I agree, everyone should be aware of what too loud is and when and how that is reached in this hobby. A thrill a minute at 95 dB nominal should be about a minute!
I do a TON of listening to products with various speaker types (yes, I try to use what you will, electrostatic, full range and hybrid) and it is many hours at a time. 83 dB nominal is the ideal limit for 8 hours.
Best,
Galen
Usually around 70db, 80 tops.
Can you please repeat the question, I misheard it very badly 
I think OSHA noise thresholds are skewed to heavy manufacturing influence and is damaging to hearing and itâs in the share holders best interest to allow for a louder environment.
|8 hours|85 dBA|90 dBA| would destroy me.
Listen (pun intended) to your body. You know when itâs too loud and if you donât, well itâs too late.
I also think distortion needs to be factored in. If the sound is very low distortion most can tolerate more dB and vice versa.
Edit: This wasnât directed at Galen, rather a general comment in the discussion.
The initial question was how loud do you normally listen to your music at home?
Again we need proof past saying, âI thinkâ. It seems we want a conspiracy by the government or corporation. Can we just have a peer reviewed most correct answer and work from that? It is so easy to say, âI thinkâ and go no further. We all do it, and it is damaging to the scientific process. We need to move with the data that is repeatable and verified. Discovery does involve âmaybeâ and âI thinkâ but it isnât left on the table as abstract ideas, it has to be put to the test and substantiated, or discarded BEFORE we use it as proof to the public.
Does COVID-19 ring a bell? All sorts of unsubstantiated garbage blocking the most efficient path to normalcy. We need ONE single peer reviewed source to keep, or move, an answer in time. This is the best way to uncover experimental error and get closer and closer to repeatable discovery.
I stand by the data. 80-83 dB nominal with 87-90 dB random peaks is fine. Been doing it for 40 years.
Best,
Galen Gareis
I didnât intend to argue. I donât subscribe to the thought that there are wide spread conspiracies of any sort. We seem to collectively and repeatedly prove our inability to communicate on so many levels. How on Earth could we all row in the same direction. Just a thought.
I was only doing my best to share my anecdotal experience and join in the conversation. I think down many wild ideas and thoughts without a spec of data but Iâm not doing it for a sanctioning board. Itâs too bad that we need OSHA. What a world it would be if every employer, factory manager, owner would do the right thing because itâs the right thing.
Each of us hears differently. The physical attributes of ear parts and efficiency of the ear-brain communication, processing et al. I think. 
Just because peer-reviewed data says itâs ok to sustain â80-83 dB nominal with 87-90 dB random peaks is fineâ doesnât mean that it is for everyone. I imagine something like a bell curve, no?
Iâve found, for me, data is great to have but it too should be taken with a grain of salt as it may simply not apply to me, the individual. Developing my listening skills through practice has helped me learn to listen to my body.
SARS-CoV-2 was politicized and this is unfortunate for all. Though I wasnât surprised.
How do they measure damage to the hearing system? How about damage beyond 20-20kHz? It seems that many frequencies of radio could affect or change our perception of sound.
Best,
Brett Barden
P.S. I completely and fully enjoy what BAV interconnects and Iconoclast speaker cables bring to my enjoyment of music though Iâve still not read your published papers. Mad props for writing them! Respect.
No argument at all Brett. OSHA is a science driven organization to insure proven safety and standards to the highest level with minimal unnecessary impact on processes. The most right answer is also the most economical.
The statistics wraps in the three-sigma bell curve and why OSHA is a benefit to everyone. The final data needs to include the 98.8% curve. Few things that are as complicated as science are going to be efficient with multiple points of âviewâ that never get consolidated to the most repeatable and peer reviewed process. Nothing.
Any data, mine included, canât be excluded from the process. People hate being pointed out as wrong, but thatâs the way we get better. Wscience isnât about people, though, just peer reviewing the current âanswerâ. There are indeed many, many peer reviewed processes used to make and test cable. I have to present my designs for proper accuracy in measurement and design. This is all very real. You deserve the real deal to evaluate. And as you said, it IS an evaluation same as SPL. Not everyone needs 83 dB nominal SPL any more than the best MEASURING cable.
You canât get to a limit of capability (our ears or a cable) until you know the LIMITS are accurate. A limit is just that, a point at which a test, a procedure or a spec is accurate to the benchmark; how loud or how low of R, L and C. In the case of SPL, it is simply an upper limit for hearing safety it has no ability to prevent you from going above or below that limit. It simply allows a reference for safety.
As a designer, and one trying to be accurate in those designs, I never have the liberty to suggest a spec, I have to prove and know it is better and right. ICONOCLAST exists the same way OSHA does, by working hard at accuracy and repeatability of test and result. Some stuff we buy and interface with are better under these kinds of programs as hard as they reject âfeelingsâ. Science is never felt. It is tested, tested and tested again over and over and over to find out when it breaks to make it better and better and better. Yep, this means we all are likely to be wrong eventually. This is just science. It isnât an argument. Good engineers that are wrong still love the right answer even if the wrong one was theirs.
Sorry to come across as argumentataive. Iâm kind of immune from that. I look for right as we can be and look for proof of concept that is repeatable when right is challenged. Why would I reject a better answer than mine or feel hurt? Iâm one step better than I was before! This isnât attacking anyone, it is technically attacking the existing answer and that isnât a person. Mother nature can be figured out, but it exists outside of us.
The COVID VAX process worked so fast because the right stuff was always held to the highest standards and peer reviewed. Science works. It tosses feelings for the right stuff, always. The development vector gets better and better and doesnât regress with unproven or unrepeated information. Science is efficient at retaining the current best case.
