| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1721
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... : On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:56:47 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: : : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : .. . : : On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : : wrote: : : : : : : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits : : : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music : : : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly : : : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem? : : :: snip, irrelevant : : : : : Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant : : to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range. : : : : It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass. : : : : Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some : : -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range. : : : : Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, : : even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is : : more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range. : : So you're saying a 90 dB dynamic range is there for the taking, : but your listening room's awfully noisy airco makes it impossible : to enjoy ? No wonder you claim all amps sound the same :-) : : Are you being deliberately obscure, or are you just stupid? I'm : referring to the dynamic range of the *original performance*. don't go into politics, SP - your rebuttals lack convincing power ;-) : : Besides, I live in the UK, and as is the norm here, I don't have : aircon. I do have one slow-running fan in the room, in my Krell, and : that does set the noise floor in the room, at something in the : mid-20s. It's a *very* quiet room - one advantage of living in the : country, with a concrete slab floor, 13" thick walls and deep triple : glazing. The *room* is certainly capable of achieving 90dB dynamic : range, even if there's no available *recording* with that range. : : : this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart: : : http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html : : so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-) : : : : You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that : : will exceed 65dB dynamic range. : : : : no numbers, but interesting anyway : : : http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html : : : : Rudy : : heard a concert grand played up close : : 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose : : : : You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor* : : will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL. : : -- : -you mean, you've got _that much_ noise coming from your speakers : ... that's sad. : -- you are confusing facts with your overheated imagination, SP : --- omniscience claim noted. : : 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 ? : : : 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.? ....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. Have fun at the fringe festival, Rudy : -- : : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1722
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:48:41 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . : On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:56:47 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: : : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : .. . : : On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : : wrote: : : : : : : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits : : : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music : : : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly : : : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem? : : :: snip, irrelevant : : : : : Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant : : to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range. : : : : It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass. : : : : Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some : : -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range. : : : : Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, : : even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is : : more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range. : : So you're saying a 90 dB dynamic range is there for the taking, : but your listening room's awfully noisy airco makes it impossible : to enjoy ? No wonder you claim all amps sound the same :-) : : Are you being deliberately obscure, or are you just stupid? I'm : referring to the dynamic range of the *original performance*. don't go into politics, SP - your rebuttals lack convincing power ;-) : : Besides, I live in the UK, and as is the norm here, I don't have : aircon. I do have one slow-running fan in the room, in my Krell, and : that does set the noise floor in the room, at something in the : mid-20s. It's a *very* quiet room - one advantage of living in the : country, with a concrete slab floor, 13" thick walls and deep triple : glazing. The *room* is certainly capable of achieving 90dB dynamic : range, even if there's no available *recording* with that range. : : : this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart: : : http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html : : so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-) : : : : You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that : : will exceed 65dB dynamic range. : : : : no numbers, but interesting anyway : : : http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html : : : : Rudy : : heard a concert grand played up close : : 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose : : : : You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor* : : will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL. : : -- : -you mean, you've got _that much_ noise coming from your speakers : ... that's sad. : -- you are confusing facts with your overheated imagination, SP : --- omniscience claim noted. : : 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. : : 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. ...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? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1723
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#1724
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:16:10 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote: The master recording's dynamic range can, depending on composition, etc., very well be in excess of 90 dB. I have never been in contact with such enourmous dynamics, can you please point me to one example? I have tried my best to look up comercially available recording with a big dynamic range, but can't find any that exceeds even 75dB. Can you? Even 75dB can be a problem in most homes with a typical system. Mine for sure, my Quads flats out at some 100dB SPL and the room has around 30-35 dB noise floor. 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*. Any example? Per. |
|
#1725
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
