| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
average listening levels
I'm a little perplexed as to what levels we are adjusting the volume. I
myself found that I very consistently adjust the level to 86-88dBA(fast) average with a few peaks up to 100dB (at listening position). My wife thinks that's too high. :-( I need this level not to miss too many details, but without causing an unpleasant feeling of "too loud" in the fortissimo passages. When friends are coming and can freely adjust the volume pot, I see that those experienced choose similar(mostly slightly higher) levels, whereas people without High-end knowledge tend to lower volumes. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy http://www.bansuri.my-page.ms/ electronic hardware designer |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
If it's too loud, you're too old!
-- an old rock an roller "Ban" wrote in message news:AEMwb.304993$Fm2.323014@attbi_s04... I'm a little perplexed as to what levels we are adjusting the volume. I myself found that I very consistently adjust the level to 86-88dBA(fast) average with a few peaks up to 100dB (at listening position). My wife thinks that's too high. :-( I need this level not to miss too many details, but without causing an unpleasant feeling of "too loud" in the fortissimo passages. When friends are coming and can freely adjust the volume pot, I see that those experienced choose similar(mostly slightly higher) levels, whereas people without High-end knowledge tend to lower volumes. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy http://www.bansuri.my-page.ms/ electronic hardware designer |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
You are raising a truly excellent question which is very important. I
often refer to an old analog RS sound level meter to monitor listening levels. I too have found higher listening levels best for details but beware. A favorite piece of mine is the Bach Chaconne, a Violin solo, in which all the details can only be heard loud. A 100 db violin is amazing. A B&K monoblock Sonata drives 4 pairs of stacked speakers, 16 mid range woofers and 8 tweeters, and a separate driven sub woofer. The volume can get dangerous. Now the serious stuff, 90 db is an absolute max. To play it safe I suggest you only max out at 85 db. No louder. You will damage your hearing. If in doubt go to an independent audiologist and get a hearing test. As you age or you impair your hearing you can expect your sensitivity to treble to drop dramatically. "Ban" wrote in message news:AEMwb.304993$Fm2.323014@attbi_s04... I'm a little perplexed as to what levels we are adjusting the volume. I myself found that I very consistently adjust the level to 86-88dBA(fast) average with a few peaks up to 100dB (at listening position). My wife thinks that's too high. :-( I need this level not to miss too many details, but without causing an unpleasant feeling of "too loud" in the fortissimo passages. When friends are coming and can freely adjust the volume pot, I see that those experienced choose similar(mostly slightly higher) levels, whereas people without High-end knowledge tend to lower volumes. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy http://www.bansuri.my-page.ms/ electronic hardware designer |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Ban wrote:
I'm a little perplexed as to what levels we are adjusting the volume. I myself found that I very consistently adjust the level to 86-88dBA(fast) average with a few peaks up to 100dB (at listening position). My wife thinks that's too high. :-( I need this level not to miss too many details, but without causing an unpleasant feeling of "too loud" in the fortissimo passages. When friends are coming and can freely adjust the volume pot, I see that those experienced choose similar(mostly slightly higher) levels, whereas people without High-end knowledge tend to lower volumes. Hi Ban, Now this is definitely too loud for me!!! Usually, I listen at night, after dinner, before bedtime. With an ambient noise level of around 30 dBA the average SPL is at 55-65 dBA with peaks to 75 dBA at the listening position. This is enough to feel a slight bass vibration in my chair and I don't miss any details. Sometimes, it's even less than that. On saturdays, though, depending on my mood I can crank up Rossini's "Gazza Ladra" or Pink Floyd's "Time" to 85-90 dBA, but only for a short time. Cheers, Franco |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
"Ban" wrote in message news:AEMwb.304993$Fm2.323014@attbi_s04...
I'm a little perplexed as to what levels we are adjusting the volume. I myself found that I very consistently adjust the level to 86-88dBA(fast) average with a few peaks up to 100dB (at listening position). My wife thinks that's too high. :-( I need this level not to miss too many details, but without causing an unpleasant feeling of "too loud" in the fortissimo passages. When friends are coming and can freely adjust the volume pot, I see that those experienced choose similar(mostly slightly higher) levels, whereas people without High-end knowledge tend to lower volumes. Some years ago I did an informal but enlightening experiment. I was given the opportunity of measuring sound pressure levels at several different positions in audience and at the conductor's podium, and was able to record a lot of good data. At the same time, a colleague was recording the concert. The material was classical orchestral music, Beethoven and the like. After the concert, there was a party which was attended by a number of people in the audience along with the conductor. There was a room where a quite respectable playback system was installed, and we had the opportunity to play back the concert tapes. I took the opportunity to conduct an experiement: I asked people who had attended the concert and were seated close to where my measurements were taken to adjust the volume control so that it was as loud as they remembered it during the performance. Remember that they were not only playing back the same music, they were playing back THE EXACT SAME PERFORMANCE. The result were VERY interesting. With but a single exception, EVERY one of the participants in the experiment adjusted the volume control so that the sound pressure levels on playback were SIGNIFICANTLY louder than they encountered during the performance. And the differences were not subtle, often they adjusted the volume so it was 10 dB or more louder than they experienced in the performance. The ONLY person to get close was the conductor. The experiment suggests that many people tend to play louder than realistic sound levels. This correlates with the tendency of people to overestimate what the sound pressure of music actually is in a live performance, especially for classical music. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
That is probably because those that enjoy the sound or just toying
with the system want it a bit louder. Others that are trying to ignore it obviously like it less so. It is more a matter of the focus of attention rather than level for them. Some people just don't care for a dynamic system although they can somehow tolerate a live performance. Maybe they are just being polite at the performance (and have no access to a remote!). I typically listen at what I consider to be a reasonablely accurate level for the type of music being played within the limitations of my room and with respect for my hearing. That translates for the most part into a natural or slightly louder (depending upon your virtual "seats") portrayal of solo acoustic or small groups and a somewhat lower to considerably lower level than what might be expected at a rock concert. About 80-90db is plenty for me on average to really get involved in it for a few moments without worrying too much about it being too loud. On a continuous basis for an hour or two, 70-80 db is plenty. I hate to be a party pooper, but your wife may have a point here. Two actually, with one being concern for your hearing and with the other about concern for other's sensitivities and interests. Continuous exposure to levels above 75db can result in hearing loss at some level. I would suggest that higher levels be a treat rather than a main course. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Ban" wrote in message news:AEMwb.304993$Fm2.323014@attbi_s04... I'm a little perplexed as to what levels we are adjusting the volume. I myself found that I very consistently adjust the level to 86-88dBA(fast) average with a few peaks up to 100dB (at listening position). My wife thinks that's too high. :-( I need this level not to miss too many details, but without causing an unpleasant feeling of "too loud" in the fortissimo passages. When friends are coming and can freely adjust the volume pot, I see that those experienced choose similar(mostly slightly higher) levels, whereas people without High-end knowledge tend to lower volumes. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy http://www.bansuri.my-page.ms/ electronic hardware designer |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
I can recall a thread from many years ago (perhaps it was a magazine
article) that discussed the fact that by all rights, each commercial CD should have a calibration tone recorded at a known level. You set the playback of the reference tone at the appropriate volume level on an SPL meter and trust that the rest of CD will play back at the volume level it was recorded at. I wonder why such a concept has never been implemented even by audiophile labels such as Reference Recordings, Water Lilly, etc. "Ban" wrote in message news:AEMwb.304993$Fm2.323014@attbi_s04... I'm a little perplexed as to what levels we are adjusting the volume. I myself found that I very consistently adjust the level to 86-88dBA(fast) average with a few peaks up to 100dB (at listening position). My wife thinks that's too high. :-( I need this level not to miss too many details, but without causing an unpleasant feeling of "too loud" in the fortissimo passages. When friends are coming and can freely adjust the volume pot, I see that those experienced choose similar(mostly slightly higher) levels, whereas people without High-end knowledge tend to lower volumes. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy http://www.bansuri.my-page.ms/ electronic hardware designer |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Rick Scott wrote:
If it's too loud, you're too old! And when you're old, and you can't hear, it was too loud. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:7PWwb.310074$Fm2.327329@attbi_s04...
I can recall a thread from many years ago (perhaps it was a magazine article) that discussed the fact that by all rights, each commercial CD should have a calibration tone recorded at a known level. You set the playback of the reference tone at the appropriate volume level on an SPL meter and trust that the rest of CD will play back at the volume level it was recorded at. I wonder why such a concept has never been implemented even by audiophile labels such as Reference Recordings, Water Lilly, etc. It WAS implemented by Gabe Wiener at PGM recordings, where the liner notes of the CD gave specific recommendations for setting levels for recordings, like "adjust your volume so that the beginning of track blah-blah averages 75 dB at your listening position." Funny how his harpsichord recordings, adjusted this way, had just about the same level as a similar harpsichord played in the same room. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
... I took the opportunity to conduct an experiement: I asked people who had attended the concert and were seated close to where my measurements were taken to adjust the volume control so that it was as loud as they remembered it during the performance. Remember that they were not only playing back the same music, they were playing back THE EXACT SAME PERFORMANCE. The result were VERY interesting. With but a single exception, EVERY one of the participants in the experiment adjusted the volume control so that the sound pressure levels on playback were SIGNIFICANTLY louder than they encountered during the performance. And the differences were not subtle, often they adjusted the volume so it was 10 dB or more louder than they experienced in the performance. The ONLY person to get close was the conductor. The experiment suggests that many people tend to play louder than realistic sound levels. This correlates with the tendency of people to overestimate what the sound pressure of music actually is in a live performance, especially for classical music. I have to wonder if this tendency isn't a way of compensating for the lack of visual cues to go along with the music - we turn it up louder to make it more "real", because we're subliminally missing the complete experience and volume is the only tool at our disposal. I think this is likely especially in the softer sections, when in the concert we would be *looking* at the 2nd violins playing a pp passage, but without the visual we need it louder to convince ourselves that we are really hearing it well. On the other hand, the way much of today's music is recorded, we often turn it up to try to replicate that intensity we hear live that is missing from the aural assault of what compression has done to the dynamic range. Bill Balmer |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
110 on average(when I want it loud).
"Ban" wrote in message news:AEMwb.304993$Fm2.323014@attbi_s04... I'm a little perplexed as to what levels we are adjusting the volume. I myself found that I very consistently adjust the level to 86-88dBA(fast) average with a few peaks up to 100dB (at listening position). My wife thinks that's too high. :-( I need this level not to miss too many details, but without causing an unpleasant feeling of "too loud" in the fortissimo passages. When friends are coming and can freely adjust the volume pot, I see that those experienced choose similar(mostly slightly higher) levels, whereas people without High-end knowledge tend to lower volumes. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy http://www.bansuri.my-page.ms/ electronic hardware designer |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
"Dick Pierce" wrote:
The result were VERY interesting. With but a single exception, EVERY one of the participants in the experiment adjusted the volume control so that the sound pressure levels on playback were SIGNIFICANTLY louder than they encountered during the performance. And the differences were not subtle, often they adjusted the volume so it was 10 dB or more louder than they experienced in the performance. The ONLY person to get close was the conductor. The experiment suggests that many people tend to play louder than realistic sound levels. This correlates with the tendency of people to overestimate what the sound pressure of music actually is in a live performance, especially for classical music. I have read numerous reports in the past that correlate with your findings. People are very surprised to learn the SPL in a live classical performance is usually much lower it is than expected, compared to home stereo listening. "Cossie" wrote: snip On the other hand, the way much of today's music is recorded, we often turn it up to try to replicate that intensity we hear live that is missing from the aural assault of what compression has done to the dynamic range. I tend to agree that dynamic range difference is one of the primary reasons for the perceptual differences of SPL here. Even though the "potential dynamic range" of recorded music is high, in reality it rarely has the ease and wide contrast swing of a live orchestra. It is very difficult to hear the subtle low level detail at the pianissimo end and capture the power of a full orchestra at triple fortissimo in your listening room, even though you may continue turning up the volume. IMHO this is one of the greatest differences between live and recorded music yet today. Regards, Mike |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
I'll buy that in the sense that we don't overcompensate volume
necessarily but the level of excitement, so lacking other stimuli at the time of playback we tend to listen a bit louder. Add to that the ambient noise increase in a setting as described by Dick and perhaps cocktails and the desire to show-off your taste in music a bit and you have a recipe for some overzealous volume control tweekers. Trying to make-up for any frequency losses could also contribute to this. It's a good theory at any angle. - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Cossie" wrote in message news:5u4xb.234209$9E1.1272860@attbi_s52... "Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... I took the opportunity to conduct an experiement: I asked people who had attended the concert and were seated close to where my measurements were taken to adjust the volume control so that it was as loud as they remembered it during the performance. Remember that they were not only playing back the same music, they were playing back THE EXACT SAME PERFORMANCE. The result were VERY interesting. With but a single exception, EVERY one of the participants in the experiment adjusted the volume control so that the sound pressure levels on playback were SIGNIFICANTLY louder than they encountered during the performance. And the differences were not subtle, often they adjusted the volume so it was 10 dB or more louder than they experienced in the performance. The ONLY person to get close was the conductor. The experiment suggests that many people tend to play louder than realistic sound levels. This correlates with the tendency of people to overestimate what the sound pressure of music actually is in a live performance, especially for classical music. I have to wonder if this tendency isn't a way of compensating for the lack of visual cues to go along with the music - we turn it up louder to make it more "real", because we're subliminally missing the complete experience and volume is the only tool at our disposal. I think this is likely especially in the softer sections, when in the concert we would be *looking* at the 2nd violins playing a pp passage, but without the visual we need it louder to convince ourselves that we are really hearing it well. On the other hand, the way much of today's music is recorded, we often turn it up to try to replicate that intensity we hear live that is missing from the aural assault of what compression has done to the dynamic range. Bill Balmer |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
"Cossie" wrote in message news:5u4xb.234209$9E1.1272860@attbi_s52...
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message ... The result were VERY interesting. With but a single exception, EVERY one of the participants in the experiment adjusted the volume control so that the sound pressure levels on playback were SIGNIFICANTLY louder than they encountered during the performance. And the differences were not subtle, often they adjusted the volume so it was 10 dB or more louder than they experienced in the performance. The experiment suggests that many people tend to play louder than realistic sound levels. On the other hand, the way much of today's music is recorded, we often turn it up to try to replicate that intensity we hear live that is missing from the aural assault of what compression has done to the dynamic range. Except in the experiment as I conducted it, there was most assuredly NO compression in the recording. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
"Cossie" wrote in message news:5u4xb.234209$9E1.1272860@attbi_s52...
I have to wonder if this tendency isn't a way of compensating for the lack of visual cues to go along with the music - we turn it up louder to make it more "real", because we're subliminally missing the complete experience and volume is the only tool at our disposal. No doubt this has an effect. Another thing to consider is that a significant fraction (and probably a large majority unless you're the conductor) of sound you hear in a concert hall doesn't come from in front of you, as it does with a pair of speakers. Depending on what part of the hall sound you listen to (consciously or otherwise), you may be turning up a stereo pair to try to hear something better heard coming from the side instead of the front. A pair of speakers compresses sound heard at a few points in space into a narrow angle in front, mixing all spatial cues into one potentially confusing, unnatural mush in front. --Andre |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Mkuller wrote:
"Dick Pierce" wrote: The result were VERY interesting. With but a single exception, EVERY one of the participants in the experiment adjusted the volume control so that the sound pressure levels on playback were SIGNIFICANTLY louder than they encountered during the performance. And the differences were not subtle, often they adjusted the volume so it was 10 dB or more louder than they experienced in the performance. The ONLY person to get close was the conductor. The experiment suggests that many people tend to play louder than realistic sound levels. This correlates with the tendency of people to overestimate what the sound pressure of music actually is in a live performance, especially for classical music. I have read numerous reports in the past that correlate with your findings. People are very surprised to learn the SPL in a live classical performance is usually much lower it is than expected, compared to home stereo listening. So, people are quite often wrong about a key dimension, when they report their memory of a live musical event. The implications for those who claim that audio memory is a sufficient means for determining how much a home system varies from 'the absolute sound', should be clear. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
I took a class in acoustics many years ago, and about half of it was SPL and
hearing. Hearing loss is natural, but can be sped along by sustained loud noises. OSHA will require noise controls in workplace environments where someone is exposed to 8 hours or more a day of 92dB "A" weighted SPL. I think European limits are 85dB "A" weighted -- both correspond to a certain amount of hearing loss that will occur on average if continuously exposed for a number of years. At SPLs above 85dB the amount of hearing loss you can expect to endure above the average level of hearing loss that will occur naturally is something like 25% or so, IIRC. Hrm. Wish I kept better notes and had less memory loss! Either way, if you tend to have your reference level above 80-85dB *be careful* since you are risking diminished ability to enjoy sound later. Imagine what it would be like to not know the difference between a low consumer grade speaker setup and a top of the line speaker! On 11/25/03 7:52 PM, in article 1PSwb.308636$Fm2.325882@attbi_s04, "Chris Scebelo" wrote: You are raising a truly excellent question which is very important. I often refer to an old analog RS sound level meter to monitor listening levels. I too have found higher listening levels best for details but beware. A favorite piece of mine is the Bach Chaconne, a Violin solo, in which all the details can only be heard loud. A 100 db violin is amazing. A B&K monoblock Sonata drives 4 pairs of stacked speakers, 16 mid range woofers and 8 tweeters, and a separate driven sub woofer. The volume can get dangerous. Now the serious stuff, 90 db is an absolute max. To play it safe I suggest you only max out at 85 db. No louder. You will damage your hearing. If in doubt go to an independent audiologist and get a hearing test. As you age or you impair your hearing you can expect your sensitivity to treble to drop dramatically. "Ban" wrote in message news:AEMwb.304993$Fm2.323014@attbi_s04... I'm a little perplexed as to what levels we are adjusting the volume. I myself found that I very consistently adjust the level to 86-88dBA(fast) average with a few peaks up to 100dB (at listening position). My wife thinks that's too high. :-( I need this level not to miss too many details, but without causing an unpleasant feeling of "too loud" in the fortissimo passages. When friends are coming and can freely adjust the volume pot, I see that those experienced choose similar(mostly slightly higher) levels, whereas people without High-end knowledge tend to lower volumes. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy http://www.bansuri.my-page.ms/ electronic hardware designer |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
On 28 Nov 2003 05:34:40 GMT, Bromo wrote:
Another thought occurred to me: A good litmus test of a setup is the ability to be drawn into the music at moderate volumes (~80dB or less). I think some reviewers call it "unfatiguing" and "musicality" - but whatever it is called - systems like that might hold some clues to this enigma. That's a very good point. One of my critical tests of any speaker is to play it very quietly. Does the detail still sparkle? Alas, with many '80s and '90s plastic-coned designs, the answer is no - there seems to be some kind of internal lossiness that squeezes the life out of the sound at low levels. This seems to be much less of a problem with modern composite and metal coned speakers, and IME not a problem at all with large planars such as Quad. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Bromo wrote:
|| || Another thought occurred to me: A good litmus test of a setup is the || ability to be drawn into the music at moderate volumes (~80dB or || less). I think some reviewers call it "unfatiguing" and || "musicality" - but whatever it is called - systems like that might || hold some clues to this enigma. || || Now if you listen to a lot of rock music - concerts regularly hit || ear-bleed levels of 100-110dB - and if you want to experience the || feeling of "being there" somewhere in the 20th row or so...all bets || are off.  Now since I became worried, I tried some experiments: When I hold the meter away from me(70cm) and sing, I can contain a continuous level of 90dB, with a peak effort without screaming 98dB for short periods. A normal conversation measures 70dB. I cannot think these levels are dangerous, imagine a choir singer with closer spacement and many sources will probably encounter levels of 100dB and higher for extended times. Yesterday my dentist came to listen to my speakers, I do not know why, but dentists seem to be a lot into HiFi... I kept the avarage level at 83dB and he asked me a couple of times to put it louder, and liked it at 87dB. I played Beethoven's Violinconcert with Karajan and Anne-Sophie Mutter and he definetly enjoyed a higher level there. Just 2weeks ago I went to David Bowie in Nice, France and I had a ringing in the ears for 2 days, though I thought the bass was too low in volume. It is already the second DB-concert with bad sound AFAIR. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy electronic hardware designer |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Ban wrote:
Bromo wrote: || || Another thought occurred to me: A good litmus test of a setup is the || ability to be drawn into the music at moderate volumes (~80dB or || less). I think some reviewers call it "unfatiguing" and || "musicality" - but whatever it is called - systems like that might || hold some clues to this enigma. || || Now if you listen to a lot of rock music - concerts regularly hit || ear-bleed levels of 100-110dB - and if you want to experience the || feeling of "being there" somewhere in the 20th row or so...all bets || are off. Now since I became worried, I tried some experiments: When I hold the meter away from me(70cm) and sing, I can contain a continuous level of 90dB, with a peak effort without screaming 98dB for short periods. A normal conversation measures 70dB. I cannot think these levels are dangerous, imagine a choir singer with closer spacement and many sources will probably encounter levels of 100dB and higher for extended times. Yesterday my dentist came to listen to my speakers, I do not know why, but dentists seem to be a lot into HiFi... I kept the avarage level at 83dB and he asked me a couple of times to put it louder, and liked it at 87dB. I played Beethoven's Violinconcert with Karajan and Anne-Sophie Mutter and he definetly enjoyed a higher level there. Just 2weeks ago I went to David Bowie in Nice, France and I had a ringing in the ears for 2 days, though I thought the bass was too low in volume. It is already the second DB-concert with bad sound AFAIR. 80 dB is in my opinion quite low. The lowest listening level I use is probably abound 95 dB SPL (unweighted). I mean when listening, not as background music. When wanting the full listening experience I tend to like it somewhere between 100 and 110 dB SPL (unweighted). I disgree with the previous poster (Bromo) that ear-bleed levels are 100 - 110 dB SPL, unless he's using some high weighting. Unweighted, I can hit 100 dB SPL without hardly interrupting normal speech. The levels at the loudest concert I've been to (Bachman-Turner Overdrive) were (I estimate) around 130 dB SPL (at least 120). The standard rock concert (e.g., Styx or Boston) is under 120 dB SPL in my estimation. These values are all unweighted. -- % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall." %%%% % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Steven said
So, people are quite often wrong about a key dimension, when they report their memory of a live musical event. The implications for those who claim that audio memory is a sufficient means for determining how much a home system varies from 'the absolute sound', should be clear. BRBR I strongly disagree with your analysis and conclusion. If the cause of the mistake in level was due simply to failed memory then the results would have been all over the place. It is unlikely that listeners would so uniformly make the same mistake if it were a mistake in memory. I think the results suggest something quite different. The listeners were asked to match level. They were not asked about the total fidelity of the results. I would speculate that the mistaken estimations in level marked a consistent preference for one distortion (level) to compensate for other distortions (non level) to create a perceived higher level of accuracy. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Bromo wrote in message ...
