Dear Acoustat6: I just made the measurements of SPL using one of my test records: the CBS STR130.
From my seat position ( 2.90m. ), from left and right channel measures each one by separate and measure with both working, using the 1,000 Hz tone at 0db level I measure: 86db individual and with both running 94db.
Measuring at the same position but with a normal LP ( with music not test tone. ) I obtain 84db with peaks at 92-93db. Hey Bob p we are almost similar on the subject! and like you works for me too.
Now, it is possible that if I take those same measurements say tonight at two O'clock in the morning maybe I have to lower the volume by 2-3db because the ground floor noise is different ( at least where I live ): more silent.
I know that your approach about that 1,000hz is because is the one used as standard in the recording industry ( along the 400hz. ) as a fact is the reference on the RIAA where at 1khz the db level is 0.
Unfortunatelly the whole audio recording/reproduction is not perfect so we can't have a precise number ( like the 83db ) for all, we can/could be around that number that seems to me has sense or at least more that your flat frequency ( alone ) goal. Btw and looking more in deep to your phono stage I can say that the manufacturer specification for the inverse RIAA eq deviation: +.- 1db from 25 to 25khz is really on a not desired side because that +,- 1db frequency deviation ( every time that ocur through the RIAA wide frequency response ) makes a degradation/coloration to the recording/cartridge signal because does not affect a single frequency but almost three octaves due that the RIAA is a curve not linear, the other subject here is the fact that the manufacturer specs start at 25hz not 20hz that is the RIAA standard and this means that below 25hz the deviation is bigger than 1db and this fact means that what you are hearing from 60hz an down is really worst.
I know that you like what you have but what really are you hearing?, certainly not what is on the recording.
Facts like this one goes against your goal, the good news is that you always can/could improve about. |
Dear friends: One parrameter that is very important for we can set-up the SPL in our systems ( with out ears fatigue )is how much distortion produce the system, higher distortions means lower SPL so less distortions higher SPL.
Obviously that there is a limit where our " ears " are comfortable and this is singular for each one of us, but that 83db is a good point to start.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Exactly Raul. Most audiophiles don't realize how much intermodulation distortion they're introducing in a 2-channel system due to poor speaker placement. When I finally the had my speakers properly set using the Sumiko Master Set method, the volume control went up 20 to 33% over previous levels. Amazingly you could now have a conversation without raising your voice with 90+dB peaks and average level at around 87dB.
Of course any distortion hurts. After my speaker set I improved my cabling, minimizing one more source of low level distortion. Given the opportunity, I now listen for several hours at a time with NO fatigue.
Dave |
Hi Raul, Thanks for your reply. I never said mine was perfect, and don't dis' (disrespect) the Hagerman! :) You are correct though, we always/should be looking for something better, but I am a very content audiophile now. With a statement like that, they could take away my official Audiophile membership card!
You said,"Of course that your goal is a desired one but alone could means nothing, that goal have to come along with very low distortions ( any kind ), noise, colorations, right tonal/natural balance, high resolution, etc, etc."
You could have it just the other way around and have low distortion and no volume or have good mid range tone but no bass etc. etc..
You are correct, that it is all important, low distortion, noise and with good tone and resolution etc.. No matter where you loose contact with the info it is gone forever till you fix that problem, and not with a bandaid down the line. I never said that was the only goal, but I believe it is the place to start. But how do we get there? By determining a correct volume setting for LP playback that allows a well recorded LP to shine and let the others fail.
Again, just so we dont have a missunderstanding here, I never change the volume control setting for any LP! It is set at position 18 on my stepped attenuators and that is where it stays except when I am changing LPs IE: lifting and lowering the tonearm, the volume needs to be turned down to prevent any potentially nasty sounds. This means that my system is able to play back the "quietest" LPs and the "loudest" ones without changing volume levels for any LP or any cut on an LP.
This as you can well understand, allows every LP to sound as it is recorded, mastered and pressed. If an LP is loud it plays "loudly" if it is recorded/mastered low it plays "quietly". Do you agree?
If it has noisy vinyl it sounds noisy but if the next LP has quiet vinyl it is quiet. If the album has pops and clicks they are reproduced at the same level for every LP. Do you agree?
Now, I just don't agree with the idea that every LP has a sweet spot volume level that you need to find with your volume control. IE; turn it up for one LP and turn the volume control down for the next one down. I find this is wrong for many reasons. I also find that this is the biggest detriment/problem for setting up a system. And that you will have great difficulty setting up a system if you continue to do this.
Raul, how do you determine the correct volume level for each LP?
Bob
|
Hello Raul, you said "Unfortunatelly the whole audio recording/reproduction is not perfect so we can't have a precise number ( like the 83db ) for all, we can/could be around that number that seems to me has sense or at least more that your flat frequency ( alone ) goal.'
I never said that flat response was my only goal. I have said it is a goal and that yes it is difficult and perhaps not even desired (100%). My reason to say this is that it is more important to achiev a desired freq response rather than sheer volume! And that at a reference playback level the ability to achieve this is the goal, without blowing up your system or your ears. All the while getting a better freq response and dynamics within a certain volume level that is pleasing to your ears and realistic for LP playback.
Raul said,
"Btw and looking more in deep to your phono stage I can say that the manufacturer specification for the inverse RIAA eq deviation: +.- 1db from 25 to 25khz is really on a not desired side because that +,- 1db frequency deviation ( every time that ocur through the RIAA wide frequency response ) makes a degradation/coloration to the recording/cartridge signal because does not affect a single frequency but almost three octaves due that the RIAA is a curve not linear, the other subject here is the fact that the manufacturer specs start at 25hz not 20hz that is the RIAA standard and this means that below 25hz the deviation is bigger than 1db and this fact means that what you are hearing from 60hz an down is really worst.
I know that you like what you have but what really are you hearing?, certainly not what is on the recording.
Facts like this one goes against your goal, the good news is that you always can/could improve about."
I say, there you go, dissing my Hagerman Trumpet again. :)This discussion is not about my equipment. or my system at all. It is about an idea. Perhaps dare I say a new way to hear things just like Galileo or Darwin..., OH CRAP did I say that again!
Yes, I realise my system sucks compared to most here, but it does not matter what my system consists of, some of us are here to get the most out of their system and this is the way I see to achieve that goal.
Bob |
Hi Raul, you said "Dear friends: One parrameter that is very important for we can set-up the SPL in our systems ( with out ears fatigue )is how much distortion produce the system, higher distortions means lower SPL so less distortions higher SPL.
Obviously that there is a limit where our " ears " are comfortable and this is singular for each one of us, but that 83db is a good point to start."
I say absolutly! But say your system is only capable of low distortion up to a certain volume level, why exceed that? And if it is capable of playing up to 125db do we want to listen there anyway?
Raul, You said you have a 1000hz reference signal at a specified level, when you do your in room freq response graph are all other freq at this same level?
Bob |
Dear Bob: I agree with your two: " do you agree? ", but that happen at almost any SPL!!!
I posted about the deviations on your phono stage to have a reference that that flat frequency goal ( almost desired one ) is a very complex one, I'm in favor of that goal and accuracy to the recording with the whole factors that involve that accuracy to the recording for obtain enjoy and pleasure when we hear/heard our audio systems or any audio system.
As you can read in what I posted I like you heard/hear my audio system at almost one SPL and I change when " that " ( any ) LP was recorded at out of standard recording levels. If you read again you can " see " that my audio system ( with out any previous measure SPL set-up ) SPL set-up almost coincide with your ( start point ) 83 db at 1khz: mine 84 db ( I made this measure to fast,, so maybe is nearer your number. Btw, some years ago I made the measure of my room-system and was very evenly through the audio frequency, today I heard better than on those days, maybe is better. )
I already posted that that 83 db SPL at " your seat " is a very good point to start but what factors will define that you will be satisfied with that SPL?, extremely complex too many factors to take it as a rule, for example: two similar room-audio systems with the same model speakers but with a " little " different speaker specification: sensitivity, one 86 db at one meter and the other 90 db on that same efficiency factor.
Do you think that you can/could be satisfied obtaining ( the same for both ) that 83 db at your seat position?, well maybe yes and maybe not depending on your amplifier ( between other things ) and if that amplifier mantain his distortions level at any measure current demanding. In our example we are " asking " more than double watts at the amplifier with the 86 db efficiency speaker and I'm almost sure that the distortion of that amplifier will be higher in this case and over the time from listening to this speaker ( against the other ) the ear/brain fatigue will be higher and maybe you have to lower that SPL. This is only an example with only one factor in " game " ( well not one but two. ), imagine hundred of factors that influence what we are hearing in our audio system and you can see that that subject is complex!!!! for say the least.
Anyway, I repeat, I agree with you about that 83 db ( at seat position ) start point is: welcome!!!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Bob, to determine the 'correct' volume for each LP, as stated before, I have calibrated the playback system meters to indicate a peak level at around 90 db (a simple spl meter installed at the listening location serves as the basis)and then run through the LP and vary the volume setting and note which it is for that peak and record that setting on the jacket.
Of course, depending on the dynamics of the LP, the average readings obtained for each record change.
Bob P. |
Analogue Production's 180 gram, 45 rpm version of Hugh Mesekela's "Hope" has close to 40dB of dynamic range. If you set it for its peak at 90dB, lots of it is going to be playing at a very low level (below 60dB).
I find that short bursts up above 90 and even 100dB are not harsh or harmful in my system. I do go for an average in the mid 80dB range. With "Hope" I'll lower that about 6dB, which still results in some HUGE sounds at the peaks, but for only short bursts.
Dave |
BECAUSE ROCK MUSIC IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOUDER THAN string quarters |
Hi Raul, You say that you agree with the two statements that if you do not change the volume control level that 1) the noise level never changes and 2) that the LPs overall volume level does not change, both of these are very obvious. Therefore we would then have an unchanging "potential" noise level (some LPs are noiser than others, but your systems noise level would stay constant) and also we could immediatly tell which LP is "louder". Now all we would have to do is find a reasonable volume level.
No offence take on the Hagerman comments, my intention not to bring equipment into the mix was to keep the discussion on topic and not to bring other variables into it.
Raul said, "for example: two similar room-audio systems with the same model speakers but with a " little " different speaker specification: sensitivity, one 86 db at one meter and the other 90 db on that same efficiency factor.
Do you think that you can/could be satisfied obtaining ( the same for both ) that 83 db at your seat position?, well maybe yes and maybe not depending on your amplifier ( between other things ) and if that amplifier mantain his distortions level at any measure current demanding. In our example we are " asking " more than double watts at the amplifier with the 86 db efficiency speaker and I'm almost sure that the distortion of that amplifier will be higher in this case and over the time from listening to this speaker ( against the other ) the ear/brain fatigue will be higher and maybe you have to lower that SPL."
I say EXACTLY! If your system is incapable of producing this level, why would you turn your system up above that point for any LP! You need to approach the reference level not attack it.
This is how one would set up their system. Play back every LP at the same gain setting. Are there LPs that are too loud at that level? Back it off or figure out why this is so. Are some LPs too low at that Level? How can that be? Is you system unable to handle the dynamics of various LPs? Do you have to turn your system up and down in an attempt to get dynamics or a "correct" level for a type of music? Is your system compressing even simple things like the various recording levels of different LPs?
And let's not forget that alot of LPs are not recorded/mastered/pressed correctly, these are the LPs we are trying to ferret out. LPs that are not "correct" are not made any better by changing volume levels. Especially overly compressed LPs such as B. Springsteen etc.. turning up a vintage rock LP, only serves to bring up its noise level.
Raul said, "imagine hundred of factors that influence what we are hearing in our audio system and you can see that that subject is complex!!!! for say the least."
I say you are correct and that those are the factors that we need to address in our system/room interaction to obtain fine playback. Not changing gain/bass levels to mask the problems.
Again, don't get too hung up on "the number" it is just one part of the equation. There is much more to it than that.
