[Eeyore]

John Phillips wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

It would depend on various factors: What kind of music you like. How large
your listening room is. What speakers you will be using. etc.

Classical music - not excessively loudly but of course orchestral
climaxes can be loud.
Digital sources - not vinyl.
Room 11' x 13' x 8' high (rather small probably for the speakers Focal
JMLab Chorus 714V Power handling 130W max (90W nom) Sensitivity 91dB)

An orchestra even in the auditorium can peak at over 120dB.

Do you have a reference for this? I have been looking for credible
sources for peak orchestral SPLs in the auditorium for a long while.

It's a 'well known fact' amongst audio professionals. Google it.


I have quite a few health & safety measurements of very good credibility
inside the orchestra and a few at the conductor's rostrum.

In other words completely useless because they haven't the tiniest clue what
they're measuring. Thankfully or even orchestras would have to be banned from
playing for HSE reasons.


However I have only semi-credible figures for places in the auditorium and they
only go up to 109 dB SPL.

A or C weighted on fast or slow response ? The average dB meter is about as useful
as a wet blanket when measuring either impulses or frankly most music. There is no
correlation between industrial hearing damage levels as measured by a typical dB
meter and music because the waveforms and wavefronts are WILDLY different.

Graham

p.s. I know what I'm talking about. Precious few do. But then I'm an audio
professional.

[[email protected]]

On 14 Oct, 00:40, Eeyore
wrote:
John Phillips wrote:
Eeyore *wrote:
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

It would depend on various factors: What kind of music you like. How large
your listening room is. What speakers you will be using. etc.

Classical music - not excessively loudly but of course orchestral
climaxes can be loud.
Digital sources - not vinyl.
Room 11' x 13' x 8' high (rather small probably for the speakers Focal
JMLab Chorus 714V Power handling 130W max (90W nom) Sensitivity 91dB)

An orchestra even in the auditorium can peak at over 120dB.

Do you have a reference for this? *I have been looking for credible
sources for peak orchestral SPLs in the auditorium for a long while.

It's a 'well known fact' amongst audio professionals. Google it.

I have quite a few health & safety measurements of very good credibility
inside the orchestra and a few at the conductor's rostrum.

In other words completely useless because they haven't the tiniest clue what
they're measuring. Thankfully or even orchestras would have to be banned from
playing for HSE reasons.

However I have only semi-credible figures for places in the auditorium and they
only go up to 109 dB SPL.

A or C weighted on fast or slow response ? The average dB meter is about as useful
as a wet blanket when measuring either impulses or frankly most music. There is no
correlation between industrial hearing damage levels as measured by a typical dB
meter and music because the waveforms and wavefronts are WILDLY different..

Graham

p.s. I know what I'm talking about. Precious few do. But then I'm an audio
professional.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Clearly then, you'll know that having two speakers increases the
nominal sensitivity by 3dB for a central sound, and having them in an
average living room gives you another 3dB or so of reverberant sound,
so you can hit a 120dB peak from 91 db/watt speakers with about 23dB
of amp power, which is 200 watts. Not trivial, but readily obtainable
from many modern amps.

[Eeyore]

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Phillips wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

It would depend on various factors: What kind of music you like. How large
your listening room is. What speakers you will be using. etc.

Classical music - not excessively loudly but of course orchestral
climaxes can be loud.
Digital sources - not vinyl.
Room 11' x 13' x 8' high (rather small probably for the speakers Focal
JMLab Chorus 714V Power handling 130W max (90W nom) Sensitivity 91dB)

An orchestra even in the auditorium can peak at over 120dB.

Do you have a reference for this? I have been looking for credible
sources for peak orchestral SPLs in the auditorium for a long while.

It's a 'well known fact' amongst audio professionals. Google it.

I have quite a few health & safety measurements of very good credibility
inside the orchestra and a few at the conductor's rostrum.

In other words completely useless because they haven't the tiniest clue what
they're measuring. Thankfully or even orchestras would have to be banned from
playing for HSE reasons.

However I have only semi-credible figures for places in the auditorium and they
only go up to 109 dB SPL.

A or C weighted on fast or slow response ? The average dB meter is about as useful
as a wet blanket when measuring either impulses or frankly most music. There is no
correlation between industrial hearing damage levels as measured by a typical dB
meter and music because the waveforms and wavefronts are WILDLY different.

Graham

p.s. I know what I'm talking about. Precious few do. But then I'm an audio
professional.- Hide quoted text -

Clearly then, you'll know that having two speakers increases the
nominal sensitivity by 3dB for a central sound, and having them in an
average living room gives you another 3dB or so of reverberant sound,
so you can hit a 120dB peak from 91 db/watt speakers with about 23dB
of amp power, which is 200 watts.

Where in the room ? Sensitivity is measured at 1 m.


Not trivial, but readily obtainable from many modern amps.

Also depends on the size of the room, furnishings, surface reflectivities etc.

My numbers related only to the nearfield SPL. Total generalisations are impossible.

Graham

[Jim Lesurf[_2_]]

In article
,
wrote:
On 14 Oct, 00:40, Eeyore wrote:
John Phillips wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

An orchestra even in the auditorium can peak at over 120dB.

Do you have a reference for this? I have been looking for credible
sources for peak orchestral SPLs in the auditorium for a long while.

It's a 'well known fact' amongst audio professionals. Google it.

For some reason I have come to be wary of claims thrown around on the basis
of being a "well known fact". That sometimes seems to mean, "Loads of
people have been saying it to one another on the basis that someone else
told them. They've been doing this for so long that no-one can recall who
made it up in the first place." :-)


In other words completely useless because they haven't the tiniest
clue what they're measuring. Thankfully or even orchestras would have
to be banned from playing for HSE reasons.

However I have only semi-credible figures for places in the
auditorium and they only go up to 109 dB SPL.

IIRC I read an old article by John Crabbe a while ago that reported
measurements. I can't recall details, but if I do I'll report them.


Clearly then, you'll know that having two speakers increases the nominal
sensitivity by 3dB for a central sound, and having them in an average
living room gives you another 3dB or so of reverberant sound, so you can
hit a 120dB peak from 91 db/watt speakers with about 23dB of amp power,
which is 200 watts. Not trivial, but readily obtainable from many modern
amps.

FWIW The effect of room reverb in UK domestic rooms might be somewhat
higher than a 3dB gain. I did some analysis of this a while ago (see Hi Fi
News August 2008). Hard to give a figure as it will probably vary from room
to room, but 3dB may be on the low side as an estimate of what is typical.
IIRC some texts also give details that indicate well above 3dB for this.

That said (again as discussed in the HFN article) there is a distinction
between the actual instantaneous peak measured power, and the peak level
perceived, due to the way human hearing tends to 'integrate' the effect of
short term delayed reflections into one percieved peak.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Eeyore]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

wrote:
On 14 Oct, 00:40, Eeyore wrote:
John Phillips wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

An orchestra even in the auditorium can peak at over 120dB.

Do you have a reference for this? I have been looking for credible
sources for peak orchestral SPLs in the auditorium for a long while.

It's a 'well known fact' amongst audio professionals. Google it.

For some reason I have come to be wary of claims thrown around on the basis
of being a "well known fact".

It was actually intentionally slightly tongue in cheek, but remeber I am
referring to PEAK levels not average levels which dB meters read.


That sometimes seems to mean, "Loads of
people have been saying it to one another on the basis that someone else
told them. They've been doing this for so long that no-one can recall who
made it up in the first place." :-)

See above.


In other words completely useless because they haven't the tiniest
clue what they're measuring. Thankfully or even orchestras would have
to be banned from playing for HSE reasons.

However I have only semi-credible figures for places in the
auditorium and they only go up to 109 dB SPL.

IIRC I read an old article by John Crabbe a while ago that reported
measurements. I can't recall details, but if I do I'll report them.

Clearly then, you'll know that having two speakers increases the nominal
sensitivity by 3dB for a central sound, and having them in an average
living room gives you another 3dB or so of reverberant sound, so you can
hit a 120dB peak from 91 db/watt speakers with about 23dB of amp power,
which is 200 watts. Not trivial, but readily obtainable from many modern
amps.

FWIW The effect of room reverb in UK domestic rooms might be somewhat
higher than a 3dB gain. I did some analysis of this a while ago (see Hi Fi
News August 2008). Hard to give a figure as it will probably vary from room
to room, but 3dB may be on the low side as an estimate of what is typical.
IIRC some texts also give details that indicate well above 3dB for this.

3dB relative to WHAT ? Are you familiar with nearfield and farfield
measurements ?


That said (again as discussed in the HFN article) there is a distinction
between the actual instantaneous peak measured power, and the peak level
perceived, due to the way human hearing tends to 'integrate' the effect of
short term delayed reflections into one percieved peak.

Quite. It's not simple.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

wrote:
On 14 Oct, 00:40, Eeyore wrote:
John Phillips wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

An orchestra even in the auditorium can peak at over 120dB.

Do you have a reference for this? I have been looking for credible
sources for peak orchestral SPLs in the auditorium for a long while.

It's a 'well known fact' amongst audio professionals. Google it.

For some reason I have come to be wary of claims thrown around on the basis
of being a "well known fact".

http://www.musicalfidelity.com/produ..._response.html

" We know for a fact that concert hall peak sound pressure level (SPL) for a
medium sized symphony orchestra is 109-110dB. For a big symphony orchestra or
rock concert the levels are much higher."

And the nearer you sit !

Graham

[Jim Lesurf[_2_]]

In article , Eeyore
wrote:


Jim Lesurf wrote:

wrote:
On 14 Oct, 00:40, Eeyore
wrote:

It's a 'well known fact' amongst audio professionals. Google it.

For some reason I have come to be wary of claims thrown around on the
basis of being a "well known fact".

It was actually intentionally slightly tongue in cheek, but remeber I am
referring to PEAK levels not average levels which dB meters read.

I was aware of that. For all I know, the claim is quite accurate. But the
problem is the one I described.


That sometimes seems to mean, "Loads of people have been saying it to
one another on the basis that someone else told them. They've been
doing this for so long that no-one can recall who made it up in the
first place." :-)

See above.

See above. :-)



Clearly then, you'll know that having two speakers increases the
nominal sensitivity by 3dB for a central sound, and having them in
an average living room gives you another 3dB or so of reverberant
sound, so you can hit a 120dB peak from 91 db/watt speakers with
about 23dB of amp power, which is 200 watts. Not trivial, but
readily obtainable from many modern amps.

FWIW The effect of room reverb in UK domestic rooms might be somewhat
higher than a 3dB gain. I did some analysis of this a while ago (see
Hi Fi News August 2008). Hard to give a figure as it will probably
vary from room to room, but 3dB may be on the low side as an estimate
of what is typical. IIRC some texts also give details that indicate
well above 3dB for this.

3dB relative to WHAT ?

If you look at what Stewart wrote (Hi, Stewart! :-) ) that seems to be
comparing the effect of the room reverb with a situation where such reverb
would be absent. At least that is my understanding of his saying,
"...having them in an average living room gives you another 3dB or so of
reverberant sound..." If that is wrong, I'm sure he will correct me, but
that was what I then was referring to. Sorry if you didn't follow what I
wrote.


Are you familiar with nearfield and farfield measurements ?

Yes - although you haven't said which particular mechanisms you have in
mind for the factor(s) which affect how they differ, so I don't know which
one(s) you have in mind. Have you read the article I referred to?


That said (again as discussed in the HFN article) there is a
distinction between the actual instantaneous peak measured power, and
the peak level perceived, due to the way human hearing tends to
'integrate' the effect of short term delayed reflections into one
percieved peak.

Quite. It's not simple.

That was indeed, part of my point. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Jim Lesurf[_2_]]

In article , Eeyore
wrote:


Jim Lesurf wrote:

For some reason I have come to be wary of claims thrown around on the
basis of being a "well known fact".

http://www.musicalfidelity.com/produ..._response.html

" We know for a fact that concert hall peak sound pressure level (SPL)
for a medium sized symphony orchestra is 109-110dB. For a big symphony
orchestra or rock concert the levels are much higher."

Interesting that he seems able to narrow down all orchestras to a 1dB range
like that. Reminiscent of the way undergrads sometimes write down a lab
experiment result to as many significant figures as their hand calculator
displays - regardless of having input figures only roughly accurate. :-)

I also still have my natty copy of the 'sliderule' he had sent out with one
issue of HFN. This seems to imply I should change to a more powerful amp. I
confess seeing this was one of the things that prompted my curiosity and
lead to the HFN article I mentioned. Like yourself, I suspect, I've spent
far more hours than any sane person should watching a scope display, etc,
of power amp output whilst playing music to see what demands the music
waveforms place on the amp and speakers.

