• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

God of SINAD vs. reality we get from most available music files

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
The actual dynamic range of an orchestra is one thing, but we have to play this music back in our own spaces. I have access to a carefully controlled quiet space, but most people do not. Many people must listen in a space where the noise level is substantially above the threshold of hearing.
That's true. At the same time, good portion of our membership here listens with headphones that block outside noise quite effectively. I am one of those when working at my desk. The requirement for noise floor becomes super hard to reach especially in the cases of very sensitive IEMs.
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
That's true. At the same time, good portion of our membership here listens with headphones that block outside noise quite effectively. I am one of those when working at my desk. The requirement for noise floor becomes super hard to reach especially in the cases of very sensitive IEMs.
Well, practically speaking the best you can do with anything in-ear (or over ear) is about 29dB more of isolation, except at low frequencies where you can do a bit bitter.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,522
Likes
37,050
Well, practically speaking the best you can do with anything in-ear (or over ear) is about 29dB more of isolation, except at low frequencies where you can do a bit bitter.
One thing I would do with some on site recording, I was using sensitive in-ears to hear noise issues better. I also wore the large noise isolating ear muffs over those. You could hear low level issues much better that way.

I've not tried it, but I would think active noise cancelling ear muffs over ears while listening over in-ear phones would be even better.

I suppose bone conduction limits how much you can keep out.
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
One thing I would do with some on site recording, I was using sensitive in-ears to hear noise issues better. I also wore the large noise isolating ear muffs over those. You could hear low level issues much better that way.

I've not tried it, but I would think active noise cancelling ear muffs over ears while listening over in-ear phones would be even better.

I suppose bone conduction limits how much you can keep out.

No matter what, more than 33 or 34 seems to be extremely difficult.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,278
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Well, practically speaking the best you can do with anything in-ear (or over ear) is about 29dB more of isolation, except at low frequencies where you can do a bit bitter.

I wear a set of in-ear (29dB) earplugs and over ear (29dB), industrial ear muffs when using my chainsaws and other small internal combustion engine tools. Wearing both types adds at least another 5-6dB according to everything I've read. It sure makes a massive audible difference. Also when using the air compressor and air tools as high pressure air noise is a killer for ears. The amazing thing is, you can hear 'into' the engines- their bearings, connecting rods, shafts etc when you kill ~35dB of noise.

It's also hard to hear someone accurately at close range even if they yell at me. :)
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
I wear a set of in-ear (29dB) earplugs and over ear (29dB), industrial ear muffs when using my chainsaws and other small internal combustion engine tools. Wearing both types adds at least another 5-6dB according to everything I've read. It sure makes a massive audible difference. Also when using the air compressor and air tools as high pressure air noise is a killer for ears. The amazing thing is, you can hear 'into' the engines- their bearings, connecting rods, shafts etc when you kill ~35dB of noise.

It's also hard to hear someone accurately at close range even if they yell at me. :)
If you get 35dB you're doing incredibly well.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,278
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
If you get 35dB you're doing incredibly well.

I have no way of measuring the improvement, but the best over ear muffs I could buy for general industrial noise (not shooting earmuffs) made operating chainsaws at close range (in your hands) tolerable. They are rated at 35dB, class 5, but I don't believe it. They seem to offer a somewhat better isolation than my 29dB (rated) ones. Much is dependent on the seal, whether you have a clean shave or a bit of a beard etc.
1660292555366.png


So I ganged them up with these 27dB in-ears:
1660292748762.png


With both sets in, once the foam plugs expand and seal, it's like you have gone deaf. Seriously.
 
Last edited:

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
Some years back I tried to assess some ear plugs and earmuffs for shooting. I had 6 dB and 15 dB foam earplugs, 25 dB plastic earplugs, and 35 dB earmuffs. I ran a fairly subjective test by using pink noise and sitting close (~1 m) from one of my main speakers. I listened and noted the SPL using a cheap RS meter, C-weighted, then put in the various earplugs and tried to adjust the volume to where it sounded the same, recording the SPL to get a relative difference. One thing I overlooked is how sensitivity declines upon repeated exposure to loud noises, but the idea was to set the level to just above where I could reliably pull it from the noise floor. I was not going for great accuracy, just a ballpark of where things ended up. Repeated trials with better controls would provide better data; this was just a quick test one evening before an outing and I was curious. It is by no means rigorous. Add disclaimers ad nauseum -- this was just for fun and to satisfy a bit of curiosity.

Results from memory: The 6 dB foam plugs provided almost exactly 6 dB, and the 15 dB very nearly 15 dB at best, but had to be inserted very carefully. The 6 dB plugs were pretty soft and easy, but the 15 dB foam was harder and you had to "roll" it a bit and insert very carefully or isolation quickly dropped to 6 dB or so. The hard plastic 25 dB plugs had a "tube" to help them seat reliably, but I only got about 20~23 dB so of isolation. The 35 dB earmuffs gave me about 30 dB, very dependent upon how I placed them and how tightly they pressed on my head. Most of the time I was getting ~25 dB or so unless I fiddled with them a bit. If I pressed on them a little I could get 30+ dB (narrow head, not much between the ears ;) ). Nothing unexpected, but there's some anecdotal results. I am sure ear canal and head size and shape will cause results to vary.

My somewhat limited experience with active earmuffs (we use them at work and I have tried 2-3 of them) is that they do well at suppressing low-frequency periodic noise but by the upper midrange or so the active part gives up and you get whatever "native" isolation they provide. I have not seen curves for them (not in the box, anyway). The ones I am using currently are Sony WH-1000XM2 FWIW. Again, If I press hard on them, things get a lot quieter.

One of the fancier shooting earmuff companies offers different pads to help adjust the isolation. That seems like a nice idea. I adjusted the (metal) band on one pair to apply more pressure and that did indeed increase isolation, but also made them more fatiguing to wear over several hours just from the physical pressure.

Didn't measure the SINAD...
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,714
I must point out to everyone (Sorry, Krabs, but this isn't directed at you in particular) that the SPECTRUM of noise matters when you're comparing noise with the listening room.

The actual dynamic range of an orchestra is one thing, but we have to play this music back in our own spaces. I have access to a carefully controlled quiet space, but most people do not. Many people must listen in a space where the noise level is substantially above the threshold of hearing.

Absolutely, and it's another reason I'd argue that *normal* in-room listening requirements --and I mean, even for self professed audiophiles, most of whom have NOT built themselves jj level carefully controlled quiet spaces -- suggest we need not fuss too much about SINAD ranking. Esp. those of DACs.

(My post you replied to was more about the method of determining DR of a musical recording. Amir argued for a methodological complexity that I did not see employed in Fielder's seminal, much-cited paper that measured DR of live performances.)
 
Last edited:

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,714
In my experience the ignoble truth is that it hides a bad mix. Indeed, if it's compressed to the nth degree, is it really mixed at all? I think some in the new generation are really talented, but the fashion+expectation momentum means it could be a while before a new normal.

There is no mystery to why; the louder of two presentations typically gets reported as 'better', at least at first. When mixes are auditioned casually, no attempt at level matching, as producers and record company flacks and clueless artists do, you can almost guarantee the more compressed will get preferred in a snap judgement. On top of that, by the late 1980s you had portable 'Discman' type CD players and later, digital files on the go, with music being enjoyed via earbuds in public spaces. Last but certainly not least, you had top 40 radio play, mainly in cars, where loudness wars have raged since at least the 1960s. It's no coincidence 45s were louder than the album version, for example. What's utterly crazy is 'baked in loudness' in the mix or mastering, with a radio station's favorite compression added ON TOP OF THAT.

Digital loudness boosting was a growing practice in the early 90s but it really hit the big leagues with Oasis's What's the Story Morning Glory a massive worldwide CD hit in 1995, that arguably popularized extreme digital slamming.

Some good history here:
 

blueone

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
1,179
Likes
1,494
Location
USA
I have no way of measuring the improvement, but the best over ear muffs I could buy for general industrial noise (not shooting earmuffs) made operating chainsaws at close range (in your hands) tolerable. They are rated at 35dB, class 5, but I don't believe it. They seem to offer a somewhat better isolation than my 29dB (rated) ones. Much is dependent on the seal, whether you have a clean shave or a bit of a beard etc.
View attachment 223743

So I ganged them up with these 27dB in-ears:
View attachment 223744

With both sets in, once the foam plugs expand and seal, it's like you have gone deaf. Seriously.
+1

I use a similar strategy whenever I go to a gun range. For working with my garage air compressors the foam ear plugs are good enough. I use 3M 1100s.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,714
I always thought that Jimmy Page intentionally boosted the noise of John Bonham's pedal when he remastered the studio albums in the 90s (example: since i've been loving you, but audible in many other songs). It was barely audible in the lps, and was used at the time to show "what an amazing detail" the new remasters had compared to the vinyls. Trick or unavoidable? I vote trick.
Since those aren't remixes, he'd have been hard pressed to boost *just* the pedal noise in any remasters he supervised. More likely he's just compensating for his own treble hearing loss.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,714
We don't have to settle for "normal listening" when we can have perfection for all content, all people and all situations.

You're right, we don't have to. But proportionality matters. Most of us needn't get in a tizzy over SINAD ranking, in the scheme of things that need fixing in our home systems. It's all too common for audiophiles to obsess over leaf vein patterns and miss the forest. The forest is far more likely something to be addressed by acoustic treatment/DSP/better loudspeakers, not upgrading your DAC from orange to blue in the SINAD chart. The way some here dismiss gear outright due to its meh SINAD ranking is farcical. (Need I even add 'IMO'?)
 
Last edited:

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
There is no mystery to why; the louder of two presentations typically gets reported as 'better', at least at first. When mixes are auditioned casually, no attempt at level matching, as producers and record company flacks and clueless artists do, you can almost guarantee the more compressed will get preferred in a snap judgement.

Precisely. BUT it's interesting. If I make 6 versions of a track, each 1dB apart (intensity, not loudness, note), any comparison of two adjacent (in level) tracks will almost always favor the higher level track.

***BUT*** Comparing the highest level to the lowest level may very well (not always, of course) have the listener pick the LOWER level track.

It's not a transitive property.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,714
Precisely. BUT it's interesting. If I make 6 versions of a track, each 1dB apart (intensity, not loudness, note), any comparison of two adjacent (in level) tracks will almost always favor the higher level track.

***BUT*** Comparing the highest level to the lowest level may very well (not always, of course) have the listener pick the LOWER level track.

It's not a transitive property.


Yup, I *almost* hedged 'louder' with the phrase 'to a degree' but I was unsure what that degree is. Has it ever been studied? I'd guess it to have some content dependency too.
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
There is no mystery to why; the louder of two presentations typically gets reported as 'better', at least at first. When mixes are auditioned casually, no attempt at level matching, as producers and record company flacks and clueless artists do, you can almost guarantee the more compressed will get preferred in a snap judgement. On top of that, by the late 1980s you had portable 'Discman' type CD players and later, digital files on the go, with music being enjoyed via earbuds in public spaces. Last but certainly not least, you had top 40 radio play, mainly in cars, where loudness wars have raged since at least the 1960s.
Well ... not really. As both a clueless artist and clueless recording engineer since the late 1970s, I suggested, in answer to @Blumlein 88's question about the entrenchment of the kind of nth degree compression we hear today, that it's being used as a panacea for unskilled and inexperienced mixers.