Keep in mind you have 2 ears, and you tend to sit in the audience, not amongst the instruments. Yes, but the critical radius (the distance from the sound source where the reverberent sound's energy is equal to the main sound's energy) in most concert halls is 3 meters. That means the audience is mostly listening to sound from all around them. You may have only two ears, but those ears and your brain react differently to sounds arriving from different directions. It's the sum effect of sound arriving from all over, and not just the front, that gives one the acoustic impression of a space. Stereo in a room with decent room acoustics ought to be enough to be drawn in in my opinion - unless we can show that people who normally listen at high SPL's turn down their stereo system when multichannel music is playing. Two speakers may draw you in (as a mono recording of an especially captivating performer could also), but they are not necessarily representative of what the sound is like in the hall. In my experience, two speakers turned up to measured in-situ SPL levels tend to sound shouty, whereas a good multichannel presentation is much more relaxed and natural, closer to the real thing. --Andre |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Ban wrote:
Bromo wrote: || || Another thought occurred to me: A good litmus test of a setup is the || ability to be drawn into the music at moderate volumes (~80dB or || less). I think some reviewers call it "unfatiguing" and || "musicality" - but whatever it is called - systems like that might || hold some clues to this enigma. || || Now if you listen to a lot of rock music - concerts regularly hit || ear-bleed levels of 100-110dB - and if you want to experience the || feeling of "being there" somewhere in the 20th row or so...all bets || are off. Now since I became worried, I tried some experiments: When I hold the meter away from me(70cm) and sing, I can contain a continuous level of 90dB, with a peak effort without screaming 98dB for short periods. A normal conversation measures 70dB. Everest (3rd Edition, p 26) lists 60 dB (A-weighted) for conversation...and 30 dB for a recording studio. SPLs of 80-100 dB are associated with heavy traffic, noisy offices, or heavy trucks. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spendors & Harbeths [Was: average listening levels]
Mr. Pinkerton makes an excellent point regarding plastic-coned designs
and what he phrases "internal lossiness" at low listening levels. This raises an interesting question regarding older versus newer Spendor and Harbeth speakers. My questions: Spendor's BC1's are still considered very good speakers and seem to have almost a "cult" following, with a very active Yahoo group dedicated to them. (1) Do many of you consider Spendor's newer SP-100 speakers to be less lossy or more lossy than the classic BC1's? Are the SP-100's a significant step forward over the BC1? (2) And is Harbeth's "radial" plastic composite cone an improvement over the poly cones of the SP-100, or just a different design approach with a different sounding result? IMHO, most of the Spendors and Harbeth's I've listened to were far superior in low-level sound quality to many of the poly coned American (and some UK) speakers of this time period cited by Mr. Pinkerton, such as many of the Infinity and Mission brand models that touted the use of poly cones in their ads. I would argue that not all poly coned speakers are the same: As in any audio endeavour, some were well-designed and are still considered classics (BC1) while others (Infinity, for example) should never have seen the light of day. Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 28 Nov 2003 05:34:40 GMT, Bromo wrote: Another thought occurred to me: A good litmus test of a setup is the ability to be drawn into the music at moderate volumes (~80dB or less). I think some reviewers call it "unfatiguing" and "musicality" - but whatever it is called - systems like that might hold some clues to this enigma. That's a very good point. One of my critical tests of any speaker is to play it very quietly. Does the detail still sparkle? Alas, with many '80s and '90s plastic-coned designs, the answer is no - there seems to be some kind of internal lossiness that squeezes the life out of the sound at low levels. This seems to be much less of a problem with modern composite and metal coned speakers, and IME not a problem at all with large planars such as Quad. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
On 11/29/03 2:24 AM, in article WQXxb.250854$275.924491@attbi_s53, "Andre
Yew" wrote: Bromo wrote in message ... Keep in mind you have 2 ears, and you tend to sit in the audience, not amongst the instruments. Yes, but the critical radius (the distance from the sound source where the reverberent sound's energy is equal to the main sound's energy) in most concert halls is 3 meters. That means the audience is mostly listening to sound from all around them. You may have only two ears, but those ears and your brain react differently to sounds arriving from different directions. It's the sum effect of sound arriving from all over, and not just the front, that gives one the acoustic impression of a space. Agreed - however, as we all do not sit in anechoic chambers whilst listening, our room acoustics will predominate in all cases, be it 2, 6 or 10 speakers! Stereo in a room with decent room acoustics ought to be enough to be drawn in in my opinion - unless we can show that people who normally listen at high SPL's turn down their stereo system when multichannel music is playing. Two speakers may draw you in (as a mono recording of an especially captivating performer could also), but they are not necessarily representative of what the sound is like in the hall. Given real world experiences, and real setups (I have a 5.1 system that plays great stereo -- Thiel) I have found your actual room acoustics will tend to add or subtract far more from your "being there" experience than the number of speakers. This was a rather expensive conclusion to come to as I could have saved a lot of money by just getting the stereo system. I would agree that you can get a better semblance of the room acoustics with surround speakers - and mimic that acoustics - although it will be further colored by your room. In my experience, two speakers turned up to measured in-situ SPL levels tend to sound shouty, whereas a good multichannel presentation is much more relaxed and natural, closer to the real thing. I have not experienced the "shoutiness" you are complaining about - perhaps room acoustics are to blame here - or perhaps speakers/amps being overdriven - or perhaps you ears are being overloaded - I noticed that during rock concerts in my younger days. My setup can play very comfortably in the 85dB-90dB range - though I rarely go above 75-80dB since I feel most comfortable at these softer levels and can easily be drawn in to the music at those levels. At the end of the day - if you are really happy with good 5.1 presentation of music - then that is all that really matters - after all, this is a passion and entertainment for most of us, nothing that would make the difference between life-or-death. And despite our best efforts so far - the ultimate "being there" experience is -- being there! |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
