Determining safe level of headphone volume with umik-1

[DVDdoug]

Or... Maybe just use common sense... It can be easy to get carried away with music you like but if other program material sounds too-loud it's probably too-loud.

Or, when you are exposed to loud sounds you'll notice temporary (hopefully temporary) hearing loss when the sound stops (a "temporary threshold shift"). I'm pretty sure you can get hearing damage at lower levels for extended periods but a temporary threshold shift is a sure danger sign.

Or, if you're speakers can "go loud", you can measure the SPL from your speakers and sort-of train your ears & brain to estimate the SPL level. That won't be accurate but you should get a feeling for what's safe.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

If it's easy for you to reshape the bass then it might be worth a try, maybe you just need to reduce the slam a bit.

It's probably be as easy as moving the frequency of the filter downwards from 120Hz to 90Hz or so and play with the Q a bit. Though that would change the sonic signature I deliberately created and like. The perceived warmth probably comes from exactly said bump.

I appreciate your thoughts but it's really only uncomfortable if I listen very loudly, which is something I rarely do.
I usually prefer to stay below the 90dB peak setting for critical listening. For long term listening even below 80dB peak. Most music does contain high frequencies as well, so the volume required for the bass to hurt isn't really feasible w/o the proverbial "ice pick to the ear" experience on most tracks anyway. :'D

I merely wanted to post my sensations as an example as to why I think loud bass can damage the ear as well because if I am feeling discomfort, I am reasonably certain that it is a warning signal that should not be ignored for extended periods.

It can be easy to get carried away with music you like

Or a good movie for that matter.
When I get the desire to shake my head afterwards to get rid of the "numbness" and feel drained, I do know that I bloody overdid it again. *chuckles*

That's why I love volume control in dB coupled with a dB level meter of the digital input signal.
Calibrate the system once and you always know what you are subjecting yourself to.

 

[Phoney]

What about headphones with very low distiontion in the bass? I tend to boost the bass a bit more than harman, because it's percieved to be a bit lower in volume. Could this introduce fatigue more easily, even though it's percieved to be at the same level as other headphones with more distortion and less bass (in reality)? This is similar to the fact that you could get hearing damage when listening to a tone that you can't even hear, if it's loud enough (like a 20khz tone)?

 

[Robbo99999]

It's probably be as easy as moving the frequency of the filter downwards from 120Hz to 90Hz or so and play with the Q a bit. Though that would change the sonic signature I deliberately created and like. The perceived warmth probably comes from exactly said bump.

I appreciate your thoughts but it's really only uncomfortable if I listen very loudly, which is something I rarely do.
I usually prefer to stay below the 90dB peak setting for critical listening. For long term listening even below 80dB peak. Most music does contain high frequencies as well, so the volume required for the bass to hurt isn't really feasible w/o the proverbial "ice pick to the ear" experience on most tracks anyway. :'D

I merely wanted to post my sensations as an example as to why I think loud bass can damage the ear as well because if I am feeling discomfort, I am reasonably certain that it is a warning signal that should not be ignored for extended periods.


Or a good movie for that matter.
When I get the desire to shake my head afterwards to get rid of the "numbness" and feel drained, I do know that I bloody overdid it again. *chuckles*

That's why I love volume control in dB coupled with a dB level meter of the digital input signal.
Calibrate the system once and you always know what you are subjecting yourself to.

Given my measurements of my own listening level, I always thought I listened at a lower level, but I don't.....so I'm surprised to see you say 90dB peak max recorded for your listening, I'm about 103, 104dB max peak in the bass, which is a massive 14dB more than you. I do have +9dB boost EQ in the bass at 30Hz though, whereas from your earlier screenshot you only have about +5dB bass boost, but when comparing our frequency responses of our 2 headphones I've probably only got about 2dB more real bass than you:

I've dialed down the mids & treble peaks in my headphone too, so that reduces the measured dB level and fatiguing nature additionally. Did you EQ down the elevated response in the Clear between 900-1800Hz? I think that would quite largely affect your overall perceived loudness vs any peak measurements you do....as in if you haven't dialed that area down then you're more likely to have less range between your perceived loudness vs the max measured peak which goes a little bit towards "explaining" your low listening level. But still, even with that considered, I am surprised at how low volume you listen compared to me.

(I've done a few more measurements of my own headphone listening levels dB(A), dB(C), dB(Z), as well as some research into what the different lines meant on my graphs, as well as reading up a bit on acceptable noise levels to prevent hearing damage, I'll try to post up later.)


EDIT: just noticed you said the following: "Most music does contain high frequencies as well, so the volume required for the bass to hurt isn't really feasible w/o the proverbial "ice pick to the ear" experience on most tracks anyway. :'D"
That might be because your overall frequency response is not totally sorted, you might have some peaks in places that have not been dialed down, and the elevated response I mentioned between 1-2kHz probably wouldn't help with that either.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

I tend to boost the bass a bit more than harman, because it's percieved to be a bit lower in volume.

Hearing damage does not care about "perceived" loudness.
I see a lot of construction workers damaging their hearing by not wearing protective cans while operating jackhammers and other heavy machinery. I'm sure they don't perceive it as "loud enough" as well.

Coming from the Clear, I don't think that low distortion bass leads to quicker fatigue. Even though you constantly get the urge to turn it up because it sounds so wonderfully clean. :'D

Did you EQ down the elevated response in the Clear between 900-1800Hz?

Nope, I like that the Clear has a bit more "bite" to it than my DT880, which is running the very comfy sounding Oratory "used pads" EQ with roughly halfed bass shelf, since I find Harman bass to be overkill.
Yes: that results in lower listening level overall when using the Clear as soon as the high frequencies kick in.
Typically -5dB, often -10dB, depending on the day and the overall brightness of the piece I listen to.

I calibrated my DT880 to the same 90dB level though.

Do keep in mind: I do turn it up occasionally for passages I really like. Who doesn't
But I use the 90dB target as the maximum for extended listening.

I am surprised at how low volume you listen compared to me.

I've never been to clubs/discos, I dislike Cinema for it is obscenely loud to me, I avoid large gatherings of people because they are loud and stressful. I live alone for 15years now and I usually wear closed cans when out and about.
I think I'm simply more sensitive to loud noises than you are in general. Some of that might be psychological rather than physiological. Naturally that spills over into music listening habits as well.

Some of it is also me deliberately saying "no" to the urge to turn it up, because I would like to be able to enjoy music 40yrs from now as well. Knowing the actual SPL levels, helped a lot on that front.

 

[Robbo99999]

I've done some reading around to try to guage what are safe volumes to listen to. The main source I'm gonna go off here is the UK Health & Safety Executive where they've investigated this area & come up with some guidance for employers, find the whole pdf file attached at end of post.

The crux of their measuring is based around a daily allowable Noise Dose which is expressed in percentage, with 100% being your maximum permitted Noise Dose for the day. They use the following two terms/variables to calculate/determine the Noise Dose: Lep and Lcpeak:

Lep is an average dB that you have been exposed to for that set time period, whereas Lcpeak is a peak single upper limit value (C-weighted) that is not to be crossed (so that's not an average).

They have two thresholds, an upper & lower limit set on these two previously mentioned variables whereby employers have to take certain actions to lower hearing damage risks. Here's the Lower Threshold:

And here's the Upper Threshold and an important thing to note is that the Upper Threshold is equivalent to a 100% Noise Dose for your whole day (24hr period I believe):


They end up collating/boiling everything down that we've talked about here into one table that you can reference to determine your percentage daily Noise Dose that you've received from any given Lep (dB A-weighted), this seems highly useful and I think I'm going to endeavour to remain firmly in the green zone:

In the above table the previously mentioned Lower Threshold sits on the bottom edge of the Yellow Zone, whilst the previously mentioned Upper Threshold sits on the bottom edge of the red zone. You can see that a 100% Noise dose is associated with the Upper Threshold value that they previously mentioned which is a Lep of 85dB for an 8hr work day - you can read that off the above table.


