Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
English is NOT his home language but still .......
P
paokz
Member
No i am not a bot..I just want to know if i should turn down all volume faders before mastering or not..Sorry for bad english..And i mean all cause i recorn in ready instrumental so i dont have many musical instruments..Just one mp3..
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
paokz, where are you from ?
P
paokz
Member
I am from Greece
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
My apologies to you if I sounded a bit overly sarcastic in the other thread. I was being sarcastic but I didn't intend any offence or to be nasty in any way. It's just that it was hard to work out what you wanted.
R
RAMI
Guest
Hey, if it wasn't for the Greeks, we'd have no math.
They even invented sex.
But it's a good thing the Italians introduced it to women.
They even invented sex.
But it's a good thing the Italians introduced it to women.
S
sjjohnston
New member
Welll ... completely off subject, but a few random thoughts:
The Arabs invented the basics of most of what's now included in math (like, I don't know, the numbers?), not the Greeks.
The dB scale is a log scale with respect to power (or voltage), but it's linear (at least pretty much) with respect to perceived "loudness." The same is true of the musical scale. Going up one semi-tone (or one octave) perceptually sounds like the same interval without regard to what note you start at, even though semi-tones (or octaves) is a log scale with respect to frequency.
One dB SPL is supposed to be approximately the quietest sound one can distinguish from silence, though that rather depends on who the "one" doing the distinguishing is (not to mention things like the pitch of the sound, etc.). Most people would describe a 3 dB change in the overall volume of music as being small but perceivable. Changes in relative levels are more obvious, i.e. if you reduce one track by 3 dB without changing other tracks that are around the same level, the change is fairly obvious even to ordinary mortals.
A change of x dB in a line-level signal going into a monitoring system should produce something very close to the same dB change in SPL: the only reason it wouldn't is if the amplifier or speaker isn't linear, e.g. the amplifier is compressing the signal, or the speaker is more efficient at one level than another. That definitely happens when you overdrive an amplifier or speaker (as with a guitar amp), but shouldn't happen with a decent quality monitoring system at ordinary volumes.
The Arabs invented the basics of most of what's now included in math (like, I don't know, the numbers?), not the Greeks.
The dB scale is a log scale with respect to power (or voltage), but it's linear (at least pretty much) with respect to perceived "loudness." The same is true of the musical scale. Going up one semi-tone (or one octave) perceptually sounds like the same interval without regard to what note you start at, even though semi-tones (or octaves) is a log scale with respect to frequency.
One dB SPL is supposed to be approximately the quietest sound one can distinguish from silence, though that rather depends on who the "one" doing the distinguishing is (not to mention things like the pitch of the sound, etc.). Most people would describe a 3 dB change in the overall volume of music as being small but perceivable. Changes in relative levels are more obvious, i.e. if you reduce one track by 3 dB without changing other tracks that are around the same level, the change is fairly obvious even to ordinary mortals.
A change of x dB in a line-level signal going into a monitoring system should produce something very close to the same dB change in SPL: the only reason it wouldn't is if the amplifier or speaker isn't linear, e.g. the amplifier is compressing the signal, or the speaker is more efficient at one level than another. That definitely happens when you overdrive an amplifier or speaker (as with a guitar amp), but shouldn't happen with a decent quality monitoring system at ordinary volumes.
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
No, they didn't. We simply use their number symbols. There's no way Pythagoras could have come up with his theorem without numbers. Ever hear of Roman numerals? Those are numbers.
The Greeks invented Geometry, the Arabs invented algebra, Newton came up with Calculus. I think it's fair to say that the Arabs didn't come up with the basics, they simply enhanced what was already basic and somewhat complex. I mean, Roman architecture was insane!
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
and that's incorrect about dbs. They are NOT linear first off. And they're not defined relative to silence. A single db is supposed to be the smallest amount of change in volume a person can hear. And that's why they're not linear. At low volumes or silence you can hear a pretty tiny change in volume but at higher volumes it takes a good bit more to be able to hear the change.
S
sjjohnston
New member
Your post sounds like it makes sense, until you take it in context.
Decibels are linear (at least pretty much) with respect to perceived loudness. That is to say: increasing the level of some sound you're listening to by 6 dB (say) sounds like about the same amount of increase ... "pretty much." There are a number reasons for the "pretty much," among them: (i) fundamentally, it's a matter of individual perception, so it's somewhat variable, not really precisely measurable and a matter of psychoacoustics, which is a bit mushier than acoustics (as is usually the case when you ad "psycho" to the start of something); (ii) it varies with frequency and (iii) it does vary somewhat, particularly at the loud end.
That's why we use decibels when talking about sound, and why you can do things like add them, etc.
And, of course, you ultimately agree with my whole point!
What's defined - when you talk about dB SPL - is one of those number, aka the "reference level," which is the sound pressure level that's considered to be 0 dB SPL. It doesn't mean absolutely no sound ... it mathematically can't, because decibels relative to zero is undefined (because the result of dividing by 0 is undefined).
My first post actually confused that a bit: theoretically, you can distinguish 0.1 dB SPL from silence.
What I said was:
Note that I specifically said that the dB is scale is not linear with respect to power or voltage (okay, I said it with a bit less emphasis than you did: no capitalization and I relied on the assumption that people know a log scale and a linear scale are two different things, which I think is reasonable).
Decibels are linear (at least pretty much) with respect to perceived loudness. That is to say: increasing the level of some sound you're listening to by 6 dB (say) sounds like about the same amount of increase ... "pretty much." There are a number reasons for the "pretty much," among them: (i) fundamentally, it's a matter of individual perception, so it's somewhat variable, not really precisely measurable and a matter of psychoacoustics, which is a bit mushier than acoustics (as is usually the case when you ad "psycho" to the start of something); (ii) it varies with frequency and (iii) it does vary somewhat, particularly at the loud end.
That's why we use decibels when talking about sound, and why you can do things like add them, etc.
And, of course, you ultimately agree with my whole point!
Which is really what I said when I said decibels are (approximately) linear as a measure of perceived loudness. One decibel sounds like about the same amount of increase in volume, even though it's a small increase in power at a low volume and bigger one at a high volume (the power increases by the same multiple ... which is another way of saying it's a log function).
No, that's not accurate. Zero decibels SPL is supposed to be the highest SPL that's indistinguishable from silence. One decibel SPL is the appropriate multiple of that (~ 1.12 times the pressure and ~1.26 times the power). The unit (decibels) isn't defined in terms of perception, it's defined in terms of the relationship of two numbers.
What's defined - when you talk about dB SPL - is one of those number, aka the "reference level," which is the sound pressure level that's considered to be 0 dB SPL. It doesn't mean absolutely no sound ... it mathematically can't, because decibels relative to zero is undefined (because the result of dividing by 0 is undefined).
My first post actually confused that a bit: theoretically, you can distinguish 0.1 dB SPL from silence.
S
sjjohnston
New member
Well, I suppose it's a judgment call as to what is "most" of what's included in math (and what the "basics" are too).
The Greeks didn't invent numbers or counting or arithmetic, which are older, and go back to Mesopotamia at least, and at least partly way back into prehistory and even into the inherent structure of the human brain.
Actually, you can come up with the Pythagorean theorum without numbers. But that's beside the point, as the Greeks did use numbers, as did the Assyrians, etc. What the Greeks lacked was a number system that would be remotely functional for most of today's math ... I mean, come on: they didn't even have the concept of zero!
Yep. Pretty hard to disagree with that, at least not without defining "geometry" in some weirdly limited way. But I don't think geometry is "most" of what's now included in math. It's kind of hard to quantify the "amount," but certainly by years of study in ordinary math curriculum, geometry is fairly small.
The base-ten number system (with zero), using it to facilitate arithmetic operation on large numbers, and algebra are the bulk of the basics of math, I think. If you go more basic, I suppose you could say the concept of counting and the basic arithmetic functions (addition, subtraction, etc.) are most of math, but those well predate the Greeks. If you go less basic (calculus, number theory, probability), most of it was invented by Northern Europeans like Newton, Liebniz (who also invented calculus, incidentally), Fermat, Hilbert, etc.
Of course, other civilizations - like China, for example - did pretty good at counting, building things, and keeping books without any input from the Greeks.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
sorry .... not correct. A decibel definition is not related to silence or 0db but you believe as you wish.
And it's also not linear whether regarding power of volume levels but, once again, you believe what you wish.
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
I suppose it's theoretically possible to come up with the Pythagorean theorum without numbers but certainly not practical.
Anyway, RAMI was joking; the Greeks obviously didn't invent sex, so there was really no need in correcting him in anything.
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
Well I'll put it back on topic.
Earlier in this post I stated that I believed the dB system wasn't linear and some people told me it was. I hear others say it's a logarithmic scale. Which is it?
Or are there two different types of systems?
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
it's logarithmic.Well I'll put it back on topic.
Earlier in this post I stated that I believed the dB system wasn't linear and some people told me it was. I hear others say it's a logarithmic scale. Which is it?
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
S
sjjohnston
New member
Since you asked, the correct answer is: it's logarithmic with respect to power (by definition), but it's linear with respect to perceived loudness (which is why we use it when perceived loudness is what we care about). Lt. Bob can disagee all he wants, but his own posts say that.
If it weren't, the notion that 1 dB is the smallest perceivable increment of volume change (in sound) wouldn't make any sense. The increase in power when you go from 90 to 91 dB SPL is 1,000 times bigger than the increase when you go from 60 to 61 dB SPL (because the scale is logarithmic with respect to power). The increase in perceived volume when you go from 90 to 91 dB SPL is about the same as when you go from 60 to 61 dB SPL (which is another way of saying the scale is approximately linear with respect to perceived loudness) - and, yes, the change in both cases is close to the limit of what a typical person can perceive (even though the definition of what 1 dB SPL is arises from definining the reference level for SPL, rather than the unit).
And come on: you've obviously forgotten all the standard proofs of the Pythagorean theroem. Very few of them use numbers.
If it weren't, the notion that 1 dB is the smallest perceivable increment of volume change (in sound) wouldn't make any sense. The increase in power when you go from 90 to 91 dB SPL is 1,000 times bigger than the increase when you go from 60 to 61 dB SPL (because the scale is logarithmic with respect to power). The increase in perceived volume when you go from 90 to 91 dB SPL is about the same as when you go from 60 to 61 dB SPL (which is another way of saying the scale is approximately linear with respect to perceived loudness) - and, yes, the change in both cases is close to the limit of what a typical person can perceive (even though the definition of what 1 dB SPL is arises from definining the reference level for SPL, rather than the unit).
And come on: you've obviously forgotten all the standard proofs of the Pythagorean theroem. Very few of them use numbers.
I was correcting your post, which - so far as I can tell - wasn't joking.
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
Cool, thanks.
And I'm looking at Sophie's method of proof right now. Like I said, it's simply not as practical.