My personal conclusion was that his sliderule rather over-egged how much
amplifier power I'd need for my domestic use. However my listening room is
somewhat smaller than the Royal Festival Hall... ;-

As I wrote, it seems common for people to make assertions on the basis of
"we know that", or "everyone knows that". But alas making such a claim does
not automatically make an assertion true. Of course, that doesn't make it
false, either.

And the nearer you sit !

....although of course since you mentioned nearfield versus farfield in
another posting you will doubtless be aware that this does not always
follow the 1/r^2 law you might expect from school physics books. :-)

Like John Phillips I've seen assertions about this on many occasions.
However also like him, I can't recall seeing reliable peak measurement
values. Although I do recall reading recently the old article by JC I can't
currently remember which back-issue this was, or what values her got.

The peaks may well reach 120dB [1], that seems quite possible to me. But
plausible assumptions or assertions aren't actually measured results. As I
explained, I've seen all kinds of claims made by people on the "everyone
knows" basis, and have become wary of simply believing everything I'm told.
Up to you what you believe, but I'd prefer evidence when possible.

Slainte,

Jim


[1] You might apply your own "reference what?" question here, BTW. :-)

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Eeyore]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

FWIW The effect of room reverb in UK domestic rooms might be somewhat
higher than a 3dB gain. I did some analysis of this a while ago (see
Hi Fi News August 2008). Hard to give a figure as it will probably
vary from room to room, but 3dB may be on the low side as an estimate
of what is typical. IIRC some texts also give details that indicate
well above 3dB for this.

3dB relative to WHAT ?

If you look at what Stewart wrote (Hi, Stewart! :-) ) that seems to be
comparing the effect of the room reverb with a situation where such reverb
would be absent. At least that is my understanding of his saying,
"...having them in an average living room gives you another 3dB or so of
reverberant sound..." If that is wrong, I'm sure he will correct me, but
that was what I then was referring to. Sorry if you didn't follow what I
wrote.

It's certainly true that a domestic room will have a far or ambient field that
is greater than an anechoic chanber. Ever been in one btw ? They're really odd.

But then again does one listen to one's speakers at 1 metre distance usually ?
so the SPL will have dropped off by X dB anyway by the time it reaches the
sofa.


Are you familiar with nearfield and farfield measurements ?

Yes - although you haven't said which particular mechanisms you have in
mind for the factor(s) which affect how they differ, so I don't know which
one(s) you have in mind. Have you read the article I referred to?

Don't need to. In the near field, SPL will drop off at a rate of 6dB per
doubling of distance (inverse square law). In the far field it's anyone's guess
due to all the factors previously mentioned. Where the far field begins depends
the size of your room and those other factors.


That said (again as discussed in the HFN article) there is a
distinction between the actual instantaneous peak measured power, and
the peak level perceived, due to the way human hearing tends to
'integrate' the effect of short term delayed reflections into one
percieved peak.

Quite. It's not simple.

That was indeed, part of my point. :-)

Ok.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

For some reason I have come to be wary of claims thrown around on the
basis of being a "well known fact".

http://www.musicalfidelity.com/produ..._response.html

" We know for a fact that concert hall peak sound pressure level (SPL)
for a medium sized symphony orchestra is 109-110dB. For a big symphony
orchestra or rock concert the levels are much higher."

Interesting that he seems able to narrow down all orchestras to a 1dB range
like that. Reminiscent of the way undergrads sometimes write down a lab
experiment result to as many significant figures as their hand calculator
displays - regardless of having input figures only roughly accurate. :-)

I also still have my natty copy of the 'sliderule' he had sent out with one
issue of HFN. This seems to imply I should change to a more powerful amp. I
confess seeing this was one of the things that prompted my curiosity and
lead to the HFN article I mentioned. Like yourself, I suspect, I've spent
far more hours than any sane person should watching a scope display, etc,
of power amp output whilst playing music to see what demands the music
waveforms place on the amp and speakers.

My personal conclusion was that his sliderule rather over-egged how much
amplifier power I'd need for my domestic use. However my listening room is
somewhat smaller than the Royal Festival Hall... ;-

As I wrote, it seems common for people to make assertions on the basis of
"we know that", or "everyone knows that". But alas making such a claim does
not automatically make an assertion true. Of course, that doesn't make it
false, either.

And the nearer you sit !

...although of course since you mentioned nearfield versus farfield in
another posting you will doubtless be aware that this does not always
follow the 1/r^2 law you might expect from school physics books. :-)

Like John Phillips I've seen assertions about this on many occasions.
However also like him, I can't recall seeing reliable peak measurement
values. Although I do recall reading recently the old article by JC I can't
currently remember which back-issue this was, or what values her got.

The peaks may well reach 120dB [1], that seems quite possible to me. But
plausible assumptions or assertions aren't actually measured results. As I
explained, I've seen all kinds of claims made by people on the "everyone
knows" basis, and have become wary of simply believing everything I'm told.
Up to you what you believe, but I'd prefer evidence when possible.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] You might apply your own "reference what?" question here, BTW. :-)

Seems to be tricky to find anything actually.

This mic has a max input SPL of 134dB which receives the comment "Hi-SPL
handling is perfect for suspension over choirs and orchestras"

http://www.dv247.com/invt/11582/

Graham

[John Phillips[_2_]]

On 2008-10-13, Eeyore wrote:


John Phillips wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

It would depend on various factors: What kind of music you like. How large
your listening room is. What speakers you will be using. etc.

Classical music - not excessively loudly but of course orchestral
climaxes can be loud.
Digital sources - not vinyl.
Room 11' x 13' x 8' high (rather small probably for the speakers Focal
JMLab Chorus 714V Power handling 130W max (90W nom) Sensitivity 91dB)

An orchestra even in the auditorium can peak at over 120dB.

Do you have a reference for this? I have been looking for credible
sources for peak orchestral SPLs in the auditorium for a long while.

It's a 'well known fact' amongst audio professionals. Google it.

I have indeed Googled it rather extensively. What I mostly see is
unsupported assertion that seems to have been copied without question
from unsupported sources. I have seen no good, well-documented evidence.
This is why I am interested in asking.