So with this in mind, and me wanting to stay in the Green Zone then how do I interpret the sound level graphs that I captured from the tracks I listen to. Well here's a graph I created this morning based on A-weighted measurement which is the standard applied to the noise guidelines we've been talking about, following is a measurement of probably my loudest track I listen to recorded at my typical loud listening level:

In the above graph the Lep is 80.5dB which is the lower purple line in that graph. If we look in the previous table we can see a Lep of 80dB over a 4hr period is still in the green zone, so according to that I'd be ok listening to that track at the volume level for 4hrs as it's below their Lower Threshold. However, they do cite an Lcpeak (C-weighted peak) as maximum level that would not be crossed at any point, so I did a C-weighted measurement of the same track, which is in the following graph:

To be honest it looks like REW doesn't record Lcpeak, but it does record Lzpeak, with Lzpeak being Z-weighting rather than C-weighting - however we know that C-weighting is a bit more forgiving than Z-weighting because Z-weighting is literally just a flat line (no roll off in frequencies at any point), and as we can see from the following graph the C-Weighting rolls off in the bass:

So given we know the Lzpeak in my recorded tracks are happening in the bass, and the C-weighting rolls off the bass then we can loosely interpret that we can shave off around 3dB from Lzpeak to roughly arrive at Lcpeak. So my Lzpeak was 102dB in that graph, so that's likely around 99dB for Lcpeak which is a long way below the 135dB Lcpeak of the Lower Threshold (yellow area on the table).


So in conclusion, I'd say firstly to make sure to keep your Lzpeak (below 135dB), and probably actually a fair bit lower because Lzpeak will be reached repetitively and often in music by the nature that it would be the bassline of the track so would happen every few seconds perhaps, whereas in the workplace you might expect your loudest noise events to be happening maybe say 3 times an hour, so I'd say be careful about Lzpeak.....most of my tracks I've measured don't go above 104dB Lzpeak, so that should be fine I'd say. Secondly I'd say use that table I posted earlier and stay in the Green Zone. I'll probably aim for about half the threshold of the Green Zone, so 80dB Lep for 2hrs even though they have 4hrs as a maximum to stay in the green zone for that level......I suppose I have a bit of noise exposure at work and during the day, so I don't want to max out my daily dose with 4hrs of headphone listening at 80dB Lep whilst adding work exposure onto that too.....because afterall these are based on Daily Dose criteria. I also don't listen to headphones for 4hr in total anyway......although I sometimes could do that if gaming, so keep your headphones on low volume if you're doing long gaming sessions.



EDIT: just an additional piece of information, the same body that created these guidelines (HSE UK), also researched the long term effects of damage from noise exposure (or found it somewhere else, they don't cite a source), and that was actually their introduction to their presentation, here's the graph:

I'm assuming the units of the x-axis there is Lep for an 8hr period (even though they don't say). So I interpret that as an 85dB Lep for 8hr everyday gave a 5% increase in chance of someone suffering 30dB hearing loss at age 60.....although that says nothing for other lesser amounts of hearing loss or for hearing loss potential at younger ages. 85dB Lep for 8hrs is a 100% Daily Noise Dose, as seen in that colourful red/yellow/green table - just sitting in the lower edge of the red zone.

EDIT #2: I wonder if there is any other hearing damage noise exposure research out there that has been done that is contrary (contradicts) the information I've shown here, sometimes it's good to get other perspectives, anyone else found different research/guidelines that contradict the info here?

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

So in conclusion, I'd say firstly to make sure to keep your Lzpeak (below 135dB)

Do we even have home HiFi equipment that can reach a whopping 135dB?
I'm pretty sure both my amp, my speakers as well as headphones would blow up way, way before that.

