Music: how loud is loud? (video)

[solderdude]

Audioholics had a great video with Matt, who's an exceptional communicator on this stuff (

). He took a trip to the Dolby cinema with a calibrated SPL meter and reports no issue as far as averages go (82dbA average for Frozen). But he does mention that it's a kids movie and the amount of speakers a Dolby Atmos theater has is really throwing off calibrations.

It confirms Amir's analysis about peak levels. Too bad they only measure dBA peaks because when measured dBSPL (which is what Amir's video is all about) it will be even higher. The latter, certainly with headphones and dBSPL is actually the whole point here.

As has been mentioned in this video... it is about the duration of the peak SPL (the daily dosage) that has some influence over the years.
Of course a gun going off just outside of your ear will do immediate and irreparable damage but this is a lot louder than 120dB peak SPL in the bass region.

You should not listen at deafening levels all the time. Now and then playing one or a few songs at a louder level isn't going to kill your hearing. Doing this every day from a young age onward will do it faster than when you avoid this.

 

[threni]

I'm loving Newspaper Press as a level to put it into perspective! So...louder than a Loom, but not as loud as a Steam Locomotive?

 

[DualTriode]

It is about the Time Weighted Average.

It is not that the peaks don't count. It all adds up to a daily dose.

FYI if you want to do the calculations:

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.95AppA

 

[Blaspheme]

I expect this will be quite helpful for people who haven't understood the difference between average and true peak levels in music. I've certainly seen those arguments: peaks are never that loud; you'll go deaf listening to them; you don't need that much dynamic range; noise floor or distortion are single invariant numbers; and so on. Nice work.

 

[b1daly]

The points Amir makes about finding the limits of distortion on headphones make total sense.

As does the point that you can’t compare A weighted to full range SPL measurements.

But I was agog at the idea that concert levels provide any useful reference for discussion of audio playback systems. Concerts of almost any genre except maybe folk are fucking loud. A drumset is loud. A loud rock concert is downright dangerous. If your ears are ringing you have damaged your hearing.

I don’t know a single person who listens to music at anything approaching concert levels, even back in the days of my reckless youth.

I think hearing safety thresholds for occupational health are relevant to gauging a safe listening level. They were done based on steady state with A weighted filtering. For the reasons discussed in the video if you measure your listening level of music with an averaging A weighted meter, if the dynamics of the music are not represented this means the measurement is biased low. So you should be able to use the measurement as a guideline for how safe your listening level is keeping in mind it is probably an under-measurement.

IMO, the concept that true hi-fi reproduction is about representing a live performance is wrong. Recordings are intended to be played at lower than live levels and are carefully constructed to communicate the essence of the music across a range of playback systems and levels. The dynamic range is severely compressed on most recordings. This allows for full perception at lower levels.

This also means that listening at a similar measured level to let’s say an orchestra is more sound exposure.

Amplified rock concerts are already compressed through the PA so a measurement comparison to home would be more relevant

Playing such a recording loud on a good sound system should certainly sound good, but shouldn’t sound better than playing it a moderate level on a good system.

If anything the referent should be the playback level in the mix studio. I’m a producer and recording person and have known the work habits of many. The vast majority do not work at loud playback levels. This is basically impossible because sessions can be long and your ears get tired. Loud playback levels over extended time hampers your ability to hear and will certainly damage your hearing.

There are definitely some engineers who work at high volumes, but I don’t know how they can do it. I think there is a pretty wide range of sensitivity to levels, so ‘too loud’ for me might not be too loud for you.

The exceptions to this is sometimes when tracking overdubs the musicians want it loud. Or the artist wants it loud to hear playback. In such a case I will turn it up and step to the back of the room. Or leave the room.

When mixing I will check the mix at high levels for a minute once in a while, but keep it at a minimum.

Hip Hop recording sessions are a struggle for me as there is usually a contingent of people in the control room partying who are used to blasting music and they want it loud. Drugs can shift perceptions of sound significantly.

Anyway, take care of your ears

 

[DWPress]

@amirm said in the video: "You can tell it's an old paper by the typeface."

I have a whole new appreciation and respect for you sir.

 

[amirm]

IMO, the concept that true hi-fi reproduction is about representing a live performance is wrong.

No such statement was made. What was said was that since millions of people go to live concerts including many that are unamplified, the levels that people say make you go deaf in 15 minutes can't possibly be true. It is way to show that people have completely wrong notions of how loud music gets.

