"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

IME studio monitors tend to have more dynamic range

I wonder what you mean by "more dynamic range" in the context of
loudspeakers.

Get loud, clean.

Is this simply a euphemism for "can make a lot of noise"?

No, the sound needs to meet a purity standard.

So yes, your caveat notwithstanding, you are just talking about "loud".
So really "dynamic range" is not the most appropriate phrase to use,
because dynamic range refers to the difference between loud and quiet,
and you are not talking about quiet.

That's a point that I think is moderately well taken.

As a rule I prefer to reserve the term "dynamic range" to programme
material, not equipment. And the sort of use you are have made of it is
why.

Dynamic range is clearly defined for audio equipment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

"Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level
thermal noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal
saturation resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher,
clipping.[2] "

That's SNR,

Pretty much.

it seems pointless to also call it "dynamic range".

I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)

In audio interfaces, the portion of the dynamic range calculation referred
to above as "thermal noise" is increased by any nonlinear distortion created
by a -60 dB 1 KHz sine wave stimulus tone. Since loudspeakers are usually
very linear at such low levels, the stimulus won't add much.

Dynamic range and SNR are very closely related.

Programme material doesn't have a SNR, but it *does* have a dynamic range
(the ratio of the quietest to the loudest wanted signal) and it just seems
logical to me to reserve one term for programme, and the other for
equipment.

Your idea is certainly not illogical, but it is simply not how things have
evolved.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)

Maybe not, but you choose to use it. And I have never before met the term
"dynamic range" applied to loudspeakers, so as far as I am concerned in this
context you did make it up.


David.

"David Looser"
"Arny Krueger"
I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)


** What Arny failed to mention is that HIS version of the lexicon derives
from forums full of audiophool ****wits like " rec.audio opinion ".


Maybe not, but you choose to use it.


** Straight from rubbish tip to you - delivered by Arny the compewter
geek.


And I have never before met the term "dynamic range" applied to
loudspeakers,


** It is a hot favourite among pompous Yank audiophools with chronic verbal
diarrhoea.


so as far as I am concerned in this context you did make it up.


** Ridiculous false logic.



...... Phil

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)

Maybe not, but you choose to use it.

Just like I choose to primarily read/write English of the 6 languages that I
am fluent in! ;-)

And I have never before met the term "dynamic range" applied to
loudspeakers, so as far as I am concerned in this context you did make it
up.

Thank whatever you will. I've used the term many times and never been
challenged until today. I'll probably keep on using it...

"Arny Krueger"
"David Looser"
"Arny Krueger"

I didn't make up the lexicon of audio. ;-)

Maybe not, but you choose to use it.

Just like I choose to primarily read/write English of the 6 languages that
I am fluent in! ;-)

And I have never before met the term "dynamic range" applied to
loudspeakers, so as far as I am concerned in this context you did make it
up.

Thank whatever you will. I've used the term many times and never been
challenged until today.


** Since you have no valid case to justify such nonsensical use - it's
high time to quit.


I'll probably keep on using it...


** Like the smug, Septic ****head you are - naturally.



...... Phil