I did that on an old modded Hafler DH200 I had. It (the comparator) could catch peaks that were about a quarter usec wide and trigger a one-shot that held the LED on for 2 seconds afterwards. Suprisingly (and counter to what I've often read) it was very difficult and uncomfortably loud to get the LED to come on.
I was using about 90dB sensitive speakers then and had the low bass passed off to some active subs, so that was no doubt a factor. I also don't often listen to super loud music, and didn't have Tom's fireworks wav file then yet, either! But still, I was expecting it to clip all over the place but it didn't.
Last edited:
ummm... 60volts peak or 60 volts peak to peak?
The 60 volts peak is basically the same as a ~200watt amp. (about 60volt rails)
The 60 volts peak is basically the same as a ~200watt amp. (about 60volt rails)
It's free - Audio tools - Various audio software - Free download - Page 1
The foobar2000 plugin, once you figure it out, is much more useful in that you can check discs directly on the drive instead of having to first rip the files to HD:
Free Downloads | DYNAMIC RANGE | pleasurize music!
I don't believe that it matters much when compared to the "processes" used to get any digital tracks converted and pressed into vinyl (digital masters are apparently always used as masters nowadays). Most people like sausage--until they see how it's made
Warning: you might not like what you discover here:
- Mastering for Vinyl : Recording Magazine -
😱
Mastering For Vinyl Records | Gotta Groove Records
YMMV.
Last edited:
Not quite correct. It's the RIAA correction that makes both the cutting head
and your pick-up do not like that vast amount of treble.
Neither link works for me - the first will only process .mp3, not FLAC or .wav, and the second expired in 2011 and will not run in Foobar.
Both pieces of software are available from the DR Database site (Album list - Dynamic Range Database) under the right-hand side hyperlink called "Links" and then "Software". If you are having trouble configuring the software app or plugin for your platform, I recommend going to the JusticeForAudio forum listed under that same link.
seems like the meter is running ok on wav rips - windows media player botched all of this Laserlight titles/artists. Some of "Muddy Waters Folk Singer" 1964 show 14dB - I need to find "Muddy Waters Sings Big Bill Broonzy" as its a fave - -combos with drums being played with brushes can sound very dynamic
IIRC this is a John Eargle recording
Jack Sheldon (Run Buddy Run-lol) 1983 M&K Realtime cd "Playin' It Straight" shows 17dB on "That Old Feeling" - great trumpet playing
great recording
IIRC this is a John Eargle recording
Jack Sheldon (Run Buddy Run-lol) 1983 M&K Realtime cd "Playin' It Straight" shows 17dB on "That Old Feeling" - great trumpet playing
great recording
Last edited:
would the following help determine how much power may be needed to play a track? (if the system can play it at the listening distance required)
Jack Sheldon Playin' It Straight Realtime 3003 / 1983 "That Old Feeling"
Jack Sheldon Playin' It Straight Realtime 3003 / 1983 "That Old Feeling"
Last edited:
I believe that the concern regarding kilowatt power input requirements is something that is confined to direct-radiating loudspeakers using cone and dome drivers, and even worse for planar loudspeaker types, whose efficiencies are even lower.
For example: one of the most dynamic music tracks that I own is the original "Aerial Boundaries" CD (1984, Windham Hill WD-1032, bar code 0 1934-11032-2) of Michael Hedges, who was a gifted acoustic guitarist before his untimely auto accident that took his life. The most dynamic track on this CD is one called "Rickover's Dream" with a second-highest crest factor of 28.55 dB. If you were playing this track at one watt RMS electrical power input, you would be looking at something approaching 1 KW required input (with headroom required) in order to play this track without soft or hard clipping.
However, in my case, my loudspeakers are bi-amped - approximately half the in-room SPL is going to the bass bin and half to the HF horn compression driver (a TAD TD-4002) which measures 109 dB at one metre with 2.83 volts input (the driver is approximately a 14-ohm impedance over its passband with this horn). I expect to play this track at something close to concert volume as if I were trying to reproduce the real performance in-room. That would be about 75-80 dB average at one metre, in my assessment. This means that I would be putting something (perhaps) approaching a milliwatt (RMS) into the driver(s), then a 28.55 dB spike comes along - maybe as much as 1 watt peak input into both speakers is required - 0.5 watt per side if the stereo image is centered.
The story is approximately the same for my bass bin (106 dB at 1 metre at 2.83 volt input, nominally 4-5 ohms impedance over its passband): about 0.5 watt per side. No problem.
For example: one of the most dynamic music tracks that I own is the original "Aerial Boundaries" CD (1984, Windham Hill WD-1032, bar code 0 1934-11032-2) of Michael Hedges, who was a gifted acoustic guitarist before his untimely auto accident that took his life. The most dynamic track on this CD is one called "Rickover's Dream" with a second-highest crest factor of 28.55 dB. If you were playing this track at one watt RMS electrical power input, you would be looking at something approaching 1 KW required input (with headroom required) in order to play this track without soft or hard clipping.
