- Thread Starter
- #101
I don't think I've ever played that loud at home.
An enthusiastic hand-clap at a meter registers as loudly.
I don't think I've ever played that loud at home.
Oh, Z-weighting... well that's an unusual choice. Throwing my whole reference set out of whack!
http://www.cirrusresearch.co.uk/blog/2011/08/what-are-a-c-z-frequency-weightings/
Well...
For my purposes, which is not measuring "safety", and not measuring "equal loudness", and is not particularly concerned with sub-sonic frequencies, and is measuring recorded music, which has already been subjected by the tonmeister to shaping by his ears, I use Z mostly.
I'm not measuring my response, but response of the system to excitation, and assuming the excitation (when it is music) has already been "curved" by someone's prior listening and knob twiddling.
The goal of all parts of the system - player - DAC - pre - amps - speakers - microphone - is to generate "flat".
Why would I measure with a curve? Should I boost 30hz by 40dB because A-weighting is closest " to reflect the response of the human ear to noise"?
Hint: boosting 40hz by 30dB is not what I want to listen to. I've experimented with that - curve to ear sensitivity doesn't work for me.
C and Z are close enough there's no reason that I see to go with C.
I hadn't appreciated these weighting aspects
Performance microphones (for recording vocal or instruments) have curves and polar patterns based on their inherent capabilities or tuning for specific purposes.
This is correct. Performance microphones are definitely not flat.
You don't even need a calibrated measurement mic to detect this. It's blatantly obvious to the unaided ear. There are microphone review sites with regular shootouts that compare the same sounds recorded through different mics.
I am wondering if this dip I have at 150hz is related to my room, or the position of my mic which is positioned precisely between where my ears would be when seated...