I have quite a few health & safety measurements of very good credibility
inside the orchestra and a few at the conductor's rostrum.

In other words completely useless because they haven't the tiniest clue what
they're measuring. Thankfully or even orchestras would have to be banned from
playing for HSE reasons.

You have it quite wrong. The H&S reports (typically for North American
orchestras) are not always perfect but they usually are good enough
at specifying the instrument and what it was set to measure. On the
credibility scale they rate generally well. I am happy to accept peak
levels inside the orchestra well on the eye-watering side of 130 dB SPL.

However while these are good enough measurements for checking musicians'
exposure to sound, they don't give the positional data for source and
measurement to allow projection to levels in the auditorium.

However I have only semi-credible figures for places in the auditorium and they
only go up to 109 dB SPL.

A or C weighted on fast or slow response ? The average dB meter is about as useful
as a wet blanket when measuring either impulses or frankly most music. There is no
correlation between industrial hearing damage levels as measured by a typical dB
meter and music because the waveforms and wavefronts are WILDLY different.

Good questions - these are exactly why I am not happy with the
"semi-credible" source in question. BTW this particular source was the
one Musical Fidelity used in the advertising that's been brought up later
in this thread. And used by HFN in its fairly recent "how much power do
you need" articles.

So, at the risk of giving offence I am afraid I am still not prepared to
assign any credibility to unsupported assertions of "well known fact".
For exactly the reasons you state. That's why I am still interested in
seeking credible, well supported data.

--
John Phillips

[John Phillips[_2_]]

On 2008-10-14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Eeyore
wrote:


Jim Lesurf wrote:

I also still have my natty copy of the 'sliderule' he had sent out with one
issue of HFN. This seems to imply I should change to a more powerful amp. I
confess seeing this was one of the things that prompted my curiosity and
lead to the HFN article I mentioned. Like yourself, I suspect, I've spent
far more hours than any sane person should watching a scope display, etc,
of power amp output whilst playing music to see what demands the music
waveforms place on the amp and speakers.

Some time ago John Crabbe reported published work in which listeners'
perception of the same absolute loudness was rather different when they
were listening in a large concert hall compared to a domestic listening
room. This would suggest you do indeed need less in SPL terms at home
than you get in the auditorium.

--
John Phillips

[tony sayer]

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrela
scribeth thus


Jim Lesurf wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

For some reason I have come to be wary of claims thrown around on the
basis of being a "well known fact".

http://www.musicalfidelity.com/produ..._response.html

" We know for a fact that concert hall peak sound pressure level (SPL)
for a medium sized symphony orchestra is 109-110dB. For a big symphony
orchestra or rock concert the levels are much higher."

Interesting that he seems able to narrow down all orchestras to a 1dB range
like that. Reminiscent of the way undergrads sometimes write down a lab
experiment result to as many significant figures as their hand calculator
displays - regardless of having input figures only roughly accurate. :-)

I also still have my natty copy of the 'sliderule' he had sent out with one
issue of HFN. This seems to imply I should change to a more powerful amp. I
confess seeing this was one of the things that prompted my curiosity and
lead to the HFN article I mentioned. Like yourself, I suspect, I've spent
far more hours than any sane person should watching a scope display, etc,
of power amp output whilst playing music to see what demands the music
waveforms place on the amp and speakers.

My personal conclusion was that his sliderule rather over-egged how much
amplifier power I'd need for my domestic use. However my listening room is
somewhat smaller than the Royal Festival Hall... ;-

As I wrote, it seems common for people to make assertions on the basis of
"we know that", or "everyone knows that". But alas making such a claim does
not automatically make an assertion true. Of course, that doesn't make it
false, either.

And the nearer you sit !

...although of course since you mentioned nearfield versus farfield in
another posting you will doubtless be aware that this does not always
follow the 1/r^2 law you might expect from school physics books. :-)

Like John Phillips I've seen assertions about this on many occasions.
However also like him, I can't recall seeing reliable peak measurement
values. Although I do recall reading recently the old article by JC I can't
currently remember which back-issue this was, or what values her got.

The peaks may well reach 120dB [1], that seems quite possible to me. But
plausible assumptions or assertions aren't actually measured results. As I
explained, I've seen all kinds of claims made by people on the "everyone
knows" basis, and have become wary of simply believing everything I'm told.
Up to you what you believe, but I'd prefer evidence when possible.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] You might apply your own "reference what?" question here, BTW. :-)

Seems to be tricky to find anything actually.

This mic has a max input SPL of 134dB which receives the comment "Hi-SPL
handling is perfect for suspension over choirs and orchestras"

http://www.dv247.com/invt/11582/

Graham



Can't say any prom or other concert I've been to this year was "that"
loud and most we're quite quiet..
--
Tony Sayer

[Eeyore]

John Phillips wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Phillips wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

It would depend on various factors: What kind of music you like. How large
your listening room is. What speakers you will be using. etc.

Classical music - not excessively loudly but of course orchestral
climaxes can be loud.
Digital sources - not vinyl.
Room 11' x 13' x 8' high (rather small probably for the speakers Focal
JMLab Chorus 714V Power handling 130W max (90W nom) Sensitivity 91dB)

An orchestra even in the auditorium can peak at over 120dB.

Do you have a reference for this? I have been looking for credible
sources for peak orchestral SPLs in the auditorium for a long while.

It's a 'well known fact' amongst audio professionals. Google it.

I have indeed Googled it rather extensively. What I mostly see is
unsupported assertion that seems to have been copied without question
from unsupported sources. I have seen no good, well-documented evidence.
This is why I am interested in asking.

I have quite a few health & safety measurements of very good credibility
inside the orchestra and a few at the conductor's rostrum.

In other words completely useless because they haven't the tiniest clue what
they're measuring. Thankfully or even orchestras would have to be banned from
playing for HSE reasons.

You have it quite wrong. The H&S reports (typically for North American
orchestras) are not always perfect but they usually are good enough
at specifying the instrument and what it was set to measure.

If they're anything like our HSE, they only ever measure dBA, which is absurdly wrong
at high volume levels.

I assume you know why ?


On the credibility scale they rate generally well. I am happy to accept peak
levels inside the orchestra well on the eye-watering side of 130 dB SPL.

Very likely.


However while these are good enough measurements for checking musicians'
exposure to sound, they don't give the positional data for source and
measurement to allow projection to levels in the auditorium.

It's complex for 101 reasons.


However I have only semi-credible figures for places in the auditorium and they
only go up to 109 dB SPL.

Undoubtedly averaged not peak.


A or C weighted on fast or slow response ? The average dB meter is about as useful
as a wet blanket when measuring either impulses or frankly most music. There is no
correlation between industrial hearing damage levels as measured by a typical dB
meter and music because the waveforms and wavefronts are WILDLY different.

Good questions - these are exactly why I am not happy with the
"semi-credible" source in question. BTW this particular source was the
one Musical Fidelity used in the advertising that's been brought up later
in this thread. And used by HFN in its fairly recent "how much power do
you need" articles.

So, at the risk of giving offence I am afraid I am still not prepared to
assign any credibility to unsupported assertions of "well known fact".
For exactly the reasons you state. That's why I am still interested in
seeking credible, well supported data.

I only wish I could quote you a Studio Sound article of about 30 years ago.

As I said audio-pros understand it.

Graham

[Eeyore]

John Phillips wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I also still have my natty copy of the 'sliderule' he had sent out with one
issue of HFN. This seems to imply I should change to a more powerful amp. I
confess seeing this was one of the things that prompted my curiosity and
lead to the HFN article I mentioned. Like yourself, I suspect, I've spent
far more hours than any sane person should watching a scope display, etc,
of power amp output whilst playing music to see what demands the music
waveforms place on the amp and speakers.

Some time ago John Crabbe reported published work in which listeners'
perception of the same absolute loudness was rather different when they
were listening in a large concert hall compared to a domestic listening
room. This would suggest you do indeed need less in SPL terms at home
than you get in the auditorium.

Because the nearfield and farfield are closer at home.

Graham

[Robert Orban]

In article ,
says...

Seems to be tricky to find anything actually.

This mic has a max input SPL of 134dB which receives the comment "Hi-SPL
handling is perfect for suspension over choirs and orchestras"

http://www.dv247.com/invt/11582/

Try this:

Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of Music
JAES Volume 30 Issue 7/8 pp. 504-511; August 1982

A dynamic range of up to 118 dB is determined necessary for subjectively
noise-free reproeuction of music in an audio recorder with a white-noise
floor. Maximum peak sound-pressure levels in music are compared to the minimum
discernible level of white noise in a quiet listening situation. Microphone
noise limitations, monitoring loudspeaker capabilities, and performance
environment noise levels are also considered.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA

[Robert Orban]

In article ,
says...

...and there's also this, which explicitly references peak level measurements:

Pre- and Postemphasis Techniques as Applied to Audio Recording Systems
JAES Volume 33 Issue 9 pp. 649-658; September 1985

Audio recorders benefit from pre- and postemphasis, which reshapes the noise
spectrum to match human audibility thresholds. A 10-dB increase in apparent
dynamic range is realized for some digital audio systems. A first-order boost
based on the CCITT J.17 preemphasis standard is shown to be appropriate for
dynamic range expansion. A survey of peak acoustic levels present in 36 music
performances is also included.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA

[Eeyore]

Robert Orban wrote:

says...

Seems to be tricky to find anything actually.

This mic has a max input SPL of 134dB which receives the comment "Hi-SPL
handling is perfect for suspension over choirs and orchestras"

http://www.dv247.com/invt/11582/

Try this:

Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of Music
JAES Volume 30 Issue 7/8 pp. 504-511; August 1982

A dynamic range of up to 118 dB is determined necessary for subjectively
noise-free reproeuction of music in an audio recorder with a white-noise
floor. Maximum peak sound-pressure levels in music are compared to the minimum
discernible level of white noise in a quiet listening situation. Microphone
noise limitations, monitoring loudspeaker capabilities, and performance
environment noise levels are also considered.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA

Well, I never imagined I'd have Bob Orban backing me up on a technical issue !

Thanks Bob !

Graham

[Jim Lesurf[_2_]]

In article , Eeyore
wrote:


Jim Lesurf wrote:

Eeyore wrote:


If you look at what Stewart wrote (Hi, Stewart! :-) ) that seems to be
comparing the effect of the room reverb with a situation where such
reverb would be absent. At least that is my understanding of his
saying, "...having them in an average living room gives you another
3dB or so of reverberant sound..." If that is wrong, I'm sure he will
correct me, but that was what I then was referring to. Sorry if you
didn't follow what I wrote.

It's certainly true that a domestic room will have a far or ambient
field that is greater than an anechoic chanber. Ever been in one btw ?

Yes. Although 'retired' as an academic I still have my old University
anechoic chamber as a 'lab'. (This translates to my also using its anteroom
as my 'office' when in the physics building. :-) )

They're really odd.

Indeed. :-)

But then again does one listen to one's speakers at 1 metre distance
usually ? so the SPL will have dropped off by X dB anyway by the time it
reaches the sofa.

Indeed. That will tend to happen.


Are you familiar with nearfield and farfield measurements ?

Yes - although you haven't said which particular mechanisms you have
in mind for the factor(s) which affect how they differ, so I don't
know which one(s) you have in mind. Have you read the article I
referred to?

Don't need to. In the near field, SPL will drop off at a rate of 6dB per
doubling of distance (inverse square law).

You haven't noticed that close-in that general assumption may break down?
Consider what happens for example when your distance from the source is
both less than a wavelength and less than a source diameter. Have you seen
the AES papers, etc, that deal with sound levels close in?

There is an analogy here with RF antennas. Near to the antenna the fields
are not simply 'radiated in free space', and the change in level with
nominal distance isn't inverse square. Nor is the wave impedance always the
same as for open space propagation.

So the difficulty here is that 'near field' has more than one defining
meaning. For room acoustics it may mean relative to the boundary between
being dominated by the direct radiation and the reverberant. But there are
other effects.


In the far field it's anyone's guess due to all the factors previously
mentioned. Where the far field begins depends the size of your room and
those other factors.

Indeed. This is one of the reasons the MF 'sliderule' was somewhat
misleading.

BTW I just paused as I heard that Winter is approaching. The geese are
flying over. So loud that I can hear them though the double-glazing. Nice
sound, but sorry to wave farewell to summer...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Jim Lesurf[_2_]]

In article , John Phillips
wrote:
On 2008-10-14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Eeyore
wrote:


Jim Lesurf wrote:

I also still have my natty copy of the 'sliderule' he had sent out
with one issue of HFN. This seems to imply I should change to a more
powerful amp. I confess seeing this was one of the things that
prompted my curiosity and lead to the HFN article I mentioned. Like
yourself, I suspect, I've spent far more hours than any sane person
should watching a scope display, etc, of power amp output whilst
playing music to see what demands the music waveforms place on the amp
and speakers.

Some time ago John Crabbe reported published work in which listeners'
perception of the same absolute loudness was rather different when they
were listening in a large concert hall compared to a domestic listening
room. This would suggest you do indeed need less in SPL terms at home
than you get in the auditorium.

Yes. I should make a public acknowledgement to JC here for that. I had read
his articles and long since forgotten about them. He then saw my article
and politely pointed out his own. I should have mentioned his articles as
references for people to check out. Will do so if I get a chance to write
more on the topic.

He - and some readers - described the perception as being a sort of audio
claustrophobia. This seems to be due to the short-time-delay nature of the
reflections in small domestic rooms. So the work in my article may point at
the cause. But at present it is hard to say for sure as there is a lack of
experimental data so far as I am aware.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Jim Lesurf[_2_]]

In article , Eeyore
wrote:


John Phillips wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I also still have my natty copy of the 'sliderule' he had sent out
with one issue of HFN. This seems to imply I should change to a more
powerful amp. I confess seeing this was one of the things that
prompted my curiosity and lead to the HFN article I mentioned. Like
yourself, I suspect, I've spent far more hours than any sane person
should watching a scope display, etc, of power amp output whilst
playing music to see what demands the music waveforms place on the
amp and speakers.

Some time ago John Crabbe reported published work in which listeners'
perception of the same absolute loudness was rather different when
they were listening in a large concert hall compared to a domestic
listening room. This would suggest you do indeed need less in SPL
terms at home than you get in the auditorium.

Because the nearfield and farfield are closer at home.

You may be confusing cause and effect with a situation where the same
mechanism is causing two effects. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[tony sayer]

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


Robert Orban wrote:

says...

Seems to be tricky to find anything actually.

This mic has a max input SPL of 134dB which receives the comment "Hi-SPL
handling is perfect for suspension over choirs and orchestras"

http://www.dv247.com/invt/11582/

Try this:

Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of Music
JAES Volume 30 Issue 7/8 pp. 504-511; August 1982

A dynamic range of up to 118 dB is determined necessary for subjectively
noise-free reproeuction of music in an audio recorder with a white-noise
floor. Maximum peak sound-pressure levels in music are compared to the minimum
discernible level of white noise in a quiet listening situation. Microphone
noise limitations, monitoring loudspeaker capabilities, and performance
environment noise levels are also considered.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA

Well, I never imagined I'd have Bob Orban backing me up on a technical issue !

Thanks Bob !

Graham



Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

[Jim Lesurf[_2_]]

In article ,
Robert
Orban wrote:
In article ,
says...

..and there's also this, which explicitly references peak level
measurements:

Pre- and Postemphasis Techniques as Applied to Audio Recording Systems
JAES Volume 33 Issue 9 pp. 649-658; September 1985

Thanks for the above. I've now had a chance to have a quick read-though of
it. I've probably missed things, and would need to check some of its
references, but my initial reactions were...

Firstly, that the levels reported are somewhat larger than asserted by
others elsewhere - e.g. already in this thread is values from MF. This
tends to support my suspicion that people assert numbers which may be
misleading if they don't actually know where they came from at origin.
Hence my preference for measured results. :-)

I wonder how that may relate to the following.

Secondly, that the paper doesn't give any real details of the peak meter
used. For example, not the bandwidth when 'flat', nor the response times of
the peak function. e.g. no value for underread of something like a
bandwidth-limited impulse. This might well affect results, but hard to say
more without any details.

Thirdly that the stats seem to be on a 'peak per concert' basis IIUC. Makes
me wonder what the time stats are as that might be a better guide.

However, thanks, very interesting. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Eeyore]

tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus
Robert Orban wrote:
says...

Seems to be tricky to find anything actually.

This mic has a max input SPL of 134dB which receives the comment "Hi-SPL
handling is perfect for suspension over choirs and orchestras"

http://www.dv247.com/invt/11582/

Try this:

Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of Music
JAES Volume 30 Issue 7/8 pp. 504-511; August 1982

A dynamic range of up to 118 dB is determined necessary for subjectively
noise-free reproeuction of music in an audio recorder with a white-noise
floor. Maximum peak sound-pressure levels in music are compared to the minimum
discernible level of white noise in a quiet listening situation. Microphone
noise limitations, monitoring loudspeaker capabilities, and performance
environment noise levels are also considered.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA

Well, I never imagined I'd have Bob Orban backing me up on a technical issue !

Thanks Bob !

Graham

Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

You can't win 'em all !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Phillips wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

I also still have my natty copy of the 'sliderule' he had sent out
with one issue of HFN. This seems to imply I should change to a more
powerful amp. I confess seeing this was one of the things that
prompted my curiosity and lead to the HFN article I mentioned. Like
yourself, I suspect, I've spent far more hours than any sane person
should watching a scope display, etc, of power amp output whilst
playing music to see what demands the music waveforms place on the
amp and speakers.

Some time ago John Crabbe reported published work in which listeners'
perception of the same absolute loudness was rather different when
they were listening in a large concert hall compared to a domestic
listening room. This would suggest you do indeed need less in SPL
terms at home than you get in the auditorium.

Because the nearfield and farfield are closer at home.

You may be confusing cause and effect with a situation where the same
mechanism is causing two effects. :-)

How large is your living room ?

I can assure you it'll be an issue for many Americans. ;~)

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Robert Orban wrote:

..and there's also this, which explicitly references peak level
measurements:

Pre- and Postemphasis Techniques as Applied to Audio Recording Systems
JAES Volume 33 Issue 9 pp. 649-658; September 1985

Thanks for the above. I've now had a chance to have a quick read-though of
it. I've probably missed things, and would need to check some of its
references, but my initial reactions were...

Firstly, that the levels reported are somewhat larger than asserted by
others elsewhere - e.g. already in this thread is values from MF. This
tends to support my suspicion that people assert numbers which may be
misleading if they don't actually know where they came from at origin.
Hence my preference for measured results. :-)

I wonder how that may relate to the following.

Secondly, that the paper doesn't give any real details of the peak meter
used. For example, not the bandwidth when 'flat', nor the response times of
the peak function. e.g. no value for underread of something like a
bandwidth-limited impulse. This might well affect results, but hard to say
more without any details.

Fast track and hold would be the only viable method.

Graham

[tony sayer]

BTW I just paused as I heard that Winter is approaching. The geese are
flying over. So loud that I can hear them though the double-glazing. Nice
sound, but sorry to wave farewell to summer...

What summer was that then?..


Slainte,

Jim


--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus
Robert Orban wrote:
says...

Seems to be tricky to find anything actually.

This mic has a max input SPL of 134dB which receives the comment "Hi-SPL
handling is perfect for suspension over choirs and orchestras"

http://www.dv247.com/invt/11582/

Try this:

Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of Music
JAES Volume 30 Issue 7/8 pp. 504-511; August 1982

A dynamic range of up to 118 dB is determined necessary for subjectively
noise-free reproeuction of music in an audio recorder with a white-noise
floor. Maximum peak sound-pressure levels in music are compared to the
minimum
discernible level of white noise in a quiet listening situation. Microphone
noise limitations, monitoring loudspeaker capabilities, and performance
environment noise levels are also considered.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA

Well, I never imagined I'd have Bob Orban backing me up on a technical issue
!

Thanks Bob !

Graham

Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

You can't win 'em all !

No but theres a local station round these parts where the engineer does
give a monkeys but the programme controller only knows LOUD LOUD and
LOUDER!!! cos the bloke at the other station down the road is the same;;

All thinking LOUD is better..

The local community station ****es over all of them for absolute sound
quality)..

Graham



--
Tony Sayer

[Marky P]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:58:29 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus
Robert Orban wrote:
says...

Seems to be tricky to find anything actually.

This mic has a max input SPL of 134dB which receives the comment "Hi-SPL
handling is perfect for suspension over choirs and orchestras"

http://www.dv247.com/invt/11582/

Try this:

Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of Music
JAES Volume 30 Issue 7/8 pp. 504-511; August 1982

A dynamic range of up to 118 dB is determined necessary for subjectively
noise-free reproeuction of music in an audio recorder with a white-noise
floor. Maximum peak sound-pressure levels in music are compared to the
minimum
discernible level of white noise in a quiet listening situation. Microphone
noise limitations, monitoring loudspeaker capabilities, and performance
environment noise levels are also considered.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA

Well, I never imagined I'd have Bob Orban backing me up on a technical issue
!

Thanks Bob !

Graham

Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

You can't win 'em all !

No but theres a local station round these parts where the engineer does
give a monkeys but the programme controller only knows LOUD LOUD and
LOUDER!!! cos the bloke at the other station down the road is the same;;

All thinking LOUD is better..

The local community station ****es over all of them for absolute sound
quality)..

Graham


What station's that then?


Marky P.

[Eeyore]

tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus

Thanks Bob !

Graham

Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

You can't win 'em all !

No but theres a local station round these parts where the engineer does
give a monkeys but the programme controller only knows LOUD LOUD and
LOUDER!!! cos the bloke at the other station down the road is the same;;

All thinking LOUD is better..

The local community station ****es over all of them for absolute sound
quality)..

What's a community station ? :-(

For me, radio is all but finished. Apart from Radio 4 of course. It's the same pap
from every broadcaster. I can even recall several times changing channel and finding
the very same track being played on the new one. Grrrrrrrr.

Graham

[tony sayer]

In article , Marky P
scribeth thus
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:58:29 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus
Robert Orban wrote:
says...

Seems to be tricky to find anything actually.

This mic has a max input SPL of 134dB which receives the comment "Hi-SPL
handling is perfect for suspension over choirs and orchestras"

http://www.dv247.com/invt/11582/

Try this:

Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of
Music
JAES Volume 30 Issue 7/8 pp. 504-511; August 1982

A dynamic range of up to 118 dB is determined necessary for subjectively
noise-free reproeuction of music in an audio recorder with a white-noise
floor. Maximum peak sound-pressure levels in music are compared to the
minimum
discernible level of white noise in a quiet listening situation.
Microphone
noise limitations, monitoring loudspeaker capabilities, and performance
environment noise levels are also considered.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA

Well, I never imagined I'd have Bob Orban backing me up on a technical
issue
!

Thanks Bob !

Graham

Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

You can't win 'em all !

No but theres a local station round these parts where the engineer does
give a monkeys but the programme controller only knows LOUD LOUD and
LOUDER!!! cos the bloke at the other station down the road is the same;;

All thinking LOUD is better..

The local community station ****es over all of them for absolute sound
quality)..

Graham


What station's that then?


http://www.209radio.co.uk

Soon to have a new upgraded mixed polarisation aerial system to improve
coverage..

Pix on mb21 as soon as its done, with the newly refurbished one at Ely
Cathedral..

Marky P.

--
Tony Sayer

Bancom Communications U.K. Tel+44 1223 566577 Fax+44 1223 566588

4 Wingate close, Cambridge, England, CB2 9HW E-Mail

[tony sayer]

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus

Thanks Bob !

Graham

Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

You can't win 'em all !

No but theres a local station round these parts where the engineer does
give a monkeys but the programme controller only knows LOUD LOUD and
LOUDER!!! cos the bloke at the other station down the road is the same;;

All thinking LOUD is better..

The local community station ****es over all of them for absolute sound
quality)..

What's a community station ? :-(

For me, radio is all but finished. Apart from Radio 4 of course. It's the same
pap
from every broadcaster. I can even recall several times changing channel and
finding
the very same track being played on the new one. Grrrrrrrr.

Its a version of small scale local radio with very public access to
offer more locally focused programming.

Some downright weird .. some wonderful

Sunday's are excellent and "evening under lamplight" is as good as
anything the BBC could produce..


But NO centralised playlists and no talking down to the listener like
BBC local radio. Almost entirely staffed by volunteers..

http://www.209radio.co.uk/schedule/




Graham


--
Tony Sayer

[Marky P]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:04:45 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus

Thanks Bob !

Graham

Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

You can't win 'em all !

No but theres a local station round these parts where the engineer does
give a monkeys but the programme controller only knows LOUD LOUD and
LOUDER!!! cos the bloke at the other station down the road is the same;;

All thinking LOUD is better..