Heavy compression has been around a long time, but nth degree is new. Not driven by natural evolution, either, because the problems compression traditionally solved, CDs in cars and Top 40 radio etc, are long forgotten. They get zero consideration. Everything is a pretty standard streaming mix now, which needs to be competitive, sure, but as @j_j alluded, given more than a snap to judge, especially between substantially different options, more people migrate toward heavy-ish compression than subtle, but no one likes approaching the maximum, and it was never heard commercially, because it's like getting hit in the head with a fencepost. Oftentimes the preferred mix was somewhat less compressed than it could have been.

But now we're heading for the max. I feel the only reason can be a kind of software-driven logic that says that if the quietest parts and the loudest parts are almost identical in amplitude, then the mixing stage can be bypassed, thereby saving time and money.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,714
Well ... not really. As both a clueless artist and clueless recording engineer since the late 1970s, I suggested, in answer to @Blumlein 88's question about the entrenchment of the kind of nth degree compression we hear today, that it's being used as a panacea for unskilled and inexperienced mixers.

My answer didn't come from my personal experience, true, but it was informed by testimonies I've read of industry pros since the start of the 90s loudness boom.

Heavy compression has been around a long time, but nth degree is new. Not driven by natural evolution, either, because the problems compression traditionally solved, CDs in cars and Top 40 radio etc, are long forgotten. They get zero consideration. Everything is a pretty standard streaming mix now

And how/on what devices and in what environments is streamed content being listened to? That's still playing a role, surely.

, which needs to be competitive, sure, but as @j_j alluded, given more than a snap to judge, especially between substantially different options, more people migrate toward heavy-ish compression than subtle, but no one likes approaching the maximum, and it was never heard commercially, because it's like getting hit in the head with a fencepost. Oftentimes the preferred mix was somewhat less compressed than it could have been.


What JJ noted was that a big jump between A and B is less likely to be perceived as better than a smaller jump between A and B . Now, if you incrementally approach 'Nth degree,...using only small jumps ...I wonder....

(In case there's any question, I am by no means endorsing standardized use of extreme dynamic range compression.)
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
And how/on what devices and in what environments is streamed content being listened to? That's still playing a role, surely.
Probably the streaming platforms can tell who is using what, but before the event all we can do is supply something we feel will sound good through a reasonable system, and below that, will cooperate with the increasingly developed DSP in lifestyle products. The serious negative (for me anyway) is most such products drive a migration toward a "fat mono" mix inside a halo of spurious reverb. Pretty soon I think we're going to see two separate mixes - one for immersive-headphone algorithms, and one for the homepod on the kitchen counter. For one thing, they'll need radically different compression!
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,522
Likes
37,050
Precisely. BUT it's interesting. If I make 6 versions of a track, each 1dB apart (intensity, not loudness, note), any comparison of two adjacent (in level) tracks will almost always favor the higher level track.

***BUT*** Comparing the highest level to the lowest level may very well (not always, of course) have the listener pick the LOWER level track.

It's not a transitive property.
I've done something like this with compression once. Recorded a small band. Did some modest compression. And a little more and a little more and a little more. The final copies were heavily compressed (though not brick wall limited). I had the musicians listen and pick a favorite. Each step of the way they picked the more compressed one. We took a few minutes to discuss some other things, then I had them listen to the first moderately compressed version against the most compressed. They all made a funny face, and asked what happened to that 2nd version because it sounded all messed up, bad, not really like what they remembered and a few other comments.

So what is the right level of compression? I remember a comment by a couple musicians that was basically "well it can sound nice, but we want to at least be able to listen to it in our car". I wouldn't necessarily do that for everything, but for lots of music enough compression to hear it pretty well in a average car seems a good touchstone. That isn't enough to be offensively bad listened to in your living room or over headphones. It does make it useful in some moderately noisy environments.

For some of the compression done in recent years to pop music, I guess it makes sense if you are listening over ear-buds while operating a jack hammer or riding a lawn mower.
 
Top Bottom