The same drummer started off another song with barely audible brushes on both cymbals and "other" drums. Out of "nothing" - and below noise floor of the hall.
And the piano player, Mr. Zoran Škrinjar, a good friend of mine, who despite loosing sight in his mid 30s, continues to play and TEACH playing to this day, has the uncanny ability to play the piano softly so well, despite in classical repertoire or jazz, that people invariably shut up and listen.
Here the "homogenized and pasteurized" mastered to conformity official recording clip from the concert in question featuring anybody BUT the band leader :
so now it's 129db :'( this is completely ludicrous. let me sell all my amps, I calculated max power for only 115db into my headphones thinking I was already exaggerating things.
for 24bit, I was blind but now I see!!! and will go deaf in the process apparently.
question. are all headphones actually able to go 129db without blowing the driver up? sell everything, they were right all along you do need special gears to listen to highres!!!!!
just to give a little comparison point to the billions of readers(too much?) who are unaware of this already, 120db is the threshold of pain at 1khz...
105db is the legal maximum allowed in a french discotheque (at least it was a few years back when I was interested in those stuff).
so what's the point of a subjective study if it concerns the first 3rows stuck to the speakers in a super loud live?
anyway this pushed my button(or turned my native lazy function OFF), at long last I decided to measure how loud I'm actually listening to music.
I took the values I usually use on a DAP with a pair of IEMs( ety mc5, flat impedance to ease the process). tried a few genres of music, then measured my setting with a 1khz tone at -3db into my soundcard's input to stay on the spec's freq(I added the 3db in the end values). to know the actual values I also measured the maximum output of the dap, knowing the real max output in volts from internet and used that instead of actual calibration tool that I do not posses(from previous estimations of other DAPs, it works ok for stuff where I don't need too much precision on the voltages, like DB values).
I guess it gets me not too far off from the loudest that goes in my ears(took the 1khz value and added the difference with louder other frequency on the FR graph of the IEM).
-normal listening, about 71db(and around 50db when reading a book in my bed at night). the only reason I would have to go louder than that would be if the outside noise was getting huge, or for some really calm parts of a few symphonies. but I would lower when the music would go back up. I hate extreme change of loudness just as much as brickwalled dynamic for that very reason, I spend my time adjusting the volume and it's a bother.
-maximum I seem to use. think crazy moment once a month that lasts one song at best, when I'm drunk and want to scream along some good old lyrics like "*****, *******, ***** smoking, mother ******, *****, dirty ****, waste of ******, I hope you die. heyyy!"(green day, always the right song for when you hate something or someone): 102db. I tried louder but it's rapidely disturbing for me. not hurtful really, but disturbing. that value is really the max where I can still really enjoy the music even though it's clearly too loud.
I'm not saying everybody is like me. I tend to dislike loud sounds in general and I know I listen quietly. but it certainly gives me a measure of how totally useless 24bit is for me. I already thought it was useless thinking I listened at 80/90db with louder peaks, but accounting for my actual instantaneous dynamic abilities, and the ambient noise, and all the masking situations. but it seems that for me all this was an unnecessary point. even the peaks probably don't reach 90db in my everyday life.
so 2 things that I do not need:
-shampoo
-24bit tracks
And how low was that hall noise floor? Also, though I know full well how much live performance can bring out, I doubt conductors are telling their brass players to play softer to avoid clipping during non-live recording sessions.
Originally Posted by castleofargh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
-normal listening, about 71db(and around 50db when reading a book in my bed at night). the only reason I would have to go louder than that would be if the outside noise was getting huge, or for some really calm parts of a few symphonies. but I would lower when the music would go back up. I hate extreme change of loudness just as much as brickwalled dynamic for that very reason, I spend my time adjusting the volume and it's a bother.
-maximum I seem to use. think crazy moment once a month that lasts one song at best, when I'm drunk and want to scream along some good old lyrics like "*****, *******, ***** smoking, mother ******, *****, dirty ****, waste of ******, I hope you die. heyyy!"(green day, always the right song for when you hate something or someone): 102db. I tried louder but it's rapidely disturbing for me. not hurtful really, but disturbing. that value is really the max where I can still really enjoy the music even though it's clearly too loud.
so now it's 129db :'( this is completely ludicrous. let me sell all my amps, I calculated max power for only 115db into my headphones thinking I was already exaggerating things.
for 24bit, I was blind but now I see!!! and will go deaf in the process apparently.
question. are all headphones actually able to go 129db without blowing the driver up? sell everything, they were right all along you do need special gears to listen to highres!!!!!
just to give a little comparison point to the billions of readers(too much?) who are unaware of this already, 120db is the threshold of pain at 1khz...
105db is the legal maximum allowed in a french discotheque (at least it was a few years back when I was interested in those stuff).
so what's the point of a subjective study if it concerns the first 3rows stuck to the speakers in a super loud live?
anyway this pushed my button(or turned my native lazy function OFF), at long last I decided to measure how loud I'm actually listening to music.
I took the values I usually use on a DAP with a pair of IEMs( ety mc5, flat impedance to ease the process). tried a few genres of music, then measured my setting with a 1khz tone at -3db into my soundcard's input to stay on the spec's freq(I added the 3db in the end values). to know the actual values I also measured the maximum output of the dap, knowing the real max output in volts from internet and used that instead of actual calibration tool that I do not posses(from previous estimations of other DAPs, it works ok for stuff where I don't need too much precision on the voltages, like DB values).
I guess it gets me not too far off from the loudest that goes in my ears(took the 1khz value and added the difference with louder other frequency on the FR graph of the IEM).
-normal listening, about 71db(and around 50db when reading a book in my bed at night). the only reason I would have to go louder than that would be if the outside noise was getting huge, or for some really calm parts of a few symphonies. but I would lower when the music would go back up. I hate extreme change of loudness just as much as brickwalled dynamic for that very reason, I spend my time adjusting the volume and it's a bother.
-maximum I seem to use. think crazy moment once a month that lasts one song at best, when I'm drunk and want to scream along some good old lyrics like "*****, *******, ***** smoking, mother ******, *****, dirty ****, waste of ******, I hope you die. heyyy!"(green day, always the right song for when you hate something or someone): 102db. I tried louder but it's rapidely disturbing for me. not hurtful really, but disturbing. that value is really the max where I can still really enjoy the music even though it's clearly too loud.
I'm not saying everybody is like me. I tend to dislike loud sounds in general and I know I listen quietly. but it certainly gives me a measure of how totally useless 24bit is for me. I already thought it was useless thinking I listened at 80/90db with louder peaks, but accounting for my actual instantaneous dynamic abilities, and the ambient noise, and all the masking situations. but it seems that for me all this was an unnecessary point. even the peaks probably don't reach 90db in my everyday life.
so 2 things that I do not need:
-shampoo
-24bit tracks
No need to exaggerate - those PEAKS last for a very very very short time and do not sound "loud" at all. And yes, they will be the most primary indication whether it is live or recorded - because most of the recordings will tend to clip those peaks off - one way or another.
But, if you look for the specs of the microphones - you will be hard pressed to find anything that does not go at least to 125 dB - for a reason.
And no, trying to monitor say a grand piano with "audiophille loud kosher headphones" is NOT going to be a pleasurable experience - because it will be painfully demonstrated how limited in dynamic range they usually are. Especially in the bass - if one insists on "average" level to be matched between sound heard live and microphone feed in headphones.
I missed this while it was "live" yet am thankful it was posted in http://www.head-fi.org/t/723464/hearing-safety-and-ear-health-thread-a-diary-of-a-ear-health-noob/30#post_11265358
Just a reminder - headphones most probably required for playing back really loud sources ( like rim shots on drums using drum sticks - present in ANY decent acoustic non-amplified jazz set ) :
https://www.audeze.com/products/headphones/lcd-3
But please do not play (the compressed, REGARDLESS of mastering) DSOTM at maximum level these phones can provide...
I have yet to hear of a concert pianist (or any other acoustic instrument player ) going deaf from his own playing - despite peak SPLs being way higher than usual for audio equipment. You must NOT forget live music is not subject to any compression - which can be hardly said for any recording. It is the AVERAGE loudness that usually has adverse effect on hearing - if it is prolonged for any considerable amount of time. Those few whacks on drums or gong or - the loudest of them all, the wooden bells ( Penderecky...) should be over so quickly that should have no adverse affect on hearing.
But you will see sound deflectors positioned behind the musicians that seat in front of the brass players within a symphonic orchestra - having to "enjoy" fellow trumpeter from half a meter or so is NOT good for the hearing - at all...
But you will see sound deflectors positioned behind the musicians that seat in front of the brass players within a symphonic orchestra - having to "enjoy" fellow trumpeter from half a meter or so is NOT good for the hearing - at all...
I have yet to hear of a concert pianist (or any other acoustic instrument player ) going deaf from his own playing - despite peak SPLs being way higher than usual for audio equipment. You must NOT forget live music is not subject to any compression - which can be hardly said for any recording. It is the AVERAGE loudness that usually has adverse effect on hearing - if it is prolonged for any considerable amount of time.
Classical musicians are at extreme risk for hearing loss. A Finnish study among classical musicians found that 15 percent of the musicians in the study suffered from permanent tinnitus, in comparison to 2 percent among the general population. Temporary tinnitus affected another 41 percent of the musicians in group rehearsals and 18 percent of those in individual rehearsals. It is estimated that 15 percent of the general population experience tinnitus temporarily.
http://www.hear-it.org/Classical-musicians-at-extreme-risk-for-hearing-loss
Those few whacks on drums or gong or - the loudest of them all, the wooden bells ( Penderecky...) should be over so quickly that should have no adverse affect on hearing.
That is just .. PLAIN WRONG !
Symphonic music often has peaks between 120 and 137(!!) dB .
High dynamic impact-noise (like a snare-drum fex) is POISON for your hearing, one reason being that the rise-time is so short that your hearing simply doesn't have the time required to lower sensitivity in order to 'protect' itself . And again : If the 'protection' kicks in to often, it becomes permanent !
The duration of the exposure has a reciprocal relationship to intensity. The higher the intensity, the shorter the exposure can be and still cause permanent damage
NOISE-INDUCED HEARING LOSS
Barbara A. Bohne, Ph.D.
Gary W. Harding, M.S.E.
Dept. of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
http://oto2.wustl.edu/bbears/noise.htm
analogsurviver also writes :
That is just .. PLAIN WRONG !
Symphonic music often has peaks between 120 and 137(!!) dB .
High dynamic impact-noise (like a snare-drum fex) is POISON for your hearing, one reason being that the rise-time is so short that your hearing simply doesn't have the time required to lower sensitivity in order to 'protect' itself . And again : If the 'protection' kicks in to often, it becomes permanent !
Nice of you to post these links - thank you ! I will go trough all these links - and will try to help wherever and whenever I possibly can. There obviously are spots within symphonic orchestra that can be dangerous to hearing.
But it is the very nature of loud sounds with rise times too short to be possible to record with redbook CD that differentiate between live and a recording - and it is this speed again that will tell you whether it is real or a recording - even if played with peak SPL well below 60 dB.
For this reason, CD will NEVER be lifelike enough to fool somebody frequently in touch with live sound into thinking it is live - it will forever remain too slow. Only "slow" instruments that do not/can not have short rise times and are limited in frequency response ( pipe organ ... - it is slow and it stops at approx 16 kHz with no overtones above that ) are served well enough by the redbook. Try recording striking a match and lighting a candle with it - to redbook and some faster HiRez, played back on some fast transducer driven by a fast amplifier ( both say with a - 3 dB point of at least 50 kHz ) - and listen for yourself. Striking a match and lighting a candle with it heard live or played back at lifelike level(s) is most definitely not going to jeopardize anyone's hearing - but will tell you instantly which one is closer to the real thing. You can substitute the match with frying the eggs in a pan - still not too loud to do any hearing damage, yet instantly revealing that CD is too slow.
Now, please do not say you are unfamiliar with the sound of matches or frying eggs...
Quite frankly, I have never heard a single play-back of recorded music that fooled me into believing it was live ..
It's been quite close a few times, on speaker-systems costing upwards of 100.000USD and room-treatment even more expensive, but even then,
there was always something that gave it away as a recording . (No DBT or ABX'ing performed so that is just anecdotal subjective non-science )
Regarding your match-striking and frying eggs :
It doesn't matter if you record it the digital or analouge way, it just doesn't sound 'natural' -
And that is why they don't do it in movies for example, they 'design' the sound so it sounds 'natural'.
129 dB peak values during live concerts are uncommon, but arenot that rare.
I remember recording a jazz quartet - and setting the recording level best I could during the rehearsal. They said "NO" to the question whether they intend to play any louder during the concert.
But in one piece, during the ending of the song, the drummer went crazy - all out. If I were recording to anything else but to what I did ( cassette deck + HighCom II noise reduction ), the recording would have ended like toast.
+11 ref 0 dB !!!!
The recorder and metal tape are actually capable of taking these levels in the bass - where it is usually needed. Absolutely no audible distortion/compression - while any digital recorder would go into hard clipping, resulting in an unusable recording.
This would have very, very easily been captured by 24 bit PCM digital recording set up with something like 4-5 bits of headroom (24-30dB). In fact, this exact reason is why 24 bit does make sense for recordings, when it is completely unnecessary for playback. 16 bit set up with that much headroom could result in an audible noise floor (since you'd only be recording at 10-12 bits if they didn't end up exceeding reference level), and 16 bit set up without that much headroom would clip. This isn't a valid argument for analog recording though, nor is it an argument for higher than redbook bit depth for playback or distribution.
Quite frankly, I have never heard a single play-back of recorded music that fooled me into believing it was live ..
It's been quite close a few times, on speaker-systems costing upwards of 100.000USD and room-treatment even more expensive, but even then,
there was always something that gave it away as a recording . (No DBT or ABX'ing performed so that is just anecdotal subjective non-science )
Regarding your match-striking and frying eggs :
It doesn't matter if you record it the digital or analouge way, it just doesn't sound 'natural' -
And that is why they don't do it in movies for example, they 'design' the sound so it sounds 'natural'.
Hmmm - in a way, I feel pity for you - for never hearing a recording approaching live enough to fool you into thinking it is live.
