I agree with the maximum peak decibal, but not at the seats. IME, this would be near the conductors podium (every one in the orchestra is aimed towards him), or at the microphones if placed slightly behind him. This would also highly depend on the size of the orchestra. 80 players doing Mahler, no way. 110 players doing Mahler, definately.
I believe it. Most anechoic chambers I have been in have been either small to medium in size. I have never seen a concert hall (or even practice room) size anechoic chamber, and it would probably be much too expensive to build. Put 80 muscians in that room, and the microphone behind the conductor, and I am willing to bet it is no more than 15-20 feet from the loudest instruments in the orchestra...the trumpets.
I agree, especially because I am a movie guy. However, the only time I see those kinds of levels is coming from the LFE channel. 110db in the mains would be entirely too loud for me, even though my speakers could easily do it cleanly.
One reason why listeners like to increase the loudness is that this results in an increase of what I'll call the "apparent" dynamic range of the reproduction.
I say "apparent" because there is no actual increase of dynamic range. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Let's say that at a first volume control setting of the amplifier in the reproduction chain, a first passage of music is heard at 60 dB, and a second passage of music is heard at 70 dB. Then turn up the volume control to a second setting that doubles the voltage gain of the amp, and hit the repeat button on the CD player (or whatever). Now the first passage is heard at 66 dB and second passage at 76 dB.
70 dB- 60 dB = 76 dB- 66 dB
The decibel difference of the two passages in both cases is 10 dB; nevertheless the level difference is more "evident" (the words of Monroe Upton) with the volume control turned up to the second setting.
So how would you explain this? Playing music at a higher volume level, judging subjectively, I would say does result in a perceived improvement of dynamic range.😱
Best Regards,
Pete
Two things:
Fletcher-Munson.
and
An increase in the actual distortion from the speakers is usually audible with increases of level.
Along those lines, if you ever get to hear a speaker with vanishingly low distortion levels, as you increase the SPL only the apparent distance to and size of the "sound image" increases.
Furthermore, many people equate "loudness" to the added distortion that is especially evident in tweeter output wrt to level.
_-_-bear
Fletcher-Munson.
and
An increase in the actual distortion from the speakers is usually audible with increases of level.
Along those lines, if you ever get to hear a speaker with vanishingly low distortion levels, as you increase the SPL only the apparent distance to and size of the "sound image" increases.
Furthermore, many people equate "loudness" to the added distortion that is especially evident in tweeter output wrt to level.
_-_-bear
Except, sorry bear .. 🙂, this is not the fault of the speaker drivers; in my experience over many, many years this is always due to the electronics starting to protest, cave in, or clog up. Especially in regard to the tweeter output, unpleasant noises coming from this fellow is due to the muckiness of what is being fed to it ...
Cure the electrical problems, and then you do get the "as you increase the SPL only the apparent distance to and size of the 'sound image' increases." ...
Cure the electrical problems, and then you do get the "as you increase the SPL only the apparent distance to and size of the 'sound image' increases." ...
I seem to recall reading somewhere that someone carried out an experiment many years ago where they had a string quartet and some Quad ESL speakers playing taped music behind a net curtain before an audience including HiFi journalists and professional musicians. I believe that the audience could not reliably say which was live and which recorded.
Probably apocryphal?
I would say the main reason why folks turn up the volume is to get the lower levels above the noise floor of the room. The lower the noise floor in the room, the less folks turn up the volume.
It was at AES in the early 2000's, and I was there. It was quite startling at first, but then I realize that the string ensemble was playing a rather narrow range of notes and a very limited dynamic range(no real bass very little dynamic changes), and it was not really challenging the speaker much.
Actually I would be undecided whether or not it is currently technically feasible to make an audio reproduction equivalent to the sound portion of a live performance. When it comes to technology it is a dangerous thing to say never. But I think that watching musicians performing while listening adds a significant dimension to the experience.
-Pete
dynamic range heard and increased loudness
Here is some research done in 1935 that I found cited in the book Hearing (Gulick, Gescheider, and Frisna, 1989) and I believe supports perceived increased dynamic range when listening at say 90 dB as opposed to 75 dB.
Churcher, B.G. A loudness scale for industrial noise measurements, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 1935, 6, 216-226.
This is basically what Churcher did. He would generate a 880 Hz tone at one known first intensity level where the subject is located, and then reduce the intensity of the tone to a second level that the subject tells him is half as loud as the first. The SPL of the second level is then measured.
The above procedure is repeated where the initial first intensity level is changed.
A graph in the book from Churcher's research has intensity in dB along the X axis and a linear arbitrary loudness scale along the X axis set a 100 with respect to 100 dB on the X axis.
The curvature of the graph is relatively flat (almost a straight line and sloping slightly upwards to the right) from 30 dB to 60 dB. From 60 dB to 100 dB, the curvature is exponential-like up to the maximum of 100 loudness level at 100 dB. The loudness level at 60 dB is less than 10.
Certainly, if the environment is noisy, increasing the volume of reproduction would improve apparent dynamic range. Also frequency response of the ear becoming much more flat at around 90 dB according to Fletcher & Munson compared to lower sound intensity levels should also increase the apparent dynamic range as then more of the full frequency spectrum of the reproduction is at a higher level.
Regards,
Pete
Here is some research done in 1935 that I found cited in the book Hearing (Gulick, Gescheider, and Frisna, 1989) and I believe supports perceived increased dynamic range when listening at say 90 dB as opposed to 75 dB.
Churcher, B.G. A loudness scale for industrial noise measurements, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 1935, 6, 216-226.
This is basically what Churcher did. He would generate a 880 Hz tone at one known first intensity level where the subject is located, and then reduce the intensity of the tone to a second level that the subject tells him is half as loud as the first. The SPL of the second level is then measured.
The above procedure is repeated where the initial first intensity level is changed.
A graph in the book from Churcher's research has intensity in dB along the X axis and a linear arbitrary loudness scale along the X axis set a 100 with respect to 100 dB on the X axis.
The curvature of the graph is relatively flat (almost a straight line and sloping slightly upwards to the right) from 30 dB to 60 dB. From 60 dB to 100 dB, the curvature is exponential-like up to the maximum of 100 loudness level at 100 dB. The loudness level at 60 dB is less than 10.
Certainly, if the environment is noisy, increasing the volume of reproduction would improve apparent dynamic range. Also frequency response of the ear becoming much more flat at around 90 dB according to Fletcher & Munson compared to lower sound intensity levels should also increase the apparent dynamic range as then more of the full frequency spectrum of the reproduction is at a higher level.
Regards,
Pete
- Status
- Not open for further replies.