Talk:Dynamic range/Archive 1

Pleonasms
They're not pleonasms. Tuna fish is food whereas tuna is a kind. (I would've switched those. I guess the fish is to explain the foreign[-sounding] term.)  Future plans are planned plans (sometimes) whereas plans are now. Past history is when whereas history is when or now, after past history. A range may be either dynamic or static, the former making the range whereas the latter is made by the range. You're equivocating "variation"; dynamic is variation, but range is the limiting domain. At least you're right about free gifts. lysdexia 12:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Talk:Pleonasm is where argument for general cases (like tuna fish) belongs.


 * You dynamic range argument is somewhat incoherent to me; if you wish to discuss it, please explain it in some detail. Perhaps with some examples.--NathanHawking 02:14, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

That is funny. I have reffered this Wiki artikle exactly to trace the ethimology of this linguistically strange term, once I've got explanation of its meaning. IMHO, any range assumes some value dynamics (is any change a dynamics?), variation. This is only a constant value which has a zero-range, while the variables are allowed to change dynamically by definition in some range. Any dynamics (state change) takes place in some range. So we have dualism here: any dynamics implies a range as well as a range assumes some dynamics. So, why do we have "dynamic range" rather than "range of dynamics" or just "range"? The latter, IMHO, seems the most reasonable because concerning a range you always need to give its owner object/variable that the range belongs to. I feel that "dynamics" is not interchangable with "range" having a broader meaning including speed, range, stability and other laws. Just saying "dynamic range" does not furnish much clues compared to plain "range". Obviously, the explanation is needed to reason for introduction of dynamic range of some parameter in opposition to other (non-dynamic) ranges of that magnitude. Why not to just tell "range of currents, frequencies"? - as it is much more definite. --Javalenok 14:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about other disciplines, but in music 'dynamic range' (the difference between the loudest and quitest note an instrument can produce) is used primarily to distinguish it from 'tonal range' (the difference between an instrument's highest and lowest pitched note). 'Range' on its own always means tonal range. In music, it should be noted that the term 'dynamics' simply means relative volume (I guess, shortened from 'dynamic markings'), so in this instance it is definitely not a pleonasm.
 * In other disciplines it may be that its use is derived from this usage in music. It may also be used to avoid similar confusion over what is meant by range (e.g. audio engineers may also use range to refer to distance, e.g. "What's the range of those speakers?").
 * Also, in other contexts it could be that 'dynamic range' (a range whose upper and/or lower bounds may change) is used to distinguish from 'fixed range', where the range has a fixed upper and lower bound.
 * Just a few thoughts - I'm no expert! --HappyDog 15:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no. Not this again...  — Omegatron 15:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * *grin* - Yeah I only spotted our previous discussion after I'd posted. I'd forgotten all about it... Sorry for repeating myself :) --HappyDog 11:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is funny. In Russian, 'a dynamic' is an electrodynamical loudspeaker . So, the question about the range of dynamics may have a real sense here :))))))))


