Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[j.hall]

Ronny wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 15:23

I know all about inverse square law and wattage and I certainly know the difference of the measurements, now stick your head to the same proximity of a PA array that you do with headphones.

what would be the point of that??????

loudspeakers are not designed to get strapped onto my head, same as headphones are not designed for reinforcement.  when is the last time you saw an array of headphones at a concert?

Quote:

They are measured at much different distances. I'm not debating that people have more or less damage with cans, we all know that they are potentially more damaging than where speakers are typically listened to from, this does not change the fact that different cans and and different loudspeakers spec above and below 100dB SPL ON A SENSITIVITY TEST.

a pair of headphones can still source more SPL....sorry, it's just plain as day to every one else here but you.  i don't really care what the sensitivity is.....cans have the potential of sourcing more SPL

Quote:

Furthermore, you have more than one sensitivity measurement done on loudspeakers than cans, such as beamwidth and axial measurements, that you can't measure with with cans as they are spec'd with no distance in between the ref mic and the speakers. The simple fact of the matter is regardless of where you measure, that a loudspeaker pushes air molecules farther than cans.

and just when i think you are getting it...................

Quote:

If you measured cans at 1 meter 1 watt you wouldn't get jack, so it's relative.

you go and say something stupid again.....

Quote:

If you have some cans that output 110dBA SPL at 1mw on the speaker and some loudspeakers that output 105dB SPL at 1w/1m and you measure on the speaker you are going to get a higher SPL reading than the headphones, so again I'll repeat myself, it is all relative to gain and distance.

ok, so your example states that a pair of cans can put out 110dB at 1 milli-watt, and the loudspeaker can put out 105dB at 1w/1m......how in the world can you not see that the headphones can source more SPL

1 milli watt is louder in the cans then 1 watt is at the loudspeaker.....................................
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Quote:

I really don't want to nitpick as there is no doubt a communication problem here, but you obviously think that I'm some rookie, when I've been running SR since the late 60's and I know the damage that large speakers can cause.

never said or thought you were a rookie, i just think you are missing the point here.

we're still talking about potential.....at least i am.

Quote:

It matters not whether it's cans or loudspeakers, if your proximity to the speaker is shorter distance than where they spec at one meter, you are going to have a higher SPL than the spec's give, and yes I know that most people don't listen to PA cab's from less than 1 meter, but it still does not change the fact that cans and loudspeaker "sensitivity" measurements for SPL are not on an even keel, because the cans are measured on the speaker and the loudspeakers are measured away from the speaker. If you measured loudspeakers where you measure cans, the cans would not output more SPL than the speakers and if you measured cans at 1 meter, you will barely get a reading.

ok, fine....i'll back down when show me pictures of a touring sound rig made up of headphones

loudspeakers are designed to move the air volume of the eintire room they are sitting in.  headphones are designed to move the air volume inside you ear canal and that's it.  it's not relative, it's intent, and implementation.  

this is just like saying your car can drive faster across the water then a speed boat because it has more horsepower..........when we all know that your car would sink like a stone despite it's higher horsepower engine

it's not relative

[Fig]

j.hall wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 07:36

ok, fine....i'll back down when show me pictures of a touring sound rig made up of headphones

can't resist:






Hope you're laughing.

Fig


(EDIT:  in no way am I suggesting that the device pictured causes or does not cause hearing damage.  No product or brand endorsement is implied, intended or suggested.)

[Ronny]

j.hall wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 08:36

Ronny wrote on Fri, 29 April 2005 15:23 I know all about inverse square law and wattage and I certainly know the difference of the measurements, now stick your head to the same proximity of a PA array that you do with headphones. what would be the point of that?????? loudspeakers are not designed to get strapped onto my head, same as headphones are not designed for reinforcement.  when is the last time you saw an array of headphones at a concert? Quote: They are measured at much different distances. I'm not debating that people have more or less damage with cans, we all know that they are potentially more damaging than where speakers are typically listened to from, this does not change the fact that different cans and and different loudspeakers spec above and below 100dB SPL ON A SENSITIVITY TEST. a pair of headphones can still source more SPL....sorry, it's just plain as day to every one else here but you.  i don't really care what the sensitivity is.....cans have the potential of sourcing more SPL Quote: Furthermore, you have more than one sensitivity measurement done on loudspeakers than cans, such as beamwidth and axial measurements, that you can't measure with with cans as they are spec'd with no distance in between the ref mic and the speakers. The simple fact of the matter is regardless of where you measure, that a loudspeaker pushes air molecules farther than cans. and just when i think you are getting it................... Quote: If you measured cans at 1 meter 1 watt you wouldn't get jack, so it's relative. you go and say something stupid again..... Quote: If you have some cans that output 110dBA SPL at 1mw on the speaker and some loudspeakers that output 105dB SPL at 1w/1m and you measure on the speaker you are going to get a higher SPL reading than the headphones, so again I'll repeat myself, it is all relative to gain and distance. ok, so your example states that a pair of cans can put out 110dB at 1 milli-watt, and the loudspeaker can put out 105dB at 1w/1m......how in the world can you not see that the headphones can source more SPL 1 milli watt is louder in the cans then 1 watt is at the loudspeaker..................................... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Quote: I really don't want to nitpick as there is no doubt a communication problem here, but you obviously think that I'm some rookie, when I've been running SR since the late 60's and I know the damage that large speakers can cause. never said or thought you were a rookie, i just think you are missing the point here. we're still talking about potential.....at least i am. Quote: It matters not whether it's cans or loudspeakers, if your proximity to the speaker is shorter distance than where they spec at one meter, you are going to have a higher SPL than the spec's give, and yes I know that most people don't listen to PA cab's from less than 1 meter, but it still does not change the fact that cans and loudspeaker "sensitivity" measurements for SPL are not on an even keel, because the cans are measured on the speaker and the loudspeakers are measured away from the speaker. If you measured loudspeakers where you measure cans, the cans would not output more SPL than the speakers and if you measured cans at 1 meter, you will barely get a reading.   ok, fine....i'll back down when show me pictures of a touring sound rig made up of headphones loudspeakers are designed to move the air volume of the eintire room they are sitting in.  headphones are designed to move the air volume inside you ear canal and that's it.  it's not relative, it's intent, and implementation.   this is just like saying your car can drive faster across the water then a speed boat because it has more horsepower..........when we all know that your car would sink like a stone despite it's higher horsepower engine it's not relative

It's all relative, why don't you read your post about inverse square law. You are still using standard measurements from fixed points. If you can't understand that speaker arrays are measured from a farther distance than headphones don't call me stupid. The Who have been reported as playing above 140dBA at some of their concerts. 120dB is not rare at a rock concert. These measurements are taken from the front row, not 1 meter and not on the speaker like headphones. You miss my point when I say to strap some arrays over your ears, I'm using that as an example of it being relative to distance, you are the stupid one for not understanding, I understand everything that you say and I'll repeat ALL SPEAKERS AND HEAPHONES SPEC DIFFERENT, EVEN AT YOUR FIXED MEASURMENT POINTS, SOME SPEC ABOVE 100dBA AND SOME SPEC BELOW 100dBA. We can go through a list of headphones and speakers and they will all vary, so to say that "headphones" can put out more SPL is incomplete, only "some headphones" can output more SPL than "some speakers".


Source Intensity Intensity
Level
# of Times
Greater Than TOH

Threshold of Hearing (TOH) 1*10-12 W/m2 0 dB 100
Rustling Leaves 1*10-11 W/m2 10 dB 101
Whisper 1*10-10 W/m2 20 dB 102
Normal Conversation 1*10-6 W/m2 60 dB 106
Busy Street Traffic 1*10-5 W/m2 70 dB 107
Vacuum Cleaner 1*10-4 W/m2 80 dB 108
Large Orchestra 6.3*10-3 W/m2 98 dB 109.8
Walkman at Maximum Level 1*10-2 W/m2 100 dB 1010
Front Rows of Rock Concert 1*10-1 W/m2 110 dB 1011
Threshold of Pain 1*101 W/m2 130 dB 1013
Military Jet Takeoff 1*102 W/m2 140 dB 1014
Instant Perforation of Eardrum 1*104 W/m2 160 dB 1016


3. On a good night, the front row of the Twisted Sister concert would surely result in a 120 dB sound level. A Walkman produces 100 dB. How many Walkmen would be needed to produce the same intensity as the front row of the Twisted Sister concert?


Answer: B. 100 walkmans

Since 120 db is 102 times or 100 times more intense than 100 dB, it is necessary to wear 100 walkmans to produce the same sound level.

Before you inscinuate that I'm stupid for making this statement, I'm quoting glenbrook. Read it here.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/sound/u11l2 b.html



Walkmans use headphones, do they spec louder than a Twisted Sister concert listened to on the front row through large speakers? No, so how about putting this discussion into perspective instead of saying I'm making stupid statements. How many headphones to you have that output over 140dBA?

[Fig]

Ronny,

You are obviously not stupid.

But think about this, for a second.  The 100dB that some <I'd say many, or even most> headphones can produce should not be listened to for more than 2 hours (according to OSHA) before damage will possibly occur.

Many people monitor for far longer, at that volume or higher, with headphones.  Regularly.  

Add to that the capability of a wall-powered headphone amp (NOT a walkman fer chrissake) with some real rails to power the 'phones and you may realize that the potential for damage is there.  You're not denying that the potential is there, are you?  Cuz it IS.

Balance that with the inability, for most of the same folks engaging in that kind of activity, to be listening to 100dB for two hours mainly due to complaints from neighbors and/or loved ones. (I'm not talkin' about a concert - I'm talking about people monitoring a recording whether it be tracking, mixing or mastering - hopefully in a treated space, but not always, right?)  I check on headphones, all the time.  But some people work exclusively on headphones, right?  For long hours, right?

I'm not saying people don't monitor at insane loud levels on speakers in studios - they do.  But if the control room is larger than an earcanal, well, sound has a tendency to decrease in intensity as you move further from the source.  No matter what the measurement at 1 meter, most listeners are further away, right?

Even less people notice insane loud sound when the audience is one, due to an inner-ear reinforcement method (ie:  headphones).

Perhaps you can then see, that the POTENTIAL for headphone monitoring to cause damage more often than loudspeaker monitoring to be a real and truthful statement, despite the wattage in the cottage.  Because more people are using headphones than many other methods of monitoring AT THOSE VOLUMES.  Its behavior, not physics.  My kids crank up their headphones all the time, cuz they can, see.  If they played their boomboxes that loud Mom or Dad would come running.

BTW, the low frequency driver in many in-ear monitors exceed 140 dB at most audible frequencies very gracefully.  Afterall, they were derived from earspeakers for people with profound hearing loss!  So do be careful, eh?

But most importantly, you see Ronny, my body can only stay upright for about ten seconds when I strap my concert rig on my head - after my neck snaps in two, I'm no longer concerned about hearing damage.

You are absolutely correct about concerts being very loud, though.  Which is why most of them only run about 90 minutes - with many exceptions of course.

Take it light, fellas,

Fig

[dcollins]

Ronny wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 10:00

Walkmans use headphones, do they spec louder than a Twisted Sister concert listened to on the front row through large speakers? No, so how about putting this discussion into perspective instead of saying I'm making stupid statements. How many headphones to you have that output over 140dBA?

This is a question of sensitivity as well as coupling efficiency.

And headphones will always win!

http://www.rane.com/note100.html

DC

[Ronny]

Fig wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 14:28

Ronny, You are obviously not stupid. But think about this, for a second.  The 100dB that some <I'd say many, or even most> headphones can produce should not be listened to for more than 2 hours (according to OSHA) before damage will possibly occur. Many people monitor for far longer, at that volume or higher, with headphones.  Regularly.   Add to that the capability of a wall-powered headphone amp (NOT a walkman fer chrissake) with some real rails to power the 'phones and you may realize that the potential for damage is there.  You're not denying that the potential is there, are you?  Cuz it IS.

Why does everyone think that I'm saying that headphones are safer than large speakers. I'm not saying that at all and Jay, I've already said 3 times that the potential for hearing loss is worse with headphones and yes Walkmans too, is greater than the exposure that most people are going to have with large speakers. I'm debating the comment that headphones output more SPL than large speakers, that is all, the rest I agree on. Do I have to repeat myself for the 4th time, that "some headphones" output more SPL than "some speakers" and "some speakers" output more SPL than "some headphones". Some is the key word. If told you that Chevy's were faster than Ford's, well that means all Chevy's doesn't it, because I didnt' say "some Chevy's are faster than Fords", It is not a general rule that headphones output more SPL than large speakers. I'm not debating about hours at X decibels gives X amount of damage, I know this, I agree but that's not the issue that I'm debating, which is very simple, how much SPL large speaker systems and headphones output. It is very close to the same when you take into consideration that the max SPL spec's on both vary above and below 100dBA and it depends on the brand and model.

Quote:

Balance that with the inability, for most of the same folks engaging in that kind of activity, to be listening to 100dB for two hours mainly due to complaints from neighbors and/or loved ones. (I'm not talkin' about a concert - I'm talking about people monitoring a recording whether it be tracking, mixing or mastering - hopefully in a treated space, but not always, right?)  I check on headphones, all the time.  But some people work exclusively on headphones, right?  For long hours, right?

Yes of course, I'm not saying that headphones are less likely to cause damage, I've already explained two or three times that the potential is greater because 1. Everyone has headphones. 2. Exposure time is greater to them. You are reading the other posts on this thread where people made the same mistake, thinking that I'm saying that headphones aren't as damaging. Read what I've said from the beginning please.

I'll add another one, the speakers are right on the ears and people that run PA systems learn early on from having their ears ringing for 3 days after the first time they run FOH in the wrong spot and learn to wear plugs or set up farther away from the mains. Here's a kicker about large speakers, when you listen with headphones they are personal volume devices and you can turn the volume down, when you go to a Who concert that's playing above 140dBA, sit on the front row, you can't turn it down. You can leave the concert as I have and I'm sure you or others on this forum have. But the control of how much SPL that you are getting is out of your hands. Does this mean that concerts are worse than headphones, no I'm not saying that, I'm saying that "some" headphones don't output more SPL than "some" large speakers.

Quote:

I'm not saying people don't monitor at insane loud levels on speakers in studios - they do.  But if the control room is larger than an earcanal, well, sound has a tendency to decrease in intensity as you move further from the source.  No matter what the measurement at 1 meter, most listeners are further away, right?

Yes, quite right, but again I'm not debating whether cans are better or worse than large speakers. In reality all situations are different and both have potential for hearing loss.

Quote:

Even less people notice insane loud sound when the audience is one, due to an inner-ear reinforcement method (ie:  headphones). Perhaps you can then see, that the POTENTIAL for headphone monitoring to cause damage more often than loudspeaker monitoring to be a real and truthful statement, despite the wattage in the cottage.  Because more people are using headphones than many other methods of monitoring AT THOSE VOLUMES.  Its behavior, not physics.  My kids crank up their headphones all the time, cuz they can, see.  If they played their boomboxes that loud Mom or Dad would come running.

Yes, but that statement is not one that I'm debating. I'm debating the statement that headphones output more SPL than large speakers. That is what is not totally true. Furthermore I'll repeat myself again and say that SPL specs on large speakers are measured not at the speaker and indeed measured where the true SPL is lessened. True SPL is on the speaker. Headphones OTOH are measured where you can't possibly output anymore SPL. The speakers will spec more SPL as you move closer to the speaker within the 1 meter measurement line. Again the two are not measured on an even keel enough to really get a good comparison or to say that headphones output more SPL than large speakers.

Quote:

BTW, the low frequency driver in many in-ear monitors exceed 140 dB at most audible frequencies very gracefully.  Afterall, they were derived from earspeakers for people with profound hearing loss!  So do be careful, eh? But most importantly, you see Ronny, my body can only stay upright for about ten seconds when I strap my concert rig on my head - after my neck snaps in two, I'm no longer concerned about hearing damage. You are absolutely correct about concerts being very loud, though.  Which is why most of them only run about 90 minutes - with many exceptions of course. Take it light, fellas, Fig

Bottom line is that both are potentially damaging, headphones moreso because they are owned and used more hours than people that go to concerts, but I'll guarantee you that most musicians with hearing loss didn't get it from headphones, they got it from large speakers on their stage rigs.

[bblackwood]

Ronny, where did anyone make the blanket statement that headphones generate greater SPL than speakers? The only thing I see is where I stated that "few loudspeakers can deliver the same SPL that most any set of headphones can deliver". No blanket statement there, so why do you continue fighting this battle?

[Ronny]

dcollins wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 20:59

Ronny wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 10:00 Walkmans use headphones, do they spec louder than a Twisted Sister concert listened to on the front row through large speakers? No, so how about putting this discussion into perspective instead of saying I'm making stupid statements. How many headphones to you have that output over 140dBA? This is a question of sensitivity as well as coupling efficiency. And headphones will always win! http://www.rane.com/note100.html DC

Wait a minute, the headphones with the highest SPL on their list is only 136dBA, when I listen to the Who on my headphones I'm getting more than 140dBA.  

Headphones do not win everytime and that's another general statement not based on fact, in reality they all spec differently and the Rane list is listing the higher SPL cans, many spec below 100dBA some 90dB, 92dB on up. Let me ask you a question DC. If you could sit at a Who rock concert long enough to get a 136dB reading in the front row(the max on the highest SPL on the Rane list and less than the over 140dB reported at some Who and Deep Purple concerts) what do you speculate the SPL would measure at 1 meter from the array, or on the speaker like you measure headphones? It's going to be higher than the max SPL on all of the cans on Ranes list. You should know this from your hippie guitar days.  

[dcollins]

bblackwood wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 18:23

The only thing I see is where I stated that "few loudspeakers can deliver the same SPL that most any set of headphones can deliver".

In that Rane chart, the undisputed champ is the Sennheiser HD25 which, for an input of a measly 380mW, will output a whopping One Hundred and Fourty Six dB SPL! Impressive.

And that's at a resonable distortion of 0.4%, 20-20k.  Try that with a PA.......

Forget your hearing; I think permanent, irreversible brain damage starts at 147!

DC

[Ronny]

bblackwood wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 21:23

Ronny, where did anyone make the blanket statement that headphones generate greater SPL than speakers? The only thing I see is where I stated that "few loudspeakers can deliver the same SPL that most any set of headphones can deliver". No blanket statement there, so why do you continue fighting this battle?

Probably because people think that I'm saying that headphones are less damaging than large speakers, like you thought, which I never said or inscinuated and because the cans with the highest max SPL rating aren't delivering more SPL than many large speakers at concerts, nor in my studio, if I was really stupid and decided to crank my gear to max and stick my head on the speaker, like I saw some kids doing at a Ska show a couple of months ago.

If we can forget the disagreements and the off color remarks between me and Hall, the topic concerns all of us and should be discussed. This shouldn't be a debate over what listening media or environment is worse than the other when they are all bad news.

[Ronny]

dcollins wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 21:35

bblackwood wrote on Mon, 02 May 2005 18:23  The only thing I see is where I stated that "few loudspeakers can deliver the same SPL that most any set of headphones can deliver". In that Rane chart, the undisputed champ is the Sennheiser HD25 which, for an input of a measly 380mW, will output a whopping One Hundred and Fourty Six dB SPL! Impressive. And that's at a resonable distortion of 0.4%, 20-20k.  Try that with a PA....... Forget your hearing; I think permanent, irreversible brain damage starts at 147! DC

I missed the Senn I scanned it and thought I saw 136 tops. Ok, I agree the Senns will deliver more SPL than most concert PA's, although I'm not so sure more than my nephews Crown Victoria with the 4 15's in the trunk and the 4 12's in the back seat. Wall is knocked out between back seat and trunk. Everytime I tell him that he's going to go deaf, he says "Huh?"

[bobkatz]

lambda wrote on Wed, 27 April 2005 02:43

The other day, when I was setting up my brother's video game systems to work with his television, I realized that I could no longer here the high frequency noise of the flyback transformer. I did a sine sweep and I couldn't get much above 15 kHz (which makes sense, as the flyback is about 15.75 kHz). I am going to try to schedule a full-spectrum hearing test, but to get my insurance to cover it may take a few referrals.

How old are you? I stopped hearing or being bother by flybacks somewhere in my mid-thirties. So you may be perfectly normal. I can still hear the 15 kHz tone, though. Can't say at what SPL though  

BK

[barefoot]

dcollins wrote on Wed, 27 April 2005 15:58

The distortion of the transducer has nothing to do with hearing damage.  It's all in the midband SPL.  You are FAR more likely to damage your ears with headphones than loudspeaker.

This is true.   However, distortion does influence our tolerance for loud sounds.     Whether it's through evolution or learning, our brains tend to associate distortion content with perceived loudness.   Most speakers have their own built in psychological safety mechanism, because as the level increases and distortion content rises, our brains become less and less tolerant of the resulting "noise".   So, we need to be especially careful with very high-linearity speakers and headphones because the actual SPL can be much more than we might guess due to the lack of normal distortion cues we're accustomed to hearing.