"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
First: studio recording of acoustical instruments result
in music registrations --what's your hang-up 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
While $200 will get you a mic with a 12 dB SPL noise
figure, no amount of money will get you a concert hall
with 100 people in it that has a 12 dB SPL noise floor.
studio recording of acoustical instruments - doesn't read
like "concert hall with 100 people" agreed ?
It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly
different when it comes to dynamic range.
Close miking just about anything will quickly get you
in the 110+ dB SPL range, so a 100 dB range is possible
for sure.
Ignorance of concert hall noise floors, particularly
those with people, even just the musicians in them,
noted.
studio recording of acoustical instruments - doesn't read
like "concert hall with 100 people" agreed ?
It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly
different when it comes to dynamic range.
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 noise floor of a concert hall is usually quite
pervasive. Furthermore, its pretty much guaranteed that
the noisiest part of the room is where the people are,
even if its just the musicians.
studio recording of acoustical instruments - doesn't read
like "concert hall with 100 people" agreed ?
It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly
different when it comes to dynamic range.
The master recording's dynamic range can, depending on
composition, etc., very well be in excess of 90 dB.
It just doesn't seem to happen.
I believe it was DBX claiming a 100 dB requirement for
the recording of acoustical instruments' performances.
I guess you haven't figured out that vendor claims and
the fact can be slightly divergent at times.
A lot of recordings are said to be made without
compression or gain riding, and I see no reason for so
many people to lie about it. If you look at actual
recording, the dynamic range pretty well peaks out below
75 dB.
Second: many types of music don't use acoustical
instruments, or exclusively so, yet also do not start
out as amplified music, so another straw man 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*.
Again, your ignorance is showing. While electronic
instruments may create sounds over 100 dB, their dynamic
range is often quite less. I routinely record electronic
keyboards for example. They often have noise floors that
are only 60-70 dB down. Remember, they have analog
circuitry in them as well, even if the notes are
generated digitally.
physical modeling, e.g.. from applied acoustics systems,
use
the available soundcard, calculated at 32 bit floating,
upto 24
bit 192 kHz sample size, why would that 60-70 be the
case, Arny ? Kurzweil, Korg, Yamaha, Alesis, etc.
keyboards of today all use that or similar formats, not
really comparable with stuff
from the 70's.
All you're doing is talking theory.
If things were as you say, recordings with 80 dB would be
commonplace. In fact, they are like hen's teeth.
AFAIK, the widest dynamic range recording that has been
distributed to the public is this one:
http://64.41.69.21/technical/referen...gle-2_2496.wav
I know exactly what it took to make it.
Your challenge - find a real world recording with more
dynamic range.