And of course this landmark ruling
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43571144
Nope. You can't be bothered to read the labels on the graphs and just want to repeat your opinions rather than go off and look at the incredibly impressive work members here are doing to come up with better speakers so I'm done with that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43571144
Nope. You can't be bothered to read the labels on the graphs and just want to repeat your opinions rather than go off and look at the incredibly impressive work members here are doing to come up with better speakers so I'm done with that.
I am sure you can find what ever you need to know on Google. Professional info on SLP of live performances are all there. or your prof society to your hearts content.
-RM
Only opinion here, no measurements or other objective data. Opinion recently updated though.
Then, I found a 1KVA ultra-isolation Xfmer in the garage to use on your PA. See what that does.
-Richard
Last edited:
Right. Richard loaned me a prototype power conditioner to try out. Decided to try it with the Benchmark DAC-3. Played some music to refresh my memory then went looking for the DAC-3 power cord in the back of the equipment shelf. Turns out both the DAC-3 and AHB2 were furnished with very thick power cords, much thicker than necessary for the DAC certainly. Both cords feel like they might have shielding in them.
Plugged the DAC into the power conditioner and yes, there was a difference. Some harshness in the NS-10 tweeters that I had always attributed to NS-10 harsh tweeter lore was gone. Found the slotted tissue paper I had put over the tweeters was no longer needed or desirable.
Needless to say, I was very surprised, as I was not expecting any change at all. That being said there wasn't a huge problem with the tweeters before, and having it gone or reduced was not a large effect. It was still clearly an effect, and for the better.
Having been firmly in the 'if it needs a power conditioner there is a design fault with the device' camp and a 'power cord difference' disbeliever, I am still kind of trying to sort out why not even Benchmark can make a bullet-proof power supply. (I didn't change the power cord, to be clear, I am just questioning some of my old beliefs based the difference I heard with the conditioner.)
So, I have decided to try one of the big power conditioners Richard designed for Monster. Found a used one on Ebay. When it gets here we will see if any other change with the AHB2 and computer all on power conditioner circuits (each duplex socket is individually filtered with respect to the other conditioner AC output sockets).
Also, while at Richard's he showed me some pics of spectrum analyzer captures he took of power line noise when he was working on power conditioner development. If anyone is interested in seeing them maybe he would be willing to share, don't know.
EDIT: Richard also loaned me a little box he built to monitor AC power with a scope, or presumably with a spectrum analyzer. It has common and differential mode BNC connectors. Haven't tried it yet, but will.
Last edited:
Good approach, i´d say - not that surprising due to the people working there
- and therefore considering a lot of aspects that are in forum discussions routinely dismissed as "excuses" What the deltalab does is similar to the EBU approach -although that was related to the evaluation of music, but that is in a technical sense a very similar task - that i´ve linked in the past:
EBU Technology & Innovation - Assessment Methods for the Quality of Sound Material - Music
Assessment methods for the subjective evaluation
of the quality of sound programme material – Music
The EBU provided sound examples as reference material for the synchronization needed (SQAM):
EBU Technology & Innovation - Sound Quality Assessment Material recordings for subjective tests
Sound Quality Assessment Material recordings for subjective tests
available for download (information about the material as well)
My experience with audiences is that if the "A" weighted slow response level drops below 70 dBA then folks stop paying attention. If the level goes above 95 dBA the folks begin to complain it is too loud.
Now you have to factor in that musical energy may be modeled as having an energy peak around 50 hertz and rolls off around 3 dB per octave above that.
The other issue I have found is that with symphonic music you require a headroom of 30 dB to avoid clipping.
So for the 70 dBA reading I would expect peak dB readings to be between 115 to 120 dB. Now at the high end of 95 dB I would expect to require less dynamic range so 130 to 135 dB should be fine.
So for an inefficient loudspeaker of 82 dB per watt at one meter listening posipopcorntion of two meters 36 dB of power should keep you out of clipping. That would require 4,000 watts minimum. The average level would be .11 to perhaps .25 watts.
This might just be an example of how extraordinary human hearing's dynamic range really is!
Now you have to factor in that musical energy may be modeled as having an energy peak around 50 hertz and rolls off around 3 dB per octave above that.
The other issue I have found is that with symphonic music you require a headroom of 30 dB to avoid clipping.
So for the 70 dBA reading I would expect peak dB readings to be between 115 to 120 dB. Now at the high end of 95 dB I would expect to require less dynamic range so 130 to 135 dB should be fine.
