AVS Forum banner

13061 - 13080 of 18844 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Yes, you can start another thread to badger Dr. Toole to run your test. Or better yet try it yourself and post the results; would be very interesting.

The only thing I have yet to try is to test the Revel M106 against Revel Be126and against the smaller loudspeakers that I own. I certainly will post the results here if I have the chance to test them.



But one little thing bothers me...what is my opinion's value about those loudspeakers for others if a) that test would not be conducted using a double blind test and b) I will definitely be using a different amplifier to drive them?



I for one, following Dr. Toole and Revel's very own philosophy, will certainly hear those loudspeakers using the double blind test method to determine which is best. Because, as Dr. Toole and Revel has thoroughly shown, it's the only way to validate each one's opinion about music reproduction, if one intends to share it with others, of course.



One caveat still exists though, the amplifier to drive those loudspeakers will be different from the next guy's... so, how would those Revels sound with a different amplifier? Can we actually hear the difference?



That's the advantage of having several powerful enough amplifiers at your disposal, like I do... so I can double test them w/ each loudspeaker. Let's see what the result will be then!;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
In a home system, if you have power amps with way too much power and no level controls, you will have a problem running your preamp volume control at a good level, i.e it will be barely open before it gets too loud. One wrong move and you will blow drivers with too much power and possibly damage your hearing.
Here is how I look at it. I want enough output devices and an amp circuit topology to cover my butt. One never knows how difficult of a load might be with their next speaker system. So I personally chose to over engineer. In other words, I want to control any potential difficult speaker load without clipping and certainly have enough control so that my FR is always ruler flat.

Now for the marketing and why manufactures tout more watts. With a lot of output devices, the manufacture (and over simplifying) needs a bigger power supply ($200-$300 on the bill of material) from obtaining more "watts" than anybody really ever needs. Marketing 101: more watts == more testosterone. And the more testosterone == more top end boutique sales. I realize that often, I'm listening to a watt or less. But I error on getting more "oomph" (control and headroom) than I need. Therefore I (irrationally??) buy amps at 200 watts per channel and as much as 400 watts. I like to see amps that are stable down to 2 to 2.5 ohms.

A common question that I get from customers is that they are concerned about buying an amp that has more watts per channel that the speakers can handle. My analogy: if you want a car that goes from 0-60 in 4 seconds, you get a 200+ top end even if you never want to go above 100 mph. So just because the tires spec might be rated at 130 mph, that doesn't mean that you have to go beyond that speed. Re: audio, just because a speaker is rated for 150 watts max doesn't mean you cannot bolt it to a 250 watt amp to it. Why not??? Simply limit the preamp level and rest well.

Also in a home system, all things being equal, more watts doesn't mean you have less sensitive volume range. In fact, buying more watts and not experiencing a volume change difference is a complaint of many. Something like "My new 300 watt amp sounds less powerful than the 100 watt NAD." As if they paid more $$ and got less power . That of course is related to the amps gain circuit. So I've personally have never run into a situation where a higher power amp messed with the gain making it it too sensitive to adjust the volume. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Soundstage uses the measurement system I left behind when I left the NRCC in 1991. It is a good system and the data are accurate, but the power compression test is overly demanding, being a stepped tone which, at those sound levels translated to broadband signals would be extremely loud! So, I would not. be concerned about small amounts of "indicated" power compression, as it is very likely at program sound levels higher than you would tolerate, much less derive pleasure from. As I have said in other forums, I would do it differently now.

The 105 dB reference sound level is the steady-state sound level in a normally reflective room - not an anechoic chamber.

You might want to check out Part 3 of the series of articles on the companion website to my new book - it is open access, not necessary to buy the book. Go t www.routledge.com/cw/toole
It is not THX who set the reference sound levels, it was the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers - SMPTE - and it is embodied in their standards and the equivalent ISO standard. THX just extended it to home theaters. However, there is a significant perceptual difference between a 500 (or more) seat cinema and a small home theater, where those sound levels are often considered to be uncomfortably high, especially with the recent addition of "loudness wars" in which sound tracks are compressed to take advantage of the additional useable dynamic range that digital offers. It is not a technical issue, it is often the judgment of the director who from the back of the mix room shouts "louder" "louder". :(. There are cinemas that compete to be the loudest in the neighborhood. A current problem is that cinema audiences are complaining, walking out, which has caused the movie industry to revisit the situation. Cinemas sensitive to business, have been known to reduce playback sound levels by as much as 10 dB!. An additional problem is blown drivers in cinemas not designed for sustained high sound levels. Of course, film mix engineers are exposed to imprudent sound levels for hours at a time - hearing loss is an occupational hazard. There is work to be done.

Rating the power handling capability of loudspeaker systems is an almost impossible task. The real situation depends totally on the spectral and dynamic content of the program being played. Any test resulting in a number is almost certainly based on a steady-state signal attempting to replicate the "average" program listened to by an unknown population. Then, any number generated by conscientious engineers has a chance of being enlarged by an eager marketing dept.

Thank you for your reply, Dr. Toole.
Since You have been my guidance for Audio Nirvana over past two decades, it is great pleasure to hear directly from you.:D

I have read your new book, articles in the companion website, and almost all of your previous post in AVS forum. And I have been reading your book second time.
Unfortunately the fact that I have read your book and all your previous posts at least once, does not necessarily mean that I understand your book and posts well enough.:eek:

"Deviation from Linearity at 90dB and Above" measurement results from Soundstage confuses me.:confused:

Revel F12s seemed to have better measurement than Salon2s for this measurment, perhaps because of higher sensitivity and benign impedance. Then Can F12s play louder than Salon2, especially when played with a subwoofer?
Soundstage measured PSB alpha B1 at 95 dB SPL, but they did not do that for F206s. Then, with a decent subwoofer covering 100 Hz and below, PSB alpha B1 can play louder than F206s, except upper bass regions?
Are power compression in tweeter range less important than those in bass and mid-ranges, perhaps because of less energy in tweeter range than in bass and mid-ranges in a music (or movie) program?

What does it mean that F208s can play louder than F206s (or Salon2s than Studio2s) especially when used with a subwoofer, except upper bass ranges?

The measurement shown below (attached) have been used as an evidence that JBL M2 have excellent dynamic range and power handling capacity.

How much could we know how loud a loudspeaker can play based on measurements of "Deviation from Linearity at 90dB and Above" from Soundstage?
If not much, what measurements should I look at?
I really want to know which measurement I rely on to determine dynamic capabilities of a loudspeaker.
It seems that no such measurements exist. Am I right?
I have been attracted to loudspeakers that have been using in a recording studio, because, I think, studio monitors frequently used by a recording engineer are proven to have better dynamic range and power handling capacity.

I understand that the 105 dB SPL of the steady-state sound level in a normally reflective room would be way too loud. However, sometimes I like to check the sound of the reference levels at which recording engineers are listening, considering Equal loudness Contour. I think the reference levels may be better to hear in a well-damped room like a recording studio than in a reflective domestic listening rooms.

Nonetheless, I like to know exact performance and capabilities of my loudspeakers.
The information is hard to get.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I am serious when I say, I hope you consider using hearing protection if you are blowing tweeters while testing.

I have done a lot of "testing" with SPL meters to see what levels I can achieve with many different speakers and amps, PA systems etc.

Once I get to a loudness level that is uncomfortable for my ears and I want to see how much farther I can go before seeing clip indicators on power amps, I use hearing protection.

I try very hard to not damage drivers or my ears.
Usually a listening test at very high level have been done when I get a new equipment, especially a speaker.
Actually the last test I blown the tweeter was done a decade ago.
During past several months, I bought several revel speakers.
I could not perform a high-volume-level test for these revel speakers, because of the fear of damaging them.

I will use hearing protection, when I test speakers at very high sound levels in the future.
Although, it is difficult to get comfy transparent earplugs in my region.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
I understand that the 105 dB SPL of the steady-state sound level in a normally reflective room would be way too loud. However, sometimes I like to check the sound of the reference levels at which recording engineers are listing, considering Equal loudness Contour. I think the reference levels may be better to hear in a well-damped room like a recording studio than in a reflective domestic listening rooms.
To me, this statement sounds like you still think 105dB SPL is the reference level that recording engineers use (as a reminder, we are only talking about film here). That's not the case. 85dB SPL is the reference level--105 dB is the upper limit (more of a soft limit) for peaks. It's an important distinction; if you had a speaker capable of sitting at 105dB SPL in typical operation and suffering no dynamic compression, you'd be looking at 125dB SPL peaks--I believe the word "ear splitting" would be appropriate there. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
Many years ago I had to leave a ZZ Top concert when I finally realized half way through the song they were playing Hot Blue and Righteous - it was so loud my folding chair was moving around on the floor like those old miniature football games from the 70s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Off topic but you bring up an important point. Why in the H_ll do music venues permanently and intentionally damage their customers ears?:confused: I'm no longer taking any risks. I stay away or look like a geek and bring ear protection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts

·
Member
Joined
·
844 Posts
Tough call. I like lower output impedance which would lean toward the 200 W model but power is nice to have on tap if you need it (big if). I have no idea if the F208 or F228Be are as hard to drive as my Salon2's (suspect not).

You could get a rough idea of power needed here: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html The F08's at 88.5 dB/W/m are a little less sensitive than the F228Be's at 90 dB/W/m but not by much. A pair of F208's near a wall (typical room) and eight feet away will produce ~110 dB with 200 W which is enough for me. If you are further away or like it loud then the larger amp might help.

HTH - Don
This sound level calculator is wrong. I have said it before in another forum many moons ago, and I think I even tried to send a message to the author of the calculator. It is based on the inverse-square law (-6 dB/double distance) which applies in anechoic spaces, and to the direct sound only in reflective spaces. The steady-state sound level, which is what we are interested in for loudness and system calibration, decays at a rate of about -3 dB/double distance in normally reflective rooms. This makes a huge difference to sizing of an amplifier. See Figure 10.8 in the Third Edition of my book.

A detailed procedure for estimating amplifier size is in Part 3 of the series of papers on the companion website to my book: www.routledge.com/cw/toole. It is open access - no need to buy the book. The sound decay with distance is shown in Figure 5.

Someone in this thread mentioned that the max. peak sound level of a calibrated system is 105 dB SPL. That is the steady-state level of a pure tone 20 dB above cinema calibration level and 30 dB above home theater calibration level. That pure tone has a true peak sound level of 108 dB. See Figure 4 in that paper. I apologize to those who read the text, because I omitted a couple of minus signs - which will I hope be obvious. The figure is correct. This will be fixed in an upcoming revision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,442 Posts
The problem with using even the best, most transparent hearing protection is, it makes it difficult to hear the onset of distortion and shortly thereafter fragile drivers can be damaged. If you have too much clean power you can damage drivers before clipping onset.

If your power amp has enough power to play as loud as you can handle without hearing protection and not clip or blow drivers, I don't see the point of pushing things past that just to see how loud it can go, especially in a home setting. You run the risk of blowing tweeters. I have done it out of curiosity a few times but always with hearing protection and am very careful to watch the clip indicators on the amp. Plus, I'm a pro live sound and recording engineer and have countless hours working with all kinds of amps and speakers in recording control rooms and large concert venues.

When I was doing FOH PA mixing, I needed to know how much headroom was there in case I had to push levels up over an ecstatic audience yelling, screaming, clapping etc. Always good to know the safe limits. I also keep in mind that I don't want to damage my hearing or that of others!

There is always some guy who comes up to you and says "turn it up!" That's what we have the placebo fader (level control) for. Show him you're pushing it up and most every time they say "yeah, that's better!" Don't tell anybody I told you that secret of live sound operators!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,938 Posts
^placebo fader indeed! Ha!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
Last I heard, preamps are just power amps with no real work to do :). Life is much simpler at line level than it is at speaker level. Besides, I'm sure you know that the real frontier is in power cords and interconnects. It is hard to keep a straight face when reading some of the stuff out there . . .
Hello Dr. Floyd. I was catching up on the thread when I read this ^^ post. I bought your Sound Reproduction book. I'm still reading it. Thanks for sharing your passion and experience with others. I've learned a lot. :)

While am an audio dealer, I'm in camp that subjectively enjoys comparing products. Over a decade ago, I was motivated to buy a QSC ABX box. Yes, it was an eye opening experience. That is an understatement;) Like what you learned, my prebias was alive and well. Anybody who says it is obvious to hear the difference between brand A and B amp or preamp is categorically wrong. I'm a quick test away from letting them know the prebias realities. I've been to Northridge and can concur with your accurate statement that similar frequency responses speakers that are competently designed sound rather close to one another. After all, it is why non-trained listeners are random number generators. As a side note, this all, I plan on returning with some brands for Ken and Kevin to listen to and measure. I digress. Anyways, electronics are even more difficult to compare in the blind and I am sure you are not surprised by this statement. :)

Re: preamps. We agree. A competently designed stereo preamp falls under the same category (they sound extremely close to one another; i.e. people often fail to differentiate them in the bind even when trained). If people can hear a repeatable difference (and I often do when the differences are perceived as "obvious"), should it matter?? Probably not. I'm suggesting that preamp PROCESSORS for home theater are a different animal. Especially when listening to a limited amount of channels (stereo).

