices in a recording studio result in a useful operating range of 125 dB.

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, isn't it?  But that 80db is 80db above ambient background, which is almost impossible to achieve in the home.  You'd need to swing between "inaudible" and "rock concert level."  I have never heard it done.  Have you, really?
 

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

... many inexpensive active near-field monitors that cost much less than what most Head-fiers here spend on headphone amps alone, can blast out 120 dB SPL easily, not that I'd ever listen to anything over 90 dB. 

The first part is a slight exaggeration, surely.  120db in the near field is not impossible, but it's rare and it isn't cheap.  But your second point is the real-world one.  For many reasons, including domestic harmony, preservation of hearing, inadequacy of mass market replay gear, and so on, most people set their peaks as you do, around 90db, and recording engineers know that, and they know the ambient noise floor - in homes, in cars - can be surprisingly high, so they compress dynamic range way, way below what the medium can achieve technically.  Which was my original point.
 

 

[grokit]

Quote:

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, isn't it?  But that 80db is 80db above ambient background, which is almost impossible to achieve in the home.  You'd need to swing between "inaudible" and "rock concert level."  I have never heard it done.  Have you, really?

 
Yeah I agree that's pretty extreme, and not a "real life" example by any means.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, isn't it?  But that 80db is 80db above ambient background, which is almost impossible to achieve in the home.  You'd need to swing between "inaudible" and "rock concert level."  I have never heard it done.  Have you, really?

80dB above ambient, whether at home, in the studio, or in the concert hall, is still going to be the same, give or take your noise floor diffs.  My point is that the max SPL we hear in person at a concert, is easily achievable with good equipment today.  So you loose some of the low level details to noise floor, or you boost that a little to give the listener a little better sense of detail...  I forgot, what were we arguing about?
 
Honestly, who ever said anything about being 80dB ABOVE ambient levels?  Whether in the concert hall or in one's home, concert hall levels are easily achievable.  So we're talking about maximum SPL, not max theoretical dynamic range.
 
 

 

[Danz03]

Exaggeration or not, even in the studio, I had to wear earplugs as the monitoring level was usually around 105 dB, so naturally, I have yet to experience SPL of 120dB from the near-fields Or any monitors, even if they can produce that, but it's in the specs.

That is the problem, and that's why a friend of mine actually renovated a room in his apartment with floating floor etc as his listening room, it depends on how dedicated you are about music. If someone is going to listen to music in a noisy environment, I think it's a waste of good equipment.

The first part is a slight exaggeration, surely.  120db in the near field is not impossible, but it's rare and it isn't cheap.  But your second point is the real-world one.  For many reasons, including domestic harmony, preservation of hearing, inadequacy of mass market replay gear, and so on, most people set their peaks as you do, around 90db, and recording engineers know that, and they know the ambient noise floor - in homes, in cars - can be surprisingly high, so they compress dynamic range way, way below what the medium can achieve technically.  Which was my original point.
 

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

... I forgot, what were we arguing about?
 

I don't know about you, but I was saying the HE-6's apparent hunger for power isn't explained by the demands of any commercially available music recording.
 

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

 If someone is going to listen to music in a noisy environment, I think it's a waste of good equipment.
 

I couldn't agree more.  My point was, the music industry forgot about us guys long ago.  It serves those who listen to poor equipment in noisy environments, sadly.
 

 

[Danz03]

I don't know, a lot of the time, certain instruments or recordings are compressed not just for dynamic reason, they were done for effect purposes, especially in rock music. But like I said before, classical music is rarely compressed.

I couldn't agree more.  My point was, the music industry forgot about us guys long ago.  It serves those who listen to poor equipment in noisy environments, sadly.
 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

I don't know about you, but I was saying the HE-6's apparent hunger for power isn't explained by the demands of any commercially available music recording.

Well, I think it really is actually.  Cleanly reproducing a well recorded track of demanding acoustic / percussive instruments is very, very demanding, and the crest to nominal level ratio is very big.  The peak demands can easily be 5x or more of the nominal levels, but if you limit (squash, quash, saturate, fold, spindle or mutilate) those peaks in any way, the loss is far more audible and egregious than the stuff lost below the noise floor, whether in the medium or the environment.
 
Honestly, in my experience, with any electro-magnetic driver there are some dynamic range compression loses going on at the extremes as well, due to magnetic non-linearities. (maxwell's hammer)