Let me explain - there ARE good movie soundtracks - but they most definitely do not come from Hollywood or USA more in general. High professional standard, with good and predictable but definitely not you-are-there-quality, yes - BUT it takes movie makers from other continents to get a truly amazing audio. Sometimes, Germans use Kunstkopf/Artificial Head/Binaural - and there is one MACRO sound movie of everyday's sound (including insects) from Hungary - etc, etc. For a totally immersive/thrilling experience, play Das Boot (digitally re-mastered - or re-recorded ? ) over some good headphones ( I used Stax SR001MK2 in-ears at the time ) - if you do not feel the urge of tucking behind any imaginable obstacle from those bullets whizzing past you, you are not normal ! I doubt many people have speaker system and room for surround capable of anything the startling realism Stax SR001MK2 with 2 channels is capable of - and yes, it would be expensive like hell.
Although AKG K-1000 "headphones" have frequency response "only" to 25 kHz, they are extremely capable of resolving CD vs higher resolution digital. And yes, with an appropriate recording, will startle most people into believing it IS live. Times and times again, proven during recordings - with the person listening to recording turning over to another person with familiar voice ( wife, husband, child - familiar on daily basis ) in order to talk to that person supposedly "standing by" - only to find out that person left the room a minute or so ago
- and what he/she is listening to actually IS a recording.
Yes, it can - and does - get that close... - but not with redbook. At least twice the sampling rate, 88.2 kHz and above, is required.
Even very good headphones, such as Stax, will not quite match this "you are there" sensation - and I can sympathize with most listeners that "recording beyond CD does not matter" - simply because I KNOW the difference the design along the K 1000 lines does make. Sennheiser 580, an otherwise quite good headphone, failed laughably in approaching anything the "true to life" quality of the K-1000 - and most others are worse than 580. I will try Senn 650 and hopefully 800 - but that later will be a bit hard to loan just for this "test".
I hear those all the time on my 5.1 system. The key to making something sound live is recreating the ambient acoustic of the room it was recorded in. That takes careful mike placement and a surround system to do best. A lot of people seem to think that the room is just noise and should be eliminated, but the truth is that the space around the music is as important to the sound quality as the music itself.
This would have very, very easily been captured by 24 bit PCM digital recording set up with something like 4-5 bits of headroom (24-30dB). In fact, this exact reason is why 24 bit does make sense for recordings, when it is completely unnecessary for playback. 16 bit set up with that much headroom could result in an audible noise floor (since you'd only be recording at 10-12 bits if they didn't end up exceeding reference level), and 16 bit set up without that much headroom would clip. This isn't a valid argument for analog recording though, nor is it an argument for higher than redbook bit depth for playback or distribution.
True enough. Although music played at the times was inaudible, 96 dB of dynamic range can "just" be squeezed in onto the CD with careful transfer from the analog cassette master tape. But as it was a binaural recording, brick wall filtering of the CD above 20 kHz DOES affect playback; the cassette recorder used is "flat" to at least 22 kHz with a gentle rolloff above - which would have never been heard unless ANY filtering from the HighCom II was removed well in advance of making the recording.
The CD transfer, done the best way I possibly could, NEVER approaches the front to back imaging of the master cassette. This is an argument for higher than 44.1 kHz sampling and not for increased bit depth during reproduction.
I did not have other digital recorder than CD-R at the time - and that would have behaved as described. Next step was - DSD, and although Korg DSD recorders do offer PCM 24 bit up to 192 kHz, I seldom use this capability.
I hear those all the time on my 5.1 system. The key to making something sound live is recreating the ambient acoustic of the room it was recorded in. That takes careful mike placement and a surround system to do best. A lot of people seem to think that the room is just noise and should be eliminated, but the truth is that the space around the music is as important to the sound quality as the music itself.
For once, we finally agree on something ! That is recreating the ambient acoustics of the room where music was recorded in - and the space around the music.
I am not familiar with 5.1 well enough ( because the room available is small-ish and I do not want to go to war with neighbours ). But getting similar/same over "headphones" using well placed stereo microphones or artificial head requires higher sample rates in order to create convincing enough sense of depth from a two channel source. For example, if there is a well defined transient in music, such as in Britten's Boisterous Bourree
with a good recording, it is perfectly possible to "see" the room in which the music was recorded; soundstage is not paper thin pancake as in the above video; the orchestra does have its proper depth, just as in real life. One can feel the sound propagating trough the room, finally reaching the boundaries, giving the listener quite a good idea of the ambient acoustics even if never present there or never any photo was seen.
To a lesser degree, the same effect can be heard over loudspeakers. Again, the depth of the soundstage being governed by the sample rate - if thin flat pancake is enough, redbook CD will do - if you want more, the benefit of DSD128 (and up ) over PCM should be clear enough.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