Bob |
Bob, I just re-read the thread, looked at your system, looked at you Ducatis (nice indeed) and can't figure this thread out. I'm beginning to think that you're pulling our legs. I think you're exercising your ability to take a silly position and then debate it.
Come clean, is this a prank or do you really believe this stuff?
Dave |
Hi Dave, I think you see what I am saying. If your system was unable to handle the dynamic peaks of that LP either one or two things are potenially wrong. Either the LP is not recorded correctly or your system is unable to handle the dynamics of LPs!
If it is the first one, well then who cares about the LP, it is crap. Definatly not a reference LP and then therefore you may listen to it at a reduced level, discard it or listen to it for what it is.
If it is your system, and it is unable to handle the dynamic peaks, turn it down, or tune your system to handle the freq extremes and dynamic peaks. And therefore play all LPs at this level, till you tune your system to be able to handle the upward and downward dynamics of this and all LPs. And then, yes, some LPs will play quieter and others louder, but is this not what we want?
We all complain that LPs are not dynamic enough, so how could one now say it is too dynamic?
Bob |
Hi Stringreen, Hey, Listen, I can hear you, no shouting!
Are you saying every LP is recorded and sounds exactly the same?
Bob |
Hi Dave, Does it look like I fool around? No, I don't have time for that or the desire to mess with people. I am dead serious.
Bob |
Bob, the moderators didn't seem to like what I said to you, so you'll have to imagine.
Dave |
Hi Dave, why would you say something nasty to me? Have I offended you?
Bob |
I didn't say anything nasty to you.
Dave |
Hi Acoutat6... I'm not shouting, just saying that Rock music never works softly, nor do string quartets work loudly. Are you saying never to touch the volume control, or do you somehow assess the loudness level of the piece. When I go to a concert, it will sound louder when I sit in the 2nd row than in the balcony. When I play my stereo, I modulate the sound as to its meaning. Pink Floyd works best pumping hard... Heifitz does his thing with counter clockwise rotation of the volume control. I don't know any other way to enjoy the music. |
Hi Dave, sorry, my mistake assuming they didn't like something you were saying to me.
Bob |
|
Hi Stringreen, Yes, you are correct that rock sounds better loud than string quartets. But that still does not mean that if the recording is poorly done that turning up or down the volume control will assure proper playback.
I am definatly saying I never touch the volume control, except when raising/lowering the tonearm, for obvious reasons.
I am not sure if where you sit in a concert hall has anything to do with a LP recording. Really, you cannot change your seating position in your listening room to simulate a concert hall seating change. It does not work like that. You hear what is on the recording good or bad and changing seating position or volume level never changes that.
Now the hard part. You said "When I play my stereo, I modulate the sound as to its meaning. Pink Floyd works best pumping hard... Heifitz does his thing with counter clockwise rotation of the volume control. I don't know any other way to enjoy the music."
So, when Pink Floyd is playing the loud parts, should they not be turned up even further? When Heifitz goes for a crescendo, do you turn it up? Then turn it back down? Does one turn up or down Meddle?
I didn't know any other way to enjoy music either, before this. But then I realised I was unable to tune my system, turn the volume up and now the bass is too much, turn it down and now you have to turn up the bass. Toe in changes at different volume levels. Noise levels change with different volume levels. You cannot tell which LP is the most dynamic changing volume levels. and on and on.
Perhaps it is also a bit of a Zen thing. Presenting the LP for what its is and not something you wished it was. To listen to well recorded high volume LPs and to find LPs that were properly recorded for the music it represents at lower levels.
A Zen thing to listen to dynamic music and to be able to have your system play the soft as well as the loud parts within the capability of your system. But the best part is that this is most definatly a tuning tool for your system. This is how one achieves the best their system can be. Make it dynamic and go for freq extension and playback at a volume level that is suited to your system and room with 83db @1000hz -20db as your goal.
http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/calibration.html
That is what this encourages and you will find this will get you there.
This is another way to listen to music. Take it for what it is. Hope this helps, any other questions let me know.
