A also figured out that these crown cts amps I have are
The snippet was from this link here ->https://audioxpress.com/article/zero-phase-in-studio-monitors
Linear phase reproduction has its place, primarily in professional sound installations or shows where multiple speakers of different size and configuration are needed to achieve the required coverage and pressure level. Knowing that each box is ‘phase compatible’ to begin with makes the job of alignment and tuning easier and more predictable.
In and of itself, in theory the removal of two or three phase rotations isn’t audible. Properly running a listening test for this is quite hard though, as it’s difficult to only ‘fix’ the phase response without making changes to magnitude and polar behaviour at the same time.
The other issue is the temptation to let automatic tools make a ‘magic’ impulse response inversion that makes a lovey chart at one position, but creates a horrible mess and bad sound everywhere else.
But as ever, you’re quite far ahead of yourself here camplo. I wouldn’t worry about trying to make an FIR correction until you’ve sorted out everything else.
In and of itself, in theory the removal of two or three phase rotations isn’t audible. Properly running a listening test for this is quite hard though, as it’s difficult to only ‘fix’ the phase response without making changes to magnitude and polar behaviour at the same time.
The other issue is the temptation to let automatic tools make a ‘magic’ impulse response inversion that makes a lovey chart at one position, but creates a horrible mess and bad sound everywhere else.
But as ever, you’re quite far ahead of yourself here camplo. I wouldn’t worry about trying to make an FIR correction until you’ve sorted out everything else.
This is the range you 'naturaly' loose with age. And which is more easily fryed too ( it is closer to tympany so exposed to an higher degree of energy than the parts closer to the apex of cochlea- the vibrations are transmited through a fluid so there is damping at play).
I don't think there is a range which is more suceptible to damage because: if you experience something really bad in the low end, there is chance this will be definitive. If you have tinitus you could 'live' with them ( not easy and depends on severity but much less annoying than hyperacusis...).
Better not experience any of this and being reasonable about level ( i've get spl meter at reach and use it everytime i listen at home).
I don't think there is a range which is more suceptible to damage because: if you experience something really bad in the low end, there is chance this will be definitive. If you have tinitus you could 'live' with them ( not easy and depends on severity but much less annoying than hyperacusis...).
Better not experience any of this and being reasonable about level ( i've get spl meter at reach and use it everytime i listen at home).
When she is not at home, I have a calibrated app in my iPhone. 125 dB of bass (A weighted, spectrum analyzer on) on a Rammstein live show could be certainly felt - and I was not really close to the stage.
What for?
About health protection i don't see why. Could you explain clearly what are your thoughts?
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/857813-clinical#b1
Power tools and firearms do a good job of causing loss at 3 to 6k.
when judging safety levels for hearing safety, you should use A-weighting is what I am guessing... Our lack of sensitivity to bass provides some protection to bass....from what I'm reading, different weightings are used for different safety standards, non of which are Z, so it would seem practical to use A weighting for general spl analysis concerning human hearing.
Tbh, i'm a bit rusted ( rusty) with english as i haven't had time to read forum in the last month, so i need direct and clear.
trololololol
Last edited:
Trying to measure SPL of bass with an A-weighting applied is daft, just look at the curve applied for the weighting to see why. It also isn’t as applicable at concert levels, because the curve is based on the lower phon equal-loudness contours.
You should really be a C-weighting (or the now-defunct B, but that’s another matter) to represent ‘loud’ listening with modern levels of sub-content or tilt. Unfortunately, that limits the use of phones as the mics distort very quickly at low frequencies.
The ELC often causes misunderstanding that exposure to bass is less dangerous, which is not true. The opposite is true, in fact. Those curves are for perceived loudness, not physical effects, and the strong vibrations at your ear and body’s bones and fluid created by loud subwoofer content provide a different, potentially much higher risk of damage. The problem moves out of hearing loss specifically and starts to become a whole-body vibration issue. WBV was extensively researched by the likes of NASA, and they found that long-term high exposure creates lasting cognitive impacts, among other things.
There is also the issue of auditory masking, where strong levels or long decaying of lower notes causes a loss of clarity or perceived level in upper notes. The risk here is that you might not realise how much damaging or dangerous mid and high-frequency content you’re exposed to at a concert or loud home system.
For what it’s worth, the safe working noise regulations across the EU typically fall in the region of 90 dBA for a 6-8 hour period over a week. The concern here is that it doesn't accurately reflect the low frequency content many workers are exposed to; at venues but also in factories, while driving long distances, etc.
At events, it’s common to have two monitoring levels, both Leq (over a period). LAeq of 99 dB over 5 minutes, LCeq of 130 dB over 15 minutes, for example. This is based on the levels the nearest listener to a speaker in Germany, and others. The different time periods are based on the dynamic nature of the source material, and resulting different exposure risks - as well trying to minimise noise complaints.
This is an active field of research right now, as the situation is more complex than you might think. Either way, the ‘rock and roll high’ of loud bass that we all love is something that really should be a rare experience if safety is of concern.
You should really be a C-weighting (or the now-defunct B, but that’s another matter) to represent ‘loud’ listening with modern levels of sub-content or tilt. Unfortunately, that limits the use of phones as the mics distort very quickly at low frequencies.
The ELC often causes misunderstanding that exposure to bass is less dangerous, which is not true. The opposite is true, in fact. Those curves are for perceived loudness, not physical effects, and the strong vibrations at your ear and body’s bones and fluid created by loud subwoofer content provide a different, potentially much higher risk of damage. The problem moves out of hearing loss specifically and starts to become a whole-body vibration issue. WBV was extensively researched by the likes of NASA, and they found that long-term high exposure creates lasting cognitive impacts, among other things.
There is also the issue of auditory masking, where strong levels or long decaying of lower notes causes a loss of clarity or perceived level in upper notes. The risk here is that you might not realise how much damaging or dangerous mid and high-frequency content you’re exposed to at a concert or loud home system.
For what it’s worth, the safe working noise regulations across the EU typically fall in the region of 90 dBA for a 6-8 hour period over a week. The concern here is that it doesn't accurately reflect the low frequency content many workers are exposed to; at venues but also in factories, while driving long distances, etc.
At events, it’s common to have two monitoring levels, both Leq (over a period). LAeq of 99 dB over 5 minutes, LCeq of 130 dB over 15 minutes, for example. This is based on the levels the nearest listener to a speaker in Germany, and others. The different time periods are based on the dynamic nature of the source material, and resulting different exposure risks - as well trying to minimise noise complaints.
This is an active field of research right now, as the situation is more complex than you might think. Either way, the ‘rock and roll high’ of loud bass that we all love is something that really should be a rare experience if safety is of concern.
OK thank you for info. From wiki it says "G-weighting is used for measurements in the infrasound range from 8 Hz to about 40 Hz".....I spent time looking for G-weighting....After reading your post, I the Wiki page has a typo and the G is likely a C
"C-weighting is used for measurements in the infrasound range from 8 Hz to about 40 Hz".
Sounds like there is some truth to damage level, based off of transfer function vs using no weighting at all.
There are things that I don't understand about weighting and ELC. If the ELC represents our ears transfer function, generally......Then I should be able to place a filter of the inverse, like seen above in Red in left graph, on the microphone, and the resulting signal capture via 1 octave RTA results will, mean something relevant to my ears.
It would be nice to have a weighting that was the inverse of the equal loudness contour at the mastering standard for loudness.
Last edited: