How loud?
- Thread starter RobFTM
- Start date
sergeauckland
pfm Member
85dB SPL is about my normal listening levels, with the occasional peak to 90dB.
Pre-amp's volume control position has no bearing, as this depends entirely on the output level of the sources, the input sensitivity of the pre-amp, it's gain and the law of the volume control itself.
In terms of usability, a volume control with the standard 10% Log law, will be at an attenuation of 20dB at half rotation. If this half-rotation is already too loud, it shows that the pre-amp has less than optimum gain-ranging. Ideally, the volume control should be near maximum (say at 90%) when the power amplifier is clipping, or if using very power amplifiers, perhaps at 90% with, say 105dBSPL. This then provides for an extended range on the volume control, giving fine control of volume.
For this to work, though,the pre-amp should have gain individually adjustable for every input, and very few do.
S.
Pre-amp's volume control position has no bearing, as this depends entirely on the output level of the sources, the input sensitivity of the pre-amp, it's gain and the law of the volume control itself.
In terms of usability, a volume control with the standard 10% Log law, will be at an attenuation of 20dB at half rotation. If this half-rotation is already too loud, it shows that the pre-amp has less than optimum gain-ranging. Ideally, the volume control should be near maximum (say at 90%) when the power amplifier is clipping, or if using very power amplifiers, perhaps at 90% with, say 105dBSPL. This then provides for an extended range on the volume control, giving fine control of volume.
For this to work, though,the pre-amp should have gain individually adjustable for every input, and very few do.
S.
Tony L
Administrator
70-75db average here at listening seat, with peaks reading up to 93db or so. This using Faber Acoustical Soundmeter on iPhone. Big Tannoys have dynamics ;-)
Michael J
pfm Member
I suggest:
a) calibrating your measurements, and
b) turning it down a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_...s_of_sound_pressure_and_sound_pressure_levels
a) calibrating your measurements, and
b) turning it down a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure_level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_...s_of_sound_pressure_and_sound_pressure_levels
Normally somewhere in the low 80s and never seen over 110 but i guess that peak figure is very dependent on the meter response rate. ( Galaxy Note with Sound Master).
Office compressor just woke me up when it cut in at 90.
Volume control is purely arbitrary but i set all inputs to a similar output level and master to a nominal 85dB; clipping is easy to acheive if i raise it to 95.
Office compressor just woke me up when it cut in at 90.
Volume control is purely arbitrary but i set all inputs to a similar output level and master to a nominal 85dB; clipping is easy to acheive if i raise it to 95.
Remember that the human ear 'compresses' at high volume levels....so you will then feel the need to turn it up even more.I sympathise though, because far too many systems are played at bloodless, unrealisticly low levels, Most real music is pretty loud...just go to a live performance. It's a dilemma.
Rodney gold
Im just me...
I would normally set my volume at a level I feel is "realistic" , IE what I would hear at a live performance (obviously not 130db rock concerts) , my system is "tuned" to sound best at those levels. If someone is coming over to listen to or critique the system , *I* take control of the volume and set it to my "tuned" level.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Peter Walker of Quad fame claimed that for every recording there's only one correct volume level. That's based on the premise that with a natural, live acoustic recording (the only sort PW was interested in, I think) the distance the microphones are from the performers sets the perceived volume and consequently, it should be replayed at that volume.
Of course any "messing about" with the signal in terms of compression and equalisation will change that perception, but nevertheless, unless the eq and compression is severe, as it sadly is on modern recordings, natural recordings do respond to the "right" volume level.
S.
madscientist
pfm Member
turn it up to no11...Spinal Tap
It's dBA not dB, please don't be lazy with your units. The volume thing is because the perceived loudness of a sound at a particular frequency varies with loudness. Also , the dynamic range of a recording cannot be heard correctly unless the volume of the playback is the same. Ie the quiet bits will become inaudible due to them falling into the background noise or inaudibility.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
It could be dBA, or it could be dBC, or it could be dBSPL unweighted. Then there's the question of whether the measurement is slow or fast, as that affects the reading on an SPL meter when measuring music rather than a more constant noise.
Edit:- or indeed it could be ITU R 468 rather than A or C weighted.
70dB SPL, with a fast measurement does seem rather low, although could well be, if the measurement was done slow, and/or with A weighting.
I agree though that units are important as it makes quite a difference.
S.
I thought this was an informal chat, I'm sorry my measurements and statement didn't meet standards.
Maybe I should have stated 68.8dB peak- A Weighted, fast at approx 1m in front of the left speaker, using an uncalibrated one of these: http://www.maplin.co.uk/digital-sound-meter-25671. It was used handheld (left), while I was wearing jeans and t-shirt. My hair was uncombed. Adele 21 on vinyl on my sme was the source. I forgot to take extensive notes, but I believe it was track 4.
Next time I'll just say "I play it quietly." Or maybe not even bother saying anything.
Maybe I should have stated 68.8dB peak- A Weighted, fast at approx 1m in front of the left speaker, using an uncalibrated one of these: http://www.maplin.co.uk/digital-sound-meter-25671. It was used handheld (left), while I was wearing jeans and t-shirt. My hair was uncombed. Adele 21 on vinyl on my sme was the source. I forgot to take extensive notes, but I believe it was track 4.
Next time I'll just say "I play it quietly." Or maybe not even bother saying anything.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Sorry Dik, but what was the temperature, relative humidity and atmospheric pressure at time....can't be slack about measurements.
S.
John Channing
fruit box forever
On an a Nexus 7 with uncalibrated AudioTool, it shows 80-90dB at my listening chair which is about 4m from the speakers. Earlier, I was playing a few records loud and it was around about the 100dB mark.
Tony L
Administrator
Which is the more conventional / useful format when discussing such things? The Faber Acoustical iPhone meter gives the choice of A, C or Flat for Weighting, LP or LEQ for Level Type, and Fast, Slow or Impulse for Response. I've tended to use Flat, LP and Fast since getting the app.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
I'm not familiar with the Faber Acoustical App, I've read what's on their web site, that's all.
What method of measurement depends on what one wants the measurements for. To see how loud one's playing music, I would use flat and fast, not sure what LP means, but I wouldn't use LEQ as that's a different function.
If I was doing a health&safety assessment on factory noise, then LEQ is the measurement required as, effectively, it measures noise dosage so takes into account how loud and for how long, as long-term hearing damage depends on both actual loudness and length of exposure.
If I was doing a room EQ adjustment, then I would use flat and slow, as I would want short-term variations in the noise being used as a test signal to average out.
If I was measuring impulsive noise, say off drums or gunshots, to make sure my microphones weren't being overloaded, then the Impulse setting would be appropriate.
Note that even Faber themselves say that their meter could be up to 6dB out based in the variation in sensitivity of the microphones in the 'phones, so if one wants to do any absolute measurements, rather than relative, the microphone will need calibrating. I would also suggest that the frequency response of the internal microphone isn't good enough for anything other than relative measurments without caibration. I certainly wouldn't want to set up an active electronic crossover with an uncalibrated microphone.
S.