Here is why: If the goal for an amp is to be a wire with gain, a preamp should be a wire with variable gain. Like an amp, a prepro too is lossy. With a prepro, we have several lossy items in line with one another. For instance often several lossy op amps, a lossy volume control, a Digital to Analog Conversion section with flipping and flopping bits (jitter). The lossiness in any section can never be gotten back and you are summing several lossy sections.

My broader point is that in the blind, there are bigger differences with prepros than with amplifiers.

Re: wire. The science offers an easy explanation for SOME designs. Wires that add value should not cost hundreds. For instance you can make a power cord that is a low pass filter (a simple LCR circuit) that helps reject frequencies and noise coming into the amp above 60 Hz. Often it won't help at all. But sometimes, it does. In another example, a limited bandwidth of an HDMI cable can increase the jitter of a DAC chip. I caught some grief on the forum a couple years ago when I heard (and passed) in the blind with an HDMI cable sounding better having 29GBPS bandwidth and comparing it to a cable at 20GBPS. yes. It was extremely subtle. A year later, I went to D&M in Japan. The designer in charge of the 8802a/8805 too said it would not matter because they have anti jitter circuitry. In the end, he measured lower jitter with the cable I sampled him. He too heard an improvement. It motivated him to modify around 20 signal path enhancements on the new 8805. Now, the jitter is the same with both cables.

Now we could say that in both situations that the amp or a preamp wasn't competently designed. I won't argue. But if the noise gets into the DAC section (even through the amp of the preamp and into the DAC), the jitter normally will rise on the conversion. It's the same reason why people hear a better sound using "pure direct" (bypasses all kinds of noise producing circuits). i.e., KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) sounds better and it can be verified in the blind. Still, if I hit the pure direct button on the remote and show my next door neighbor the difference, they might pay $20 more for the improvement. Should I care? I wish I didn't because I save $$'s but I do.

To me at least, the most disturbing part of the snake oil comes from the price point and the jewelry. But that's just me. That better HDMI cable can be had for $13. The one I gave him was a little wider and cost $200 retail. While my next door neighbor might be willing to part with $20, my passionate customer with deep pockets might pay $50K.

Anyways, keep on posting. We all enjoy your words of wisdom.
Sincerely,
Steve Herrala
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,938 Posts
Off topic but you bring up an important point. Why in the H_ll do music venues permanently and intentionally damage their customers ears?:confused: I'm no longer taking any risks. I stay away or look like a geek and bring ear protection.
Totally agree. Some friends took my wife and I to a venue where such loud volumes were unexpected. The space was acoustically superb and didn't need any amplification, but it was provided by a local AV dealer anyhow. In the back rows where we sat, amplified solo vocalists were painful to hear. Best guess: over 120 dB. I had my fingers in my ears for most of the concert and was relieved when it was over.

Lesson learned. I will never again attend any music performance without hearing protection since so many people believe that louder is always better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nalthien and SteveH

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,755 Posts
This sound level calculator is wrong. I have said it before in another forum many moons ago, and I think I even tried to send a message to the author of the calculator. It is based on the inverse-square law (-6 dB/double distance) which applies in anechoic spaces, and to the direct sound only in reflective spaces. The steady-state sound level, which is what we are interested in for loudness and system calibration, decays at a rate of about -3 dB/double distance in normally reflective rooms. This makes a huge difference to sizing of an amplifier. See Figure 10.8 in the Third Edition of my book.

A detailed procedure for estimating amplifier size is in Part 3 of the series of papers on the companion website to my book: www.routledge.com/cw/toole. It is open access - no need to buy the book. The sound decay with distance is shown in Figure 5.

Someone in this thread mentioned that the max. peak sound level of a calibrated system is 105 dB SPL. That is the steady-state level of a pure tone 20 dB above cinema calibration level and 30 dB above home theater calibration level. That pure tone has a true peak sound level of 108 dB. See Figure 4 in that paper. I apologize to those who read the text, because I omitted a couple of minus signs - which will I hope be obvious. The figure is correct. This will be fixed in an upcoming revision.
Thanks for the reminder, Floyd. Actually, I think you said so on this forum, probably in this thread (eating lunch, too lazy to search). The rolloff is why I routinely use the "close to wall" position in that calculator as it adds 3 dB. Real rooms I have measured, long ago, usually fell between 3 and 6 dB depending upon the frequency and how "live" the room. My room is very dead so is probably close to the 6 dB figure. That said I make no claim to your expertise and experience in acoustics. I reference that online calculator because it is easy for people to use and provides a loose ballpark (over)estimate. There are several others in the wild, but I've noticed a number of them use the anechoic decay, and a lot of the pro versions target large rooms so again do not accurately predict the average levels in typical consumer rooms.

My book's at home; I need to look that up and simply reference that whenever this comes up. It's a very easy spreadsheet problem to solve, and all you really need is a hand calculator. (I used to say an engineer's three most important tools were pencil, eraser, trash can -- in that order. Now it's more like the copy, paste, and delete keys.)

My usual caution to folk making SPL measurements to determine "reference" level is to note that pink noise, commonly used by audio measurement systems, does NOT have a crest factor of 3 dB and could be applying significantly higher levels to your speakers.

My other caution, which I think you have also highlighted, is that the OSHA levels for SPL exposure are WAY too high for audiophiles and musicians (sometimes they are the same). Hand-wavingly, OSHA bases their number on your ability to understand speech after repeated exposure over time, not your ability to enjoy musical nuances. Too many folk (and yes, I was one, it's usually the young and invincible among us) seem to pride themselves on how loudly they listen. Don't.

I'm going to guess the omission of minus signs is simply a reflection of your positive personality, yeah, let's go with that... :)

FWIWFM - Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
This sound level calculator is wrong. I have said it before in another forum many moons ago, and I think I even tried to send a message to the author of the calculator. It is based on the inverse-square law (-6 dB/double distance) which applies in anechoic spaces, and to the direct sound only in reflective spaces. The steady-state sound level, which is what we are interested in for loudness and system calibration, decays at a rate of about -3 dB/double distance in normally reflective rooms. This makes a huge difference to sizing of an amplifier. See Figure 10.8 in the Third Edition of my book.

A detailed procedure for estimating amplifier size is in Part 3 of the series of papers on the companion website to my book: www.routledge.com/cw/toole. It is open access - no need to buy the book. The sound decay with distance is shown in Figure 5.
Thanks for that clarification! I've referenced that SPL calculator many times and it's disappointing to know that it's incorrect. Fortunately, I can build a better one with the corrected math. Before I do, I have a few of questions:

For the referenced calculator, there is an option to choose speaker placement to provide 3dB or 6dB of "reinforcement." Given that it's not referenced in your calculation, I suspect that the -3dB / dd is a more accurate reflection of what's going on in the room and should be used wholesale. Can you verify that no accounting for speaker placement is needed?

A well-treated room with a mix of absorption and diffusion, while far from anechoic, is somewhat more controlled. Is the -3dB/dd rule a good enough approximation for both a normally reflective room and a "properly" treated room?

Last, a random question: does technology the the Autoformers used in many McIntosh amplifiers alter the calculations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,755 Posts
^^^ Floyd will provide a better (correct) answer, but in the home corner loading affects the bass more than the treble so even that is no more than a rough guess. The sound field in a room is a rather complex combination of numerous variables. Vexing, as the difference between 3 and 6 dB adds up quickly, often leading to 2, 4, or more factors in power requirements (which is Floyd's point -- using too high a rolloff will lead you to believe you need a much larger amplifier than is realistic). I'd use the 3 dB figure unless the room is very "dead".

The autoformer has no impact on these calculations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
...My usual caution to folk making SPL measurements to determine "reference" level is to note that pink noise, commonly used by audio measurement systems, does NOT have a crest factor of 3 dB and could be applying significantly higher levels to your speakers.
The pink noise generator used in Protools @ (-20 dBFS) have sustained peaks very near (-10 dBFS) when viewed on standard PPM.

Pink noise can have as much as +12 dB crest factor:

http://www.bnoack.com/index.html?http&&&www.bnoack.com/audio/crestfactor.html
 

·
Member
Joined
·
844 Posts
^^^ Floyd will provide a better (correct) answer, but in the home corner loading affects the bass more than the treble so even that is no more than a rough guess. The sound field in a room is a rather complex combination of numerous variables. Vexing, as the difference between 3 and 6 dB adds up quickly, often leading to 2, 4, or more factors in power requirements (which is Floyd's point -- using too high a rolloff will lead you to believe you need a much larger amplifier than is realistic). I'd use the 3 dB figure unless the room is very "dead".

The autoformer has no impact on these calculations.
Obviously, the "reinforcement" offered by nearby boundaries varies with the directivity of the sound source. The "classic" gains assume omnidirectional radiation, which only occurs at very low frequencies with conventional loudspeakers - it is not a broadband effect that can predictably be related to "loudness" of program material - see Chapter 9.

Then we must add the standing wave behavior of small rooms in which "gain" at specific frequencies can vary enormously with small differences in loudspeaker/subwoofer/listener location - see Chapter 8. For this reason, the predictions in my "calculator" apply only above the transition frequency. What happens at lower frequencies can only be determined in the specific room involved, using the specific positional setup. This is especially true for multiple subwoofers, where there can be substantial efficiency gains. It is far better to have two or four small subs than one monster - louder and better bass.

Fun and games . . .
 

·
Member
Joined
·
844 Posts
The pink noise generator used in Protools @ (-20 dBFS) have sustained peaks very near (-10 dBFS) when viewed on standard PPM.

Pink noise can have as much as +12 dB crest factor:

http://www.bnoack.com/index.html?http&&&www.bnoack.com/audio/crestfactor.html
The crest factor of pink noise at calibration level is not a problem, of course. Maybe that is why SMPTE et al. chose to describe the maximum sound level in terms of a pure tone with a 3 dB crest factor. No acoustical measurements are made at this level because with a pure tone they would make no sense - it is an extrapolation. In fact many cinema systems would fail. In analog days, especially with optical sound tracks, the max level was rarely if ever approached. Now with digital sound tracks that are essentially transparent up to hard limiting it is a different ball game, which has created a significant problem for the SMPTE folks and cinema owner/operators.

I am told by reliable sources that the main change made in repurposing sound tracks for public distribution (TV, discs and streaming) is to reduce the dynamic range. They make no guarantees about timbral accuracy as there are no standards for these facilities. The fact that many of them are best described as good home theaters is a good thing, so long as the X-curve is not involved in the calibration of these systems. Cinema sound is fundamentally flawed - Chapter 11 - but the established infrastructure is a deterrent to any change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
..I am told by reliable sources that the main change made in repurposing sound tracks for public distribution (TV, discs and streaming) is to reduce the dynamic range.
Your source is correct... in fact it was Dolby Labs. Dolby was the first to tie 0 VU (+4 dBu) to 85 dB SPL.

http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=65

The Magic of 85 with Film Mixes

In 1983, as workshops chairman of the AES Convention, I (Bob Katz) invited Tomlinson Holman of Lucasfilm to demonstrate the sound techniques used in creating the Star Wars films. Dolby systems engineers labored for two days to calibrate the reproduction system in New York's flagship Ziegfeld theatre. Over 1000 convention attendees filled the theatre center section. At the end of the demonstration, Tom asked for a show of hands. “How many of you thought the sound was too loud?” About 4 hands were raised. “How many thought it was too soft?” No hands. “How many thought it was just right?” At least 996 audio engineers raised their hands.

”This is an incredible testament to the effectiveness of the 85 dB at 0 VU standard originally proposed by Dolby's Ioan Allen in the mid-70's.”

”When digital technology reached the large theatre, Dolby attached the 85 dB calibration to a point 20 dB below full digital scale (abbreviated -20 dBFS, referred to as the standard Dolby Cal point in this document).”


”When AC-3 and DTS became available for home theatre, Dolby recommended that the monitor calibration standard be lowered by 6 dB to 79 dB SPL (at -20 dBFS average). This is because mixes originally geared for large theatres do not totally translate to the small venue.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,442 Posts
So here we are in 2018 and audio for video is all over the map. Those who paid big bucks to get state of the art home theater equipment and have them calibrated for best response are at the mercy of mastering engineers doing the audio for video. We notice how dynamic range is not well controlled, how dialog levels and intelligibility is not good, yet we keep paying for more surround and ATMOS channels so we can hear things flying around the room.

Surround audio on TV is horrible. The dynamic range is out of whack, compressed to the point of pumping and breathing and edits within a show have volume differences so great we need to adjust playback level frequently just to be able to watch from beginning to end (don't even start with what happens when we have to listen to one commercial after another).

Who's minding the store? What can be done to address these problems? Here we go off topic again....
 
13061 - 13080 of 18844 Posts
Top