Bob |
I've read this post in an on-again/off-again fashion and I've yet to understand what problem you're really solving. As a system tuning tool it makes sense to listen at standardized volumes, but I don't see how that directly translates to listening to and enjoying music. As far as I can ascertain there is no magic to 83dB. It's just an arbitrary volume level used to standardize movie theater sound. It makes sense in that context because there is a good level of standardization in making movie soundtracks. No such level of standardization is practice in the production of pop/jazz/classical music. So, when Pink Floyd is playing the loud parts, should they not be turned up even further? Actually the answer to that may be, yes. Typically when engineers record loud sections of music they physically lower the recording volume in order to maintain recording headroom. The practice is called gain riding. If you really wanted in insure proper playback you would have to increase the volume during those passages. Unfortunately, as consumers we can never know where those passages are and by how much the volume was trimmed. With no standards during the recording process I just don't understand how imposing a rigid standard during playback is anything but arbitrary. |
Hi Onhwy61, first off, nice Ducati and Revox equipment. I have always liked Revox, I had a 790/795? turntable years ago when they first came out. Ducatis, I still have a few.
Thanks for your input, Just think about it on occasion, that's all I ask.
Bob |
Dear Bob: Please read carefully this statements from your calibration link:
" The audio industry doesn't have any standard for listening level. "
" If all CDs were mastered in such a way "
" We know CDs aren't made like this. There is NO audio standard replay level "
" but the movie industry has worked to an 83dB "
Bob, evrything have " if " or are speaking of the movie industry not the audio one. The 83db point is no trouble but any one could choose a different one say it: 82 or 86 ( at a fact each one of us are sensitive at SPL in different ways, my ears SPL limits are different from yours ).
Other factor is that many of what we buy ( LPs ) today are re-issues that comes with a random SPL original recording or re-mastered at random SPL recording: there is no oficial standard about!!!!
Maybe what you have to do is to convince to the RIAA about your subject because with out standards is very difficult to follow a " rule " like you want.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul wrote:
Maybe what you have to do is to convince to the RIAA about your subject because with out standards is very difficult to follow a " rule " like you want. Bob is certainly entranced with his way of looking at this issue but as with most things in life, simple theories are typically complicated by reality. First, we have a massive inventory of already recorded material that doesn't follow his rules. The bulk of this can't be re-recorded, what with dead artists and a lot of the still-living ones likely not interested in the issue from his viewpoint. But even if all new recordings from this point forward followed his rules, this would mean compromises that would adversely affect sound quality in other ways. Some time ago I pointed out that the live sound level of a harpsichord is much lower than that of a full symphony orchestra. The book "The Physics of Musical Instruments" by Fletcher & Rossing indicates the harpsichord's volume level is about 68 DB +/- 5 dB. A symphony orchestra can easily exceed 100 dB. If I set the recording medium to allow for 110 dB peaks from the symphony without distortion, that means my harpsichord should be recorded 37 dB under (110 db orchestra - 68 dB + 5 harpsichord = 37) under that level. Only then will my relative playback levels be correct for each recording without adjusting the amplifier volume knob. The reality is that I've just intentionally thrown away 37 dB of signal to noise ratio for my harpsichord recording. S/N ratio is precious in recording, particularly for vinyl records where you're doing pretty good if you have much over 60 dB to start with. I find nothing "audiophile" by intentionally reducing my S/N ratio in the recorded medium to 23 dB (60 - 37) just to satisfy an urge to avoid touching the amp volume. The reality is that the playback electronics have a lot more S/N bandwidth to spare than a LP. It makes no sense to me to give up something in short supply in order to conserve something I have lots of. That said, I appreciate that Bob's method is meaningful to him and seems to provide him with increased listening pleasure. However, there are some very good reasons that it is unlikely to gain popularity with most people. |
Hi Mlsstl, you said, "That said, I appreciate that Bob's method is meaningful to him and seems to provide him with increased listening pleasure. However, there are some very good reasons that it is unlikely to gain popularity with most people."
I'll drink to that.
And just try to remember some of my points when you are listening/tweeking your system and see if any of them, perhaps, relates to you and your system.
Bob |