 * The 'relative volume' is a bit vague here. OK, it turns out that in English the 'dynamic range' = 'loudness range', because occasionally 'dynamics' = 'loudness', despite 'dynamic' = 'fast'. I have already realized that most English words carry a great number of unrelated notions, which often have controversial meanings. The ambiguity is inevitable here. Looking deeper into the Greek roots, the 'dynamic' means 'powerful'. From the physics we know that P=F*v; that is, power depends on speed and force; i.e., dynamic = fast or strong. Anyway, the 'power range' does not seem pleonastic. I guess, the roots are Greek rather than musical here and we are mislead by the notion widely used among system engineers and scientists. This technocommunity associates the word 'dynamics' with 'change' ( D. Kaplan, "Understanding Nonlinear Dynamics", p2 ): We are interested in how the state changes in time: the dynamics of the system.
 * Finally, these guys have put the 'dynamic range' into pleonasms list. --Javalenok 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By 'relative volume' I was referring to the fact that musical markings do not indicate an absolute volume, and are open to interpretation by the players. See dynamics (music) for more info. --HappyDog 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Who cares?? "Dynamic range" is the term used everywhere, regardless of whether it's actually a pleonasm.  Wikipedia's purpose is to document things the way they actually are; not the way they "should be".  The War Against Pleonasm is a pretty minority viewpoint and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
 * We're not going to go around converting all the dates to decimal time or the articles to Cut Spelling, either, even if some people think those are better. — Omegatron 19:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Badass, arrogant grabbers certainly don't!! Many Wiki articles do explain the origin of terms. Сomprehendig material assists to memorization. Furthermore, a better organization of information is an 'additional bonus' for mental performance. Therefore, intelligent people do care when two actual things are conflicting in reality. As a matter of fact, a number of articles include the 'criticism' section. Nevertheless, does anybody here pursue for it? Anyway, I want to believe that Wikipedia's purpose is to bring order into our heads rather than to conserve the current state of affairs and irregularities.--Javalenok 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Promo link?
I have removed the following link from this article:
 * www.coherix.com/auto/surfacedetective/Technical%20Foundations%20and%20Heritage/Shapix%20Surface%20Detective%20Carl%20Aleksoff%20%20SPIE%20Paper.pdf

It is intentionally unlinked as I believe the inserter is intending to promote his/her product. The contents of the PDF lead into a promotion of a product. I am listing it here for others to review, however, because it does contain other information that might be useful. I leave it to others to determine whether it should be included. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Factor of 2?
I have removed the text that read: Was the previous line an error? Dynamic Range (dB) = SNR (dB) = 20*Log10 (RMS Full-scale/RMS Noise) Dynamic range formula 20*Log10(1000) = 60. While power doubles every 3dB, dynamic range doubles every 6dB.

It wasn't an error 20*Log10(full scale/noise) is the valid if you are talking about full scale amplitudes and noise amplitudes. If you are talking about noise powers and full scale powers then the correct formula is 10*Log10(full scale/noise). The two give the same results for dynamic range of course because the power is proportional to the amplitude squared. So the line didn't contradict itself so long as it meant a factor of 1000 in light intensity, which one can only assume that it did. (No body really ever talks about light amplitudes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.163.163 (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Decibel maths and reference
Does this:

The dynamic range is defined as the difference between the minimum and maximum amplitude a given device can record. For example, if the ceiling of a device is 10 dB and the noise floor is 3 dB then the dynamic range is 4.85 dB, since 10 dB−3 dB = 4.85 dB (recall that care must be taken when adding numbers in the decibel scale).

Make sense to anyone? A ceiling of 10dB? Surely 10dBu or similar would make more sense as an example (and be more accurate). Likewise with noise floor.

Also, 10dB-3dB (assuming we are talking about referenced dB values here) would surely give a dynamic range of 7dB? Correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.202.26 (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some math
This hurt my brain, but here is the reasoning:

$$10dB=10^ \left( \frac{10}{10} \right) =10 $$

$$3dB=10^\left( \frac{3}{10} \right) =1.995$$

$$10-1.995=8.005$$

$$10 \times \log_{10} (8.005)=9.033\,dB$$

However

$$10dBV=10^ \left( \frac{10}{20} \right) =3.162V $$

$$3dBV=10^\left( \frac{3}{20} \right) =1.416V$$

$$3.162V-1.416V=1.749V$$

$$20 \times \log_{10} \left(\frac{1.749V}{1V}\right)=4.859\,dBV$$

Iain (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Still not getting it
Except that the decibel expresses the ratio between two values. In the above example, the two dBV values are converted to voltages. Here I'll take the dB difference between the two (the dynamic range)

$$20 \times \log_{10} \left(\frac{3.162V}{1.416V}\right)=7\,dB$$

Using the analogy of a fader on a mixing desk: if it's at 10dB and you turn it down to 3dB, surely the difference is 7dB...?