I grab a couple squares of toilet paper and stuff the required amount
into my ears to reach the needed attenuation level and then move it about to achieve some form of frequency balance. Infinately adjustable and free at each nightclubs crapper... - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Nousaine" wrote in message news:iSXxb.251676$ao4.894147@attbi_s51... "Ban" wrote: ..snip to content ...... Just 2weeks ago I went to David Bowie in Nice, France and I had a ringing in the ears for 2 days, though I thought the bass was too low in volume. It is already the second DB-concert with bad sound AFAIR. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy electronic hardware designer I deal with PA system concerts with hearing protection. If I enter a venue, even a small jazz club and I see a PA system (any electronic augmentation) I immediately inser Musician's Ear Plugs. I have 3 attenuation values (9dB for small spaces with moderate augmentation of primarily acoustic performances ("Ruthie Foster, Happy Days Center, Boston Heights Ohio; 15 dB for the typical club environment or smaller open-air venues; Lovin' Spoonful @ festival, Susan Tedeschi @ Clio Ampitheater, Meier Gardens and 25 dB for large rock concerts or any autosound event; Sheryl Crow, Simon & Garfunkel for example) These devices (approx: $120 a pair) feature balanced attenuation and custom ear molds. Inquire at Etymotic Research websire or you local audiologist. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
"Uptown Audio" wrote:
I grab a couple squares of toilet paper and stuff the required amount into my ears to reach the needed attenuation level and then move it about to achieve some form of frequency balance. Infinately adjustable and free at each nightclubs crapper... - Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 I've occasionally used cocktail napkins as well. Just make sure not to use that one you scrawled the schematic for the next big-thing in audio. I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on this topic. Hearing loss with age is a natural phenomenon and with modern small gasoline engines and power tools we should all use hearing protection (foamies work fine here) to ensure that we don't hasten that process by accidental exposure to more high-level noise than need be. "Nousaine" wrote in message news:iSXxb.251676$ao4.894147@attbi_s51... "Ban" wrote: ..snip to content ...... Just 2weeks ago I went to David Bowie in Nice, France and I had a ringing in the ears for 2 days, though I thought the bass was too low in volume. It is already the second DB-concert with bad sound AFAIR. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy electronic hardware designer I deal with PA system concerts with hearing protection. If I enter a venue, even a small jazz club and I see a PA system (any electronic augmentation) I immediately inser Musician's Ear Plugs. I have 3 attenuation values (9dB for small spaces with moderate augmentation of primarily acoustic performances ("Ruthie Foster, Happy Days Center, Boston Heights Ohio; 15 dB for the typical club environment or smaller open-air venues; Lovin' Spoonful @ festival, Susan Tedeschi @ Clio Ampitheater, Meier Gardens and 25 dB for large rock concerts or any autosound event; Sheryl Crow, Simon & Garfunkel for example) These devices (approx: $120 a pair) feature balanced attenuation and custom ear molds. Inquire at Etymotic Research websire or you local audiologist. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Bromo wrote in message news:w9fyb.365343$Fm2.365365@attbi_s04...
Agreed - however, as we all do not sit in anechoic chambers whilst listening, our room acoustics will predominate in all cases, be it 2, 6 or 10 speakers! Room acoustics will still be very important, but the important thing about multichannel is that it can provide the right perceptual cue at the right level at the right time from the right direction, whereas two-channel has to rely on a treated room to simulate such things, and then such simulations cannot be accurate (though they may still sound nice). Given real world experiences, and real setups (I have a 5.1 system that plays great stereo -- Thiel) I have found your actual room acoustics will tend to add or subtract far more from your "being there" experience than the number of speakers. This was a rather expensive conclusion to come to as I could have saved a lot of money by just getting the stereo system. I agree with you actually, but for a different reason. I think the multichannel world's gotten too caught up with the number of channels as a measure of quality, because it says nothing about something else equally or even more important --- what goes into those channels! A better model is to expand on what Ambisonics has done (I'm not advocating Ambi, by the way), and use an acoustic reconstruction theory which is then rendered on playback by some number of speakers. Simplistically, the theory would specify the kind of acoustical phenomena (hopefully derived from a study of human perception so we only deal with the ones that are going to matter to the hearing system) it's going to encode. The playback system will know how many speakers it has, and where they're placed, and render the captured acoustic information as accurately and pleasingly as possible (again this has to be modeled perceptually instead of something simple and convenient like least squares). The capture system (the mics and their placement) can also be parametrically defined by this theory. The big advantage of such a system is scalability, and efficiency of transport --- we don't need to guarantee 12 channels or whatever of bandwidth, just the same constant bandwidth for the a particular set of acoustic information. Of course, the theory engine itself has to be scalable and separate, so it can be replaced or expanded as our knowledge and experience grows. IMO, this is the one big problem with Ambisonics --- it captures information at only one point in space, which is perceptually unrealistic, but many of the other things it does are very elegant and even beautiful. I have not experienced the "shoutiness" you are complaining about - perhaps room acoustics are to blame here - or perhaps speakers/amps being overdriven - or perhaps you ears are being overloaded - I noticed that during rock concerts in my younger days. I think it may the room acoustics, or turning up the speakers to hear something that's being masked by the room, so the rest of the spectrum is very loud. I've recently switched to a hybrid dipole speaker (Linkwitz Orion) which reduces room interaction significantly, and things have improved greatly, including the shoutiness. My setup can play very comfortably in the 85dB-90dB range - though I rarely go above 75-80dB since I feel most comfortable at these softer levels and can easily be drawn in to the music at those levels. I actually listen softer, like 65 to 72 dB SPL. This is just a guess: my volume knob is at -20 to -13 dB relative to digital full-scale, and the system's calibrated to do 85 dB SPL C-weighted pink noise at +0 dB on the knob. So depending on program material (eg. highly level-compressed stuff), the actual SPL may vary a bit. At the end of the day - if you are really happy with good 5.1 presentation of music - then that is all that really matters - after all, this is a passion and entertainment for most of us, nothing that would make the difference between life-or-death. And despite our best efforts so far - the ultimate "being there" experience is -- being there! Yes, I agree. I could not say it better. --Andre |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