The local community station ****es over all of them for absolute sound
quality)..

What's a community station ? :-(

For me, radio is all but finished. Apart from Radio 4 of course. It's the same pap
from every broadcaster. I can even recall several times changing channel and finding
the very same track being played on the new one. Grrrrrrrr.

Graham

People used to slag off ILR radio in the past, but it's much worse now
than it's ever been! Haven't listened in a long time (only for
evaluation purposes).


Marky P.

[Marky P]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:55:57 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Marky P
scribeth thus
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:58:29 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


tony sayer wrote:

Eeyore scribeth thus
Robert Orban wrote:
says...

Seems to be tricky to find anything actually.

This mic has a max input SPL of 134dB which receives the comment "Hi-SPL
handling is perfect for suspension over choirs and orchestras"

http://www.dv247.com/invt/11582/

Try this:

Dynamic-Range Requirement for Subjectively Noise-Free Reproduction of
Music
JAES Volume 30 Issue 7/8 pp. 504-511; August 1982

A dynamic range of up to 118 dB is determined necessary for subjectively
noise-free reproeuction of music in an audio recorder with a white-noise
floor. Maximum peak sound-pressure levels in music are compared to the
minimum
discernible level of white noise in a quiet listening situation.
Microphone
noise limitations, monitoring loudspeaker capabilities, and performance
environment noise levels are also considered.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA

Well, I never imagined I'd have Bob Orban backing me up on a technical
issue
!

Thanks Bob !

Graham

Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

You can't win 'em all !

No but theres a local station round these parts where the engineer does
give a monkeys but the programme controller only knows LOUD LOUD and
LOUDER!!! cos the bloke at the other station down the road is the same;;

All thinking LOUD is better..

The local community station ****es over all of them for absolute sound
quality)..

Graham


What station's that then?


http://www.209radio.co.uk

Soon to have a new upgraded mixed polarisation aerial system to improve
coverage..

Pix on mb21 as soon as its done, with the newly refurbished one at Ely
Cathedral..

Marky P.

Oh, of course. Should've known ;-)


Marky P.

[Eeyore]

Marky P wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
Eeyore scribeth thus

Thanks Bob !

Graham

Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

You can't win 'em all !

No but theres a local station round these parts where the engineer does
give a monkeys but the programme controller only knows LOUD LOUD and
LOUDER!!! cos the bloke at the other station down the road is the same;;

All thinking LOUD is better..

The local community station ****es over all of them for absolute sound
quality)..

What's a community station ? :-(

For me, radio is all but finished. Apart from Radio 4 of course. It's the same pap
from every broadcaster. I can even recall several times changing channel and finding
the very same track being played on the new one. Grrrrrrrr.

People used to slag off ILR radio in the past, but it's much worse now
than it's ever been! Haven't listened in a long time (only for
evaluation purposes).

BBC local radio is better ( three counties here ) but it's still sonic wallpaper. And the
number of people who ring in about their cat / dog / hamster etc. Drives you up the wall.



Graham

[Marky P]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:02:20 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Marky P wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
Eeyore scribeth thus

Thanks Bob !

Graham

Him being the one who will be criticised on other groups for making DAB
and FM ever more distorted;!...
--
Tony Sayer

You can't win 'em all !

No but theres a local station round these parts where the engineer does
give a monkeys but the programme controller only knows LOUD LOUD and
LOUDER!!! cos the bloke at the other station down the road is the same;;

All thinking LOUD is better..

The local community station ****es over all of them for absolute sound
quality)..

What's a community station ? :-(

For me, radio is all but finished. Apart from Radio 4 of course. It's the same pap
from every broadcaster. I can even recall several times changing channel and finding
the very same track being played on the new one. Grrrrrrrr.

People used to slag off ILR radio in the past, but it's much worse now
than it's ever been! Haven't listened in a long time (only for
evaluation purposes).

BBC local radio is better ( three counties here ) but it's still sonic wallpaper. And the
number of people who ring in about their cat / dog / hamster etc. Drives you up the wall.



Graham

Three Counties here too (near St. Neots). Actually, I think BBC local
radio has generally improved over the years. I prefer talk radio to
music radio generally.

Marky P.

[Jim Lesurf[_2_]]

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
BTW I just paused as I heard that Winter is approaching. The geese are
flying over. So loud that I can hear them though the double-glazing.
Nice sound, but sorry to wave farewell to summer...

What summer was that then?..

The one we just had that seemed wet enough to keep the geese happy. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Marky P]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:17:03 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
BTW I just paused as I heard that Winter is approaching. The geese are
flying over. So loud that I can hear them though the double-glazing.
Nice sound, but sorry to wave farewell to summer...

What summer was that then?..

The one we just had that seemed wet enough to keep the geese happy. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

I'm still waiting for summer. I won't be putting the clocks back or
celebrating christmas 'till I've had my summer!

Marky P.

[David Looser]

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Interesting that he seems able to narrow down all orchestras to a 1dB
range
like that. Reminiscent of the way undergrads sometimes write down a lab
experiment result to as many significant figures as their hand calculator
displays - regardless of having input figures only roughly accurate. :-)


I've just flown back from the USA on a plane that was, according to the
"flight information" channel on the in-flight entertainment screen, flying
at a constant height of 37,000 feet - or 11277m. (Actually, according to my
calculations, to the nearest metre, that should have been 11278m). Or is it
possible that the actual height was 37,000 feet plus or minus quite a bit,
and that there was a spurious precision to the "11277"?

David.

[Don Pearce]

David Looser wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
Interesting that he seems able to narrow down all orchestras to a 1dB
range
like that. Reminiscent of the way undergrads sometimes write down a lab
experiment result to as many significant figures as their hand calculator
displays - regardless of having input figures only roughly accurate. :-)


I've just flown back from the USA on a plane that was, according to the
"flight information" channel on the in-flight entertainment screen, flying
at a constant height of 37,000 feet - or 11277m. (Actually, according to my
calculations, to the nearest metre, that should have been 11278m). Or is it
possible that the actual height was 37,000 feet plus or minus quite a bit,
and that there was a spurious precision to the "11277"?

David.



Just a rounding thing. If you round by truncating you get 11277, if you
do it to the nearest you get 11278. I suspect the number has more to do
with the autopilot demand setting than the actual height, though.

d