Why Arnie K.'s "-20 db" argument doesn't hold any water

[duty-honor-country]

Rating stereo sources at 0 dB is unrealistic, techno-BS.

Real music is dynamic, and is not a steady level. Some sounds can be
at -50dB, while others can be at +5dB, at the same time. What you see
with regular meters is average levels. With peak meters you see the
loudest levels.

High frequencies are very low in level in the mix of instruments, when
playing live. If a high frequency instrument, such as high percussion
were reproduced at 0dB, it would drown out an entire orchestra.

So much for rating tape decks and CD players at at "0 dB"- it's not
real world.

Since music is dynamic and high frequencies are low in level in real
life, the decision was made to rate cassette decks at -20dB, to show
full frequency response. If cassette decks were rated at 0dB, the high
frequency limit would be anywhere between 10kHz - 16kHz, depending on
the heads and design.

Although some Tandbergs are rated at 0 dB.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 30, 9:37 pm, "duty-honor-country"
> wrote:
> ........


Plonk.

[duty-honor-country]

On Mar 30, 9:11 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 30, 9:37 pm, "duty-honor-country"
>
> Plonk.

translation:

dig hole in sand, insert head

[Ethan Winer]

"duty-honor-country" > wrote

> Real music is dynamic, and is not a steady level. Some sounds can be
> at -50dB, while others can be at +5dB, at the same time.

Sure, but you won't hear the stuff at -50 while the +5 is playing due to
masking. Try it for yourself in an audio editor program and you'll see. Take
an entire song you know well, and reduce its level to -56 dB below digital
full scale. Then take another song you know and set the level to peak at -1
dB. This puts them 55 dB apart (your example). Now mix the two together and
play the result. How much of the -56 dB song do you hear?

--Ethan

[shirked duty-dishonor-cowardice]

End stage syphillis.

[No Name]

"duty-honor-country" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Rating stereo sources at 0 dB is unrealistic, techno-BS.
>
> Real music is dynamic, and is not a steady level. Some sounds can be
> at -50dB, while others can be at +5dB, at the same time. What you see
> with regular meters is average levels. With peak meters you see the
> loudest levels.
>
> High frequencies are very low in level in the mix of instruments, when
> playing live. If a high frequency instrument, such as high percussion
> were reproduced at 0dB, it would drown out an entire orchestra.

arnii is truely one of the biggest morons who posts
and I have no idea what he has poste dto this thread as I killfiled him
years ago
but your talking out you ass as well

but I can clearly see you already know everything, and I already have
enough going on
so post what you will

[Arny Krueger]

"duty-honor-country" > wrote
in message
oups.com

Thesis:

> Rating stereo sources at 0 dB is unrealistic, techno-BS.

> Real music is dynamic, and is not a steady level. Some
> sounds can be at -50dB, while others can be at +5dB, at
> the same time. What you see with regular meters is
> average levels.

What's a *regular meter*? There are no general rules about this. Looking at
the modern equipment that I used at my last gig, a 21st century *regular
meter* portrays both peak and average levels concurrently.

> With peak meters you see the loudest levels.

But a lot of modern equipment has both peak and average meters that display
concurrently.

There's a problem with music - there are few rules about what someone might
want to have an accurate recording of. Audio production equipment isn't
designed to handle just average situations, but any situation that has even
a very slight real-world probability to it.

People have found that there isn't a market for recorders that only work
well with average music played by an average symphony orchestra. People want
recording equipment that will accurately record just about anything that
they are likely to encounter, no matter how slight the probability.

> High frequencies are very low in level in the mix of
> instruments, when playing live.

Not all the time.

>If a high frequency
> instrument, such as high percussion were reproduced at
> 0dB, it would drown out an entire orchestra.

Sometimes the only instrument playing is a high percussion instrument.
Sometimes that instrument is played very loud.

High-pitched sounds can be deceptive - since the ear's sensitivity decreases
rapidly above 4 KHz, instruments with significant output at high frequencies
sound less loud then they really are from the standpoint of the dynamic
range of equipment.

> So much for rating tape decks and CD players at at "0
> dB"- it's not real world.

Actually, just about every modern piece of equipment is rated at some level
in the range between 0 dB and -3 dB. -3 dB doesn't help the situation with
cassette recorders to speak of.

> Since music is dynamic and high frequencies are low in
> level in real life, the decision was made to rate
> cassette decks at -20dB, to show full frequency response.

Nahh, the decision was made to rate cassette recorder FR at -20 dB so that
the really scary results that one usually obtains at -10 or 0 wouldn't be
exposed to the sensitive eyes of consumers.

Just a friendly reminder - I still have that CD with musical sounds that you
can try to record/play on the cassette machine of your choice, and re-record
with your CD recorder. There's no doubt in my mind that the best cassette
machine you can find will cause audible dulling of at least some of the
tracks.

There are several problems with this theory.

> If cassette decks were rated at 0dB, the high frequency
> limit would be anywhere between 10kHz - 16kHz, depending
> on the heads and design.
>
> Although some Tandbergs are rated at 0 dB.

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 31, 9:24 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> High-pitched sounds can be deceptive - since the ear's sensitivity decreases
> rapidly above 4 KHz, instruments with significant output at high frequencies
> sound less loud then they really are from the standpoint of the dynamic
> range of equipment.

Also, high frequencies dissipate faster than low frequencies when
traveling through the air. So in the days of recording an orchestra
from the best seat in the house, the balance between lows and highs
that hits the ear (or the microphone) is different from what occurs on
stage. It's the conductor's job to tell the triangle player how loud
to play so that the balance is correct for the audience several
hundred wavelengths away.

While dooby-honoryour-country might be correct that there isn't a lot
of high frequency energy 'way out there, and a 2-track recorder might
be able to get away with skimpy performance at high frequencies at
high levels, with today's recording techniques of close miking and
desire to record close to the maximum permissible level (for whatever
reason), being able to record high frequencies at full level becomes a
requirement. Dolby HX (which was developed long after the Elcassette
went into the Sony Museum of Product Failures) helps this somewhat and
is found in some high end cassette recorders today.

Granted that not a lot of cassette recorders are being used today for
multitrack recordings to be mixed later, those that are would fail
badly. This is why digital "multitrackers" for amateur hobbyists
became so popular so quickly. For this kind of work, they sounded
better than the cassettes that preceded them, and cost much less than
wider track higher speed multitrack recorders that have adequate high
frequency headroom.

And even at the 2-track end of the scale, there are many forms of
modern music that have extended high frequency range that requires
more high frequency headroom.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article om>,
duty-honor-country > wrote:
> <meaningless stuff about decibels without respect to a reference level>

You might want to actually get an elementary audio textbook and learn
what a decibel is. This will prevent you from making so much of a fool
of yourself in the future.

Basic hint: a decibel is not a unit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."