I read somewhere, can't recall where now, that typical audiophile listening is typically performed at SPLs c 20dB below concert performance levels. I could believe that - whether it's a good thing (other than for hearing health), in terms of realism and psychoacoustic effect not least of which Fletcher-Munson, is another matter......
well down on the prom deck never seems that loud! I've just done a back of envelope calculation stacking a load of assumptions, but it seems that my normal listening level when SWMBO is in the house but out the room peaks at around 91dBA. About 13dB lower when she is in the living room. So that 20dB figure is believable.
Then again, should baroque string quartets peak at over 100dBA at the listening position?
Then again, should baroque string quartets peak at over 100dBA at the listening position?
I think 20dB is a bit of an exxageration, but what do we mean by 'typical' or is this the 'avarage' listener? Maybe that might be true, but how many here are 'typical' listeners. If I play at a realistic volume, how many of u have been told to reduce the volume by somebody who thinks they are 'typical.' We become pressured into listening levels that are not realistic, or even correct. This from people who listens to radio and cheap stuff.
OTH, when listening to vocal music that is well recorded, I see some audiophiles play too loud. Sit in the middle and turn up the volume too much and you are listening to somebody with up to six foot wide mouths. Often this in systems that don't do macro and micro dynamics very well, so turning up is some kind of compensation. But loudness will never overcome poor dynamics.
In terms off? Not sure what you mean, but F-M fascinates me. The F-M actually shows that we hear in lower frequencies, gradually under 500 Hertz, is less compressed that in the midrange. But in the midrange we are very sensitive to distortion rather than outright dynamics, as F-M shows compression. So F-M curves are revealing, not just changing responses with levels, but also revealing as to how we hear dynamics IMO. Note that at 30 Hertz we cannot hear below 70dBSPL, so that explains why in the best systems, bass notes seems to come out of nowhere as it breaks suddenly through the threshold. But, if there is a delay (poor dynamic response), we will hear the harmonics on time and that delay becomes exposed, the fundamental and the harmonic structure is now out of sync. Now we hear PRAT type problems, could be anything from poor power supplies and more. Incorrect dynamic shifts below 500 Hertz is definitely audible.
That my tuppence worth.
Cheers, Joe
-
An orchestral bass drum radiates about 25 acoustic watts. That's not Saturn V territory, but it's a lot. In the conductor's location in a symphony orchestra the volume is surprising. Not as amazing as standing in front of an operatic soprano though - that's frighteningly loud, even faced downstage.
Chris
Chris
Last edited:
Probably not, unless the quartet could produce such levels at normal listening distance even momentarily, which I doubt.
The way I like to set listening level for classical music, for critical listening anyway, is so that the room ambience in the recording sounds natural. The answer then lies in the recording hall, and location of the microphone, and then I'm most likely to find the experience credible in terms of realism.
For studio recordings of non-classical music I like to use vocal level as a realistic reference, such that level of the vocal performance appears to be realistic and credible as an unamplified human voice. Where there is no vocal, then same principle for whatever feature instrument.
I seem to end up with somewhat louder listening levels than most audiophiles for critical listening, and quite a burden when it comes to system and room design. But listening level affects psychoacoustic perception and emotive response to music, and I figure it has to be 'right' to be realistic in provoking the intended human response.
Lung power the only rival for a Saturn V... interesting.
-
this is how it works pp70 - 71
https://books.google.ca/books?id=ucsSAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=%22soprano+formant%22&source=bl&ots=LDSWIEgCP8&sig=qwT730HMSPgPXV921TlbQ7sis4c&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22soprano%20formant%22&f=false
It's fairly clear from this why a hot women's chorus can really shatter the peace of an audiophile's life. Not to mention that of recording engineers.
neat graphs
https://www.google.com/search?q="si...oTCOqL-MCs38cCFRYpiAoddzcGQg&biw=1366&bih=635
So the formant is right in the hot place on equal loudness contours
Last edited:
This is an old post, but here someone actually measured SPL during a classical concert. This tallies with what I often end up with at home, and is louder than many systems and rooms will accurately deliver without distortion or sounding unnatural. It's a burden.....
Ravel's arrangement for Pictures isn't a particulary large orchestra, so I'd reasonably believe this to be typical.
Tutti means "all together", much of the orchestra playing together, so that's not an average level. But neither is it a peak level, that is the point. Within such a passage there will be momentary peaks which naturally are perhaps 12-20dB above that level, and that is what one is set to reproduce accurately, and therein lies the challenge as to headroom for both recording, and playback at realistic levels.
You better believe it....I have experienced the wooden floor buzzing and my ears crackling/distorting standing 2m facing an opera singer.Lung power the only rival for a Saturn V... interesting.
Same with a 30+ choir...the SPL and sense of power is quite amazing.
These experiences give the thought......how does one reproduce THAT !.
Dan.
Last edited:
For Sound Level meters conforming to ANSI S.1.4 (1983):
Fast exponential time averaging: Time constant 125ms
Slow exponential time averaging: Time constant 1000ms
Impulse response:
Rise time constant 35ms.
Decay time constant 1500ms
Peak response:
Rise time constant: <1ms.
Decay time constant: 1500+/-250ms to 1500+/-500ms
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/002/ansi.s1.4.1983.pdf
George
Who knows? There are cal test procedures in the standard for to verify instrument's compliance.
But have a look on Tables X and XI (page 9) of ANSI S.1.4. and also
Table 9 (page 12) and Table C.1 (page 15) of ANSI S.1.43 (1997)
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/002/ansi.s1.43.1997.pdf
for to get a picture of how low in dB the instrument indication will be depending on the duration of the sound burst
(Instrument ballistics are identical btn ANSI S.1.4 (1983) and ANSI S.1.43 (1997))
George
But have a look on Tables X and XI (page 9) of ANSI S.1.4. and also
Table 9 (page 12) and Table C.1 (page 15) of ANSI S.1.43 (1997)
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/002/ansi.s1.43.1997.pdf
for to get a picture of how low in dB the instrument indication will be depending on the duration of the sound burst
(Instrument ballistics are identical btn ANSI S.1.4 (1983) and ANSI S.1.43 (1997))
George
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.