In general, your findings correlate with what I learned during my "work safety" studies back in uni. Hearing protection mandatory from 85dB(A) onward (many start voluntarily at 80dB(A)) and always monitor your exposure time.

Since I listen to many an hour of music each day I do think we should stay below 75dB average as well.
With the occasional headbanging cranking of a title we really love. Because a little fun has to be allowed too. :'D

Plugged in my UMIK for kicks ... this is what I currently listen to (speakers, surround setup). I think I'm good.

 

[Leiker535]

Following this thread and seeing amirms video on the matter, I've come up with a question. Considering the a-weighted compensated nature of the exposition risk regulation like that of OSHA's, wouldn't it suffice to measure a pure tone at pinna frequency? Considering the tone would not vary and be at max loudness, the end result would already account for the max peak on where it matters for hearing protection, no?

Say I measure a 3,2khz tone made in Audacity with a spl meter and a cardboard sheet with a hole in it for the mic, and "calibrate" it for 100db or 90db for maximum safekeeping, wouldn't the only unacountable variable be the spl meter/microphones FR?

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

wouldn't the only unacountable variable be the spl meter/microphones FR?

No, because the average over time is far more important in music than transient peaks.
Determining peak is super easy. Average, varies from piece to piece.

 

[Robbo99999]

Following this thread and seeing amirms video on the matter, I've come up with a question. Considering the a-weighted compensated nature of the exposition risk regulation like that of OSHA's, wouldn't it suffice to measure a pure tone at pinna frequency? Considering the tone would not vary and be at max loudness, the end result would already account for the max peak on where it matters for hearing protection, no?

Say I measure a 3,2khz tone made in Audacity with a spl meter and a cardboard sheet with a hole in it for the mic, and "calibrate" it for 100db or 90db for maximum safekeeping, wouldn't the only unacountable variable be the spl meter/microphones FR?

I'm not sold on how accurate UMIK through CD or cardboard sheet can be for SPL measuring - it seems that in @Aerith Gainsborough 's case that it matches his theoretical calculations quite well, so adds some credence that his "UMIK Rig" is working quite accurately. One thing you would have to take into account is the frequency response of your headphone - if it has a big dip at 3.2kHz or whatever frequency you choose to measure it then you'll be getting low reported figures (the rest of the surrounding frequency area will be higher and you will be listening at louder levels than you expect). But if you choose a point that is representative of your overall headphone volume, not a dip then I think your idea could work in terms of making sure you don't go over a set limit in dB. You could measure at a number of frequency points in the general area you mention to make sure you're not measuring holes in the frequency response and then choose the best frequency to work with.

EDIT: actually, thinking about it, I wouldn't choose that 3kHz area to measure on a flat plate, because they often have a dip there when measured on a flat plate, so it would be under-reporting the true SPL that you would experience, following is a K702 measured on a flat plate by solderdude on his diyaudioheaven website, see the dip at 3kHz:

Instead I think you should measure at 1kHz and then set it based on that, but solderdude might have some more advice for you on that, because I don't know if he's applied a compensation already to create that graph above. If it's not reliable to rig up a cardboard/UMIK 1kHz measuring rig then probably best just to theoretically calculate your max peaks based on your headphone impedance/sensitivity and set your chain up so that you don't exceed those theoretical 1kHz potential max peaks at whatever max peak you're comfortable with (headphone sensitivity specs quoted for 1kHz).

EDIT#2: I probably wouldn't advise you to set your max peak at something like 104dB even if you saw me hitting 104dB in my music track measurements, not unless you're using bass EQ with a large negative preamp.....because that 104dB peak that I saw in my music measurements was in the bass, and my -10dB negative preamp shifts 1kHz and indeed most of the frequency range down my 10dB.

 

[MKreroo]

How I wish the 5K can report and log output voltage into a csv or something, been bugged with this question for some time too.

Since it has access to AutoEQ database, imagine if it also has access to a headphone sensitivity database and math out the volume instead.

 

[Leiker535]

No, because the average over time is far more important in music than transient peaks.
Determining peak is super easy. Average, varies from piece to piece.

I meant to take the peak as the loudest point I'm comfortable with, hindsighting that the average would be lower than it.

I'm not sold on how accurate UMIK through CD or cardboard sheet can be for SPL measuring - it seems that in @Aerith Gainsborough 's case that it matches his theoretical calculations quite well, so adds some credence that his "UMIK Rig" is working quite accurately. One thing you would have to take into account is the frequency response of your headphone - if it has a big dip at 3.2kHz or whatever frequency you choose to measure it then you'll be getting low reported figures (the rest of the surrounding frequency area will be higher and you will be listening at louder levels than you expect). But if you choose a point that is representative of your overall headphone volume, not a dip then I think your idea could work in terms of making sure you don't go over a set limit in dB. You could measure at a number of frequency points in the general area you mention to make sure you're not measuring holes in the frequency response and then choose the best frequency to work with.

EDIT: actually, thinking about it, I wouldn't choose that 3kHz area to measure on a flat plate, because they often have a dip there when measured on a flat plate, so it would be under-reporting the true SPL that you would experience, following is a K702 measured on a flat plate by solderdude on his diyaudioheaven website, see the dip at 3kHz:

I'm waiting on the AAA batteries to arrive so I can measure your theorical method with the SPLmeter. Subjectively I've arrived at -18db for comfortably loud and -22 to -25 preamp for cautious levels of safety while using my 6XX on a L30 with a 2V input on unity gain. Following the headphone calc for it's specs from sennheiser, 2V on max volume on the L30 at unity (0/mid gain) would equate 110db, and so the figures would be 85-92db avg mathematically. This shocked me because, if theoretical is really there, then I was listening at louder levels than I thought. An year back I'd only use the high gain for the 6XXs, and be at 1 o'clock with a -9 db preamp, and that scares me now.

About the flatplate, The 3,2khz I mentioned was looking at the 6XX peak specifically using amirms measurements, but I think you're right. I once nerded out last year in a uneventful Sunday afternoon and "measured" the FR of the 6XX and a Fostex X00 on the same spl meter with various points using pure tones, just to see what came out:

Spoiler

Despite the fact that I erroneously measured at 100db, which would bring out the nasty bass distortion of these headphones, I was surprised to see a somewhat well behaved curve. The rolled off bass on both headphones also seem to correlate the a-weighted calibration around which these mics are designed, as the Fostex is a very boomy headphone. Alas, I don't take these very seriously, just wonder if they are practical for measuring volume.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

I meant to take the peak as the loudest point I'm comfortable with, hindsighting that the average would be lower than it.

Problem: brickwalled, highly compressed music. The average might not me that much lower than the peaks in some genres.
So one cannot look at the peaks in isolation.

E.g.: If you have pieces with a DR of 4dB (sadly, they exist) you'd be around 85dB if you calibrate for 90dB peaks. Still dangerous territory for your hearing.

 

[Leiker535]

Problem: brickwalled, highly compressed music. The average might not me that much lower than the peaks in some genres.
So one cannot look at the peaks in isolation.

E.g.: If you have pieces with a DR of 4dB (sadly, they exist) you'd be around 85dB if you calibrate for 90dB peaks. Still dangerous territory for your hearing.

I use musicbee and Tidal with normalization on. Musicbee's system is actually great for those I think, the replaygain tag after the volume analysis can be as low as -12db sometimes for those DR6 tracks. Tidal's implementation though puzzles me a bit, as I hear clear volume differences even with it enabled on the windows player...

 

[Robbo99999]

I meant to take the peak as the loudest point I'm comfortable with, hindsighting that the average would be lower than it.




I'm waiting on the AAA batteries to arrive so I can measure your theorical method with the SPLmeter. Subjectively I've arrived at -18db for comfortably loud and -22 to -25 preamp for cautious levels of safety while using my 6XX on a L30 with a 2V input on unity gain. Following the headphone calc for it's specs from sennheiser, 2V on max volume on the L30 at unity (0/mid gain) would equate 110db, and so the figures would be 85-92db avg mathematically. This shocked me because, if theoretical is really there, then I was listening at louder levels than I thought. An year back I'd only use the high gain for the 6XXs, and be at 1 o'clock with a -9 db preamp, and that scares me now.

About the flatplate, The 3,2khz I mentioned was looking at the 6XX peak specifically using amirms measurements, but I think you're right. I once nerded out last year in a uneventful Sunday afternoon and "measured" the FR of the 6XX and a Fostex X00 on the same spl meter with various points using pure tones, just to see what came out:

Spoiler

View attachment 198979

Despite the fact that I erroneously measured at 100db, which would bring out the nasty bass distortion of these headphones, I was surprised to see a somewhat well behaved curve. The rolled off bass on both headphones also seem to correlate the a-weighted calibration around which these mics are designed, as the Fostex is a very boomy headphone. Alas, I don't take these very seriously, just wonder if they are practical for measuring volume.

I think you'll be alright with your theoretical calculations, they sound pretty sensible. I mean you've ended up with 85-92dB at 1kHz, whereas with my EQ'd K702 it's measured outputting at the most peaks of 102dB in the bass, subtract 3dB to get RMS (to bring it to the same units you're using - headphone sensitivity in RMS) then that makes 99dB and my 1kHz point in my EQ is 4dB below the bass hump so that means 1kHz should theoretically have the potential output of 95dB in my EQ'd headphone which is 3dB more than your upper ceiling you calculated and I'm seeing A-weighted average dB's of 80dB during my loudest track which is in the safe zone still according to the UK Health & Safety Executive. (You did your listening tests with the headphone at stock yeah, no EQ during the listening tests?).

 

[Leiker535]

(You did your listening tests with the headphone at stock yeah, no EQ during the listening tests?).

No, it was EQed, I adapted the 650 profile from Oratory:

Newbie question, as you refer to the sensitivity of the headphone, would that be an average or a peak level? I.e, while following the math, am I theoretically getting 85-90db averages or peaks?

 

[Leiker535]

So, now with new batteries I ran a sine at 1khz with the L30 at unity and no preamp, and I got a 109dbA peak with the SPLmeter at the first second, then it dialed it down to 104dbA although same volume was maintened. The initial peak before it did subsequent calcs almost matches the headphones calculator with Sennheiser specifications (103db/mW and 109dB@2V):

Spoiler

Then I dialed in the -20dBFS preamp in Peace/EQAPO. With that I got 88dBA@1khz; and after that I ran a 2m long sine between 100hz and 6khz trying to compensate the slow interger inside the meter, just to have a basis (and for the hell of it, lol). It averaged around 85-89dBA as well. With loud music it varied from 75 to 83dBA; with some well recorded and nuanced music it varied from 65 to 82 dbA; with silly high DR music it struggled a lot and went from 50 to 73dbA.

I think it can't be trusted too much to average real music, but I must confess that that -20dBFS setting (equating 90dB from previous math) while playing music on Tidal sounds really OK to me, although it points as high as 89dB on audacity...

 

[Robbo99999]

No, it was EQed, I adapted the 650 profile from Oratory:

View attachment 199032
Newbie question, as you refer to the sensitivity of the headphone, would that be an average or a peak level? I.e, while following the math, am I theoretically getting 85-90db averages or peaks?

Ah, if you EQ your headphone then you're changing the sensitivity of the headphone at 1kHz - if you have filters that directly affect that area, which will alter your calculation result for how loud you listen when referenced to 1kHz. Let's have a look at your EQ.......none of your filters affect the 1kHz point (I had though the 2000Hz High Shelf would, but after adding it in REW I can see it has no effect on 1kHz). So in that case your theoretical calculations are still valid for 1kHz. If for instance you had boosted 1kHz by 1dB in your EQ then you would have been subjecting yourself in your listening tests to a headphone that had +1dB higher sensitivity at 1kHz than the quoted spec of your headphone - in which case you would have just added 1dB to your 85-92dB range for 1kHz that you ended up at in your calculations.

About your headphone sensitivity and average & peak question.......headphone sensitivity is quoted in RMS, so in the case of your headphone the HD6XX is 103dB/1Vrms for it's sensitivity from the manufacturer specs. This is not a peak value......a peak value is +3dB more than an RMS value....this is more of an "electronic / digital reconstruction" phenomenon that I don't fully understand why RMS is different to peak, but @solderdude would be able to explain what & why there is a difference between RMS reported values & peak values.......it's unrelated to the average dB that I've been recording in my music tracks. You can think of your calculated value as pretty much a peak value, it's just expressed in a different unit if you like, but you're still calculating the "max theoretical loudness". The average levels which is one of the lines I've been recording in my graphs is simply that, an average dB for the entire track, so it's boiling down the overall sound power of the entire track into one dB figure that has the same overall sound energy over that same period of time - and that is what's used in the sound exposure regulations (Lep: .)


EDIT: I'll just add that the figure you calculated is based on 1kHz, so if you have other points in your headphone's frequency response that are above 1kHz then those areas could theoretically output more power than your 1kHz point, but because most music has most of the power in the bass section then the higher points in the frequency response at around 3kHz won't be the determining factor in the max peaks you're exposed to - so 1kHz is just a reference point. I've shown in my recorded music tracks that I have around 95dB potential output for my EQ'd K702 at 1kHz, and in my loudest music track I'm getting only an average A-weighted dB of 80dB.

 

[Robbo99999]

So, now with new batteries I ran a sine at 1khz with the L30 at unity and no preamp, and I got a 109dbA peak with the SPLmeter at the first second, then it dialed it down to 104dbA although same volume was maintened. The initial peak before it did subsequent calcs almost matches the headphones calculator with Sennheiser specifications (103db/mW and 109dB@2V):

Spoiler

View attachment 199059

Then I dialed in the -20dBFS preamp in Peace/EQAPO. With that I got 88dBA@1khz; and after that I ran a 2m long sine between 100hz and 6khz trying to compensate the slow interger inside the meter, just to have a basis (and for the hell of it, lol). It averaged around 85-89dBA as well. With loud music it varied from 75 to 83dBA; with some well recorded and nuanced music it varied from 65 to 82 dbA; with silly high DR music it struggled a lot and went from 50 to 73dbA.

I think it can't be trusted too much to average real music, but I must confess that that -20dBFS setting (equating 90dB from previous math) while playing music on Tidal sounds really OK to me, although it points as high as 89dB on audacity...

When you say dBA, you're meaning dB(A) which is the A-weighted dB measuring? Which is not the same as the average, you're not talking about the average are you? In terms of you recording the average dB of your music track, I don't know if your SPL Meter has that functionality. So I'm getting the impression that you've got your SPL meter in A-weighted mode, and you're just reading off the fluctuations on the screen as it records the music? I think you're probably ok with your level of sound exposure there.

 

[Leiker535]

When you say dBA, you're meaning dB(A) which is the A-weighted dB measuring? Which is not the same as the average, you're not talking about the average are you? In terms of you recording the average dB of your music track, I don't know if your SPL Meter has that functionality. So I'm getting the impression that you've got your SPL meter in A-weighted mode, and you're just reading off the fluctuations on the screen as it records the music? I think you're probably ok with your level of sound exposure ther

Yes, I mean A weighted (or so I trust the manufacturer). My sound meter only has the one dB(A) unit, as the C weighting option is only for its higher cost sibling. I recorded the averages using the max and min functions It has, which correspond to those fluctuations yes.