I read where compressed music causes hearing loss.
"He also said the use of "compressed" sound in modern media — in which weak signals are boosted to the level of stronger ones — is changing the way people speak.
This is from
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bud...9554654519.html (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/budding-deafness-rocks-the-ipod-set/2008/01/08/1199554654519.html)
What do you think of this? When they say the signals are boosted to the level of stronger can that also apply to EQ settings?
I think you can aways lower the volume. If the sound is compressed or not wouldn't matter.
Sony Walkman terrorizes 80s youth. Film at 11.
All complete nonsense. People who listen to any music at high volumes are prone to hearing loss.
this is so true! i just recently lost my left ear listening to country music!
damn you garth!
I think several of you are misinterpreting the meaning of "compressed" here. The article is not about MP3 compression, but about the lack of dynamic range in today's music ("clipression", like some people call it here).
And actually, I think there may be some truth to this. Since no dynamic range is left in the music, there are no quiet parts anymore. It's just LOUDLOUDLOUD from start to end. And since hearing damages occurs by prolonged exposure to loud sounds, it could be a contributing factor.
I imagine you'd need sound waves at least strong enough to generate hurricane-force winds to cause the loss of an ear.
Hearing loss, though, probably requires less than that.
I read where compressed music causes hearing loss.
"He also said the use of "compressed" sound in modern media — in which weak signals are boosted to the level of stronger ones — is changing the way people speak.
Specifically:
"Young children used to watching cartoons with compressed sound can end up speaking in the same loud, monotone way."
That's interesting but also, I suppose, expected. No one, particularly not children, is immune to any outside influence. This is how someone moving into an area picks up the local accent: it's likely mostly an unconscious process--just what you're hearing all the time.
However, I'd have thought there'd be forces pulling back the other way--namely, normal speech around them not on the TV. But Professor Huggonet's the professor here not me. (Is he an audiologist, too? The others quoted--the Australians--seem to be, but it doesn't say what Professor Huggonet's field is.)
I haven't got a TV and, frankly, now I'm used to their absence I find I dislike them. It's not just the cartoons where there's constant shouting (dynamic compression or not). Sports commentators in particular seem to think they have to speak as if they are in a state of permanent unmanly hysteria--mostly about nothing at all. Do they think viewers will switch off if they don't try to
convince them with their voice that what's going on is exciting? Then there's the thumping rock music pushed in behind almost everything, often one snatch following another none longer than a few seconds. I hear with interactive TV there's a move to allow people to "push the red button" to cut this crap out on nature programmes and the like, because TV companies have had so many complaints from viewers.
Thanks for posting the link. It's interesting. I'm sure hearing problems, which the article also mentions, are an important issue. A few years back it was said that discos were a threat to people's hearing; now portable players seem to be current worry. Maybe that's well-founded:
Audiologist Rebecca Verhoef ... acknowledged that the hospital had seen an ... increase in young people presenting with hearing problems such as tinnitus, a ringing sensation in the ears.
I tend now not to listen to my portable player in noisy environments, such as walking down the street. The temptation to turn the volume up in order to compete with "background sounds" is too great. In any case, it's best to do one thing well rather than several indifferently, so if music is worth listening to at all, it's probably worth giving your full attention to it. As the Zen saying goes:
When walking, just walk. When sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
I think you can aways lower the volume. If the sound is compressed or not wouldn't matter.
In fact, when the dynamic range is low, you don't have to play it loud to hear all the different parts.
So, dynamic range compression might even prevent hearing loss.
By the way, what a BAD article. Two different things are linked:
1) Compressed sound is changing the way we speak
2) A number of studies have pointed to MP3 players and "earbud" earphones as harming people's hearing.
I think they are mixing up the meaning of the word "compressed" here.
I cannot comment on the hearing loss issue. However, oversaturation in general (not just aural) does have an influence on peoples behaviour - noticing that day in day out as someone, who avoids oversaturation like the plague (which among other things, is the reason why i have no TV, no Radio and read no mainstream media at all - after you got used to some distance from this crap, it becomes difficult to understand, how the majority of people can expose themselves to so much hyped bullshit).
I tend now not to listen to my portable player in noisy environments, such as walking down the street.
Hey man, why do you have your portable for then? Buy IEMs - even with disconnected player person will have 10-20 dBs less street/transportation noise. But if noise floor is reduced - why not put some music in free space?
When walking, just walk. When sitting, just sit. Above all, don't wobble.
When eating, just eat? But when listen to the music?
I imagine you'd need sound waves at least strong enough to generate hurricane-force winds to cause the loss of an ear.
Hearing loss, though, probably requires less than that.
My thought exactly when I read the title of this thread
i just recently lost my left ear
Ever heard of a guy called
Vincent van Gogh? He was the first victim of ear loss due to compressed music.
hilarious... such a great thread title
Yeah, really, this is an interesting thread and especially for those of us professionally involved in the medical aspects of sound and hearing.
As a practicing audiologist I first became aware of the issue approximately six/seven years ago when it was proposed within an auditory e-list. The underlying rationale wasn't convincing but as a clinician I decided to withhold judgment until submitting it to former classmates involved in both research and teaching at various universities across the USA. Their response was that no existing objective evidence supports the probability that digitally compressed sounds either causes or contributes to hearing loss. The subject admittedly was discussed in terms of lossy psychoacoustical reduction of auditory stimuli as opposed to dynamic range, but I question if such would have altered my academic friends' conclusions.
The linked article states, "Audiologist Rebecca Verhoef from the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital said more research into the effects of compressed sound on speech was needed before drawing such a conclusion." Nice doctoral dissertation in the making? Currently I'm unaware of anybody who has taken the challenge. Any other audiologist reading this aware of it being done? Perhaps those of us with the dissertation challange behind us should take it up on a post-doc basis?
Finally, the posting that connects noise induced hearing loss to "oversaturation in general" surely contains some words of auditory wisdom -- at least from my personal and professional experience. My human nature wants more and more of a good thing . . . be it sugar, salt, or loud sound. Despite my training I crave loud music and it's a constant battle reminding myself to 'Turn it down, already!'. Fortunately I've been successful yet having the diagnostic equipment to check my hearing routinely has been helpful.
Once again, thanks for beginning an interesting thread.
"Young children used to watching cartoons with compressed sound can end up speaking in the same loud, monotone way."
This made me lol. You can't expect a childrens cartoon with perfect dynamic range, its supposed to be played on a medium tv set in a complete chaos childrens room. So the lack of dynamics actually makes the cartoon more understandable, you can just crack up the volume without worrying about sudden loud parts. And believe it or not, cartoons are a perfect way of learning another language as a child.
I shudder to think what kids may learn from toons like "Totally Spies" that features a different sexual fetish in every episode. Sure, kids may not percieve it as such... but it plants the roots.
OK, I'm getting way off topic here.
This is talking about level compression, not coding.
Just so that's clear.
I have, anecdotally, seen some evidence that people who used the older kinds of walkman tape players were doing their hearing harm.
So, can we talk about "compressed music helps preserve your hearing"?
With compressed music/talks in noisy environment I do not need to make it "louder" to hear nuances - it right here.
OOOld discussion:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/20/2029212 (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/20/2029212)
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/200...ary/009942.html (http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis/2003-February/009942.html)
Don't seems so mutch realistic, BTW i prefer lossless !
PatchWorKs, please re-read the posts from me and Woodinville, you misunderstood what this topic is about.
I think several of you are misinterpreting the meaning of "compressed" here. The article is not about MP3 compression, but about the lack of dynamic range in today's music ("clipression", like some people call it here).
Today's music has more dynamic range than most previous music.
The average LP in the 70's could handle maybe 60-65 dB dynamic range between the clipping on the high end and having the content get buried in the record surface noise and rumble on the low end, so sound engineers had to squeeze the 80-90 dB of a symphony orchestra into a much smaller range. (BTW I still have an old analog rack-mount dBx unit left over from those days if anyone is interested).
Yet LP's were dynamic range
kings compared to broadcast FM which gets crammed down to 45-50 dB to satisfy US FCC frequency deviation limits. Philips cassette tapes were good for maybe 50-55 dB debending on the NR system being used.
I listen to mostly classical music and most of today's CD's have WAY more dynamic range than anything I could buy in 1975. This is actually a problem because to hear the full range of music you need to have perfectly silent house - no background noise, furnace fan, PC fan, etc, or you won't hear the quitest passages, and if you turn it up to hear the quiet stuff, the loud passages hurt your ears! And of course, you can't listen to classical music in the car, driving at all because the noise floor is too high. Most people have no idea how
W I D E 80 dB really is.
Today's music has more dynamic range than most previous music.
I would change that to "Today's media has more dynamic range than previous media". How much of that dynamic range is actually used is the issue.
I would change that to "Today's media has more dynamic range than previous media". How much of that dynamic range is actually used is the issue.
With the vast majority of these "clipressed" recordings,
all of the dynamic range is actually used.
I think several of you are misinterpreting the meaning of "compressed" here. The article is not about MP3 compression, but about the lack of dynamic range in today's music ("clipression", like some people call it here).
Today's music has more dynamic range than most previous music.
Ok, I would like to see some statistics from you. Can you show me a modern pop CD recording that has a 100 millisecond variation in intensity of more than 20dB, other than at the start and stop of a song?
How many, as a percentage of total CD issues?
Dynamic range does not refer to the ability of the playback mechanism to reproduce a wide dynamic range in the context of this discussion, rather it refers to the actual dynamic range, using the term in the perceptual sense, that is RECORDED on the medium.
In that light, it is provably false that there is more dynamic range today than in 1999. There are better players, the POTENTIAL for better dynamic range is certainly there ...
I would change that to "Today's media has more dynamic range than previous media". How much of that dynamic range is actually used is the issue.
With the vast majority of these "clipressed" recordings, all of the dynamic range is actually used.
So, then, I can go out and buy a modern pop CD with music RECORDED on it that has a 40dB dynamic range between PPP and FFF?
Show me.
Certainly the medium can accomodate it. That's not in dispute.
Show me.
Define dynamic range first.
PPP and FFF do not apply to any technical definition of dynamic range that I have ever seen, sorry!
To give you an example of something that moves towards the direction you seem to be heading, I offer up
Wings For Marie (Pt 1) from Tool's 10,000 Days:
Min RMS power: -65.13 dB
Max RMS power: -4.79 dB
These figures were calculated using Audition's default statistics settings.
Today's music has more dynamic range than most previous music.
I would change that to "Today's media has more dynamic range than previous media". How much of that dynamic range is actually used is the issue.
Yes, and as I said, the classical records of the 1970's can't hold a candle to the classical CD's I buy today WRT dynamic range. Today's classical CD's have more dynamic range that an LP was capable of.
OTOH, rock music has
always been designed to be played at a steady loud level - 60's/70's rock classics such as "Smoke on the Water" or "How Many More Times" were not written for the emotional and sonic subtleties that require dynamic range to be expressed. This is not a question of recording engineering - it's a question of what the artist wants. Have you ever been to a club or concert where rock is played? It's LOUD and pretty much stays loud for most of the songs. I never go to a club without wearing in-ear hearing protectors.
Min RMS power: -65.13 dB
Max RMS power: -4.79 dB
These figures were calculated using Audition's default statistics settings.
Min RMS power carry no info for our case. Most important is
Average RMS power.
BTW. How you people judge dyn. range? Is "Peak Value - Average RMS" formula correct enough? Any other variables?
Min RMS power carry no info for our case. Most important is Average RMS power.
A question for you Vitecs,
How else are to determine how dynamic parts are within a song? We can increase the window if we like and perhaps alter the reference, but prey tell, how do you get two numbers from Average RMS power?
Remember, Woodinville is interested in the difference between pianissimo and fortissimo.
EDIT:
BTW. How you people judge dyn. range? Is "Peak Value - Average RMS" formula correct enough? Any other variables?
Average RMS does not properly represent pianissimo; the quietest parts of a song are not the average.
Peak Value does not properly represent fortissimo; loud passages shouldn't be measured by looking at the value of a single sample.
How else are to determine how dynamic parts are within a song? We can increase the window if we like and perhaps alter the reference, but prey tell, how do you get two numbers from Average RMS power?
Remember, Woodinville is interested in the difference between pianissimo and fortissimo.
I've re-read your message more carefully. Your Min/Max RMS for PPP/FFF have a sense. But somewhat holds me from agree that this
is the dynamic range. You concern it as well?
I do not like "Min RMS" in calculations for one obvious reason: even hardly compressed music can have sudden stops. And we will get "good" numbers. Definition of the "perceptual" or "sensorial" dynamic range is something I do not know, but I believe it differs from technical audio definition (max signal - noise floor).
We can get one number from Average RMS Power and other from Peak value. For modern records latter usually is 0dB, so calculation becomes really simple: AvRMS. Maybe replacing "Peak value" with MaxRMS Power leads us to more reliable results?
But somewhat holds me from agree that this is the dynamic range. You concern it as well?
It is, though I already have an opinion on the matter (fff and ppp doesn't fit this opinion).
even hardly compressed music can have sudden stops.
These sudden stops don't make up part of the dynamic character of the music? What if they are 1/2 note rests? What if it's a droning sound that adds ambience between loud parts of music (it isn't like I couldn't easily think of music that fits the challenge)?
We can get one number from Average RMS Power and other from Peak value. For modern records latter usually is 0dB, so calculation becomes really simple: AvRMS. Maybe replacing "Peak value" with MaxRMS Power leads us to more reliable results?
Read my edit.
But somewhat holds me from agree that this is the dynamic range. You concern it as well?
It is, though I already have an opinion on the matter (fff and ppp doesn't fit this opinion).
I wonder if it includes "AverageRMS Power"?
These sudden stops don't make up part of the dynamic character of the music?
Yes and No. "Yes" - for music. "No" - for our discussion.
Sometimes I think that audiophilies' "microdynamics" and "macrodynamics" has some sense. At least in part that speaking of music dynamic one should claim what time "window" he/she speaks of. Is it about lead guitar sounds really loud or it's about nice staccato passage...
I simply don't agree on the premise. Dynamic range to me is as you stated it, max peak relative to the noise floor. This is a definition that's always suited me fine in my professional life.
Still:
What if it's a droning sound that adds ambience between loud parts of music (it isn't like I couldn't easily think of music that fits the challenge)?
IOW, sure, I'll play by an alternate set of rules. Tool has "clippressed" music that is still quite dynamic.
In acoustics we talk about dynamic range, both in a "musical sense" and in a "signal processing sense".
I think you can use both, as long as you are clear on which of the two you're talking about.
I think you can use both, as long as you are clear on which of the two you're talking about.
In all deference, I still stand by what I said...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=540652 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=60353&view=findpost&p=540652)
The media is 16-bits and most modern "clippressed" recordings use all 16 of them
EDIT:...and this often true for titles that aren't as compressed as well.
Show me.
Define dynamic range first.
PPP and FFF do not apply to any technical definition of dynamic range that I have ever seen, sorry!
To give you an example of something that moves towards the direction you seem to be heading, I offer up Wings For Marie (Pt 1) from Tool's 10,000 Days:
Min RMS power: -65.13 dB
Max RMS power: -4.79 dB
These figures were calculated using Audition's default statistics settings.
I see, so, first, music is non-technical in your view. I'll let that slide for now.
Now, then, you're the one arguing about dynamic range. Is there, then, some definition you had in mind?
You used it, what's your definition? Are you sticking to the idea of 16 bit PCM here, never mind that no recording I've seen lately uses that dynamic range, in which case the definition is completely, utterly redundant to this discussion, or are you talking about some dynamic range actually observed in a non-zero part of a standardly produced mainstream pop CD of modern production?
Your "min RMS power" lacks a few bits of information.
1) window length
2) weighting (or not)
3) Where does it occur in the song? Are we talking about a silent part of the song?
Leaving all that aside, I have run statistics on more CD's than I even want to consider counting, and I am quite well aware of the dynamic range that most, if not all, modern pop CD's use, and it's very, very little.
Rock music is not the issue here. The Rolling Stones USED more dynamic range in their recordings on LP, for goodness sake.
I see, so, first, music is non-technical in your view.
Oh really? I don't recall making any such statement or implication.
I'll let that slide for now.
Now, then, you're the one arguing about dynamic range. Is there, then, some definition you had in mind?
The standard electrical one, do you want an IEC number or something? I hardly think I was being unreasonable in providing you an example to address the alternative you put forward.
are you talking about some dynamic range actually observed in a non-zero part of a standardly produced mainstream pop CD of modern production?
For heaven's sake, YES I'm talking about some dynamic range actually observed in a non-zero part of a standardly produced mainstream CD of modern production!!!Why are you trying to pigeon-hole me to a single genre of music? I used the term "clippressed" not "pop".
Your "min RMS power" lacks a few bits of information.
1) window length
2) weighting (or not)
Um, no it doesn't:
These figures were calculated using Audition's default statistics settings.
Leaving all that aside, I have run statistics on more CD's than I even want to consider counting, and I am quite well aware of the dynamic range that most, if not all, modern pop CD's use, and it's very, very little.
Oh, please! Get over yourself.
OTOH, rock music has always been designed to be played at a steady loud level - 60's/70's rock classics such as "Smoke on the Water" or "How Many More Times" were not written for the emotional and sonic subtleties that require dynamic range to be expressed. This is not a question of recording engineering - it's a question of what the artist wants. Have you ever been to a club or concert where rock is played? It's LOUD and pretty much stays loud for most of the songs. I never go to a club without wearing in-ear hearing protectors.
Excuse me? As it happens, I happen to have a copy of Machine Head handy, and the peak to RMS ratio of Smoke on the Water (not remix) is rather larger than that of, oh, say, "La Vida Loca".
If you want to argue rock music, let's stick to the same album, ok? Let's use "Lazy". Or even "Highway Star". It's ironic that you chose Deep Purple as an example here, because they have a well-stablished penchant for individual entry at the beginning of songs that force some dynamic range.
On a purely musical level, furthermore, I challenge the idea that "Lazy", which is a rock classic, has no emotional or sonic subtlety, just for the record.
Let's consider "Smoke on the Water" again. Just at the beginning, we have guitars entering at different times, with substantially increasing energy and loudness (both) as the bass starts up, and then even more in both energy and loudness when the percussion starts.
Compare that, alone, to anything you can find in La Vida Loca off of Ricky Martin, live.
Rock music is not the issue, and it's a red herring here. Bob Katz (and others) have published measurements on peak to RMS ratio of pop recordings. There is clear, present evidence of hypercompression on modern recordings that comes about long after rock music.
Yes, GOOD classical recordings nowdays use more dynamic range. Got many? I find my oldest recordings are most often the best there. Of course, it's also nice to find an artist who plays with some expression instead of "tick tock" accuracy. But I won't dispute personal taste if you like machine-like regularity.
(i.e. I prefer Tennstadt to von Karajan any day...)
Here the context is compressed music and personal listening. How many people listen to Le Deluge on their I-Pod on the subway on the way to work? Not many, I suspect.
Oh, and do keep wearing the hearing protectors. No dispute there. Everybody should. My job will be meaningless if you don't.
Leaving all that aside, I have run statistics on more CD's than I even want to consider counting, and I am quite well aware of the dynamic range that most, if not all, modern pop CD's use, and it's very, very little.
Oh, please! Get over yourself.
So, what is relevant, your feelings, or actual measurements?
Do you happen to have a list of Peak/rms ratios for a variety of music handy? If so, show me, and try to convince me.
There is, of course, a simple problem here, dynamic range has more than one meaning. When talking about compression, we're not talking about the peak to noise floor of a 16 bit PCM word. I think we all know that number to our hearts' content. It's simply not germane to this discussion, and it's not in any dispute that I know of in any knowledgeable circle.
Again, the context is not high-quality classical recordings.
What we're talking about is the dynamics actually present in the modern pop recording, unless you are suggesting that the majority of all people (this is a discussion about a population that might be suffering hearing damage, after all) listen to high-quality, uncompressed classical recordings, and that is what causes the general population's hearing loss. !?!?!?
And, while I haven't personally used the term "clippressed", yeah, it's an interesting word. I use "loudness enhancement" (which also implies nonlinearity, of course).
listen to high-quality, uncompressed classical recordings, and that is what causes the general population's hearing loss. !?!?!?
Just wonder, how it to be the musician... have a seat inside a big orchestra... With one neighbor's trumpet in one ear and other's trombone in other ear. And, make some sounds yourself... Is it comparable to rock band' drummer with monitors? Maybe we call the thread "playing any music causes hearing loss"?
So, what is relevant, your feelings, or actual measurements?
My feelings??? You must be joking!
Do you happen to have a list of Peak/rms ratios for a variety of music handy? If so, show me, and try to convince me.
No, I don't, though you must have them handy since you're familiar with nearly every modern pop title.
There is, of course, a simple problem here, dynamic range has more than one meaning.
Yes this was obvious from your first response.
When talking about compression, we're not talking about the peak to noise floor of a 16 bit PCM word.
[...]
What we're talking about is the dynamics actually present in the modern pop recording, unless you are suggesting that the majority of all people (this is a discussion about a population that might be suffering hearing damage, after all) listen to high-quality, uncompressed classical recordings, and that is what causes the general population's hearing loss. !?!?!?
That wasn't what I was talking about. I was giving a specific response to a statement I saw
fom pdq. Sorry to disappoint you.
After mulling over
your response
to me(*) I thought I might try to "show" you something that you seem to believe doesn't exist. Since you subsequently decided to limit my options (the genre, not the measurement) I guess this something doesn't exist after all.
And, while I haven't personally used the term "clippressed", yeah, it's an interesting word. I use "loudness enhancement" (which also implies nonlinearity, of course).
I personally don't care for the term myself but I know many people here like to use it (hence the use of quotations). Admittedly, I used the term to suggest that samples existed at full-scale.
Do we agree that it's use doesn't reduce that lack of dynamic range of a recording (the uninteresting measurement) nor does it prevent one from producing music that still has dynamics?
EDIT: (*) I didn't even bother to read the first half of your reply where you addressed plnelson until now:
Today's music has more dynamic range than most previous music.
Ok, I would like to see some statistics from you. Can you show me a modern pop CD recording that has a 100 millisecond variation in intensity of more than 20dB, other than at the start and stop of a song?
How many, as a percentage of total CD issues?
Dynamic range does not refer to the ability of the playback mechanism to reproduce a wide dynamic range in the context of this discussion, rather it refers to the actual dynamic range, using the term in the perceptual sense, that is RECORDED on the medium.
In that light, it is provably false that there is more dynamic range today than in 1999. There are better players, the POTENTIAL for better dynamic range is certainly there ...
In acoustics we talk about dynamic range, both in a "musical sense" and in a "signal processing sense".
I think you can use both, as long as you are clear on which of the two you're talking about.
FWIW, what I mean is the difference in dB between the very quietest, teensy bit of sound a musician makes and the very loudest sound the musicians make. Really, why would you use any other definition? If the goal is to accurately reproduce the experience in the concert hall, then you need the ability to accurately reproduce that entire range.
Just a thought: maybe the standard deviation of the average RMS is a good measure for dynamics (I won't use dynamic range because that is confusing, as greynol pointed out).
Let's consider "Smoke on the Water" again. Just at the beginning, we have guitars entering at different times, with substantially increasing energy and loudness (both) as the bass starts up, and then even more in both energy and loudness when the percussion starts.
But the quietest of them comes on loud - WAY above the noise floor. "Smoke on the Water" has no quiet (pianissimo or pianississimo) passages. Dynamic range is the difference in decibels between the loudest and quietest passages in the music, or if you're talking about gear, the difference in decibels between the loudest and quietest passages that it CAN reproduce, i.e., the difference between the noise floor and clipping. Most rock music doesn't employ pianississimo along with fortississimo in the same piece so it's not a big issue for most rock music.
I think several of you are misinterpreting the meaning of "compressed" here. The article is not about MP3 compression, but about the lack of dynamic range in today's music ("clipression", like some people call it here).
Today's music has more dynamic range than most previous music.
Ok, I would like to see some statistics from you. Can you show me a modern pop CD recording that has a 100 millisecond variation in intensity of more than 20dB, other than at the start and stop of a song?
Who cares about pop? And why does it have to be in 100 ms? Almost any piano or violin concerto will have wide variations between when the full orchestra is playing and when the soloist is playing.
Who cares about pop? And why does it have to be in 100 ms? Almost any piano or violin concerto will have wide variations between when the full orchestra is playing and when the soloist is playing.
You mess "long term" sound pressure difference with the short one. Don't you think that giving to the listener an ability to hear violinist plays PPP
solo would be enough to say "record has a great dynamic"?
It's easy to create such record. Much harder is to give us ability to listen to the PPP
during, along with band plays hardrock riffs. That is why we usually want 100 ms. Maybe 50 ms or even less.
how is internet not one of these 'bullshit' media?
Today's music has more dynamic range than most previous music.
Ok, I would like to see some statistics from you. Can you show me a modern pop CD recording that has a 100 millisecond variation in intensity of more than 20dB, other than at the start and stop of a song?
Who cares about pop? And why does it have to be in 100 ms? Almost any piano or violin concerto will have wide variations between when the full orchestra is playing and when the soloist is playing.
He didn't suggest 100 ms in his response to me, but I'll redo my measurements with an increased window size.
I have to admit I stopped following the discussion at about the point where people were trying to explain that this topic is not about lossy compression, and only glanced at it to make sure it was going along ok (just as I only glanced at this) and noticed the statement from pdq which I must have taken out of context; MY BAD!!! I have not actually followed the conversation and apologize.
Here's the new data for Tool's Wings For Marie (Pt 1). The window size was increased to 100 ms. The first 4000+ samples of silence was removed. The track is over 6 minutes long and has a gapless transition into the next track, so there was no need to trim anything from the end. There is no silence within the track.
From the right channel:
Min RMS power: -63.75 dB
Max RMS power: -5.74 dB
Much harder is to give us ability to listen to the PPP during, along with band plays hardrock riffs. That is why we usually want 100 ms. Maybe 50 ms or even less.
Aside from the question of whether actual human listeners would be able to hear an instrument playing PPP when the rest of the ensemble is playing FFF, none of this is related to dynamic range. Dynamic range has a clear, standard definition that's been used forever in engineering and it's the one I (and others) have mentioned. If there's a different phenomenon you're trying to describe use a different term for it.
Let's consider "Smoke on the Water" again. Just at the beginning, we have guitars entering at different times, with substantially increasing energy and loudness (both) as the bass starts up, and then even more in both energy and loudness when the percussion starts.
But the quietest of them comes on loud - WAY above the noise floor. "Smoke on the Water" has no quiet (pianissimo or pianississimo) passages. Dynamic range is the difference in decibels between the loudest and quietest passages in the music, or if you're talking about gear, the difference in decibels between the loudest and quietest passages that it CAN reproduce, i.e., the difference between the noise floor and clipping. Most rock music doesn't employ pianississimo along with fortississimo in the same piece so it's not a big issue for most rock music.
Hmm, let me load up Houses of the Holy here.
So, dynamic range is dB ratio of power?
How about loudness instead of power?
But, of course,you're still dodging the point, which is the loudness creep in pop music, and the question of if that causes harm to the hearing apparatus.
Which leads to a question. Is it intensity or loudness that is a better measure of potential hearing loss?
(And yes, that is a question. I don't know the answer.)
Much harder is to give us ability to listen to the PPP during, along with band plays hardrock riffs. That is why we usually want 100 ms. Maybe 50 ms or even less.
Aside from the question of whether actual human listeners would be able to hear an instrument playing PPP when the rest of the ensemble is playing FFF, none of this is related to dynamic range. Dynamic range has a clear, standard definition that's been used forever in engineering and it's the one I (and others) have mentioned. If there's a different phenomenon you're trying to describe use a different term for it.
Missed this. Masking results suggest very clearly that under the most sensitive conditions, 30dB NMR in an ERB is the best you can hope for.
If ppp to fff is bigger than that, and the spectra of the instruments do not vary enormously, there is not going to be any issue of audibility.
All of this argument about "uses all the bits" is just off key here, I think. The question could be restated (and perhaps should be) as "how far down from peak is the masking threshold for modern pop vs. older pop". Given that masking threshold seems to follow loudness very well ...
All of this argument about "uses all the bits" is just off key here, I think. The question could be restated (and perhaps should be) as "how far down from peak is the masking threshold for modern pop vs. older pop". Given that masking threshold seems to follow loudness very well ...
Until this is tied back to hearing loss (let alone the detachment of an ear), it's all off-key here, I'm afraid.
EDIT: I accept full responsibility for the needless detour into dynamic range.
Which leads to a question. Is it intensity or loudness that is a better measure of potential hearing loss?
What are your definitions of these terms?
I can tell you that hearing loss is correlated with SPL at the tympanic membrane and the duration of that exposure. It has nothing to do with dynamic range, per se, although you could probably make the case that "clippressed" music would have a
LOWER potential to cause hearing loss because you could set the volume level lower and still hear all the music.
Let's use a real example. OSHA says that 90 dB(A) can cause hearing loss so let's suppose I set my volume so that my ears are only exposed to 80 dB(A) to be on the safe side. And let's further suppose I'm in a normal listening environment where the noise floor is, say, 20 dB (a typical livingroom)
If I listen to a "clippressed" song where all the quiet passages are boosted to maintain a fairly steady SPL - say within a 40 dB envelope I won't miss anything because the loudest parts will be 80 dB at my ears and the quietest parts will be 40 dB at my ears, which places it above the noise threshold.
But if I listen to Grieg's Piano Concerto at its natural dynamic range, the quiet passages, which are down 75 dB from the loudest ones) will disappear into the noise floor! So I'll be tempted to turn the volume up to hear the whole thing at that means the FFF passages wil exceed 90 dB!
BOTTOM LINE: it's how you set your volume control that determines hearing risk.
Which leads to a question. Is it intensity or loudness that is a better measure of potential hearing loss?
What are your definitions of these terms?
The standard scientific/engineering definitions.
http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/loudness/loudtut.ppt (http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/loudness/loudtut.ppt)
I can tell you that hearing loss is correlated with SPL at the tympanic membrane and the duration of that exposure. It has nothing to do with dynamic range, per se, although you could probably make the case that "clippressed" music would have a LOWER potential to cause hearing loss because you could set the volume level lower and still hear all the music.
Yes, yes, this reduces the peak intensity, and depending on the volume control setting, the peak loudness. It will increase the average loudness.
Let's use a real example. OSHA says that 90 dB(A) can cause hearing loss so let's suppose I set my volume so that my ears are only exposed to 80 dB(A) to be on the safe side. And let's further suppose I'm in a normal listening environment where the noise floor is, say, 20 dB (a typical livingroom)
I've been in exactly one living room that managed 20dBC. So that's not typical. I know what OSHA says, it provides INTENSITY limits, without any strong treatment on spectrum, and with very wishy-washy attention to the time axis.
If I listen to a "clippressed" song where all the quiet passages are boosted to maintain a fairly steady SPL - say within a 40 dB envelope I won't miss anything because the loudest parts will be 80 dB at my ears and the quietest parts will be 40 dB at my ears, which places it above the noise threshold.
Of course.
But if I listen to Grieg's Piano Concerto at its natural dynamic range, the quiet passages, which are down 75 dB from the loudest ones) will disappear into the noise floor! So I'll be tempted to turn the volume up to hear the whole thing at that means the FFF passages wil exceed 90 dB!
BOTTOM LINE: it's how you set your volume control that determines hearing risk.
And that affects both intensity and loudness. Which is more correlated to hearing risk?
Which leads to a question. Is it intensity or loudness that is a better measure of potential hearing loss?What are your definitions of these terms?
I can tell you that hearing loss is correlated with SPL at the tympanic membrane and the duration of that exposure. It has nothing to do with dynamic range, per se, although you could probably make the case that "clippressed" music would have a LOWER potential to cause hearing loss because you could set the volume level lower and still hear all the music.
While that is true there might be possibility that listening to "clippressed" music changes the way people listen to music.
This is just one subjective experience from someone who listens to music a lot.
Listening to heavily compressed recordings with headphones causes my ears to go "numb". It's not easy to explain but the result is that after a while I don't hear the detail of recording very well and I end up compensating that by increasing the volume.
I also take breaks and when listening lots of heavily compressed music I need to take breaks more often and have longer breaks to restore sensitivity of my ears. When I get back to listening I often notice that I have ended up setting volume way much louder than setting where I started.
this is so true! i just recently lost my left ear listening to country music!
damn you garth!
First you loose your ear, then your house, your car, your wife, and your girlfriend! When the dog runs away and the pickup won't start, it's time to start listening to the blues!
Which leads to a question. Is it intensity or loudness that is a better measure of potential hearing loss?
What are your definitions of these terms?
"The standard scientific/engineering definitions.
http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/loudness/loudtut.ppt (http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/loudness/loudtut.ppt)
"
First of all these are not "standard" definitions - they are JD Johnston's proposed definitions.
Second, it's obvious that using his proposed definition "intensity" would be factor that would cause hearing lo9ss since hearing loss is actual physical damage to the tissue, and by his defintion, only intensity is correlated with an objective physical phenomenon. (By his definition "loudness" is subjective).
First of all these are not "standard" definitions - they are JD Johnston's proposed definitions.
Second, it's obvious that using his proposed definition "intensity" would be factor that would cause hearing lo9ss since hearing loss is actual physical damage to the tissue, and by his defintion, only intensity is correlated with an objective physical phenomenon. (By his definition "loudness" is subjective).
1) These are the actual definitions. I do not think that they are specific to this author. Do you have some authoritive reference to show otherwise? Please cite the basis for your authoritive statement that these are not "standard" definitions. (N.B. I am not arguing semantics, rather the meaning behind the words.)
2) There is no evidence for your assertion that intensity is the only culprit. That may be true, and I would not argue otherwise, but I have to challenge your "obvious". It is clear that the neural load (via Zwislocki and Greenwood, among others) is greatest with greatest loudness, and I would submit that neurological load (on the organ of Corti, specifically) could play a part, especially given known effects regarding temporary threshold shift, effects of sedatives on loudness curves, etc. (All of which can be found in JASA or various parts of JAMA.)
Is there some reason you choose to dispute the standard definitions of loudness and intensity? I really think that until you use the terminology right, you're only going to create more heat and light, especially when talking about various level compression algorithms that enhance loudness more so that intensity.
Edited for bogus taggage.
Edited further to add:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/loud.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/loud.html)
http://hypertextbook.com/physics/waves/intensity/ (http://hypertextbook.com/physics/waves/intensity/)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...30041304AAq656w (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071230041304AAq656w)
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~guymoore/ph2...s/lecture10.pdf (http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~guymoore/ph224/notes/lecture10.pdf)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/lr57hk8q64l756v0/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/lr57hk8q64l756v0/)
http://books.google.com/books?id=xdIvItuvX...F08GU#PPA122,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=xdIvItuvXLsC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=loudness+intensity&source=web&ots=S48mt81QMc&sig=75g3NLpyPS0-t_DnFC7mM7F08GU#PPA122,M1)
http://ssli.ee.washington.edu/people/duh/p...hProduction.pdf (http://ssli.ee.washington.edu/people/duh/projects/SpeechProduction.pdf)
For some reading material beyond that cited above, for you to refute with your claim that Johnston's definitions are personal, and not standard.
??
I was not expecting this topic to just suddenly die, thud.
Well, I already attempted to fork the conversation on dynamic range estimation. (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=60502&hl=)
The fundamental question has shifted to finer points of physiology and mastering that I'm not sure can be resolved here (esp wrt intensity vs loudness in terms of hearing loss).
The other big unknown here is the average listening time per day, and how that has changed over time. If people are listening to music 5-10 hours a day now, but were only listening 1-2 hours a day a few decades ago, one could argue that the maximum safe listening level has gone down considerably. That could wind up turning into an argument for increased compression to save hearing. Not everybody I know listens to compressed music at an excessive volume, and it's debatable if less compressed music could be enjoyable at similarly quiet volumes.
I don't think I have enough information to be swayed one way or the other.
slashdot link now dead..ah well
i think it was in new scientist or scientific american where they wrote about a study where they showed both too much and too little sound caused hearing loss. basically people living out in the middle of no where also had hearing loss even without a constant racket:P go figure.
i don't think its much of a problem anymore with all the isolating earphones with roam/silicon earplugs these days. in the past when everyone used crappy ear buds and cheap headphones outside you'd really have to crank those suckers to overcome background noise.
I have a question:
Does electronic equipment (i.e. something with an amplifier and speakers) possess the ability to produce audible sound which is entirely foreign to nature?
Just a few weeks ago during the night in a terrible thunderstorm, lightning struck very near my house, and it sounded (as best I can describe) like a bomb exploding, with a slight ringing in my ears afterwards.
I have a question:
Does electronic equipment (i.e. something with an amplifier and speakers) possess the ability to produce audible sound which is entirely foreign to nature?
There is nothing "special" about some sounds that make them impossible to reproduce, as far as I can see. The restrictions on capturing the full human experience of air motion, from tiny whispers to ear destroying explosions to gale force winds are mostly caused by the ends of the chain - the microphone and the speakers. So not all natural sounds can be reproduces.
On the other hand, audio playback devices are band and amplitude limited. There are no sounds that they can make which could be considered "unnatural" in any way. They can, however, produce sound at a volume that damages our ears (imagine a 120dB 50Hz square wave - I can't think of anything natural that would make that noise), and sounds which are unlikely to be produced in nature.
I'm not sure why this thread has re-opened, but I will again ask how a lack of signal, which causes no reaction from inner or outer hair cell, can cause harm.
This is opposed to the situation where loud signals (i.e. signals present) cause clear mechanical damage.
There are excellent photographs of this kind of damage in Yost's book.
The restrictions on capturing the full human experience of air motion, from tiny whispers to ear detaching explosions to gale force winds are mostly caused by the ends of the chain - the microphone and the speakers.
Corrected!
Sorry. I couldn't help myself. I've just found this thread for the first time and am nearly collapsing in hysterics at the comical nature of some of the replies. Please carry on.
Cheers, Slipstreem.
I'm not sure why this thread has re-opened, but I will again ask how a lack of signal, which causes no reaction from inner or outer hair cell, can cause harm.
I was actually leading to your point with my question:
Does electronic equipment (i.e. something with an amplifier and speakers) possess the ability to produce audible sound which is entirely foreign to nature?
This may be a bit esoteric, but stay with me for a second.
We I presume the human auditory system is intended primarily for survival and for communication. Slap on a pair of headphones and listen to something electronically produced (or reproduced) which is wholly un-natural (if such a set of signals exist, I'm asking) to the primary purposes/experiences of our hearing. Is it not possible that exposure to un-natural sounds, even at "safe" volume/intensity/duration, could damage or to a lesser degree alter hearing capability such that the main functions are impacted? Or if we tread a bit further and get into neurology, that exposure to these un-natural audio combinations could affect the mental processing portion of auditory sensing, such that survival and communication functions of hearing are
distracted?
If the above is possible, then it follows that the lack of
natural sounds could just as easily impact hearing. Something along the lines of if you get water too pure, it could be bad for your stomach because of the lack of natural bacteria and/or minerals.
Earbuds and closed headphones which cover your whole ear are potentially dangerous as you lose a comparison of the loudness level. As your ears get used to loud sound you might end up turning up the volume to harmful levels without even realizing it.
Some people might dislike open headhones but outside sounds actually provide you a good feedback and control over the loudness level.
In the end, it is just about the sanity of the listener and how they value their ears, not about how studios master audio tracks.
I'm not sure why this thread has re-opened, but I will again ask how a lack of signal, which causes no reaction from inner or outer hair cell, can cause harm.
I didn't realize how old the thread was when I hit "reply".
Slap on a pair of headphones and listen to something electronically produced (or reproduced) which is wholly un-natural (if such a set of signals exist, I'm asking) to the primary purposes/experiences of our hearing. Is it not possible that exposure to un-natural sounds, even at "safe" volume/intensity/duration, could damage or to a lesser degree alter hearing capability such that the main functions are impacted?
I'm hardly an expert in the field, but think about a vision analogy for a moment. Every day we see things (buildings, cars, Paris Hilton) which weren't present during the evolution (read creation if you are in the USA ) of our visual system. Provided that these images aren't too bright (like a welding arc), or the wrong frequency (UV, or X rays) they don't do anything to our vision. Our brains have proven themselves to be remarkably flexible and adaptable.
However, it's well known that some sounds can cause short term changes in hearing (like masking, or the way I can only ABX a 17kHz lowpass filter if I do one test every ten minutes), which is different to our visual experience. Do you have any such signals in mind?
Or if we tread a bit further and get into neurology, that exposure to these un-natural audio combinations could affect the mental processing portion of auditory sensing, such that survival and communication functions of hearing are distracted?
Listening to music stops you from hearing the lions, tigers and bears sneaking up on you. Most suburbs don't have these things, though.
Earbuds and closed headphones which cover your whole ear are potentially dangerous as you lose a comparison of the loudness level. As your ears get used to loud sound you might end up turning up the volume to harmful levels without even realizing it.
Some people might dislike open headhones but outside sounds actually provide you a good feedback and control over the loudness level.
In the end, it is just about the sanity of the listener and how they value their ears, not about how studios master audio tracks.
For me it is exactly the other way around! Using earbuds:
* I don't have to set the volume too high because of background noise
* I find myself turning the volume
down over time almost everytime. Don't know why exactly, but it is certainly true.
Every day we see things (buildings, cars, Paris Hilton) which weren't present during the evolution (read creation if you are in the USA ) of our visual system. Provided that these images aren't too bright (like a welding arc), or the wrong frequency (UV, or X rays) they don't do anything to our vision. Our brains have proven themselves to be remarkably flexible and adaptable.
Actually, the UV/X-Ray comment is a good analogy because while the effects can be dire, the source is often impossible to see. I've read that high-intensity low-frequency sound can cause illness. In addition, sound above the current frequency range of your hearing can still cause hearing damage, especially important to note when working with unusual computer generated audio, esp. with headphones.
Even the welding arc is a good analogy: people go blind from staring at the sun too...
And of course both UV/X-Ray are found in nature (sun overexposure, the occasional supernova or perhaps severe cosmic aka gamma rays theoretically causing mass kill events), and presumably high-intensity low-frequency sound occurred from time to time due to seismic events.
Your home entertainment equipment isn't going to magically transform unusual events into ear-lopping catastrophes. That said, it's wise to a) keep the volume to moderate levels and b) keep the equipment well isolated from unusual inputs by plugging it all into surge protection and/or UPS systems.
-brendan
I read where compressed music causes hearing loss.
I preferred your thread title: "Compressed music causes ear loss?"
(http://www.theartwolf.com/imagenestAW/van_gogh_bandaged.jpg)
Lay off the iPod, Vincent.
MP3 leads to deafness
Masturbation leads to blindness
What happens if you do both at the same time?
Pardon? And try using a bigger font next time!
Cheers, Slipstreem.
Try using a bigger font next time!
Ok
For me it is exactly the other way around! Using earbuds:
* I don't have to set the volume too high because of background noise
* I find myself turning the volume down over time almost everytime. Don't know why exactly, but it is certainly true.
I agree on both counts. This phenomenon of turning down the volume over time has fascinated me. I used to wonder if my iPod was suffering from some weird "volume creep", since I listen at work while writing software. But I'm convinced now that it's just my ears (or more precisely my hearing system).
I can't believe this thread has been resurrected!
I'm bumping this thread because today, my ears fell off. Warn your children!
However, it's well known that some sounds can cause short term changes in hearing (like masking, or the way I can only ABX a 17kHz lowpass filter if I do one test every ten minutes), which is different to our visual experience. Do you have any such signals in mind?
Both ears and eyes acts similar here: we need several minutes to see something when come in to the cave... Do we have ore miners here?
However, it's well known that some sounds can cause short term changes in hearing (like masking, or the way I can only ABX a 17kHz lowpass filter if I do one test every ten minutes), which is different to our visual experience. Do you have any such signals in mind?
Both ears and eyes acts similar here: we need several minutes to see something when come in to the cave... Do we have ore miners here?
Whoa there. Unless you've been exposed to levels higher than you should be, you shouldn't have more than a few seconds of recovery time with the ear.
The eye and the ear have very, very different adaptation times!
The ear adapts over a range of times from a millisecond (attack) to 200 milliseconds (full recovery if no temporary threshold shift, which means something was too loud).
The eye adapts from a second or so (iris) to 15 minutes (Perkinzie shift)
However, it's well known that some sounds can cause short term changes in hearing (like masking, or the way I can only ABX a 17kHz lowpass filter if I do one test every ten minutes), which is different to our visual experience. Do you have any such signals in mind?
Both ears and eyes acts similar here: we need several minutes to see something when come in to the cave... Do we have ore miners here?
Whoa there. Unless you've been exposed to levels higher than you should be, you shouldn't have more than a few seconds of recovery time with the ear.
That's interesting, indeed. Other people (I am trying to find the threads) have experienced similar things when ABXing very subtle (to them) differences at normal listening levels. From what you said, it's probably not a hearing thing - but it must be something. Along similar lines - if I walk into my lounge and the TV is on but dark and silent (like on the DVD channel when the player is off), I can tell with 100% success (over 8 trials run by my girlfriend) without looking. If I sit in the room with the TV for a few minutes, I can no longer tell whether it's on or off.
However, it's well known that some sounds can cause short term changes in hearing (like masking, or the way I can only ABX a 17kHz lowpass filter if I do one test every ten minutes), which is different to our visual experience. Do you have any such signals in mind?
Both ears and eyes acts similar here: we need several minutes to see something when come in to the cave... Do we have ore miners here?
Whoa there. Unless you've been exposed to levels higher than you should be, you shouldn't have more than a few seconds of recovery time with the ear.
That's interesting, indeed. Other people (I am trying to find the threads) have experienced similar things when ABXing very subtle (to them) differences at normal listening levels. From what you said, it's probably not a hearing thing - but it must be something. Along similar lines - if I walk into my lounge and the TV is on but dark and silent (like on the DVD channel when the player is off), I can tell with 100% success (over 8 trials run by my girlfriend) without looking. If I sit in the room with the TV for a few minutes, I can no longer tell whether it's on or off.
I guess you're talking about a CRT TV, not an LCD one.