Questionable numbers
I see these two bits of text: This implies that after a few plays, a 78rpm record would not be perceptible human speech, which just doesn't make any sense... Luminifer (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The dynamic range of music in a concert hall doesn't exceed 80 dB and human perception of speech requires only about 40 dB of dynamic range.[
 * Early 78 rpm phonograph discs had a dynamic range of up to 40 dB,[5] soon reduced to 30 dB and worse due to wear from repeated play.


 * It doesn't imply any such thing. Even if the typical DR of speech is 40 dB, that doesn't imply that 40 dB DR is required for a signal to be recognizably speech-like.  In fact, ham radio operators used extreme speech compressors to get their speech into less than 20 dB DR for better communication on a limited power budget. Dicklyon (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I agree with that; it's the "perception of speech only requires about 40db of dynamic range" that seems to conflict.. Luminifer (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In its given form, the statement is too questionable, more wrong than right. It has to be rewritten and explained or deleted. Imho as an engineer. Wispanow (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wispanow, it's better to fix it per the cited source than to just remove sourced information. I've put it back. Dicklyon (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon, it was tagged long enough. Fix it or delete it. Its too questionable. Wispanow (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Link: states: but on loud peaks a given instrument may momentarily exceed 120 dB SPL. And thats only one instrument! So the statement is wrong. Wispanow (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll want to chat with Eargle about the conflict between speech and 78 rpm dynamics. He specifically says "...speech is normally perceived over an even narrower range of about 40 dB." Narrower than 80 dB found in concert hall music. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Yamaha link saying most concerts use less than 70 dB DR and some go as high as 90 dB is not really inconsistent with the 80 dB estimate, just a slightly differing calculation/opinion. It could be reported, too.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not everything written is absolutely true. This is a lot more complex than just presenting two figures. See link given by me, stating different figures. Wispanow (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you do with this article, don't remove referenced material. Instead, add further explanatory text stating another view or another expert fact that is in conflict. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, don't remove referenced material. Deal with it instead. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, Think instead of reverting. Accept the citation is refuted above. Wispanow (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The 120 dB SPL peak is perfectly consistent with 80 dB DR if the minimum is around 40 dB SPL. It's hard to imagine a concert hall being any quieter than that.  And anyway, our job is not to judge whether reliably sourced factoids are correct, but to report them.  If there's more info, other POVs, by all means add those, too. Dicklyon (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * W, I've restored the sourced material again, after thinking about it. Can you explain here what you find dubious about it?  There are multiple sourced dynamic range estimates that you removed; maybe you can provide alternative estimates alongside them, instead of removing them.  Your logic about instruments exceeding 120 dB SPL suggests that maybe you need to step back and understand the concept before doing more editing though. Dicklyon (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are guessing: "if the minimum is around 40 dB SPL" Source or deleted. Wispanow (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The text in the article is sourced already. I'm just trying to explain to you how confused your so-called refutation is. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Section: Questionable numbers
If somebody has the time, such a section could be written. Too many believers and very few scientists in the audio section! It should explain:
 * 1) Measuring distance
 * 2) Environmental noise
 * 3) Type of instruments
 * 4) Use of Peak-limiters and dynamic-limiters to reduce the dynamic range.

