L
littledog
New member
Toki987 said:
??????
If that's the case, I'm certainly glad I'm not average. Or any of the people I work with, for that matter.
Maybe you misheard. Ask them to say it again 3dB louder...
??????
If that's the case, I'm certainly glad I'm not average. Or any of the people I work with, for that matter.
Maybe you misheard. Ask them to say it again 3dB louder...
jugalo180
www.moneyistherecipe.com
ok
i would like a to know a little more about it, if you don't mind. i have the art of mixing hand book. i've yet to read it all the way through, maybe it covers some of this stuff. i like to bounce back and forth from the handbook and the internet to get different perspectives.
i would like a to know a little more about it, if you don't mind. i have the art of mixing hand book. i've yet to read it all the way through, maybe it covers some of this stuff. i like to bounce back and forth from the handbook and the internet to get different perspectives.
Toki987
Rock Steady
littledog said:
Thats why I said I "heard" that. I didnt say I knew that.
L
littledog
New member
maybe they meant 0.3 dB
Toki987
Rock Steady
littledog,
I`m not sure I buy all of what the writer is saying, but this is what I found. But this is dealing with amplitude of a sound, rather than multiband frequency filtering.
I think I can tell differences in a tone if a dominant frequency is changed by 1 or 2 db. because it changes the timbre of the tone. I agree with what you are saying as far as the eq goes.
----------------------------
Early acousticians devised a simple method of comparing two sounds. A sound that was perceived to be twice as loud as another sound was said to be one Bel greater in sound level. The Bel was used as a unit of COMPARISON, not a unit of measure. Its namesake was Alexander Graham Bell, a pioneer in the science of audiology (the study of human hearing). It soon became apparent that this unit of comparison was not very accurate in describing the difference between two sounds very similar in level. A smaller unit of comparison, the decibel, was established. One decibel is defined as being equal to one-tenth of a Bel. The prefix “deci-” is a French derivative that means “one-tenth”, as in decimal, etc. Since a decibel is one-tenth of a Bel, then 10 decibels would equal one Bel. In other words, a sound that is twice as loud as another sound could be described as being 10 decibels (or 10 dB) louder. Three decibels (or 3 dB) represents the smallest change in sound level that most human ears can perceive.
--------------------------------
http://www.soundinstitute.com/article_detail.cfm/ID/95
Ken
I`m not sure I buy all of what the writer is saying, but this is what I found. But this is dealing with amplitude of a sound, rather than multiband frequency filtering.
I think I can tell differences in a tone if a dominant frequency is changed by 1 or 2 db. because it changes the timbre of the tone. I agree with what you are saying as far as the eq goes.
----------------------------
Early acousticians devised a simple method of comparing two sounds. A sound that was perceived to be twice as loud as another sound was said to be one Bel greater in sound level. The Bel was used as a unit of COMPARISON, not a unit of measure. Its namesake was Alexander Graham Bell, a pioneer in the science of audiology (the study of human hearing). It soon became apparent that this unit of comparison was not very accurate in describing the difference between two sounds very similar in level. A smaller unit of comparison, the decibel, was established. One decibel is defined as being equal to one-tenth of a Bel. The prefix “deci-” is a French derivative that means “one-tenth”, as in decimal, etc. Since a decibel is one-tenth of a Bel, then 10 decibels would equal one Bel. In other words, a sound that is twice as loud as another sound could be described as being 10 decibels (or 10 dB) louder. Three decibels (or 3 dB) represents the smallest change in sound level that most human ears can perceive.
--------------------------------
http://www.soundinstitute.com/article_detail.cfm/ID/95
Ken
V
volltreffer
Imply depressed
In the article I read, the reason was somehow different: if you are not that experienced, you often try to make room for instruments by massive EQ. Very often the starting point simply is wrong... People start with singly-listened-to 'optimized' tracks that are already EQed. They mask. So they try to use more and more EQ. The sound gets more and more artificial...
If you start with completely unEQed tracks and start with the proper track volumes, you should also be able to get a nice mix...
After some 50 songs or so, you're simply much more knowing what you do...
aXel
If you start with completely unEQed tracks and start with the proper track volumes, you should also be able to get a nice mix...
After some 50 songs or so, you're simply much more knowing what you do...
aXel
B
Boray
New member
Toki987 said:
I thought it was 1dB. But this probably depends on the frequency of the sound as well. For example, you can't even hear a 50Hz tone playing at 40dB. Check the "Fletcher-Munson" graph.
/Anders
Toki987
Rock Steady
volltreffer said:
A logical and practical way to look at it.
L
littledog
New member
Toki987 said:
I have absolutely no clue as to the methodology involved that derived the 3 dB figure. Perhaps it is true when listening to a pure sine wave through headphones. Although I don't know, because i haven't tried that test.
But certainly, in terms of balancing instruments or voices in a mix, to imply that anything less than a 3dB change is imperceptible is complete nonsense. If someone does find the 3 dB figure to be true for them, they are certainly in the wrong business, and i would never want them mixing any of my music.
Toki987
Rock Steady
littledog said:
agreed!! When folks write these articles for the general layman, I think they forget that there are some other well informed technicians out there that may read them as well. In that case some of the broad declarations they may make could appear as misinformation.
L
littledog
New member
Toki, my problem with the statement is not that my ears are any better than anyone else's, but that in a vacuum the statement is meaningless without more information.
for example, I can't hear a 3 dB difference if the sound is changing between levels that are so soft I can't hear either of them, or so loud that they are both painful.
also, depending on the source, timbre, pitch, and other contextual factors, that 3dB may be either ridiculously obvious or extremely difficult to identify.
i submit that in the right context, such as balancing instruments in a mix, changes as small as .3 dB can be obvious even to untrained ears.
for example, I can't hear a 3 dB difference if the sound is changing between levels that are so soft I can't hear either of them, or so loud that they are both painful.
also, depending on the source, timbre, pitch, and other contextual factors, that 3dB may be either ridiculously obvious or extremely difficult to identify.
i submit that in the right context, such as balancing instruments in a mix, changes as small as .3 dB can be obvious even to untrained ears.
Toki987
Rock Steady
littledog said:
thanks LD, I fully agree with you there also. Those variables are often not presented by writers of some of the articles, or objectively included by the readers. I`m not an engineer nor have studied the physics of sound, thats why I`m here to begin with..to learn some of it. However, I do have a tiny bit of experience in the sound and recording field from other venue, and can hear pretty good too.
I treat my visits here as lab, so surely, I hope you, nor anyone else would take anything I might post as being in opposition. Unless, I know something for a fact, and can support it with those facts. I have the utmost respect for the expertise many of you have here, and at the same time hope you all respect our lack of it.
I just like to press a little more sometimes, to see if we can get the last bit out of the dying horse before its cold. For learnings sake. I appreciate it. Rock on!
