"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
: On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:48:41 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
: wrote:

some snippin' required, so here goes
: : Your idiocy continues. That's the noise floor of the concert hall,
: : only studio recordings are able to get below a 30dB noise floor, and
: : that would require pretty quiet breathing on the part of the
: : performers.
: : As noted above, with only me sitting quietly in it, my
: : listening room is somewhere in the mid-20s (very difficult to measure
: : due to self-noise in the microphone).

: Interesting tactic - first rewriting music as _live music_, then claiming
: from that point onwards that's what i wrote
: - taken lessons in the debating trade ?
:
: Your stupidity appears to be unbounded - specifying live music, i.e.
: acoustic jazz, classical etc, works in your favour, as amplified music
: has even less dynamic range.
:
First: studio recording of acoustical instruments result in music registrations
--what's your hangup with 'concert hall noise floor' as being in some way
relevant with such a registration? Self-noise of competent microphones is below
20 dB SPL, eg. AT 3035 - a USD 200 job - states 12 dB SPL eq. noise level
Close miking just about anything will quickly get you in the 110+ dB SPL
range, so a 100 dB range is possible for sure. Of course this also depends on
the lowest acoustical level attainable from the instrument/environment .
Directional microphones / noise gates, etc. are used to minimize mechanical
noise,
if necessary.
The master recording's dynamic range can, depending on composition, etc.,
very well be in excess of 90 dB.
I believe it was dbx claiming a 100 dB requirement for the recording of
acoustical instruments' performances.

Second: many types of music don't use acoustical instruments, or exclusively so,
yet also do not start out as amplified music, so another strawman there noted.
Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a dynamic range that
is limited by the electronics used, that is *well over 100 dB*.

: : : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
: :
: : As from environmental factors, 27 dB daytime eq. reported in NL iirc.
: : That's in average living rooms, should be better in your dedicated room
: : , i presume.
: :
: : I have yet to find an *average* living room that quiet, I'd have said
: : that 30-35 dB was more normal in daytime, more for urban dwellings.
: :
: : I'm not confusing, i'm detracting one from the other, eh ?
: : in this case**, 110 - 20 = 90 dB range.
: :
: : From where did you get the 20?
: I got lucky - found it in a breakfast cereal box
: - where did you find your 40, P.?
:
: Acoustics textbooks, also wide experience or real concert halls.
:
make up your mind: is it wide experience OR real concert halls ?
:-)
: ...deceptive editing noted.....**
:
: : but anyway, surely you're not
: : saying that the background noise level in a listening room should
: : dictate the range that should be captured on a medium ?
: :
: : No, you completely misread what I wrote. For most people, it does
: : however set a limit of around 70-80dB in the replay system, from the
: : 30-35 of the room noise floor to the 105-110 of the system at the
: : listening position.
:
: agreed.
:
: Exceptionally quiet rooms housing exceptionally
: : powerful systems can extend this to a little more than 90dB, which is
: : wider than you'll ever need.
:
: a little more ? need ?? to use a direct quote: Bull****!
: evidently, _you_ misread music as live music ...
: without it, of course, you argumentation falls utterly apart.
:
: What lunacy is this? What kind of music do you now claim you are
: talking about?

See above.
Cheers,
Rudy: --
:
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering