Sound Stage - Is it all in the timing?

[mayhem13]

I'm not so much interested in that as I am interested in what is going on that some folks can't stand any kind of MP3 (like Alex and Teresa at CA) while others can't hear a problem or at the least don't mind it.

 

I don't believe Alex and Teresa are lying and I sure don't believe all the folks that either don't mind or can't hear a difference are deaf or uneducated as to listening. So, it seems there must be another option. I'm interested in finding out what it is; but it doesn't seem that others are. So....

 

Chris

 

IMO it's pure audiophile snobbery and the need to be selectively different and special that create the apparent differences in lower resolution content for some people. This also doesn't make the opponents 'liars' in the sense more commonly used but instead simply deluded. Remember, the ears capture the sound but the brain processes it. Reprogram the 'processor' with audiophile mumbo jumbo and the results can be surprising.

 

I stand by my position. Take any one of these self proclaimed expert listeners and have them identify which is 320mp3 and which is Redbook using a highly resolving system and unfamiliar content and your results will be 50% accurate.......which means completely random.

[PeterSt]

Where were we ? the kukoo perhaps ?

 

Ok, so why do you never see a kukoo ? -> because you can't hear where it is.

 

Why can't you ?

 

Because it produces a fairly low frequency SINE. Ok, it produces two of them (ku and koo) but they follow each other;

 

We can't utilize that sufficiently. The distance between our ears just allows for one ear pointing to any perceived position to discern whether it's in front of us or at our back side - so twist your head 90 degrees first - but when you move back your head in normal position and envision that the kukoo could be in a beam of 45 degrees in front of you, there it stops because the phase angle difference between left and right ear and where the kukoo is for its distance, does not work out for locating it. You just hear it in that 45 degree beam and that's all (even worse, because when faced to it you think it's at your back again).

Also : no (late) reflections help because kukoos tend to be in forests with few reflecting walls in there.

 

If this is a normally "tjirping" bird all suddenly works perfectly; tjirping is square and square is infinite frequency and the wave lengths at our hearing limit (like 16KHz or more) implies sufficient phase angle difference to locate very precisely.

 

Referring to the "multiple frequencies" from our both speakers being sufficient to locate, I can tell you that with a simple sine normal (phase angle) math can not do it either. Not even at frequencies of light (it can with 4 transmitters for 3D with the notice that this is to be turned upside down because there is one transmitter (the bird) and we need 4 ears now to do it with one frequency).

 

A seagull can fly along the sealing because of its square sound (many frequencies) and a moth will be able to do it for almost the same reason (but I am guessing somewhat now) - it will produce several frequencies which resonate and which makes it even more frequencies.

[PeterSt]

Peter, are you sayin' the devil is in the details?

 

LOL

 

Side note (to please see all the detail in the devils) :

 

Still that was on purpose.

[sandyk]

Assumed (mind you) that MP3 always rolls off higher frequencies (so even 320 I mean), the difference will be in the super squared parts of this track. This already makes everything "subjective" because it first needs a system which is able to play back the transients (parts of it are transients only). IOW, smear that with a nice digital filter and *that* difference is out of the way to begin with.

I know, I present it quite black and white, but it will at least be true to some extend.

N.b.: Square requires high frequency.

 

Peter

In many of my posts I have stated that it is the rise time of the waveform that matters. i.e. transients etc.

All my gear has very wide channel separation, as well as low noise and wide bandwidth for that reason.

.mp3 has rolled off HF as the linked to thread may show, when compared with the original well recorded CD, and thus sounds very dull to me.

I can't afford to lose further HF info due to hearing damage.

Alex

[PeterSt]

Originally Posted by PeterSt

But now this :

Once any remaster is on (and in 95% of cases this is hires just the same) and this goes UNNOTICED because I just pick by the cover, this never lasts for 1 minute. I just can't bear it. This too is without A/B.

N.b.: That it's an MP3 I pick is visible so that isn't even objective (listening).

 

So ?

 

Is it all remasters? I've found the same with some and perhaps many remasters. But I don't usually have the original to compare it to and so I think just that that's the way it is.

 

I'm wondering if it's worse for popular music as opposed to classical or even jazz. Intuitively it would make sense that pop would be more of a problem.

 

But this is the whole point of the message I try to get across where it about MP3 being sh*t or just cool enough;

 

I don't A/B it. However, when things start to be really well (for reproduction) you will be disturbed right away when things don't fit. That doesn't need A/B because it just causes brain damage;

 

I often give the example of hits on a cymbal which need to start with the hit itself and from there develop its sound.

I mentioned the Alpha as being good, right ? Now let me mentioned it as being bad (should be allowed) : no attacks on cymbals for that. Cymbals Yes though.

This gives me brain damage; once you know the attack oughts to be there, you won't survive. Solution : leave out the cymbals.

 

Same with the remasters. They hardly ever fit. Maybe this helps (some) for explanation :

 

Take a loudspeaker cross-over. It has a left part and a right part. Both have been setup in balance. The midpoint has been carefully "tuned" to dropping slopes (a dip in the response) are compensated by means of the addition of wave cycles to the total response in the XOver area is flat. Now you have a volume knob to the left part (the bass section) and you tune in more bass;

Now the XOver is destroyed because the addition of waves does not match anymore. You have bumps and lumps and the XOver does not "work". Effect : musicality has gone (foot tapping). Still your bass may be perceived as very OK.

 

Same with e.g. bass boosting of the remaster; things are taken out of balance and that it sufficient already to not let it "work" any more. Notice though that this is more distortion like, but depending-on this can be even very devastating.

Just think back of my in-between-the-lines mentioned 32Hz organ pipe. If all is "normal" you won't perceive that too, because your speaker is rated at 27Khz "straight to" blabla, but it really is not. It is "straight to 100Hz" with a roll of of 10dB or so to 27dB. This now is how some fools think that bass must be boosted (which usually needs heavy compression first which is another issue of course). Now, my bass does not roll of at all. Effect ?

Do I need to tell ? devastating.

 

But just one example, and the compression could be the next subject. But never mind, because we can easily compare it with an attack on a cymbal missing, while compression implies loss of transient on a snare drum. On anything. You just hear it right away.

Of course this is also how 96KHz multi channel now stereo-reduced hires can not work, because it needs 12dB compression because the fool who ever made it didn't give it the headroom for that.

All in very small nutshells and all dealt with (also by me) previously.

 

Is MP3 compressed ?

Think about what compression as such in the both realms (MP3 vs the above) mean.

 

 

PS: Chris, MP3-64 is ugly which are your words and which is exactly right. How ? it's even chopped (contains holes). That's ugly.

[PeterSt]

PS about remasters and Yello :

 

Yello has been remastered too (4 years back or so I think). Try it and compare it. No, just play it. It just bursts of low frequency while the sub-low already was in there !

 

Fools.

[sandyk]

Take any one of these self proclaimed expert listeners and have them identify which is 320mp3 and which is Redbook using a highly resolving system and unfamiliar content and your results will be 50% accurate.......which means completely random.

 

The only one of those self proclaimed expert listeners here is you, where you keep pushing your previous experience.

I have always been quite upfront about having hearing damage and severe HF losses.

Here we go again. Another way to further tilt the DBT playing field for a null result.. Simply play unfamiliar material or genres.

Way to go !

Perhaps you could also play them at a much louder level than they normally listen at as well ?

That's pretty easy these days though due to the Loudness Wars.

[One and a half]

Chris

 

 

Does he have hearing damage too, or is he simply far more discerning than some ?

 

I have previously linked to the C.A. thread below. There is a good explanation as to how Mega Poop 3 works, and it's side effects..

 

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/analysis-what-goes-missing-when-you-make-mp3-files-15121/

 

That remark is insulting and way off- WITHDRAW THAT

[PeterSt]

Peter

In many of my posts I have stated that it is the rise time of the waveform that matters. i.e. transients etc.

All my gear has very wide channel separation, as well as low noise and wide bandwidth for that reason.

.mp3 has rolled off HF as the linked to thread may show, when compared with the original well recorded CD, and thus sounds very dull to me.

I can't afford to lose further HF info due to hearing damage.

Alex

 

Alex,

 

I am sure you recall the CA thread where I have been doing my stinking best to show the difference between transients and high frequency. If not tell me, and I will try to find it back. It was mainly between me and Julf and it appeared to be a very hard phenomenon to prove. This while it can so easily be measured (Dirac pulses) at the DAC's output. This of course is about (XXHE's) Arc Precition which is a necessary filter and how it passes on the transients 100%. Not the high frequencies (disallowed for 44.1) ...

 

With the notice that an MP3 decoder is also a thing to select for its best performance (and which best one is used in XXHE) I'd now have to find encoders of random performance to create MP3 test signals. I really can't tell in advance what will happen to the transients, but I think they will stay. High frequencies will be smeared though (they do audibly anyway for MP3 for me) but I am not so sure this can me measured easily because the difference between "transients" and high frequency is not all that large. However, what I expect is that the high frequency will be rolled off to some larger extend (easily measurable) but what I do NOT expect is that this is so much that you will suffer from it. Let's say that 10KHz should be way down to do that (let you suffer) and I can't believe that happens because then I should hear *that*.

But smear or resolution is quite another thing and yes that is "transient-response". Now I don't know whether we should start a subject on old ears being more slow (damaged ears same story) because if that is so then any resolution degradation will be multiplied in your ears so to speak.

 

And to change some subjects :

Over at Phasure we also have longer threads about how the very same resolution at least I am talking about can be enhanced by PC-tweaks. Yes, right in your league Alex and you know it. USB interface sh*t.

It is that this sub-subject has been mentioned in this thread already, but didn't I say that the subject is a bit large ...

 

Kind regards,

Peter

[One and a half]

This thread is not discussing the merits or demise of mp3, rather the techniques for maintaining or improving soundstage. It is not necessary to start at the bottom of the music scale where it is of little relevance.

 

Please cool and delete some songs you don't like any more, or update some tags in the meantime.

[sandyk]

That remark is insulting and way off- WITHDRAW THAT

One and a half.

That comment was NOT intended to be insulting, in fact quite the opposite.

As you appear to read it differently to what I intended it to read, I would be quite happy to withdraw the remark and apologise.

Alex

[One and a half]

One and a half.

That comment was NOT intended to be insulting, in fact quite the opposite.

As you appear to read it differently to what I intended it to read, I would be quite happy to withdraw the remark and apologise.

Alex

 

No problems, keep tagging.

[sandyk]

I am sure you recall the CA thread where I have been doing my stinking best to show the difference between transients and high frequency. If not tell me, and I will try to find it back. It was mainly between me and Julf and it appeared to be a very hard phenomenon to prove.

 

Peter

I don't recollect those posts, but there was a similar discussion recently with Miska saying similar.

Alex

 

 

P.S.

Good Night from Sydney Au.

[PeterSt]

Originally Posted by sandyk

Chris

 

 

Does he have hearing damage too, or is he simply far more discerning than some ?

 

I have previously linked to the C.A. thread below. There is a good explanation as to how Mega Poop 3works, and it's side effects..

 

 

Analysis of What Goes Missing When You Make MP3 Files

 

That remark is insulting and way off- WITHDRAW THAT

 

1.5, please ...

 

I know that Alex certainly can speak for himself but it will be more hard for him to put as an excuse. But it needs some inside information to grasp the merit of this, and Chris has that information. You may not ...

... and now see it as an insult. Here goes :

 

Some of us have hearing disabilities which some times come as a positive. Again this is phase related and I don't mention this because of it being my subject;

 

With the (edit) inability to hear well, strange things happen to how "phase" as such is perceived (or literally received) and possibly this can be seen as a delay in one ear compared to the other. I myself suffer from this regularly and depending on the anomaly it can let me hear like a dog. Think like being able to hear someone walk at 300ft distance only because the small stones under his shoes tjirp on the pavement. Only that and no emphasized "bang bang" of heavy shoes or something.

The one time (for a year in a row) I suffered from this is when both ears failed. Otherwise it is one only which masks the dog hearing of the other, but (combined) anomalies are still there.

 

Alex suffers from similar with the addition he is a 100 years older than me, so expect a few things.

 

All 'n all, "we" can hear things others don't just because of anomalies, or we or you etc. can hear things just because we are better at it. Better = nothing more than more experienced. Could be you.

 

That really was all Alex wanted to sprout and if not he will tell it himself.

Peter

 

 

PS: I see now that Alex already responded halfly, but I think you can see from my description that it would be a quite strange excuse.

[One and a half]

IMO it's pure audiophile snobbery and the need to be selectively different and special that create the apparent differences in lower resolution content for some people. This also doesn't make the opponents 'liars' in the sense more commonly used but instead simply deluded. Remember, the ears capture the sound but the brain processes it. Reprogram the 'processor' with audiophile mumbo jumbo and the results can be surprising.

 

I stand by my position. Take any one of these self proclaimed expert listeners and have them identify which is 320mp3 and which is Redbook using a highly resolving system and unfamiliar content and your results will be 50% accurate.......which means completely random.

 

Do mean accept your opinions in other words....let's have a lobotomy.

 

The topic is not relevant to the thread, friend. The question was raised do formats matter when it comes to sound stage. If your opinion is it doesn't then fine, move on. I believe the higher resolutions, especially DSD, create the facility to 'see' soundstage easier, since the brain isn't trying to process what could be drums that sound like a paper bag to cloud the issue.

[PeterSt]

I am sure you recall the CA thread where I have been doing my stinking best to show the difference between transients and high frequency. If not tell me, and I will try to find it back. It was mainly between me and Julf and it appeared to be a very hard phenomenon to prove.

Peter

I don't recollect those posts, but there was a similar discussion recently with Miska saying similar.

Alex

 

Alex, just in case you are so interested that you want to take the trouble of reading through a few things which hardly *are* readable because of the (by now) lacking formatting, quoting and pictures that supported that thread, .... here :

 

24/192 Downloads ... and why they make no sense?

 

The normal page seems to be not available any more.

 

If you put this search phrase to your browser (ctrl-f) :

Case 1) transient shorter than 22 µs

 

then you will find a few posts where you could point your attention to. But again, it is all hardly readable now, and I only put it to you because it took me some effort to find it in the first place.

It is from two years ago.

 

Sleep well or good morning.

Peter

[Fokus]

On Head Related Transfer Functions

 

I'm not certain that you will have enough refraction of the direct sound ...

 

A person's HRTFs comprise of the set of transfer functions (see it as a bunch of equalisation curves) that relate the person's anatomic influence (mainly the pinna, but head and upper torso too) on the eardrum-received spectrum of a sound emitted in free space. HRTFs are the main mechanism for localisation of elevated sounds, and an important mechanism for disambiguating the clues delivered by ILDs and ITDs in the horizontal plane. So, yes, they are very real and they are a very big deal.

 

Now, since HRTFs boil down to re-equalisation curves associated with sound source directions, imagine what would happen if a certain listener's loudspeakers happen to have a frequency response that mimicks that person's HRTF for center-up. With ordinary lateral stereo source material that person would sometimes experience height from his system, where that height does not exist in the signal. Conversely, other people listening to the same system would not necessarily perceive that height, as their HRTFs do not match the original listener's. This is of course just a thought experiment, but I hope it conveys the idea.

[mav52]

On Head Related Transfer Functions

 

 

 

A person's HRTFs comprise of the set of transfer functions (see it as a bunch of equalisation curves) that relate the person's anatomic influence (mainly the pinna, but head and upper torso too) on the eardrum-received spectrum of a sound emitted in free space. HRTFs are the main mechanism for localisation of elevated sounds, and an important mechanism for disambiguating the clues delivered by ILDs and ITDs in the horizontal plane. So, yes, they are very real and they are a very big deal.

 

Now, since HRTFs boil down to re-equalisation curves associated with sound source directions, imagine what would happen if a certain listener's loudspeakers happen to have a frequency response that mimicks that person's HRTF for center-up. With ordinary lateral stereo source material that person would sometimes experience height from his system, where that height does not exist in the signal. Conversely, other people listening to the same system would not necessarily perceive that height, as their HRTFs do not match the original listener's. This is of course just a thought experiment, but I hope it conveys the idea.

 

Pretty much supports that listeners choose audio equipment based on their hearing abilities and not some info banged around in audio mags and forums. I just feel soundstage regardless of the format is all about imaging and what one hears in their room using their equipment. I feel some people just get so batty trying to make their equipment and room equal some stage or musical event. After a while I just relax and enjoy the music,.

[PeterSt]

I am not so sure whether "imaging" applies to the depth or how you would feel about that being incorporated just because all is and remains time related. IOW "imaging" seems a mapping of the size for left/right (in general language) while here at least the height is involved as well, and coincidentally that is the most hard part. Depth is even more easy - just saying.

 

In between :

It is not all that super difficult to create a "staging" where no depth plane can be seen hence where it is impossible to point out where the plane of sound source is. This is my earlier example of the whole room being filled. Notice though that with this I am not saying that it is possible to see instruments in that depth axis playing at different positions; you just don't know where they are and for that matter the shape of all would be way too large in the depth axis.

 

The height of a bird can again easily be determined by us, never mind we have two ears only (remember, normally it would take 4 antennas to localise in 3D but the several frequencies at the same time in order do their trick here).

With two transmitters (speakers), the both forming the re-mapping of the original picture by means of all the phases of frequencies involved, the change in height is bound to fail because of hardly much angle difference and with the knowledge that the transmitters originally transmit from the same point source (maybe nog much Maggies but never mind).

Theoretically it can be done which my emulation software easily proves, but one small culprit : that is with way higher frequencies involved. So *then* phase angle changes are allowed to be captured just because they change much more fast (on the 360 degree scale - 180 actually but never mind) like the 1000Hz vs 10000Hz example I gave yesterday.

 

Anyway, while depth changes can be perceived but IMO always with the help of wall/ceiling reflections, I personally don't think I ever saw vertical movement. The only "movement" which can be done is when we move our own head with at least the opposite picture at the other side as I exlained in my earlier post (head down - picture up).

Still I (and you too) will be able to peceive some kind of instrument height information, but now I think this is because how our speakers are organized. So, when an upright bass is plucked it has LF info from the cabinet and HF info from the string plucked (which is square = HF again). But now the woofer shoots the LF while the tweeter shoots the HF and the upright bass may exhibit a height which is fake because related to the speaker height (distance of woofer and tweeter related).

 

At least we now landed where it is hard for me to proceed with real sense (for audio frequencies). Or maybe that happened earlier already - to your judgement.

 

:-)

Peter

[Bunny]

This is exactly what I do not want in audio equipment - something that imposes its own sound on the material. That is by definition a distortion, and more than that, any time you have a single sound character imposed on everything you listen to, it quickly becomes boring, no matter how impressive it may seem at first. (This is the same reason I have no time for "sonic spectacular" recordings - I'll always choose artistic merit.) I think of Tom Waits' version of "Heigh Ho," and the wonderful humor of giving a song supposedly sung by dwarves who spend their days in caves mining the exact soundstage and atmosphere it deserves - a crushed soundstage, and a plodding rhythm fitting people at the end of a workday underground. To make that into something soaring and airy would be a travesty of the artist's intent.

Good point. I understand what you are getting at. I too was like that not long ago, but my life has changed, forever, for good.

 

A lot of cable manufacturers, even at extreme prices, often distort the sound, not sounding distorting, but change the sound in ways that is different than what the music artists intended. Every time you change your cables (whether it's power cables, interconnects, RCA Coax, TRS, speaker cables, etc) the sound is changed already, and would sound different than the original recording. If the artists recording was made with all stock cables, you will probably want to stick with stock cables and stick with warm sounding albums because the high frequencies will be unbearable (harsh and distort), unless you have very analog sounding DAC's and speakers.

 

But once I got the real power cable upgrades it changed my life forever. Let's put it this way. Using an analogy, instead of looking at an object with bare eyes, you are looking at it with a microscope, or put it in more crazy term, a telescope. You can see every dang textures and engravings, and everything else on that object. And there are cables out there that can portray all that, without harshness, and cancel out unwanted noise that you don't need in music, or sound. As a result you get the clearest and most naked sound. It's like taking all the mud out, and clean it with isopropyl alcohol. These details, are something the artists did not hear at the time of recording. With assist from high-end cables, you can hear them more clearly. This is how the playback system can sound better than the original recording of the file itself...

 

And when you say distortion, don't forget that loss of detail and texture in music is also "distortion". Depends how you put it. Audioquest manufacturer, for example, uses this term for such reference.

 

The spaciousness and better separation becomes available when you use telescope for music. You will notice more space in between and hear more activities, or detail.

 

I did find a FEW songs, out of 600, that I wish it had more original intent on sound, such as the sound of instruments that are very close together and make as almost a SINGLE sound. I wasn't able to get that because my sound system spaced those elements and instruments farther apart with more details. But overall, believe it or not, the new sounds from my upgraded system sound so much better on all of the rest of recordings. It is just incredible, revealing, and rewarding, without losing any information. The music has more life too with fullness, not harsh and grainy sounding like many stock or other cheaper aftermarket cables provide.

 

 

bunny

[mayhem13]

Do mean accept your opinions in other words....let's have a lobotomy.

 

The topic is not relevant to the thread, friend. The question was raised do formats matter when it comes to sound stage. If your opinion is it doesn't then fine, move on. I believe the higher resolutions, especially DSD, create the facility to 'see' soundstage easier, since the brain isn't trying to process what could be drums that sound like a paper bag to cloud the issue.

 

Didn't see that in the original topic.....

 

Believe what you will.......but I'll put forth you're very much mistaken in your assumption which audiophiles mistake for for drawn conclusion.

 

No trees in this forest I see, so no point in continuing on.

 

Enjoy!

[mayhem13]

On Head Related Transfer Functions

 

 

 

A person's HRTFs comprise of the set of transfer functions (see it as a bunch of equalisation curves) that relate the person's anatomic influence (mainly the pinna, but head and upper torso too) on the eardrum-received spectrum of a sound emitted in free space. HRTFs are the main mechanism for localisation of elevated sounds, and an important mechanism for disambiguating the clues delivered by ILDs and ITDs in the horizontal plane. So, yes, they are very real and they are a very big deal.

 

Now, since HRTFs boil down to re-equalisation curves associated with sound source directions, imagine what would happen if a certain listener's loudspeakers happen to have a frequency response that mimicks that person's HRTF for center-up. With ordinary lateral stereo source material that person would sometimes experience height from his system, where that height does not exist in the signal. Conversely, other people listening to the same system would not necessarily perceive that height, as their HRTFs do not match the original listener's. This is of course just a thought experiment, but I hope it conveys the idea.

 

You mean to discredit accuracy in audio sir?........say it ain't so! Lol

 

Can transfer functions be influenced by jitter?

[mayhem13]

 

At least we now landed where it is hard for me to proceed with real sense (for audio frequencies). Or maybe that happened earlier already - to your judgement.

 

Peter

 

Took an awfully long time to get there though and not sure the bits for bits crowd understands or accepts your summation. They certainly don't accept it from me, particularly when it comes so directly. Maybe your round about method will garner more respect than my abrasive, point source approach. ( did i say point source out of context?...oooops).

[Jud]

 

So this is not to be proud of or anything, but you have to KNOW and keep reminding that when I let you listen in the drumming room here to live drumming with quite some snare, roto's, toms of various kinds and kick drum and quite a pile of cymbals ... and I let you walk to the playback room (live drumming still continuing) which is level matched with the live drumming (110dBSPL for the cymbals) ... you will not be able to hear any difference anywhere. You just won't be able to tell where any difference is, also not for feeling on the chest etc.

 

 

Interesting in that 110db was approximately the level (111db peaks) at which one of the authors of an AES article (often cited to show there is no audible difference between Redbook and high res) was able to tell Redbook from high res in 15 of 15 trials:

 

One of the authors, using a short repeated section of room tone on the Hartke disc mentioned above, obtained a positive result (15/15) at a gain of only 10 dB above our standard level. This setting produced sound levels clearly higher than those at the site, as the peak levels for this small vocal/percussion ensemble would have been 111 dB SPL on the loudest part of the disc.[/QUOTE]

 

See BAS Experiment Explanation page - Oct 2007

[Jud]

 

So this is not to be proud of or anything, but you have to KNOW and keep reminding that when I let you listen in the drumming room here to live drumming with quite some snare, roto's, toms of various kinds and kick drum and quite a pile of cymbals ... and I let you walk to the playback room (live drumming still continuing) which is level matched with the live drumming (110dBSPL for the cymbals) ... you will not be able to hear any difference anywhere. You just won't be able to tell where any difference is, also not for feeling on the chest etc.

 

 

Interesting in that 110db was approximately the level (111db) at which one of the authors of an AES article (often cited to show there is no audible difference between Redbook and high res) was able to tell Redbook from high res in 15 of 15 trials:

 

One of the authors, using a short repeated section of room tone on the Hartke disc mentioned above, obtained a positive result (15/15) at a gain of only 10 dB above our standard level. This setting produced sound levels clearly higher than those at the site, as the peak levels for this small vocal/percussion ensemble would have been 111 dB SPL on the loudest part of the disc.

 

See BAS Experiment Explanation page - Oct 2007

 

Edit: Actually just what level may have been used is confusing:

 

Our standard system gain was calibrated using an octave of pink noise recorded at -16 dBFS, which produced a wideband SPL of 85 dB at the listening chair.

 

10db above that would be 95db, not 111.