In article ,
says...

...and there's also this, which explicitly references peak level measurements:

Pre- and Postemphasis Techniques as Applied to Audio Recording Systems
JAES Volume 33 Issue 9 pp. 649-658; September 1985

Audio recorders benefit from pre- and postemphasis, which reshapes the noise
spectrum to match human audibility thresholds. A 10-dB increase in apparent
dynamic range is realized for some digital audio systems. A first-order boost
based on the CCITT J.17 preemphasis standard is shown to be appropriate for
dynamic range expansion. A survey of peak acoustic levels present in 36 music
performances is also included.

Author: Fielder, Louis D.
Affiliation: Ampex Corporation, Redwood City, CA

In article ,
Robert
Orban wrote:
In article ,
says...

..and there's also this, which explicitly references peak level
measurements:

Pre- and Postemphasis Techniques as Applied to Audio Recording Systems
JAES Volume 33 Issue 9 pp. 649-658; September 1985

Thanks for the above. I've now had a chance to have a quick read-though of
it. I've probably missed things, and would need to check some of its
references, but my initial reactions were...

Firstly, that the levels reported are somewhat larger than asserted by
others elsewhere - e.g. already in this thread is values from MF. This
tends to support my suspicion that people assert numbers which may be
misleading if they don't actually know where they came from at origin.
Hence my preference for measured results. :-)

I wonder how that may relate to the following.

Secondly, that the paper doesn't give any real details of the peak meter
used. For example, not the bandwidth when 'flat', nor the response times of
the peak function. e.g. no value for underread of something like a
bandwidth-limited impulse. This might well affect results, but hard to say
more without any details.

Thirdly that the stats seem to be on a 'peak per concert' basis IIUC. Makes
me wonder what the time stats are as that might be a better guide.

However, thanks, very interesting. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Robert Orban wrote:

..and there's also this, which explicitly references peak level
measurements:

Pre- and Postemphasis Techniques as Applied to Audio Recording Systems
JAES Volume 33 Issue 9 pp. 649-658; September 1985

Thanks for the above. I've now had a chance to have a quick read-though of
it. I've probably missed things, and would need to check some of its
references, but my initial reactions were...

Firstly, that the levels reported are somewhat larger than asserted by
others elsewhere - e.g. already in this thread is values from MF. This
tends to support my suspicion that people assert numbers which may be
misleading if they don't actually know where they came from at origin.
Hence my preference for measured results. :-)

I wonder how that may relate to the following.

Secondly, that the paper doesn't give any real details of the peak meter
used. For example, not the bandwidth when 'flat', nor the response times of
the peak function. e.g. no value for underread of something like a
bandwidth-limited impulse. This might well affect results, but hard to say
more without any details.

Fast track and hold would be the only viable method.

Graham