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 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. 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. 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, f 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. 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. |
|
#1726
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:16:10 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote: "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? What, you think that studios don't have a noise floor? 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. Utter bull****! Put one musician in that studio, and your 12dB floor immediately jumps to at least 20dB, more likely 25 as soon as he begins to play, and is therefore not sitting absolutely still. Do you have *any* concept of how quiet 20dB is? At that level (and I have spent some time in anechoic chambers - very unpleasant) the only sounds you can hear are your clothing rustling as you breathe, your own breathing, and the blood coursing through your ears. It usually takes about two minutes of sitting absolutely still in an utterly quiet environment before you can perceive these noises. A typical string quartet will generate something like 30-35 dB in the rests between playing. Basically Ruud, your every post reveals that you know absolutely nothing about acoustics. 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 repeat, there is *no* music master tape with a dynamic range of more than 80dB, so as ever, your fanciful musings are at odds with reality. I believe it was dbx claiming a 100 dB requirement for the recording of acoustical instruments' performances. What a company *selling* companders may claim, has nothing to do with reality. Note that compansion is no longer used, since CD took over the music market. 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. *Many* types? I don't think so, but even there you're quite wrong - see below. Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a dynamic range that is limited by the electronics used, that is *well over 100 dB*. Actually, it's more like 70-75 dB for real-world electronic instruments. Get a grip, and stop making things up. The *reality* is that *no* music master tape, Pet Shop Boys and Mike Oldfield included, has a dynamic range of more then 80dB. Until you can find such a tape, please stop making such a fool of yourself. : : 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 ? Typo, that should have been 'of', not 'or'. An *honest* debater would have realised this, and avoided such a pathetic cheap shot. :-) : ...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. As I said - lunacy. And ignorance. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1727
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am writing about the case Pinkerton against my instinct
telling me that one gets soiled by association. I would not want to or know how to reply on his level. It is easy to dismiss his vile, personal attacks as harmless signs of immaturity They range from "Utter rubbish" through "You're a crook and a liar", or "Don't be an arsehole" (Message 1835, Aug 18 to a Mr. Packer), to his ultimate argument "You're a sad sack of ****." And all this in polemics about audio! Just imagine what he'd have to say in a political or religious argument!! Providing, of course, that HE held the whip. Unfortunately I have to live with memories of verbal violence turning into mass murder. Stalins, Hitlers and Maos could not have done without thousands of eager executioners to assist them- the Gestapo and GPU murderers. And no doubt these humanoids shouted filth at their victims because dehumanising them first makes the torture and killing easier. No doubt many of the humanoids were, good neighbours, fond of their dogs and their children. But from verbal violence it is not far to violent deeds-just give some of these ordinary Serbs, Hutus ad Sudanese the right circumstances. And for an intermediate step in this descent into nether regions see Pinkerton's Neo-Nazi musings on how to "improve" Appalachia by "eugenics" of Dr. Mengele variety (message 1432, Aug 11) Ludovic Mirabel OPTIONAL ADDENDUM: For those not yet terminally bored with the issue I'm summarising the history of this debate Nothing wrong with individuals using blinding as a precaution against bias- as long as they do not think that THEIR results thereby acquire a persuasive weight of *evidence* valid for anyone but themselves. The attempt to give it a rigid ABX protocol cast resulted so far (four decades) in a failure to prove its usefulness for detection of component differences. The sighted bias is avoided and the baby gets spilled with the bath-water. As yet no one gave a proper reference (Journal,Author(s), year, month, page) to one single peer-reviewed, statistically valid report about COMPARING ANY audio components and getting a positive outcome- ie. majority heard differences when ABXing. The reports so far have all been negative ie "It all sounds the same". But the fact that such a report does not exist does not faze Pinkerton. He invents them. First gossip published by him on the Usenet of what he and his three pals heard comparing amplifiers. When it is pointed out to him that anecdotes are not evidence he produces another anecdote about what the "industry" is supposed to be doing. And finally he sends people down another blind alley: the Eureka/Archimedes project. That is what they had to say for themselves without Pinkerton translation : " Project E!105 Archimedes, which ran from 1987 until 1992, was a partnership between Bang & Olufsen, the Department of Acoustic Technology at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and KEF Audio Ltd in the UK. *** Its goal was to investigate how sound quality in the home is affected by the surroundings and how to compensate for factors that have a negative impact on it, according to Soren Bech from Bang & Olufsen***" Not a word about COMPARING COMPONENTS BY ABX. Not in this summary, not in the wholw website. But this does not stop him. He says: (message 1820, Aug 17): "More typical lies and deception from Mirabel. Try this from the same article, which you clearly tried to avoid: " An acoustically transparent screen surrounded the listening chair, hiding the exact loudspeaker positions and the rest of the chamber environment from the listener" This is his answer to a request for a report of COMPARING AUDIO COMPONENTS by abx/dbt. Like Goebbels in his time there is no limit to his contempt for the brains of his audience. The bigger the lie the more it is likely that the normals will say: "He couldn't just have invented it all. There must be SOMETHING to it" For the record: I was involved in DBT drug trials before Pinkerton ever heard the word. Being blinded to the position of a speaker that B&O are trying to make spherical as an "invisible' sound source is an obvious precaution. But what has all that to do with COMPARING COMPONENTS BY ABX? Double blinding is an excellent precaution against one source of bias. I play with it myself when I listen to a new component. But it would never occur to anyone who is not a stranger to the richness of individual human experience to maintain that his listening sighted, blinded, double-blinded and ABXing and/or seated on a horse is scientific EVIDENCE that what he can not hear no one else can. And mark this: B&O reserch was about loudspeakers. This is what he had to say when two weeks ago I mentioned comparing loudspeakers; "Utter rubbish. There are no DBTs of carts or speakers because they would be pointless- 100% every time" ( message 636,July 31). I'd have to ask him for help to provide a suitable comment.. Pinkerton soldiers on: "It's a matter of recorded fact that the Archimedes experiments used DBT protocols - after all, they already knew back then that sighted listening was useless" Maybe they did use DBT as one research tool, may be not. They say nothing about it. But he knows! "It is a matter of recorded fact..," Records are recorded so that they can be referred to and quoted. I reprinted what the Eureka partners said. Not a word about "double blind tests".in their website. And certainly nothing about ABX/DBT results as conclusive evidence in their research. The "record" is Pinkerton's let's call it, fantasy. (He'd use different wording) This nonrecorded record, whispered confidentially into Pinkerton's privileged ear, is on a par with his gossip about his home amplifier "test", his gossip about what "industry" is doing and his latest: dodge ; the silly wild goose chase after Archimedes/Eureka Still not ONE GENUINE REFERENCE, not even a quote about comparing and DISTINGUISHING audio components by ABX/DBT. Instead lots of profanity. AS for his stupidly transparent, gambit of creating a diversion asking for "MY evidence about my claims." ". Which claims? He does not quote one because they do not exist. I do not believe that an experimental method exists to prove or disprove my personal experiences. He claims he has a foolproof method for showing up differences between components. I have none. I have my unscientific, untestable, unprovable preferences. He is the one with claims and it is up to him to show that his method works. Gossip interlarded with four-letter worda is not enough To me "discussion" with such as he is not only frustrating bu also repulsive. He may be a decent enough guy to meet in a pub. I can't tell. I only know his internet Persona. And this inspires me with revulsion. He can go on. I won't. Ludovic Mirabel ***************** Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens" wrote: : snip, irrelevant : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : ... : hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format, : there were definite incentives to get the sample size : and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration : with the limitations of the technically & economically : viable solution available in 1980. : that's not an opinion, but a fact :-) : Rudy : : nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit : linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on, : 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ??? : : Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits : equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music : master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly : dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem? :: snip, irrelevant : Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range. It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass. Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some -- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range. Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, even under *very* exceptional circumstances, and is more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range. this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart: http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-) You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that will exceed 65dB dynamic range. no numbers, but interesting anyway : http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html Rudy heard a concert grand played up close 80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor* will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1728
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : : : 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 : : 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 ? : 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 ? : : 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 ? : 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, eg. from applied acoustics systems, use the available soundcard, calculated at 32 bit floating, up to 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. ...so who's the ignorant party here ? R. |
|
#1729
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news 
: On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:16:10 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: : : : "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? : : What, you think that studios don't have a noise floor? not your 40 dB mentioned. Problem reading "Of course this.." ? : : 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. : : Utter bull****! Put one musician in that studio, and your 12dB floor : immediately jumps to at least 20dB, more likely 25 as soon as he : begins to play, and is therefore not sitting absolutely still. Do you : have *any* concept of how quiet 20dB is? Yeah, it's 20 dB above the average hearing treshold :-) Do you have any idea how mediocre your microphone was, not being able to determine 25 dB SPL background noise due to self-noise ? ;-) : At that level (and I have : spent some time in anechoic chambers - very unpleasant) the &only : sounds you can hear are your clothing rustling as you breathe, your : own breathing, and the blood coursing through your ears. It usually : takes about two minutes of sitting absolutely still in an utterly : quiet environment before you can perceive these noises. &Strange. my experience is that i can hear _all sounds_ very well, not just the bloody ears :-) in that situation. : : A typical string quartet will generate something like 30-35 dB in the : rests between playing. Basically Ruud, your every post reveals that : you know absolutely nothing about acoustics. : basically Stewart, your every post presupposes some type of music/some type of instrument/some type of recording setting- have you actually made any recordings or are you just quoting some textbook ? : 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 repeat, there is *no* music master tape with a dynamic range of more : than 80dB, so as ever, your fanciful musings are at odds with reality. : : I believe it was dbx claiming a 100 dB requirement for the recording of : acoustical instruments' performances. : : What a company *selling* companders may claim, has nothing to do with : reality. Note that compansion is no longer used, since CD took over : the music market. : : 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. : : *Many* types? I don't think so, but even there you're quite wrong - : see below. : : Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a dynamic range that : is limited by the electronics used, that is *well over 100 dB*. : : Actually, it's more like 70-75 dB for real-world electronic : instruments. Get a grip, and stop making things up. The *reality* is : that *no* music master tape, Pet Shop Boys and Mike Oldfield included, : has a dynamic range of more then 80dB. Until you can find such a tape, : please stop making such a fool of yourself. : tape ? where was tape introduced ? oh, i get it, another round of debating trade. : : : 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 ? : : Typo, that should have been 'of', not 'or'. An *honest* debater would : have realised this, and avoided such a pathetic cheap shot. : : :-) : : ...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. : : As I said - lunacy. And ignorance. : -- sure, i ignore your 'facts' as they are not in fact factual, just your imagination working overtime - there _is_ a difference R. : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is A - Ignorance is B |
|
#1730
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
#1731
|
|||
|
|||
|
I know why the Krooborg is so terrified of vinyl and turntables. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. Arnii's own needle is stuck in a rut. The "debating trade" is all canned. Who knew? ;-) |
|
#1732
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... I know why the Krooborg is so terrified of vinyl and turntables. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. It's not the same but its not necessarily significantly different when it comes to dynamic range. Arnii's own needle is stuck in a rut. The "debating trade" is all canned. Who knew? ;-) Prove it! Prove it! Prove it! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#1733
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick said: Arnii's own needle is stuck in a rut. The "debating trade" is all canned. Who knew? ;-) Prove it! Asked and answered. Prove it! Thanks Mr. Scokppupet for admitting you have no proof. Prove it! All the Middius *dupes* say that. LOt"s! |
|
#1734
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:49:01 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news
: On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:16:10 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : wrote: : : : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : .. . : : On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:48:41 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : : wrote: snip lots of waffle and arm-waving by Ruud Do you have any idea how mediocre your microphone was, not being able to determine 25 dB SPL background noise due to self-noise ? ;-) Yes, but I don't like large capsule concenser mikes. : At that level (and I have : spent some time in anechoic chambers - very unpleasant) the &only : sounds you can hear are your clothing rustling as you breathe, your : own breathing, and the blood coursing through your ears. It usually : takes about two minutes of sitting absolutely still in an utterly : quiet environment before you can perceive these noises. &Strange. my experience is that i can hear _all sounds_ very well, not just the bloody ears :-) in that situation. In that situation, there pretty much *are* no other sounds - or you wouldn't have a 20dB noise floor. That's *very* quiet, almost anechoic chamber quiet. : A typical string quartet will generate something like 30-35 dB in the : rests between playing. Basically Ruud, your every post reveals that : you know absolutely nothing about acoustics. : basically Stewart, your every post presupposes some type of music/some type of instrument/some type of recording setting Strange that, considering that we're discussing music recordings.... What were you drinking when you posted that comment? - have you actually made any recordings or are you just quoting some textbook ? Dozens of them - I even used to do them for a living at PERA, when measuring industriual noise levels. snip lots of ducking and diving by Ruud : Electronically generated signals can have pretty much a dynamic range that : is limited by the electronics used, that is *well over 100 dB*. : : Actually, it's more like 70-75 dB for real-world electronic : instruments. Get a grip, and stop making things up. The *reality* is : that *no* music master tape, Pet Shop Boys and Mike Oldfield included, : has a dynamic range of more then 80dB. Until you can find such a tape, : please stop making such a fool of yourself. : tape ? where was tape introduced ? oh, i get it, another round of debating trade. Master tape, Ruud, *master* tape. No debating trade, that would be *your* speciality here. There are no *master* tapes with more than 80dB dynamic range, so your arm-waving speculation is just so much smoke and mirrors, as is usual with you. snip more insubstantial blather by Ruud : As I said - lunacy. And ignorance. : -- sure, i ignore your 'facts' as they are not in fact factual, just your imagination working overtime - there _is_ a difference R. There certainly is a difference. I am quoting real-world figures, you are making up fairy stories. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#1735
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Designing "fuzzy logic" database systems that could identify
recidivists in one of the best known penal systems in the country." Could you tell us more about this? Interested, Will Dwinnell http://will.dwinnell.com |
|
#1736
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:49:01 +0200, "Ruud Broens" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news
: On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:16:10 +0200, "Ruud Broens": wrote: : : : "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message : .. . : : On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:48:41 +0200, "Ruud Broens" : : wrote: snip lots of waffle and arm-waving by Ruud Do you have any idea how mediocre your microphone was, not being able to determine 25 dB SPL background noise due to self-noise ? ;-) Yes, but I don't like large capsule concenser mikes. Please tell us in detail your experiences with them. Cordially, Iain |
|
#1737
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
: well, wine connoisseurs have also been known to fall flat on their faces : when their 'powers' are tested under controlled comparison conditions. : IIRC red was even confused with white in such a test. That's a bit of an overstatement. I've read that average people who CLAIM to be wine connoisseurs often are unable to distinguish red from white in blind tests. But you have examples for real recognized experts? Scott |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Arny vs. Atkinson debat - Could someone post a blow by blow? | Audio Opinions | |||
| The Bill May Report on Single-Ended Output Transformers for 300B etc | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| Sub Amps - a Follow up Question | Tech | |||
| Yet another DBT post | High End Audio | |||
| Run Rabbit Run | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Linear Mode
