dB what reference? Inches, millimeters, frogs or would it be sound pressure level referenced to the old or new standard and then what weight?
You know perfectly well bells are a ratio and without a reference meaningless. My guess would be 110 dBa with a fast response "C" weighting is what the reading taken by a competent meter user would get. Maybe less as a slow "A" weighted dBa reading not a bragging claim.
To get only moderately clipped music a real reading of 120 dBa slow "A" weighted would require a one meter loudpeaker output of 150 dBa peaks. Or in excess of 100,000 watts into typical loudspeakers. I have seen systems with that wattage but they also used loudspeakers that were designed for such abuse and were almost 10 dB less sensitive than the usual ones.
Of course in the seventies the typical large amplifiers used were Crown DC300s. About 160 watts per channel.
Now depending on the audience loud can be 95dBa fast "A" weight or the typical concert goal these days is 102 dBa fast "C" righting at 100 feet. That in a good system can actually be uniform to the front row. But it might be 3dB higher to almost 10 dB when done with poor pattern control.
Yes there are some folks who try to play louder and they are marked by blown gear after each performance.
My loudest system could do 102 dBa fast "A" at 700 feet. But it was also that level at the closest audience members.
Ed you never disappoint, I almost edited my post but I knew you would have something to say. I have no idea what he meant other than so loud it was unhealthy to listen without ear protection. That was my experience.
And you like to be inaccurate? Or did we really just have a spot of communication?
Pretty much any exposure above 80 dBa slow "A" is damaging and probably even below that.
Personally I prefer to listen to much reproduced sound at levels of fast "C" of 50 dBa. That is lower than most folks due to my extremely low background noise level.
Pretty much any exposure above 80 dBa slow "A" is damaging and probably even below that.
Personally I prefer to listen to much reproduced sound at levels of fast "C" of 50 dBa. That is lower than most folks due to my extremely low background noise level.
Last edited:
Living in an apartment, I usually listen at relatively low levels, 60-70dB or so. However, I decided to turn on the big system last Sunday, in order to listen to some new digital that I had. Normally, I don't like digital reproduction, but I was experimenting with some 'B' tweaks that Jack wanted me to try. WOW! Finally my system sounds really good in digital, at least my best 24-96K, and DSD did, and it even listenable on CD. So I turned up the volume to a realistic level which is about 10-15dB higher that I noted with my sound level meter. You know, 85dB wideband average, perhaps 95 on some peaks. It sounded great, but the next day I got a note on my door with a neighbor who wanted to complain about the sound level. So its back to 60-70dB.
You can't be inaccurate without a reference, maybe unclear sorry I left it that way. I think it was simply "they wanted it at 11".
It's interesting to see that preference has crept back into the ABX discussion. I thought valid tests for possibly subtle differences came first. There is the issue that arises when people can tell the difference and prefer the "wrong" choice.
This is my experience, there is nothing even remotely subtle about the differences in what my audio acquaintances prefer to listen to.
And of course unsighted listening = "forum" ABX only just keeps rolling.
This is my experience, there is nothing even remotely subtle about the differences in what my audio acquaintances prefer to listen to.
And of course unsighted listening = "forum" ABX only just keeps rolling.
Last edited:
It seems that most of us listen at quite low SPL level. You might like to use a unity gain class A power buffer then. You get both noise and distortion as low that there is no reason to speak about it. With a preamp that usually has gain like 5x (14dB) you would probably cover the SPL you need.
Just a small warning, in case you often listen to classical music, many pieces have so low average level that you need overall gain at least as I have mentioned, otherwise it will sound too silent.
Interestingly why do we mostly speak about "steamroller" amplifiers here, if the demand seems to be for lower power and lowest possible noise?
No trivial answers, please.
Hi Ed
I understand what 110 dBA or 110dBC (fast or slow) means .
But what this lower case a stands for in these:
110dBa with a fast response "C"
110dBa slow "A" weighted
George
Yes, that's right, he says it does, a good reason to get out more and stop reading books about audio perception and just do it.
Do you use this description of the hearing process as input when designing your products?
If so, how?
//
If so, how?
//
Last edited:
Maybe the reason for this fact is:
The James Randi Educational Foundation's Million Dollar Challenge has been terminated.
(source:The Million Dollar Challenge - JREF)
a more detailed description of the situation:
JREF Status - JREF
Simply no, as no further negotations about the specifics were done. Randi "weaseled" out, which means from an objective point of view he was not acting in goog faith, used dubious statements as arguments and violated/changed the rules of the JREF challengs during the back and forth with Michael Fremer.
Pavel,
If one has inefficient loudspeakers and listens near field the background noise may be matched at the listener's ears by a power level of a milliwatt or two into the loudspeakers. To clearly hear a soft passage you would want about a tenth of a watt going into the loudspeaker. Even better would be a full watt or so. So the maximum power issue becomes what dynamic range is available on the recordings you are listening to.
In practice live music follows the same signal to noise ratios. You would probably not enjoy a concert where you could not clearly hear the soft passages. That would set the lower limit of the possible dynamic range of a recording. The upper limit would be how loud a human can make an instrument sound.
Been a while since I measured that but it would be at least 4 bells. So add 4 zeros to the power requirements! Maybe even 5!
If one has inefficient loudspeakers and listens near field the background noise may be matched at the listener's ears by a power level of a milliwatt or two into the loudspeakers. To clearly hear a soft passage you would want about a tenth of a watt going into the loudspeaker. Even better would be a full watt or so. So the maximum power issue becomes what dynamic range is available on the recordings you are listening to.
In practice live music follows the same signal to noise ratios. You would probably not enjoy a concert where you could not clearly hear the soft passages. That would set the lower limit of the possible dynamic range of a recording. The upper limit would be how loud a human can make an instrument sound.
Been a while since I measured that but it would be at least 4 bells. So add 4 zeros to the power requirements! Maybe even 5!
Ed, this is more than obvious to most of us, I would say. However, I know there is a huge difference in the listening level chosen by my various visitors, even if we listen to the same recording. Some of them prefer to listen at so high level, that my 200W amp gets close to clipping in fff peaks (85dB/2.83Vrms/1m speaker sensitivity). Some of them listen at level that 2W are barely attacked. So if Daniel says he listens at low volume level, I am suggesting a class A unity gain power buffer + preamp, provided that he uses something like 85-90dB/2.83V/1m speakers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.