So for an inefficient loudspeaker of 82 dB per watt at one meter listening posipopcorntion of two meters 36 dB of power should keep you out of clipping. That would require 4,000 watts minimum. The average level would be .11 to perhaps .25 watts.
This might just be an example of how extraordinary human hearing's dynamic range really is!
Last edited:
As said before, it is imo a combination of a technical solution not needed (maybe) in/at every place, as you´d need something similar inside the gear that was now provided by the extra box, underestimation of the complexity (especially when considering the asymmetrical connection case also) and engineering considerations (perfect products are quite unlikely).
Last time we had this discussion in diyaudio (including the "if it needs it it is crap" line) i mentioned having seen in quite a lot of accredited labs a lot of tweaks and additional filtering, which triggered memories of others about those "Tektronix supplies" that were .... and... and... .
So it is sometimes complex; difficult to find a solution that fits to every problematic environment all over the world, but did not cost that much and doesn´t take that much space.
Last edited:
Not that long time ago we had the first (i think) law suit where an orchestra musician asked for compensation for his damaged hearing and there are now regulations about allowed levels. I think ear protection will soon be standard even for musicians in orchestras.
Louis Fielder (iirc) had sampled informations about max sound pressure levels for orchestral and amplified popular music in his JAES (~1985) article and found at typical seats (afair not front rows) SPLs around 105 - 109 dB while in the popular case it was even above 130 dB.
But the reproduction case depends on the level the recorded content was intended during the production. While the film industry quite early tried to define standard levels that unfortunately were not done for domestic reproduction.
So, expecially for older recordings, one can only speculate about the intended reproduction level, while in more modern recordings there is some probability that the intended level for reproduction is 83 - 85 dB (SPL) .
I've only had about 3 hours sleep due to 'Sofa' being a little sod but 70+30=100, where does the extra 15dB come from? Or are we assuming 70dB is P and 30dB for fff with 15dB crest factor?
Also can assume what you professionals mean when you say 'peak'. Is that waveform peak, or meter peak (so you have to add crest factor).
The follow on is, does anyone know an easy way to analyse a commercial recording to extract useful information on what the playback level should be. DRM software doesn't help much other than a peak to average for the whole piece.
Aside: It's very confusing that there are 2 definitions of 0dBFS 3dB apart.
Jakob: I linked that lawsuit last night.
Whilst it is a shame that there are no agreed specs for classical I suspect that THX levels are close enough. IIRC Kevin used to have a solo piano recording with no gain riding that did need 30dB of headroom to playback.
Which all leads back to the challenge. Where are the recordings that have a realistic 'you are there' dynamic range. There must be some even if they are amateur efforts as the majors wouldn't release them
Whilst it is a shame that there are no agreed specs for classical I suspect that THX levels are close enough. IIRC Kevin used to have a solo piano recording with no gain riding that did need 30dB of headroom to playback.
Which all leads back to the challenge. Where are the recordings that have a realistic 'you are there' dynamic range. There must be some even if they are amateur efforts as the majors wouldn't release them
Last edited:
Yes, it is the level in the listening location we are concerned with --- not what the musician has to deal with. 85-90dB spl is my normal... critical … listening level. It is not a polite level.... but close to what the Mastering people and mixer will use also. Polite levels cause us to not hear many things … F-Munson, ambient noise etal.
THx-RNMarsh
Many people do not realize how loud acoustic instruments can be ---- I have a piano in the middle of my living room. And, that thing is loud played normally. Can easily drown out the "stereo".
Last edited:
+1
+1 (Near the limit to reproduce a realistic piano (attacks) paying fortissimo at its original level with my system: 98dB/W, 220 W. IE 120dB.)
I thing the acoustic level can reach 100dB on a (slow) sound level meter.
Mark, welcome to the real world.
How many times have we heard the 'competently designed' argument postulating from the armchair that there can be no possible subjective differences due to AC power filtering and power cables, but there you have it, differences perfectly audible on your quite/very good playback system.
If you can get NS-10 tweeters to not hurt then that is a significant win, and the change is more important than you give credit for IMO.
Removing this (IYW 'slight') harshness is a product of improving overall system IMD's, which will unsubtley improve LR imaging and depth imaging.
Once done with getting the supply electrics right, you can then also listen to/for and differentiate a whole bunch of other stuff like caps, resistors, even cable direction.
Once you have that down pat you can then work out how to easily control and 'dictate' system sound.
Dan.
Those would be people who've never heard them. Most of the louder ones, brass, wind and percussion for example were designed to be played outdoors. Most of the others historically would have been played in large rooms for entertainment, mainly dancing, so much of the sound would also have been absorbed by bodies
- Status
- Not open for further replies.