However, in my case, my loudspeakers are bi-amped - approximately half the in-room SPL is going to the bass bin and half to the HF horn compression driver (a TAD TD-4002) which measures 109 dB at one metre with 2.83 volts input (the driver is approximately a 14-ohm impedance over its passband with this horn). I expect to play this track at something close to concert volume as if I were trying to reproduce the real performance in-room. That would be about 75-80 dB average at one metre, in my assessment. This means that I would be putting something (perhaps) approaching a milliwatt (RMS) into the driver(s), then a 28.55 dB spike comes along - maybe as much as 1 watt peak input into both speakers is required - 0.5 watt per side if the stereo image is centered.
The story is approximately the same for my bass bin (106 dB at 1 metre at 2.83 volt input, nominally 4-5 ohms impedance over its passband): about 0.5 watt per side. No problem.
By the way, on the subject of dynamic range of commercially recorded music, here is an extremely interesting thread on an apparent paradox of measured dynamic range off of vinyl records vs. CD tracks using crest factor measurement (TT Dynamic Range Meter) - and a subject that has some very impressive implications.
What the video author describes is that the vinyl track ripped as compared to the CD track measures about 4 dB more dynamic range crest factor, even though the vinyl track has been de-clicked. The host of the video (Ian Shepherd) goes on about how you can see the differences in the vinyl track vs. CD track in terms of its envelope - with the vinyl track looking more dynamic and "peaky".
Then Mr. Shepherd lets the other shoe drop: he says that he mastered the single track that was sent to both the CD and vinyl pressing houses so both tracks should be identical. What ensues in terms of discussion of this is, well, I need to find my boots, because the BS levels keep rising. No one wants to call a spade a spade on this "revelation".
This should make every vinyl lover's eyebrows rise a bit.
What the video author describes is that the vinyl track ripped as compared to the CD track measures about 4 dB more dynamic range crest factor, even though the vinyl track has been de-clicked. The host of the video (Ian Shepherd) goes on about how you can see the differences in the vinyl track vs. CD track in terms of its envelope - with the vinyl track looking more dynamic and "peaky".
Then Mr. Shepherd lets the other shoe drop: he says that he mastered the single track that was sent to both the CD and vinyl pressing houses so both tracks should be identical. What ensues in terms of discussion of this is, well, I need to find my boots, because the BS levels keep rising. No one wants to call a spade a spade on this "revelation".
This should make every vinyl lover's eyebrows rise a bit.
I had Aerial Boundaries on cd when first released and my 3-way Audio Concepts speakers with Dynaudio drivers did an ok job - there was probably some "spit" from the dome tweeter. When I get a new copy, will try on some of my Karlson setups. A slotted tube with compression driver makes a very good tweeter with a different presentation than a regular cd waveguide or horn. The tube is usually tilted at the same angle as the bass coupler - ~25 degrees above horizontal for slot facing "down-forwards"
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/2059/thetube1.jpg
what happened to the digital to lose 4dB? was the vinyl doing some mechanical trick? - my rips of records lose "sheen" vs direct monitoring of the input. what is your bassbin?
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/2059/thetube1.jpg
what happened to the digital to lose 4dB? was the vinyl doing some mechanical trick? - my rips of records lose "sheen" vs direct monitoring of the input. what is your bassbin?
Last edited:
Digital didn't "lose" 4 dB -- instead the 24/96 digital master-to-vinyl-to-24/96 ripped "vinyl" track GAINED 4 dB; I'd recommend that you read the thread and some of the, well, explanations...
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...ccurate-for-vinyl.330706/page-11#post-9481216
This pretty much says to me that current "standard practices" in mastering recordings is not only invasive, it's actually extremely destructive: now we're beginning to measure the extent of that destructiveness of what our ears have been telling us for decades.
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...ccurate-for-vinyl.330706/page-11#post-9481216
This pretty much says to me that current "standard practices" in mastering recordings is not only invasive, it's actually extremely destructive: now we're beginning to measure the extent of that destructiveness of what our ears have been telling us for decades.
Last edited:
ah - frequency dependent separation - I've got a RIAA preamp which sums below 140Hz (!) a lot of favorite lps come from the era where things wre fully panned left or right http://www.derumbleizer.com/
Last edited:
Thanks Cask, good reading.
I've never had much luck with the dynamic range software - I don't understand its results.
Personally I use Goldwave editing software which will measure the RMS and peak values of a file, or portion of a file. To me, that makes sense. RMS vs peak. Certainly there are other ways of measuring DR, I just don't have a good sense of the results.
I've never had much luck with the dynamic range software - I don't understand its results.
Personally I use Goldwave editing software which will measure the RMS and peak values of a file, or portion of a file. To me, that makes sense. RMS vs peak. Certainly there are other ways of measuring DR, I just don't have a good sense of the results.
I've found this an interesting thread but still not sure of implications.
I guess the point is this. First, we are all assuming the real life music has more dynamic range than any of our recording media. If so, recordists have to squeeze the sound at the top or bottom. Ordinarily, as audiophiles (if not as the FCC), we'd like a recording made at a low recording level because it leaves lots of headroom left (which is just another way of saying "dynamic range"). Such recordings are squeezed at the bottom in the sense that very soft sounds are in the mud/noise...but since our music rooms have some noise, we are OK with that fault.