Sorry to not make scienceâs rejection of feelings more obvious. The worst lie is the one I tell myself. I wonât lie to myself and I wonât ever lie to you. Science makes me do it!
Best,
Galen Gareis
Galen
So are the sound quality differences that lead users to their preferences of conductor materials, TPC, OFE, etc.in your cables science or feelings?
âInstruments only register what they were designed to registerâ Mr Spock.
I suggest both. I like to access science first, then my feelings. I check the papers and data, supplement with othersâ interpretations and opinions and choose based on my feelings.
I will admit to not always following my own plans. 
People like you and Galen are good sources.
Agreed. I tried all Iconoclast offerings and chose with strong preference OCC ICâs and OFE spkr cable even though I do remember Galen saying the differences were not (at least at the time) measurable beyond oneâs ears.
Ron,
We hear the EM field traveling down the wire that is a superposition of all the sine waves at a point in time. If they donât change the amplitude and phase at that exact point relative to a different wire, the sound doesnât change. PHASE is taken into account with the sine waves positions when they are added. EM field changes are consistently described with the current data. Wire has different resistivity which effects Vp differential, a time based property, and grain structure. Trace impurities can be tossed in to make it seem more accurate. With no real cause effect it is more tertiary stuff sitting off to the side than proven. We have that.
ICONOCLAST offers the data on each wire type and the cost to make it is rolled into the choices. No one offers TPC except ICONOCLAST. Why? Do we have some assumption we know whatâs right with no data to back it up? I say offer all three until we know which is most ârightâ. Thatâs hard to say, Vp differential is better with higher DC wire (factor is in the denominator of the equation). This says lower resistivity isnât better, opposite the initial analysis. Higher resistivity still doesnât say it is worse than the GRAINS in the wire. Both have to be weighed as a distortion. Which is worse? BOTH are a factor. Neither can be perfect just a weighted improvement.
I have no issue with wire at all. I donât even have a consistent favorite, I use SPTPC speaker wire, for instance. Why? To my ear I like it. Is it technically exotic wire? No, it is high grade telecommunication grade wire.
We canât âsellâ assumptions. We have to pass on costs but there is no claim on wire other than what it is per the CXXXXXX definitions for TPC, OFHC, OFE and UP OCC. We can measure differences in electrical and physicals (Tensile and Elongation).
We currently canât define HOW an EM wave is âbetterâ based on wire science at this point so we canât push high cost wire except what works best for you. Try it. Why canât TPC be more common as an excellent sounding choice across the industry? I see no proof that excludes it so we didnât.
Best,
Galen
I had to find my db meter. It was buried in one of my tube bins. My favourite SACD playlist is registering 55db-60db. So on the lower end. I donât really enjoy loud music.
Utilizing my American Recorders meterâŚI find listening at
about 65 db my music can go as quiet as 40db and range as
high as 79-80 dbsâŚ
At these sound levels my 15 x 25â room is filled nicely, rendering
a very enjoyable soundstage qualityâŚ
Just a side remark to our toe-in discussion.
Looking I to the actual copper release I remembered that from pictures I hardly know any studio monitoring setup where speakers are not toeâd-in noticeably. Whatever this says.
Your SPL nominal will impact speaker toe-in and speaker distance separation. As SPL drops a strong center image can be diminished if your speakers are set wide apart. Set them up for your 80% volume setting. A speaker wonât do center image and width both as again, physics wonât allow it. The room reflections are far weaker as SPL drops as volume energy is a squared law property.
For a given speaker spacing, start with them PARALLEL to you (tape measure straight across the fronts) and get a solid image with ADDED toe-in. My CLX image parallel so I STOP right there. Do the process again with the speakers pointing right at you and REMOVE toe-in until you get a strong center image. Split the difference and youâre done for that SPL and distance.
That Toe-in process maximizes the speakerâs capability for lateral dispersion for a given placement. If you are after something else and the lateral imaging attribute isnât importantâŚtoe-in all you want but know the sound stage is restricted as a result. You need to be sure youâre getting that, âsomething elseâ with aggressive toe-in. A studio may need to hear a specific tonal artifact that doesnât need sounds stage lateral imaging.
Most, not all, newer home design speakers have good lateral dispersion so you can have imaging and sound stage both. Those that donât are called head-in-a-vise speakers and yes, they exist. In a home I would never suggest to toss away the hard earned lateral performance of a speaker that has it, never.
Toe-in says a LOT, actually, and the speakers physics back-up what works best for center and lateral imaging at a given SPL. Iâve had three vastly different speakers and each acts differently to toe-in, but the exact same process is used to reach the proper maximum for center and lateral imaging.
SPL, within reason (70-85 dB or so), doesnât impact the result too much. If youâre speakers are too far apart, youâll need higher nominal SPL so you quiet listeners below 70 dB may need a smaller speaker to speaker spacing to solidify the center image. Always use your preferred SPL. Experiment some with the center to center speaker spacing. Toe-in is often used to âfixâ the WRONG problem of too far a speaker spacing thus sacrificing a better overall sound with BOTH âimagingâ center and lateral properties optimized.
If a strong center image evades you, move the speakers in some. Repeat zero toe-in and maximized toe-in start points. Is it better at your optimum SPL?
Best,
Galen
AgreeâŚwell statedâŚ
Mine sure fool me into believing they defy physics!
Most rooms are too narrow to tax a modern speakerâs spacing, but a larger room can diminish center image stability and limit spacing. Your results will indeed vary based on your speakerâs lateral dispersion and seated distance from the speakerâs plane. Simply put, we can hear two speakers really far apart but not so much a proper center imnage.
Best,
Galen
Thatâs the same dB meter that I have on my phone and have been using for years. 