From the point of view of testing headphones, these devices have no problem reaching to astronomical SPLs. As such, I like to test them at these limits and see how they did. In addition, many headphones need substantial bass boost which can push them to these levels there.

 

[b1daly]

No such statement was made. What was said was that since millions of people go to live concerts including many that are unamplified, the levels that people say make you go deaf in 15 minutes can't possibly be true. It is way to show that people have completely wrong notions of how loud music gets.

From the point of view of testing headphones, these devices have no problem reaching to astronomical SPLs. As such, I like to test them at these limits and see how they did. In addition, many headphones need substantial bass boost which can push them to these levels there.

...maybe I misinterpreted...

I agree completely with your reasoning for testing at the limits of a device.

 

[Spkrdctr]

That was a very good video. I should say that out of the lab and in general listening we can't control the frequencies we hear. Amir rightfully said, you can't listen to that peak range 1 to 5 khz at 100 db as it would drive you nuts and give you hearing damage over time. For general use by the average guy on the street, listening at 95 db sounds will damage your hearing. Of course none of it is instantaneous, but it is cumulative. I would recommend that everyone err on the side of caution. Those OSHA style recommendations are too loud and will cause hearing damage quicker than they represent. Again, fantastic video. Use the volume knob in moderation as Amir says and listening to a song or two will not destroy your hearing. Some people wear hearing protection mowing the lawn. I never did and luckily I have pretty good hearing last I was tested about 7 years ago.

 

[DWPress]

May I also add that I've worked hard to get my system where it is now. Lots of reading, experimenting and lots and lots of measuring. This video validates much of it. My noise floor is very low and dynamic range exceedingly high with my choice of equipment and where it is used. I'm quite happy with where my 30+ year journey has placed me with this system and it can't really be improved in the signal chain unless I go all Purify as the signal chain before it hits the speakers has distortion only in inaudible regions. Speakers and room are the weak link and I'm working on the room now!
(and I'm happy with my speakers for the moment)

Thanks Amir, ASR is a tremendous resource and my understanding of what I'm trying to achieve has greatly benefitted in recent years!

 

[Dave Tremblay]

Out of curiosity last night, I checked my SPL levels playing my upright piano while singing. The slow time average SPL was around 90dB, with peaks up around 112dB. This is all acoustic and a very reasonable level for a musician. I do this for about an hour, 3-4 days a week, and am not deaf. I routinely check my hearing and can still hear reliably up to 16kHz.

 

[Blaspheme]

Out of curiosity last night, I checked my SPL levels playing my upright piano while singing. The slow time average SPL was around 90dB, with peaks up around 112dB. This is all acoustic and a very reasonable level for a musician. I do this for about an hour, 3-4 days a week, and am not deaf. I routinely check my hearing and can still hear reliably up to 16kHz.

Many have trouble understanding this. They see the dB number but ignore the duration and energy of the peak (they may simply deny that piano peaks reach that level due to lack of understanding). The obvious analogy is a contact burn. When you touch a hot surface, the surface temperature is an indication for sure, but the contact duration and the mass of the hot thing you are touching will also determine the severity of the burn.

 

[dasdoing]

105dB requirement for a system calibrated at 85dB is actualy exagerated. you will never have a single frequency playing at 0dBFS.

 

[MattHooper]

IMO, the concept that true hi-fi reproduction is about representing a live performance is wrong. Recordings are intended to be played at lower than live levels and are carefully constructed to communicate the essence of the music across a range of playback systems and levels. The dynamic range is severely compressed on most recordings. This allows for full perception at lower levels.

That's essentially why I don't find myself fervently interested in ever expanding dynamic range. Think about movies. If they actually recreated the power and dynamic range of real life, at realistic sound levels, we'd all have hearing damage walking out of an action or war movie.

I don't need pure realism, but rather a semblance of some of the characteristics I like about live music, repurposed for my home experience.

 

[MattHooper]

Like some, I was a bit surprised in the video when Amir said that everybody's dream of hi-fi is to "bring a live performance home." And that is the ultimate vision of what a hi-fi system should do.

I have received pushback on this forum for having suggested that is traditionally what "hi-fidelity systems" has meant, and that it is still often associated with that goal. The pushback has been that, no, "hi-fi" means "hi-fidelity to the SIGNAL" and that being the goal anything that departs is not "hi-fidelity."