So, we are playing these softly recorded (wide dynamic range) recordings and we'd like to do so as loud as the "natural level" (a term which can not really be defined) and when a loud part arrives, we are delighted when our music systems (and neighbours) tolerate it well.
So back to OP, just how much headroom do to we need? (Paul Klipsch used to say, "Give me 5 clean watts" and I think that is closer to the truth than 1000 watts, even for less efficient speakers.)
Or maybe there are tiny bits of over-the-top sound that we are willing to live without rather than endure soft sounds barely over the noise level? No free lunch.
Ben
I guess the point is this. First, we are all assuming the real life music has more dynamic range than any of our recording media. If so, recordists have to squeeze the sound at the top or bottom. Ordinarily, as audiophiles (if not as the FCC), we'd like a recording made at a low recording level because it leaves lots of headroom left (which is just another way of saying "dynamic range"). Such recordings are squeezed at the bottom in the sense that very soft sounds are in the mud/noise...but since our music rooms have some noise, we are OK with that fault.
So, we are playing these softly recorded (wide dynamic range) recordings and we'd like to do so as loud as the "natural level" (a term which can not really be defined) and when a loud part arrives, we are delighted when our music systems (and neighbours) tolerate it well.
So back to OP, just how much headroom do to we need? (Paul Klipsch used to say, "Give me 5 clean watts" and I think that is closer to the truth than 1000 watts, even for less efficient speakers.)
Or maybe there are tiny bits of over-the-top sound that we are willing to live without rather than endure soft sounds barely over the noise level? No free lunch.
Ben
Last edited:
"A swing and a miss..." No dynamic "squeezing" is required at all with red book digital format (16 bit, 44.1 KHz sampling), since today the average dynamic range (as opposed to crest factor) seen on that format for pop music is something like 30 db, while the format has over 90 db of dynamic range available everywhere on the disc, i.e., the format has never really been used in anywhere close to its capacity for dynamic range in practice. Remember that the sound of "running out of low-end bits" on quiet passages sounds just like tape hiss - and I've never heard this sound on digitally recorded CDs, since in actual use the least significant bits in practice are never really used.
The mastering today for popular music is entirely centered on "how loud can it be made?" since all recordings that show dynamic range compression also show a rubber banding of their average levels so that the most significant bits are at the top of the scale (zero dBFS) for virtually every track. That is, even though the tracks are compressed dynamically, they are also raised in volume as much as possible instead of leaving the original average recording levels on the track as before the dynamic compression took place. This is called "the loudness war".
The following link can be found in post #21 above, that shows compelling evidence of how much the dynamic range of typical recordings is compressed. As shown in this example, even a jazz combo is typically compressed by at least 10 dB, i.e., non-trivial compression, while most other popular/rock/etc. music is apparently compressed by something approaching ~25 dB on average, assuming acoustic instrumentation is being recorded:
https://community.klipsch.com/index...ange-dr-database-some-observations/?p=1641702
The mastering today for popular music is entirely centered on "how loud can it be made?" since all recordings that show dynamic range compression also show a rubber banding of their average levels so that the most significant bits are at the top of the scale (zero dBFS) for virtually every track. That is, even though the tracks are compressed dynamically, they are also raised in volume as much as possible instead of leaving the original average recording levels on the track as before the dynamic compression took place. This is called "the loudness war".
The following link can be found in post #21 above, that shows compelling evidence of how much the dynamic range of typical recordings is compressed. As shown in this example, even a jazz combo is typically compressed by at least 10 dB, i.e., non-trivial compression, while most other popular/rock/etc. music is apparently compressed by something approaching ~25 dB on average, assuming acoustic instrumentation is being recorded:
https://community.klipsch.com/index...ange-dr-database-some-observations/?p=1641702
Last edited:
Having looked at 100s of CDs in my collection, and posted some results - I've found that dynamic sounding CDs have an RMS level of -20dBFS or below. That's true of all genres of music. -18dBFS still sounds fairly dynamic. A lot of classical has an RMS values of -22 to -24dBFS. That puts the peaks at 24dB above the average level. Recent loud CDs have about 12dB between average and peak.
So I figure I need about 22 or 24dB headroom, max. That's above the average level. Where I actually place that average level will determine the real peak voltages.
If you are interested in what your peak voltages may actually be - check out the test linked in my sig line below. You may need a kilowatt, or you may not.
So I figure I need about 22 or 24dB headroom, max. That's above the average level. Where I actually place that average level will determine the real peak voltages.
If you are interested in what your peak voltages may actually be - check out the test linked in my sig line below. You may need a kilowatt, or you may not.
I remember reading that the clarity of the transient, first milliseconds or so of a sound are significantly tied with our ears being able to place them in a stereo field (panning position). I can't seem to pull up the article in a cursory search and am not certain if that involved a clean power response/amplitude or...? Great thread, would be thrilled if anyone remembers what I'm referring to and can point it out.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.