I'm coming to this discussion late, but wanted to add my experiences and 2
(or 4) bits since i think this issue often doesn't get enough attention: some of my experiences: - i too have brought a sound level meter to a couple of live classical performances and the sound levels are surprisingly low. (often off the 50 db scale on the meter with only momentary peaks hitting 80 db or so from a middle of the hall perspective (using C weighting, slow response). - i bought my analog radio shack meter several years ago more as a curiosity. i was surprised to learn that i typically listen at mean levels in the low 60s (with peaks that can hit 80 for classical music) for all sorts of music: classical, jazz, rock, folk (acoustic). Then again, in the car (when i had my old 1985 Honda civic), i was blaring the radio at 80+ db just to overcome road noise on the freeway. - people have very different loudness preferences and tolerances. There have been many a time when i go to a hi-end shop and have my "high resolution" hearing blown out (temporarily) but a zealous salesperson trying to show off the dynamics of the equipment. i find that in a quiet environment, 60-70 db (mean, again...peaks can be a quite a bit higher) allow me to get into the music and hear a lot of different details...anything higher for a significant period, i lose my ability to resolve finer details when evaluating equipment. in more recent years, i've taken an active role in making sure i'm the one adjusting the volume from the start of my audition periods (although my system has reached "steady state" in recent years and i haven't been shopping much). - in general, having had other audiophiles come to my house to listen, most of us now agree that one can get very critical listening accomplished even with music in the 50-60 db range of playback. this is true IF 1) the background noise is very low (best guess is our house is around 20-25 db), 2) one has a system whose speakers open up well even at low volumes (i have maggies which i personally think can open up fairly nicely once i hit the mid 50 db range (again for mean levels). - as i indicated above, background noise levels are critical. experiment (not recommended to be done often): try to play a set of "open" headphones while on the plane at a level that allows for decent resolution...then, try that same volume setting back at the hotel room (or your house)...you'll be alarmed at how loud you were playing your music. i've since adopted Etymotic ER-4Ps (highly recommended) which provide 20+ db of isolation. with them, i never turn up my MD or new iPod to more than 1/4-1/3 of the volume range. soapbox on - Finally, one does not value their hearing until it is too late: in my case, i learned the hard way how sensitive and delicate our hearing really is. last year, i spent about an hour helping a friend cut paver stones with a ceramic saw not wearing ear protection. the end result -- hyperacusis (amplified concerts, large groups and people with really high pitched voices give me difficulties), tinnitus in my right ear, and a hearing loss at 6 khz in my right ear*. the latter two are very coupled. i _fortunately_ can still enjoy my music, i don't have problems playing at my "pre-injury" listening habit levels of 60-70 db, and i still can hear subtle differences between different equipment, etc. Nevertheless, the injuries definitely have removed the "black silence" i used to hear in quiet classical pieces. it's interesting to note that i don't notice the "notch" in my R ear's freq. response unless i plug my left ear...somehow, i guess the brain compensates. But i am su i have lost some resolving ability in my hearing. without having as "black a silence" i have lost something that i used to have prior to the accident. Protect your ears! soapbox off -Derek * an audiogram shows that i have distinct notch at that frequency. in fact, for all frequences other than 6 khz, i have hearing thresholds below 10 db. for my L ear (which wasn't protected but somehow didn't get damaged as much), the notch is at 20 db...still considered normal hearing, but my test 5 years prior to the injury had that threshold level at 10 db. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
Excellent analysis and your closing personal anecdote on hearing loss was
very telling. Carelessness in not bothering with hearing protection, US military service, leads to hearing loss which can not be cured. For an enjoyer of music what could be worse. "Derek Fong" wrote in message news:R4szb.412754$Fm2.418874@attbi_s04... I'm coming to this discussion late, but wanted to add my experiences and 2 (or 4) bits since i think this issue often doesn't get enough attention: some of my experiences: - i too have brought a sound level meter to a couple of live classical performances and the sound levels are surprisingly low. (often off the 50 db scale on the meter with only momentary peaks hitting 80 db or so from a middle of the hall perspective (using C weighting, slow response). - i bought my analog radio shack meter several years ago more as a curiosity. i was surprised to learn that i typically listen at mean levels in the low 60s (with peaks that can hit 80 for classical music) for all sorts of music: classical, jazz, rock, folk (acoustic). Then again, in the car (when i had my old 1985 Honda civic), i was blaring the radio at 80+ db just to overcome road noise on the freeway. - people have very different loudness preferences and tolerances. There have been many a time when i go to a hi-end shop and have my "high resolution" hearing blown out (temporarily) but a zealous salesperson trying to show off the dynamics of the equipment. i find that in a quiet environment, 60-70 db (mean, again...peaks can be a quite a bit higher) allow me to get into the music and hear a lot of different details...anything higher for a significant period, i lose my ability to resolve finer details when evaluating equipment. in more recent years, i've taken an active role in making sure i'm the one adjusting the volume from the start of my audition periods (although my system has reached "steady state" in recent years and i