|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.131.182.231
In Reply to: RE: I thought the article was poorly written--here's why posted by pbarach on March 28, 2014 at 14:53:52
Wrong!A 1 dB change in volume is the smallest difference that a human can detect!
Where you start the reference level (0 dB) at is, (absolutely) above or below some known dB reference level.
There is a difference between relative and absolute.
Edits: 03/28/14Follow Ups:
"A 1 dB change in volume is the smallest difference that a human can detect!"
Oooh, sorry.
You haven't been reading your 50 year old technical publications. Under controlled conditions, 0.1 dB is readily detectable. Under un-controlled conditions, 0.25 dB is readily detectable.
:)
the human hearing limits vary with level and frequency.
1 dB is a average number.
0,3 dB changes can be heard, it has been shown in many scientific researches.
Why would you say that?
Regards,
Geoff
That is typically true in the audio field. Some people claiming otherwise, also claim surreal hearing ability.Do you believe a 3 db change is a having or doubling in volume?
Not true: a doubling or having in apparent volume (judged by the listener) is a 6.8 dB change.
That is a scientific fact.
Edits: 03/29/14 03/29/14
It's clearly wrong and one can discern 0.25 dB difference easily. I have a Placette 0.25 dB passive preamp and the difference in volume is clear.
"Why would you say that?"
I don't know why, but it's clearly incorrect. 1 dB is well over the threshold of what I can hear. I just ran a test and when white noise takes a volume jump of +0.5 dB or -0.5 dB the transition is noticeable as an increase or decrease in volume. I would guess that most people can hear differences down to a threshold between 0.1 dB and 1.0 dB.
The article is incorrect in other respects. The dynamic range for 16 bit audio is not 96 dB if the audio is dithered properly. If this is done, then another 6 dB is lost, which reduces the range to 90 dB. Worse, if complex music is recorded without any limiting or compression, there will be a peak to average ratio of about 20 dB due to wave crests. If these are to be handled without clipping the 0 VU level needs to be set at -20 dBfs. This takes the dynamic range down to about 70 dB.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Recording Level for Live Music? Also, Chamber Music Levels and Big Band Levels.
-6, -12, -20?
I've read and been told to keep it to -6.
When I've recorded hotter, I end up riding the Volume control
when Playing Back.
The answer depends on the equipment being used and its particular characteristics. There is also a question of how the meters are being used that show levels, as these can be peak or can show various average levels. (There are many different forms of averaging meters.) If your equipment is decent, -6 or -12 peaks should be fine with 24 bits. (You can see this after the fact by looking at the data file with an editor.)
With a live recording, if you are going to err keep the levels on the low side. It takes some experience to figure out how to do this. Among other things, when the musicians are playing in front of an audience they will play a few dB louder than when they are rehearsing. (This is because of adrenaline as well as changed hall acoustics.)
I think it helps to have experience screwing things up both ways: too loud and too soft. :-(
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thanks Tony! Experience counts, no doubt!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: