Thanks Steve, just what I thought no actual listening context at all. Hey, but the researchers determined it. You'll have a hard time finding any classic recording mikes better than 12-16dB SPL or so.
Last edited:
It's just a numbers game. As I said in my post above, they determine the just-detectable level of noise in a quiet environment, then subtract that number from the maximum peaks of the music and come up with with the 118dB figure, as if we can hear this just-detectable level of noise while we're listening to music with 122dB peaks.
As you say, it's silly. And Richard is saying this should be the MINIMUM standard.
se
In my own experience, the action with the instantaneous, not longer term, dynamic range is in the region 60-80dB - annoying gremlins at that level down is where critical problems lie, as a cause of SQ issues. Playing a musical track recorded normally, but attenuated 60dB for playback is an eye opener for showing what a dramatic reduction in level that actually is ...
yes, it is the world wide standard and is the minimum standard for record/playback. Apparently you do not understand why so many experts in the field were consulted and groups/commities formed etc to set the professional standard.
Scott's just piling on..... . for more drama.
But, I'll give you a clue...... its the range the equipment has to be able to handle -- anything asked to be recorded cleanly -- whether weak or loud signals.
If the recording equipment is up to AES and IASA standards, then the masters are the best we have and downloading from the master files or copies direct to yourself is a very high standard.
I am not in favor of your standard. Sorry. It is just fine for telecommunications or where limited BW and limited storage exists.... like mobile phones and the like. The world-wide Professionals via Standards committees have spoken and they have to design hardware to the same standard they were a part of creating.
I am going with the Standards. As minimum.
Give up?
THx-RNMarsh
Scott's just piling on..... . for more drama.
But, I'll give you a clue...... its the range the equipment has to be able to handle -- anything asked to be recorded cleanly -- whether weak or loud signals.
If the recording equipment is up to AES and IASA standards, then the masters are the best we have and downloading from the master files or copies direct to yourself is a very high standard.
I am not in favor of your standard. Sorry. It is just fine for telecommunications or where limited BW and limited storage exists.... like mobile phones and the like. The world-wide Professionals via Standards committees have spoken and they have to design hardware to the same standard they were a part of creating.
I am going with the Standards. As minimum.
Give up?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I am going with the Standards. As minimum.
Give up?
THx-RNMarsh
No, if that Ampex comment is considered a "standard". It has no basis in any listening context. It's like some of ED's comments, put you ear up to the speaker and turn it up till you can barely detect it with no masking sound at all then go back to your seat and turn it up till you can't stand it. This is the minimum acceptable dynamic range.
Dick maybe your ears are better than mine. Say you have 100W into 8 Ohms just for arguments sake. What's that 28V rms or so? Now put -118dB rms noise on your speaker say ~36uV. now tell me you hear it from your chair.
Maybe I'm wrong, is this not what your "standard" means?
Let's go 1 more, that's 250nV/rt-Hz at the output of your PA or for a typical gain of 26dB, 12.5nV/rt-Hz RTI. Not many do this.
EDIT - Dick, I can't find any standards relating to any more than the definition of dynamic range under the AES, etc.
Last edited:
Why do you keep throwing up this smokescreen of "read the standards" instead of addressing the issues Scott and me have raised?
se
Because there aren't any, right the AES has a standard in place that states that the CD medium is ~30dB inadequate.
he's just reading the Wikipedia article which cites AES E-Library Dynamic Range Requirement for Subjective Noise Free Reproduction of Music
High-Res Audio Panels at AES 2014 - Page 5 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews has some excerpts being missused much like Richard is doing
the excerpts however actually support the interpretation that this is not a nuanced analysis of needed home music playback source dynamic range - rather it is looking at outside limits for ADC capture in the artificial recording environment with close micing
High-Res Audio Panels at AES 2014 - Page 5 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews has some excerpts being missused much like Richard is doing
the excerpts however actually support the interpretation that this is not a nuanced analysis of needed home music playback source dynamic range - rather it is looking at outside limits for ADC capture in the artificial recording environment with close micing
Last edited:
SY--maybe contact Rennie/Stan Clayton. They're up in that neck of the woods and do custom composite stuff.
Dauntless Racing
Dauntless Racing
I would vote for the newer crate engine. Though the Caddy and ZR1 engine is too expensive..... really a full race engine design. I think the 302 wont have the torque needed for the big car.
You are in a unique position to make body parts.... I cant - the running boards for the ZR1 are $1800 each side (Carbon fiber). As the local Vette shop found out when they had to replace one they cracked on the lift.
-RM
- Status
- Not open for further replies.