haven't been shopping much). - in general, having had other audiophiles come to my house to listen, most of us now agree that one can get very critical listening accomplished even with music in the 50-60 db range of playback. this is true IF 1) the background noise is very low (best guess is our house is around 20-25 db), 2) one has a system whose speakers open up well even at low volumes (i have maggies which i personally think can open up fairly nicely once i hit the mid 50 db range (again for mean levels). - as i indicated above, background noise levels are critical. experiment (not recommended to be done often): try to play a set of "open" headphones while on the plane at a level that allows for decent resolution...then, try that same volume setting back at the hotel room (or your house)...you'll be alarmed at how loud you were playing your music. i've since adopted Etymotic ER-4Ps (highly recommended) which provide 20+ db of isolation. with them, i never turn up my MD or new iPod to more than 1/4-1/3 of the volume range. soapbox on - Finally, one does not value their hearing until it is too late: in my case, i learned the hard way how sensitive and delicate our hearing really is. last year, i spent about an hour helping a friend cut paver stones with a ceramic saw not wearing ear protection. the end result -- hyperacusis (amplified concerts, large groups and people with really high pitched voices give me difficulties), tinnitus in my right ear, and a hearing loss at 6 khz in my right ear*. the latter two are very coupled. i _fortunately_ can still enjoy my music, i don't have problems playing at my "pre-injury" listening habit levels of 60-70 db, and i still can hear subtle differences between different equipment, etc. Nevertheless, the injuries definitely have removed the "black silence" i used to hear in quiet classical pieces. it's interesting to note that i don't notice the "notch" in my R ear's freq. response unless i plug my left ear...somehow, i guess the brain compensates. But i am su i have lost some resolving ability in my hearing. without having as "black a silence" i have lost something that i used to have prior to the accident. Protect your ears! soapbox off -Derek * an audiogram shows that i have distinct notch at that frequency. in fact, for all frequences other than 6 khz, i have hearing thresholds below 10 db. for my L ear (which wasn't protected but somehow didn't get damaged as much), the notch is at 20 db...still considered normal hearing, but my test 5 years prior to the injury had that threshold level at 10 db. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
On 12/2/03 1:35 AM, in article WoWyb.278177$275.997802@attbi_s53, "Andre
Yew" wrote: My setup can play very comfortably in the 85dB-90dB range - though I rarely go above 75-80dB since I feel most comfortable at these softer levels and can easily be drawn in to the music at those levels. I actually listen softer, like 65 to 72 dB SPL. This is just a guess: my volume knob is at -20 to -13 dB relative to digital full-scale, and the system's calibrated to do 85 dB SPL C-weighted pink noise at +0 dB on the knob. So depending on program material (eg. highly level-compressed stuff), the actual SPL may vary a bit. I have found more enjoyment with a good setup at lower volumes than at the louder volumes that one can feel compelled to play music with a system with more coloration. It sounds like you and I pretty much agree - the multichannel sound has its place - acoustical reproduction - but being obse4ssed with N channels is a bit extreme. I just got back from a business trip where I listened to noise cancelling headphones with a Minidisc player - sounded pretty good considering the noise in the plane, but boy was I glad to get home to listen to some rel music. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
|
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
"Robert C. Lang" wrote in message
news  irBb.348039$275.1145577@attbi_s53...snip, not relevant to point One thing for certain I have found that as I have learned to turn the volume down (although still a little louder than reality in most situations) my system becomes seemingly even more resolving and I enjoy the music more. I have found the same thing when playing multichannel symphonic music especially. My guess is I do now listen at realistic levels, and the sound is "just right". Yet it can coexist with the neighbors nicely and I don't feel I'm missing a thing. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
More channels might be the secret. Although I'm a two-channel die-hard, I
can understand the possibility that more speakers might envelop the listener more than just two, thereby reducing the urge to crank up the volume... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Robert C. Lang" wrote in message news irBb.348039$275.1145577@attbi_s53...snip, not relevant to point One thing for certain I have found that as I have learned to turn the volume down (although still a little louder than reality in most situations) my system becomes seemingly even more resolving and I enjoy the music more. I have found the same thing when playing multichannel symphonic music especially. My guess is I do now listen at realistic levels, and the sound is "just right". Yet it can coexist with the neighbors nicely and I don't feel I'm missing a thing. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
average listening levels
"Shadow" wrote in message ...
110 on average(when I want it loud). "Ban" wrote in message news:AEMwb.304993$Fm2.323014@attbi_s04... I'm a little perplexed as to what levels we are adjusting the volume. I myself found that I very consistently adjust the level to 86-88dBA(fast) average with a few peaks up to 100dB (at listening position). My wife thinks that's too high. :-( I need this level not to miss too many details, but without causing an unpleasant feeling of "too loud" in the fortissimo passages. When friends are coming and can freely adjust the volume pot, I see that those experienced choose similar(mostly slightly higher) levels, whereas people without High-end knowledge tend to lower volumes. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy http://www.bansuri.my-page.ms/ electronic hardware designer ** Listening to a constant level that high will cause permanent hearing loss or damage. When you have suffered enough damage to your hearing, any loud noise triggers tinnitis "ringing in the ears" which may last for several days. The sad part of this is that hearing loss is steady and progressive, and once hearing is lost or damaged it can not be recovered. At the moment I am siting in a quiet house listening to the ringing in both ears. There is no volume control. Fair Warning. Walt R. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Setting spkr levels for DPLII | High End Audio | |||
| Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something) | High End Audio | |||
| hearing loss info | Car Audio | |||
| one 12 vs two 10 | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