Which ends up with a talking-past-one-another scenario.

I certainly don't take Amir to be declaring the One True Reason For Hi-Fi of course. Rather he just seems to be acknowledging plenty have had live performance recreation a guiding idea for hi-fi playback gear, and if we just run with that, let's look at the implications.

We know that audiophiles have different goals. And a number of members here have stated they approach "hi-fi" as "fidelity to the signal." As long as they know they are hearing the signal laid down on the media accurately transcribed in their system, the goal for their system is reached and "it sounds however a track sounds." Which of course is a perfectly valid goal.

But I and some others have pointed out that some systems that may deviate from neutral may strike us as "more like live music" which is often dismissed with "Well, that's fine if you like coloration, but you aren't really talking about Hi-Fidelity, which MEANS, and always has meant, accurate recreation of the signal. You seek coloration; I seek Hi-Fidelity."

But one can see from the history of hi-fi audio equipment that a "life-like" presentation was usually touted as the goal of these wonderful new hi-fi systems. "Bring the symphony home to your living room with X Hi-Fidelity Speaker" and the like.

This is why, though I completely understand anyone deciding to approach Hi-Fidelity to the signal, I push back against the idea that is THE raison d'etre of hi-fi equipment, and that any departure is mere "preference" over fidelity. (And I see some manufacturers often getting slammed for departing from what is ASSUMED to be the goal of accuracy above all).

 

[Bear123]

Out of curiosity last night, I checked my SPL levels playing my upright piano while singing. The slow time average SPL was around 90dB, with peaks up around 112dB. This is all acoustic and a very reasonable level for a musician. I do this for about an hour, 3-4 days a week, and am not deaf. I routinely check my hearing and can still hear reliably up to 16kHz.

This reinforces my opinion that many/most/almost all(?) speakers do not have the dynamic capability needed for remotely accurate music playback. Most of the speakers tested here so far don't do well at all even at 96 dB at 1m. I think its safe to say most people listen at 2-4 meters, at which distances SPL will drop from 96 to around 86-92 depending on distance. It will take a tremendous amount of power to increase SPL from here to 112 and the speakers are already falling apart in terms of distortion. Not a speaker I've seen tested here so far(correct me if I'm wrong) has a remote chance of recreating a clean 112 dB peak at 3-4m distance. And this is not "deafeningly loud"......just a live acoustic piano.

I wonder what the distortion level would be for the F328Be to hit a 112 dB peak at 12', and how much power it would take?(at frequencies that don't receive any boost from room and boundary gain which is of course, most of them)

I mentioned once before(maybe in this thread???) that I've seen folks thoroughly impressed with very high sensitivity(100dB+) speakers fueled by very high power amps, stating that its the only time they've heard speakers that convincingly recreated live music.

Even a 100 dB 8 ohm speaker would need 100 watts to hit 112 dB peaks at a reasonable distance, and this is without factoring in any boost from necessary room eq, which will easily double or quadruple power. Easy to see why even a speaker of this type might benefit from very high power.

I have slightly above average sensitivity speakers, sit 10' away or so, and I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that I am nowhere remotely near reference capable. 10 below, I'm probably ok.

I think this is also why many people are of the opinion that above -15 MV, you will go deaf, your ears will bleed, and you will be forced to run out of the room covering your ears. I saw an example on here where someone mentioned an old AM radio...turn it up full blast and it too will run you out of the room with unlistenable SPL levels due to distortion. With 85 dB bookshelf speakers driven by an AVR, no wonder so many people think that any louder than they personally prefer to listen is truly and actually too loud. I think it is far more often simply very limited capability.

 

[RayDunzl]

How loud is loud?

How hot is hot?

How cold is cold?

How...

Nevermind.

 

[Blaspheme]

This reinforces my opinion that many/most/almost all(?) speakers do not have the dynamic capability needed for remotely accurate music playback. Most of the speakers tested here so far don't do well at all even at 96 dB at 1m. I think its safe to say most people listen at 2-4 meters, at which distances SPL will drop from 96 to around 86-92 depending on distance. It will take a tremendous amount of power to increase SPL from here to 112 and the speakers are already falling apart in terms of distortion. Not a speaker I've seen tested here so far(correct me if I'm wrong) has a remote chance of recreating a clean 112 dB peak at 3-4m distance. And this is not "deafeningly loud"......just a live acoustic piano.

I wonder what the distortion level would be for the F328Be to hit a 112 dB peak at 12', and how much power it would take?(at frequencies that don't receive any boost from room and boundary gain which is of course, most of them)

I mentioned once before(maybe in this thread???) that I've seen folks thoroughly impressed with very high sensitivity(100dB+) speakers fueled by very high power amps, stating that its the only time they've heard speakers that convincingly recreated live music.

Even a 100 dB 8 ohm speaker would need 100 watts to hit 112 dB peaks at a reasonable distance, and this is without factoring in any boost from necessary room eq, which will easily double or quadruple power. Easy to see why even a speaker of this type might benefit from very high power.

I have slightly above average sensitivity speakers, sit 10' away or so, and I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that I am nowhere remotely near reference capable. 10 below, I'm probably ok.

I think this is also why many people are of the opinion that above -15 MV, you will go deaf, your ears will bleed, and you will be forced to run out of the room covering your ears. I saw an example on here where someone mentioned an old AM radio...turn it up full blast and it too will run you out of the room with unlistenable SPL levels due to distortion. With 85 dB bookshelf speakers driven by an AVR, no wonder so many people think that any louder than they personally prefer to listen is truly and actually too loud. I think it is far more often simply very limited capability.

Amps can provide higher peak power, usually. I expect behaviour/sonics producing those peaks (even piano peaks, as we've read) may be one reason why similarly specced amps review differently. That said, getting satisfying sound on particular tracks using home stereo gear can be a challenge, if a domestic approximation of live concert levels is considered.

On speakers I agree completely. My test tracks aren't ever going to overlap with an AVS forum list, or a Stereophile reviewer's for that matter, but I'm impressed say when a system can play BMTH's mid-period screamo-revival opener The Comedown at satisfactory levels with sufficient impact and clarity. So I was satisfied listening via some second-hand Krells I fancied driving those big Focal speakers (Grande Utopia, a bit beyond my budget and room size) last time I did an extended hi-fi shop session. The Krells—400 watt Evolution series—were the baby of that monobloc series (there were 600 and 900 watt versions) but they don't lack current, which I think helps.

The interesting thing, apropos your comment on bookshelf speaker sound as a common reference, is that you can crank up a big sound system quite a bit (~105 dB ave on relevant tracks that session) and still converse, because the sound isn't filled in with distortion or crushed in dynamics (even considering my program material is often anything but audiophile). The gear and space required is beyond common domestic scale and budget so we compromise. My home system is sufficiently full range and sufficiently articulate to render electronic music nicely (I can match the levels and dynamics of the Alva Noto/Ryuichi Sakamoto concert I heard at Sydney Opera House concert hall a while back, say, or FKA twigs last performance at Carriageworks) but falls short of desirable dynamics for post-hardcore, for example.

 

[Robbo99999]

I recently did some testing to try to work out the max peak levels I listen to with my headphones, explained at this post:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...as-been-measured-by-oratory.22992/post-767745
The upshot being is that my max peak levels I listen at are between 80-86dB.

Max peak listening level seemed to depend on which headphone I was using. There will be some degree of inaccuracy in my listening test where I subjectively say "this feels like my max listening level" although I deliberately chose a slightly louder perceived level than my normal listening level, so I'm confident it's above my usual listening level. Other inaccuracies would come down to variance of my headphone vs the manufacturers reported headphone sensitivity, on which the calculations were based, except for the K702 that was measured by Oratory.

Given all of the above, in my use cases I don't think headphone measuring above 96dB is relevant for me....I gave it an extra +10dB on top of my 86dB max listening level to account for bass EQ boost of headphones, as my HE4XX has a large bass boost, but mostly +5dB would make most sense as most of my headphones only have +5dB bass boost, which would make 91dB as the max relevant headphone measurement. So measuring headphones at 104dB & 114dB don't have a relevance for me personally, I therefore see the 94dB measurement of Amir's as the most telling measurement in reality and for me still extreme when it comes to the midrange & treble.

 

[tomtrp]

Out of curiosity last night, I checked my SPL levels playing my upright piano while singing. The slow time average SPL was around 90dB, with peaks up around 112dB. This is all acoustic and a very reasonable level for a musician. I do this for about an hour, 3-4 days a week, and am not deaf. I routinely check my hearing and can still hear reliably up to 16kHz.

Where did you put your decibel meter?