Wispanow (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear what kind of section you have in mind, or what you're complaining about. If you have good sourced info, just use it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing is clear to you. I already answered all your questions. You are even unable for the simplest calculations. Wispanow (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wispanow, your personal affirmation that something is true, and something else is false, is insufficient for this article. Have you read WP:RS and WP:CITE for guidance on how to cite reliable sources, and what those might be? John Eargle is an expert source. Only another established expert can be used to refute him, and this refutation must be written out on the main page so that both views are present. The simplistic deletion of Eargle does not work.
 * Bruce Fries is not quite as scholarly a source as Eargle, but he is an established writer and observer of the audio business, and of audio specifications and performance. He serves well enough as a reference in this article. Putting the 'dubious' tag on him is wrong; and even more wrong is changing his 96dB number to 98 with no source, and his 120dB to 122 with no source. With no sources, you have no argument. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not able to read. You are even unable for the simplest calculations. See formula above. Wispanow (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Binksternet is an experienced wikipedia editor, who appears to be reasonably literate and numerate, and has a professional proficiency related to the subject matter; same goes for me. But that's not what's at issue here.  Please calm down, and if you have suggestions about improving the article, make them here, preferably in plain language rather than the cryptic list you provided above, and in preference to just removing parts that you feel are dubious when they're back by reliable sources.  The best way to proceed is to discuss based on sources you have that can provide either corrections are alternative points of view.  The all-caps "shouting" is also not an effective way to collaborate; use your words. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * . in response to above...
 * 1. ham radio operators used extreme speech compressors to get their speech into less than 20 dB DR 
 * 2. human perception of speech requires only about 40 dB of dynamic range
 * . Doesn't this imply that ham radio would be imperceptible human speech? This is clearly not true, so the second statement is at the very least misleadingly phrased. Does anyone know what it wants to say? Luminifer (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has since been edited to read "human speech is normally perceived over a range of about 40 dB." This version no longer says "requires ... 40 dB" and is much closer to the exact wording that John Eargle used in his tome Handbook of Recording Engineering. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have to be honest, I don't even know what that means. "is perceive over a range of 40db"? What does that mean? Is that a dynamic range? It's still confusing how it relates to the other numbers. Call me an idiot if you have to, but this really should be clear. Luminifer (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic range clarifications
i've added material to clarify the difference between the input and output dynamic range of measurement, recording or reproduction systems, and made the examples of audio and (especially) visual dynamic range measurement more concrete and at that same time less speciously precise. it's very important, for example in color reproduction technologies, to keep straight where reproduction is clipped or reduced, as input and output problems have different solutions (manipulating contrast in the input file, or choosing a different output device). the material on "night" scenes in video or film was just incoherent, and i've distinguished between *symbolizing* a visual effect and merely reproducing it within a smaller gamut (lower luminance contrast ratio). Macevoy (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I took out your changes because when I looked at them all together, the first thing I saw was that you defined dynamic range in audio in terms of high and low frequency, an utterly incorrect definition. I will have to look again at your contributions for light to see if there was anything worth saving. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic and Range
The term "dynamic range" does not seem to be a good literal description. It's one of those professional terms that kind of have grown to mean a certain thing. Loudness range, or volume range, over a certain time range and/or space range, would be more precise. It seems this is implied.

Taking the term literally, I would take it to mean that a range (of levels) changes (over time or space). This would not necessarily be sound, it could be any measure. The range of volume levels of sounds (over a relatively short time period) on a city street changes over the course of the day and is thus dynamic range. Similarly, the range of darkest and lightest light levels of a city street scene (simultaneous, but differentiated in space) changes over the course of a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.83.135 (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In vision research the term "dynamic range" is used to mean the total range of brightness levels that a person can see over time, including the time it takes the eye to adapt to varying lighting conditions. Achieving a high degree of dark adaptation can take an hour. The word "contrast" is reserved for simultaneous or near-simultaneous events. Zyxwv99 (talk)

Dynamic range in music
The current article states that "Popular music typically has a dynamic range of 6 to 10 dB, with some forms of music having as little as 1 dB or as much as 15 dB.", and cites a book by Bob Katz (Katz, Robert (2002). "9". Mastering Audio. Amsterdam: Boston. pp. 109. ISBN 0240805453) as the source of those numbers. The problem I have with that statement that by itself it does not convey any information at all, other than that popular music got a smaller number using some unspecified metric. I am aware that the method by which one can arrive at these numbers is probably explained further in the book by Katz (to which I have no access right now), but as I see it such a statement must make sense in itself, and hence the definition of DR used here should be stated as well. If there is a common definition among music producers for the definition of DR in music, I think this definition can very well be put in this article. --Kohlrabi (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy of the book either but Bob tends to use Crest factor when he talks about limited dynamic range in music. I will see if I can make some improvements. --Kvng (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better to simply remove this part. I have a copy of the book, and Bob Katz doesn't provide the particular algorithm that was used to measure these values. He doesn't even specify whether DR in this case is crest factor based or EBU3342LRA based. As such, this info is worthless. (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of the book now. I will have a look when I get a chance. I agree that just throwing numbers around without explaining where they come from or what they mean is not useful. ~KvnG 13:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is no longer in the article and I can't find these numbers in the third edition of Mastering Audio. The glossary of the third edition indicates dynamic range is the same as loudness range (LRA) but elsewhere in the text it is used to mean various things as our writeup indicates one should expect. ~KvnG 20:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic range of photography
I have removed the statement, "The dynamic range of sensors used in digital photography is many times less than that of the human eye and generally not as wide as that of chemical photographic media." I have replaced this with cited statements indicating digital and analog photography both have dynamic range comparable to the human eye.

I did find support for the new contribution, "Consumer-grade image file formats sometimes restrict dynamic range." I moved this to a new location and added a citation. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dynamic range. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821051130/http://media.paisley.ac.uk/~campbell/AASP/Aspects%20of%20Human%20Hearing.PDF to http://media.paisley.ac.uk/~campbell/AASP/Aspects%20of%20Human%20Hearing.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905003034/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/dynamic.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/dynamic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Checked OK. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Audio definition
There is no citation for the statement: "Audio engineers often use dynamic range to describe the ratio of the amplitude of the loudest possible undistorted sine wave to the root mean square (rms) noise amplitude, say of a microphone or loudspeaker." This definition appears to have grown organically:, , , ,.

Here's a definition from a reliable source:. I'm inclined to strip this down to something less specific but verifiable. ~KvnG 15:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * the most reliable definition I found is:
 * the dynamic range of a device is "the difference in level between the highest possible undistorted peak and the lowest level that the signal can take on without being buried in the noise" or "the level difference between clipping and the noise floor".
 * Which I is totally compatible with the definition in the article


 * I would also add that as the noise floor is measured as an RMS level, also the maximum level is measured as the RMS of the loudest 1kHz sine wave that can pass undistorted (or inaudibly distorted).


 * Lorenzo InterPlay (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Be careful here. From my experience, the definitions you propose are more in line with Signal-to-noise ratio than Dynamic range. The low end of a dynamic range measurement can be below the noise floor so long as usable signal exists there (e.g. due to Dither). ~Kvng (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry Kvng but I'm not "proposing" a definition, I'm quoting one of the "bibles" of audio engineering, so I think I'm being careful ;)
 * you can find the difference between SNR and Dynamic Range in the same page you linked;
 * with respect to dither you're partially right: only for digital systems the perceived Dynamic Range can be extended by proper dithering
 * Lorenzo InterPlay (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, quite new with editting and I am not sure if I should write my comment here or elsewhere, but I think the formula that was given in the Audio example for DR is not accurate. It should be 20*log10(2^Q-1) rather than 20*log10(2^Q).


 * I'd propose to replace the first part of the "Audio" sub-section (from the title "Audio" to "...well below the rms noise amplitude (noise floor)." included) with:

Audio engineering
in Audio Engineering "Dynamic Range" is used with two very different meanings not to be confused:


 * 1) when talking about audio devices (microphones, amplifiers, recorders, digital converters, ...) it is defined as "the level difference between clipping and the noise floor". It is "what can happen when a signal passes through a device", in other words the range of dynamics that a particular device can handle;

e.g.: a DAC (Digital/Analog converter) has a Dynamic range (DR) of 115dB RMS unweighted (118dBA)


 * 2) while when talking about sounds or audio signals (music, speech, sound effects, ...) the term Dynamic Range is used to refer to the difference between the loudest and softest passages as they are actually played or recorded (and perceived);

e.g.: The dynamic range of music as normally perceived in a concert hall doesn't exceed 80 dB, and human speech is normally perceived over a range of about 40 dB.

In this respect the human ear could be considered a "device" that has a dynamic range from the softest audible signal to the so called "threshold of pain"; but since at different frequencies the ear has a very different response to loud and soft sounds (e.g.: at 1kHz it goes from 0 to 120dBSPL while at 100Hz it goes from 20 to 130dBSPL ) and since both the low and hi-end of the scale are very subjective, "Area of Audibility" is a better description than "Dynamic Range" for this phenomenon.

In Digital Audio the perceived dynamic range can be extended, with respect to the theoretical one, with noise-shaped dither, taking advantage of the frequency response of the human ear. For this reason the dynamic range can differ from the ratio of the maximum to minimum amplitude a given digital device can record and playback.


 * This looks like you're on the right track. I don't like the bullets and one-sentence paragraphs but I could do some copy editing once the new material is in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * what about that? Lorenzo InterPlay (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For now, I applied the simple definition and ref from the top of this section. ~Kvng (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong image description
The better the dynamic range of the camera, the more an exposure can be pushed without significantly increasing noise. This statement is correct, but has nothing to do with dynamic range. What dynamic range does, is to allow pushing shadows without losing its contrast. If the dynamic range is low, dark shadows can no more be pushed any further, because the result of this attempt would result in a brightened shadow without any structures. To avoid off-topic, the statement should be something like: The better the dynamic range of the camera, the more an exposure can be pushed without losing details in the shadow areas. --94.252.95.89 (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, you say the statement is correct but then say it is off-topic and then suggest a very similar replacement. Whether there is a loss of detail or noise at the margins of dynamic range depends on the system. In some systems the limit is due to some form of quantization or clipping. In others, noise dominates. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

human hearing has 140dB dynamic range?
The so-called "source" for this claim is a book by self proclaimed expert, with no reference to scientific literature, and no scientific peer review. I have read the mentioned book, it contains many inaccuracies and exagerations. How is this dynamic range defined? up to ear-bleed? permanent deafness? ...


 * Which book? I'm unaware of the original source, but I've always accepted that 140dBSPL is the highest level sound the human ear can safely be exposed to.  Bob Katz accepts it, the AES accept it, the SAE teach it, it's taught in most high school physics textbooks....


 * Like I say, I don't know the original source, and even if I did, I don't know how to properly cite sources on WP yet. But I'm tempted to go ahead and remove the "dubious"  tag in this case, it's an almost universally accepted fact, erroneous or not.  Also, sign your talk page comments. AJRussell (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 140dBSPL can be safely exposed to human ear?! That's news to me. Can you provide reference to scientific literature supporting this claim? According to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines: The safe exposure limit is up to 85dBA over 8 hours. For every 3dB above this level the exposure time is halved (ex: 100dB is only allowed for 15min/day). Exposure to 115 dB (or above) for any duration may pose a serious health risk. google for it. And please don't use scientific claims from audiophile books, thank you. 109.186.132.235 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're making confusion, friends. Decibel is a dimensionless unit, that is used to compare two values. It's been conventioned that, when representing a sound pressure level, the level in question is compared to a .0002 microbar pressure. But keep in mind that dynamic range is completely unrelated to sound pressure. The dynamic range is the comparison, using logarithmic scale, of the highest and the lowest possible values for a quantity. The affirmation that the human hearing has a dynamic range of 140dB doesn't have anything to do with the affirmation that the sound pressure of 140dB might be harmful. Navegador2 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * IF the the definition of dynamic range is not limited to safe exposure limit, then why limit to 140dB? Humans can definitely sense 150dB, or 160dB, or any larger number, at least once in their lifetime... reductio ad absurdum. This definition has no meaning without a limit. I suggest replacing the text by:

"The dynamic range of human hearing is 115 dB, as determined by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines' safe exposure limit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.76.255 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The 140 dB figure is still in the article. It is justified as the difference between the threshold of hearing and the threshold of pain. There seem to be reasonable citations for the two ends. ~Kvng (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)