Talk:Dynamic range

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Professional sound production WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the technology, equipment, companies and professions related to professional sound production. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Who put in the editorialisation on language? e.g.:

For example, when referring to the range of sound intensity that can be reproduced by an audio system, dynamic range says no more than range used by itself. What actually "ranges" from inaudible to loud is sound intensity, not a quality called dynamic. Thus sound intensity range would be a more useful and accurate term in this case.

The word "dynamic" indicates the quantity can be expected to vary widely.

Unless you can show that this is in fact a matter of notable concern, with references, the section goes - David Gerard 10:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who put it in, you ask? Doesn't the article history show that? Why would you ask that? That language seems designed to demean the contributor.

Second, why does my contribution warrant being called a rant, or editorialization? Comes rather close to a personal attack. If you disagree with the inclusion of a view or material, can you not refer to it in neutral, inoffensive terms?

Third, you say that "'dynamic' indicates the quantity can be expected to vary widely." That's simply not the case. Not all ranges vary "widely," as you suggest. Some indeed speak of a particular device as having a "limited dynamic range," turning a simple redundancy into an oxymoron as well, as you would use dynamic. (If you doubt this, Google "limited dynamic range" for 6700 web hits.)

Saying "dynamic range" to denote that something can vary (widely or not) is like saying "free" in "free gift" indicates that something is free. Sure, but the word "gift" already indicates that something is free. In fact, the word "range" already and sufficiently indicates that something can vary. "Dynamic" is superfluous. Can you see it now?

Why would the incontrovertable fact that dynamic range is a widely-used idiomatic, redundant term not be worth noting? Your disposal of the factual distinctions between the terms range, dynamics, and dynamic range was rather heavy-handed, in my view. I would appreciate having language issues restored to the Dynamic range article. Wikipedia is a good place for such knowledge. If you disagree, please offer a constructive alternative--something besides an axe. --NathanHawking 21:38, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

It's editorialisation as per Wikipedia:No original research. That is, an article in Wikipedia is to be a secondary, or tertiary, source of information on a subject.

If your debate over the terminology dynamic range is to go in, provide references that show that this is sufficiently a matter of concern amongst experts in the matter that someone looking for an article to explain what "dynamic range" is really needs to know it. Particularly right up front in the lead section - are your (or the hypothetical reference's) concerns of such importance to the matter that they need to be the first thing the reader sees? I really think not. But show me references to the great debate over the terminology dynamic range and prove me wrong on this - David Gerard 21:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see we are no longer discussing the factuality but now its originality. Fair enough.

I thought I was stating the obvious. But clearly the fact that you and others have difficulty seeing, at first glance, the pleonastic nature of the term accounts for its widespread use. So, am I the first to recognize this? Perhaps, though doubtful.

I don't think all things Wikipedic need to be the subject of a "great debate," but can agree that the language issue does not merit first mention. Does it, however, as a simple fact, deserve to be ignored?

In the redundancy article, for example, I inserted a section on language redundancies, and a short list of commonly used expressions. Am I obligated to find an already-published authority to justify my inclusion of terms like "past history," or is the fact that it's an obvious common redundancy sufficient?

As you have more experience on this project, your guidance is appreciated. I suggest you temper your use of offensive words like "rant," however, and stick to facts. As a newcomer, it will take me some time to gain perspective, and becoming adversarial and insulting will not assist that.

Do you have any suggestions on how we might appropriately include the simple fact that dynamic range is pleonastic and imprecise? --NathanHawking 23:05, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

I would say you haven't even shown it's a matter of concern for anyone other than yourself. That would surely be a first step before considering it of sufficient importance for the article.

Remember what it says on original research - merely being right isn't enough. - David Gerard 23:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The use of language is of concern to many, and the use of redundancies in particular. See pleonasm. Here is one authority's view. Does a particularly common techno-redundancy have to meet with your approval to merit listing? Or must Professor Brians obligingly place it on his list and in his next edition to qualify? --NathanHawking 00:30, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

As an outsider (I just contributed the little bit about Dynamic Range in music) I can see that the problem here is that NathanHawking things this is an article, whilst to David Gerard it's a simple disambiguation page. I think the question is whether there is enough information about 'Dynamic Range' to warrant an indivual entry. If Nathan's edits (as I suspect) are designed to point out the ambiguity in the term, but would not have merited mentioning if there was not an article with this name, then this info is not relevant here (and there should be only a passing-reference to it in the individual articles, if relevant). If this is not the case then Dynamic Range should contain the information that needs to be put forward, and Dynamic range (disambig) should be created to link to the specific meanings. --HappyDog 01:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I think it's an article ... but having been around the term "dynamic range" for many years myself (in the field of sound), I've never encountered a debate about the usefulness of the term. If the term's validity isn't a matter for debate anywhere else, then it shouldn't be one in Wikipedia either, full stop. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy - David Gerard 12:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am around this term all the time, and have never heard anyone dispute the usefulness of the term. Perhaps there is some confusion about the meaning of the word "dynamic"? I believe it comes from the musical definition of dynamics:

"Of or relating to variation of intensity, as in musical sound."

and not from the "varying" definition:

"Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress: a dynamic market."

Perhaps this is why someone thinks the term is redundant? So, no, it's not a "range of the quantity dynamic", but it is a "range of dynamics". - Omegatron 13:55, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

It's a "range of dynamics?" Does that really say any more than range or dynamics alone? Why not use the expressions "lifetime length" or "altitude height" or "time period"? (That last one shows up rather frequently, in fact.)

Certainly. Just like "fish" ≠ "tuna fish", "lifetime length" ≠ "length. "Dynamic range" and "range" are certainly not the same thing. Range is just a general term, and needs a qualifier to tell what it is a range of. In this case it is a range of dynamics, or loudness, or intensities, or volume. (I believe using it in reference to signal level or whatever stemmed from the original use referring to sound level. That is just an assumption, though, not a researched fact.) - Omegatron

Your formulations are true, but misleading you into drawing the wrong conclusion. More appropriate representations are:

"tuna fish" = (tuna(a fish)fish) and

"lifetime length" = (lifetime(entailing a length)length) and

"dynamic range" = (dynamic(entailing a range)range)

Read your own definition again: Dynamics is "variation in force or intensity"--dynamics carries its own connotation of range, which is why it is often used alone in music. Something cannot be dynamic without having a range--range is INHERENT in dynamics. If, in music, dynamics specifically denotes loudness, as we've agreed, it does not denote SOLELY loudness. A FIXED loudness would not be dynamics, unless the measure is zero dynamics. See BELOW.--NathanHawking 03:33, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

I've had a lifetime of exposure to the term as well. I don't dispute the usefulness of the term as idiom, any more than I dispute the usefulness of "tuna fish" and "future plans." Those terms are "useful," but they are also pleonasms.

I've also had a lifetime of identifying redundancies, blatant and subtle, and have discovered that familiarity with a term often blinds us to its linguistic nature. (Just yesterday I noticed that "tuna fish" got by a Boy's Life editor. They flow trippingly off the tongue with nary a second thought.)

Yes, "dynamic" does indeed denote the potential for or presence of variation. No argument there. But so does range.

But this use of dynamic is the definition that pertains to loudness of a sound, not to variation itself. Perhaps this is what you actually have a problem with? That dynamics should not have two different definitions? - Omegatron

BELOW

That's the flaw in your reasoning: Dynamics does NOT "pertain to loudness of a sound," per se. If I say a sound loudness is 50 dB, I have said absolutely NOTHING about the dynamics. Once again, M-W defines dynamics as: "variation and contrast in force or intensity (as in music)." Get it?

If I say that the range of loudness is from 0 dB to 110 dB, then I have spoken of music dynamics or loudness range. In the context of music, when I speak of dynamics I've already invoked the concept range implicitly. In music, dynamic range is a redundancy. See?

It's probably worth noting that your argument along this line has uncovered one interesting distinction. In using dynamic range in photography and other fields, the word dynamic is probably the useless word. In music, though, since dynamics is the term which relates to sound intensity and connotes range, range is the useless word. Interesting. --NathanHawking 03:33, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Range is "6 a : the space or extent included, covered, or used : SCOPE b : the extent of pitch covered by a melody or lying within the capacity of a voice or instrument." (M-W Online.) Note that even M-W is defining them--range and the musical dynamics to which you refer--as synonymous.

The range of an instrument refers to its frequency range, not intensity range. A perfect example of why dynamic range and range are not the same thing. :-) - Omegatron

In my haste, I misspoke. You're right--and wrong. You're right about dynamics and range referring to different things in music. In the context of music, dynamics refers to loudness range and range refers to frequency range. But you're wrong in trying to have it both ways.

Look what you're doing jamming dynamics and range together in the context of music. Standing alone, you say, range refers to tonal range, but in the phrase dynamic range you are implying that range has the generic, nonspecific meaning. And you're exactly right. Which is what makes you exactly wrong about dynamic range. Dynamics, in music, refers to the range of loudness (not just loudness). Dynamic(s) range means "the range of loudness range." Think about it.--NathanHawking 08:51, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

In other words, what does dynamic range say that range alone, or dynamics alone, does not? In the vast majority of cases, nothing. (See my talk page for a description of a rare instance where dynamic range might be a accurate term, though, if you're interested.)

(I'm adding this later as an afterthought: dynamic range would also be nonredundant if used in contrast with the terms narrow range or limited range. "In contrast," we might say, "this instrument has a dynamic range." Here we use dynamic as an adjective, and not a noun, where dynamic range is really a redundant noun phrase.--NathanHawking 22:43, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

Having said that, I agree with David that this may be an obscure, perhaps even original, observation. So I won't press for a lengthy Wikipedia entry on the view.--NathanHawking 19:54, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

From the dictionary:

range: An amount or extent of variation

dynamics: Variation in force or intensity, especially in musical sound.

Concatenating them together gives a good definition of dynamic range:

dynamic range: An amount or extent of variation in force or intensity, especially in musical sound. - Omegatron 22:49, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Not really. You're really just repeating yourself, hard as it is to see. Don't concatenate--factor!

The definition of a redundancy is when one term is implied or subsumed in the other. Read your own definition again and answer two questions:

1. Can you have dynamics without variation?
2. Can you have a range without variation?

The answer to both is no: variation is the concept common to both; one is implicit in the other; neither enlarges upon the other without redundancy. When used as a noun phrase, range tells you no more about a dynamic, and dynamic tells you no more about a range. Dynamics is not a type of variation range--it IS a variation range.

Many in music are content to use the term dynamics alone, since the loudness and range are both implicit, without the use of range. Similarly, a vocalist, in the context of her highest and lowest notes, might speak of having a range of three octaves, without resorting to tonal dynamic range or somesuch. The literature of music is filled with such useage. That demonstrates that either word alone is sufficient, that combining them conveys no more conceptual content--the very definition of a redundancy.

If it's not clear by now, I suggest reading this again in a month. It's surprising to me how difficult this is for some to grasp--but if I'm correct, then that difficulty might explain why the term has lain unnoticed by other commentators on language... it's a bit more subtle than I'd realized. --NathanHawking 01:24, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

This discussion is getting kind of ridiculous. :-) Are you sure you know what these terms mean? Dynamics means a variation in intensity. Range means a limit to a variation. Dynamic range is the limit of variation of intensity. It defines where the variation in intensity stops. It defines an upper and lower bound for the variation, usually in a precise, numerical way. For music, sound pressure level range is certainly a valid synonym. Range by itself is not. Dynamics by itself is not. (Be careful in your quest to eliminate redundancies that you aren't removing the subtle meaning of the words. Remember 1984? :-) ) - Omegatron 13:41, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

As you suggest, the discussion has become repetitive. Now you are suggesting that without the term range, dynamics would suggest a variation without limits. Sorry, I don't buy that. Merriam-Webster sees fit to define dynamics without the use of range. Why can't you?

I admit to zeal in spotting redundancies, but I'd offer similar advice: be careful that in your zeal to preserve a familiar term you don't ignore the actual meaning of the words. I think, beyond my response(s) to HappyDog, I'll let it go at that.--NathanHawking 22:29, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

As a musician, dynamics, range and dynamic range have three distinct meanings in use (regardless of whether this is technically correct in linguistic/dictionary terms). This is what they mean to musicians the world over:

Dynamics: The markings on the page, e.g. f, mp, pianissimo.
Range: The range of notes an instrument can play. Similar to frequency range, but only frequencies that occur in the standard western 12-tone scale are valid, and it is expressed in terms of notes: e.g. 3 octave range, 18 semi-tone range.
Dynamic range: The difference in the maximum and minimum dynamic in a piece of music, or the range of dynamics an instrument can express (e.g. a harpsichord has a fixed dynamic range, a harp has a small dynamic range and a piano has a large dynamic range.

I hope that helps --HappyDog 15:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you cite a source which claims that dynamics refers only to the markings on a page? I doubt it. Near as I can tell, you made up your own definitions, no offense.

Wikkipedia Dynamics (music) says: In music, the word dynamics refers to the volume of the sound. (NOT just to the markings on a page.)

The first music dictionary I checked says: Dynamics - Varying degrees of loud and soft.

The Virginia Tech dictionary says: The loudness or softness of a composition. It actually draws a distinction between dynamics and the markings. It also uses dynamic contrast but not dynamic range.

Musicnet Dictionary says: dynamics: The degrees of softness or loudness in music indicated by signs or words on the score. (Indicated by, not the marks themselves.)

The Austin Symphony glossary hardly limits it to the symbols: Dynamics: The degrees of loudness or softness in a musical work, and the symbols that represent them.

That's just the first five places I looked. And not one of them used the term dynamic range. Even if you could find some musical reference works which use the term dynamic range to describe loudness range, that would only prove that it's used, not that it is not pleonasitic idiom.--NathanHawking 22:29, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

As I clearly stated these are definitions in use, not dictionary definitions. They are based on the empirical evidence of having studied and performed music for most of my life. I know that most people who have studied music, but not necessarily linguistics, would agree with these definitions, and would recognise the distinction to be made between them. I would note that you are correct in that "dynamics" in this sense is a shorthand for "dynamic markings", but nevertheless it is a shorthand adopted by most musicians, probably without considering what it is shorthand for. It is also worth noting that this is the sense in which it is used in the term "dynamic range", which should be considered "the range of the dynamic markings". Remember that the difference between pp and ff is a relative one, determined by the performer or conductor and their interpretation of the markings, not by the markings themselves. The term "dynamic range" is also required to distinguish it from "pitch range", which for a musician is the usual meaning of "range" on its own --HappyDog 04:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Once again, I meant no offense. But dictionaries and glossaries are ultimately based upon usage, not dictated by "linguists." And for Wikipedia purposes, we must go with what references say about meanings, as Wikipedia is not a primary source. If your definitions reflect general usage but are at odds with musical dictionaries and glossaries, we'd have to go with the published references until they catch up with actual usage.

Beyond that, I think the dynamic range as language subject has been well covered by everything else on this talk page.--NathanHawking 22:03, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Interestingly, my 1942 edition of the Oxford Companion to Music doesn't even mention the term Dynamics :) --HappyDog 22:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Webster's 1913 edition says of dynamics: "3. (Mus.) That department of musical science which relates to, or treats of, the power of tones." When dynamics were first annotated in music is well-known. But I can find only speculation as when the term dynamics (or some non-English equivalent) was first used to describe that quality and notation.

Omegatron's speculation that dynamic range (as a deliberately conjoined term and not an accidental juxtaposition) was first used in music is of interest, but I'm beginning to wonder if it might not have actually originated with audio/electronics and since cross-fertilized music, to the degree musicians actually use it. But I've seen no evidence to support either hypothesis. --NathanHawking 23:57, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

And I believe the other applications of the term descended from the musical term, first in audio reproduction equipment, then other electronic equipment, etc. Does anyone have an idea of how we can find this out for certain? - Omegatron 15:34, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

The first ten musical references I checked did not use the term dynamic range, only dynamics and dynamic contrast. I eventually stopped looking from boredom. Can you actually find a musical reference which uses dynamic range? Your thesis that the term descended from musical use, which I've heard elsewhere, would seem dependent upon it actually being used by the musical community.

Dynamic range is in wide use, whatever its origin. 650,000 Google web hits. I should emphasize that I actually have no more objection to the expression than I do any other idiomatic term. I only wish to note that it IS idiomatic and pleonastic--apparently in a way that's hard to understand.--NathanHawking 22:29, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

1 Pleonasms
2 Promo link?
3 Factor of 2?
4 Decibel maths and reference
- 4.1 Some math

[edit] 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)

HappyDog: e.g. audio engineers may also use range to refer to distance, e.g. "What's the range of those speakers?"

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 :))))))))

HappyDog: In music, it should be noted that the term 'dynamics' simply means relative volume.

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): <q>We are interested in how the state changes in time: the dynamics of the system</q>.

Finally, these guys [1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)