Tubas, euphoniums, mouthpieces, and anything music-related.
Forum rules
This section is for posts that are directly related to performance, performers, or equipment. Social issues are allowed, as long as they are directly related to those categories. If you see a post that you cannot respond to with respect and courtesy, we ask that you do not respond at all.
This sounds like a thread that some high school kid would instigate , but here goes:
WERE one CURIOUS (regarding the decibel output of a tuba/brass instrument in different ranges while expending different amounts of energy (ie. what an operator might perceive as various "dynamic levels" in various "ranges") how would one properly measure the decibel output of a tuba/brass instrument?
Does(n't) the room (or lack thereof) have some effect on decibels, or no?
How far away from the instrument would be advisable for placing such a meter?
"Next to the bell" seems idiotic, as does "200 feet away".
The folks who fund a lot of what we do for money tend to sit within 100 feet of the stage. I would measure things from about 75 feet away. In most halls the sound fades unevenly, so this zone is the sweet spot. In places like the Meyerson the sound fades much more evenly. You can hear every instrument as the note fades away. If you played in the Meyerson you could test from anywhere in the room. But you don't. I don't. None of us do. (Except for Matt, of course!) I would confine my measurements to where the spendy seats are located.
Also, measuring pressure waves (db) will not give you the complete story, as the overtones in the sound do as much as the sheer volume in projecting a clear, audible tone at all dynamics and in all ranges. I have done this in the past with several colleagues to locate where the crappy parts of our hall are. (We got some very surprising results, too.) In the end, we all decided that the mouthpiece had about the same amount of effect as the bell (the "horn") in our hall with its problems and that these findings did not hold in *any* other space.
While you could end up chasing your tail, it is fascinating stuff. I encourage you to do this and to share what you decide the numbers tell you. It might be good to have someone sit in the audience at one of these concerts, hold the db meter and take some notes for you. The difference between an empty hall and a hall filled with bags of meat is very telling.
Good luck!
These users thanked the author the elephant for the post:
the elephant wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:55 am
The folks who fund a lot of what we do for money tend to sit within 100 feet of the stage. I would measure things from about 75 feet away. In most halls the sound fades unevenly, so this zone is the sweet spot. In places like the Meyerson the sound fades much more evenly. You can hear every instrument as the note fades away. If you played in the Meyerson you could test from anywhere in the room. But you don't. I don't. None of us do. (Except for Matt, of course!) I would confine my measurements to where the spendy seats are located.
Also, measuring pressure waves (db) will not give you the complete story, as the overtones in the sound do as much as the sheer volume in projecting a clear, audible tone at all dynamics and in all ranges. I have done this in the past with several colleagues to locate where the crappy parts of our hall are. (We got some very surprising results, too.) In the end, we all decided that the mouthpiece had about the same amount of effect as the bell (the "horn") in our hall with its problems and that these findings did not hold in *any* other space.
While you could end up chasing your tail, it is fascinating stuff. I encourage you to do this and to share what you decide the numbers tell you. It might be good to have someone sit in the audience at one of these concerts, hold the db meter and take some notes for you. The difference between an empty hall and a hall filled with bags of meat is very telling.
The room and placement of the tuba in the room definitely matters. As does the tuba itself.
For example, a gymnasium will be a lot different than a theater full of heavy curtains and "stuff". Put an upright bell or a recording bell in either situation, and it's going to be different.
Just remember, decibels are on a logarithmic scale, so if you want double the tuba volume, you're gonna need 10x the tuba players. That's just about how useful this information will be IRL.
These users thanked the author bort2.0 for the post:
Doubling the sound intensity adds 3db, as a rule of thumb.
The issue with decibels as a unit is that it requires a reference. As mentioned above, speakers are often measured at one meter. But you also need to know if this is narrowband, spectrum level, etc.
A proper marking would be something like 100db reference 20 micropascals at one meter in a 1Hz band at 100Hz.
The room is an acoustic waveguide, and yes it matters. Reflectivity of the surfaces will be frequency dependent as a function of angle. Attenuation in the room is frequency dependent, and increases as frequency increases, so higher pitches die off a bit faster than lower ones.
Wall construction will matter as well both on the surface and underneath.
Are there people in the seats? They matter also. One, they reflect and absorb sound differently than the chairs. Two, they are a heat source and will cause the sound to bend (refract) differently in large spaces.
Anyhow, all of this stuff would have to be taken in to account to figure out how the sound will propagate.
However, for the purposes you’re seeking, if you consistently measure at the same point, that’s usually good enough. Getting away from the near field effects is a good idea. For ease of thought, 50’ should be sufficient.
Line up one schools sousa section in one bleacher stand in a small gym.
Line up the other in the opposing stand.
Have fun!!
Thought Criminal
Mack Brass Artiste
TU422L with TU25
1964 Conn 36k with CB Arnold Jacobs
Accent (By B&S) 952R with Bach12
The Fourth Estate is the Fifth Column
I guess I'm most interested (not in the numbers in some read-out, but...) in how wide-RANGING I can make the numbers (in various ranges, from usable-quietest to usable-loudest).
SIDEBAR: Has THIS ever annoyed anyone else?
> You are asked to play a solo piece (or some sort of audition/sample of your playing) for some group of people in their room, and the room (no...I'm not referring to the amount of time the reverberation lasts, but...) is WAY to resonant...?? (ie. "Pianissimo" comes out "Fortissimo")
bloke wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 1:22 pm
I guess I'm most interested (not in the numbers in some read-out, but...) in how wide-RANGING I can make the numbers (in various ranges, from usable-quietest to usable-loudest).
SIDEBAR: Has THIS ever annoyed anyone else?
> You are asked to play a solo piece (or some sort of audition/sample of your playing) for some group of people in their room, and the room (no...I'm not referring to the amount of time the reverberation lasts, but...) is WAY to resonant...?? (ie. "Pianissimo" comes out "Fortissimo")
So yeah, this is almost solely dependent on the room.
Sometimes you can aim the bell differently to help a bit. If one is on a “mixed use” stage, bell direction means a lot.
' could have been that the 190 bell (stuck into the hyper-expanded 2XJ bottom bow) sported a huge small-end...(??) but that muffler shop had to expand the $h!t out of that bottom bow...and it was not elegant. It was rather..."sudden".
matt g wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 12:44 pm
Doubling the sound intensity adds 3db, as a rule of thumb.
The issue with decibels as a unit is that it requires a reference. As mentioned above, speakers are often measured at one meter. But you also need to know if this is narrowband, spectrum level, etc.
A proper marking would be something like 100db reference 20 micropascals at one meter in a 1Hz band at 100Hz.
The room is an acoustic waveguide, and yes it matters. Reflectivity of the surfaces will be frequency dependent as a function of angle. Attenuation in the room is frequency dependent, and increases as frequency increases, so higher pitches die off a bit faster than lower ones.
Wall construction will matter as well both on the surface and underneath.
Are there people in the seats? They matter also. One, they reflect and absorb sound differently than the chairs. Two, they are a heat source and will cause the sound to bend (refract) differently in large spaces.
Anyhow, all of this stuff would have to be taken in to account to figure out how the sound will propagate.
However, for the purposes you’re seeking, if you consistently measure at the same point, that’s usually good enough. Getting away from the near field effects is a good idea. For ease of thought, 50’ should be sufficient.
3 dB is for non-correlated sound sources. If 2 tubas are playing the same note they would be 6 dB louder. But here again correlated means same frequency and phase and for the higher harmonics the correlation will be lost since they're length is in the neighborhood of the distance between the two tuba players. So more then 3 dB louder but less then 6 dB.
I don't get "the room is an acoustic waveguide" since a waveguide does what it says, it guides the wave. A room reflects in different direction like you said so I don't see the waveguide connection.
For seats, when to design for good acoustics the seats should absorb the sound as good as possible similar to a human body. Otherwise measurements between an empty hall are to far off to use for a fully loaded hall.
Yeah, in my work we never assume it’s in phase, everything is a stationary source.
I’m calling the large room a waveguide since most (good) auditoriums are trying to control the propagation.
Agreed on the seats, however, I’ve been in plenty of auditoriums where the seats would not mimic a person. Boston’s Symphony Hall comes to mind.
Just as suggested here, Mr. Killmer always sits in the mezzanine to listen to his oboe students perform with the orchestras…
(Eastman is theater style.)
My Apple Watch informed me a few weeks back during a quintet rehearsal that sound levels had exceeded 90dB. There wasn't a way to tell it, "big deal, leave me alone."
The people who should most be afraid of sound levels in music are probably conductors, since they're in front of everything (but far from the percussion, at least). Some of the volume levels are enough to addle one's brains. Hmmm . . .
the elephant wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:55 am
Also, measuring pressure waves (db) will not give you the complete story, as the overtones in the sound do as much as the sheer volume in projecting a clear, audible tone at all dynamics and in all ranges. I have done this in the past with several colleagues to locate where the crappy parts of our hall are. (We got some very surprising results, too.) In the end, we all decided that the mouthpiece had about the same amount of effect as the bell (the "horn") in our hall with its problems and that these findings did not hold in *any* other space.
This. I've likewise been surprised when listening to recordings of gigs where I thought I didn't sound all that great up on stage, but what got out to the audience sounded fabulous--and vice versa. This is especially true on clarinet, which is an overtone machine.
Last edited by WC8KCY on Tue May 11, 2021 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
, but here goes:
