I have been grappling with the perceived problem of listening to LPs at the same volume setting, for every LP. The original post that I addressed this problem with is here http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1179765549&openmine&zzAcoustat6&4&5#Acoustat6. It was to discuss my idea of playing back all LPs at the same volume setting regardless of type of music or recording etc. To say it was a debacle would be an understatement to say the least. The discussion did not start the way I thought it would and went quickly downhill from there. I would like to put that behind me and realize why it was so controversial and failed as a discussion. As I originally said this idea was new to me and it took such a long time to coagulate my thoughts about this and the reasons why it works. The answer is obvious now. I didn't have an audiophile goal.
I got the answer from reading the recent post about J. Gordon Holts article in Stereophile which was discussed on Audiogon. . The reference being about an audiophile goal in one of the posts. This was my thought, myself and audiophiles in general don't have an audiophile goal (actually, I do have several but I will stick to the topic). It seems that no one can agree on a goal, its all so subjective some say, I like it loud, I like it quiet, I like a lot of bass, I like imaging and on and on. This is fine, that is why we all buy different speakers and equipment. It comes down to you can't measure music. You have to hear it, does it make your toe tap? Can you listen at a low level? Is the tweeter too bright? Is the Bass too loud? Ad nauseum. And there we go again are my toes tapping enough? What is low level listening? Is the bass loud enough for hip hop but too loud for a violin concerto?
I found myself an audiophile goal and an easy one at that, its 20-20k hz. Yeah, you like it too. Right? You buy phono cartridges, pre-amps amps etc. that are flat 20-20k hz. So my audiophile goal is to get 20-20k hz flat (as possible). I said I needed a goal! I know there is more to it than that, but undeniably it is a goal. Now if I go with a test reference of 83db at 1000hz from my test LP this will be an excellent level for dynamics, noise levels and acuteness of hearing. All that is required is 1000hz at 83db from the test LP and all other freq matching this level, So 10,000hz and 5,000hz along with 500,100, 80, 50 and 30hz with all of the freq in between at the specified level of 83db will all be played back off of the test LP at the same level or as close as possible as can be obtained within a systems speakers and equipment and rooms limitations. Find this level and you leave your volume control set to this position for every LP you play. Pretty simple actually.
The original idea came to me slowly over the last three to four years, though I struggled with the quandary for as long as I can remember and I have yet to hear anyone say, sure you don't do that? I thought we all did. All because I didn't have an audiophile goal. Now I find out that perhaps even J. Gordon Holt may not have an audiophile goal, even one as simple as this. The best thing is now I get to listen to all of my LPs at the same gain setting with its attendant qualities of dynamics, constant noise levels, unchanging freq response and a host of other benefits which come along for the ride.
I knew it was wrong to be changing volume levels and bass levels for different LPs. Jumping up in the middle of a song to hear the bass drums or turning it down for a quiet violin solo and doing the same for complete albums. It was insane, I always felt like I was in junior high school cranking it up for the cool parts. But every one does it, so did I. I was missing that audiophile goal.
I enjoy listening to my Lps, many of which I still have from my early high school days and everything in between which amounts to about 2500 quality LPs. As a now confirmed audiophile, now that I have a realistic and perhaps more importantly a measurable goal, I could start figuring out which albums sound good and which do not. It was easy, every LP is played back at the same gain level (volume control setting if you will) and guess what you hear? Every Lp for what it actually sounds like.
Another benefit is that every system you hear is played back to the same standard from the same test LP, perhaps it could even be used at audio shows where every room is played back at this reference setting. If you choose not to listen at the standard then it is stated at the door that reference setting is either higher or lower than the reference. This way if you choose not to abuse your hearing in a room that is 6db above the reference standard you are warned before entering.
And all of this because J Gordon Holt didn't have an audiophile goal.
If you can listen to one Lp at a certain level whether it be a high or low level why can't you listen to any other record at that level?
Hello, Cdwallace is onto it, as I see it. True fidelty of the recording, but dont forget that more importantly is that this is a great way to tune your system.
Think of it this way, you select a volume setting and it would be low initially and listen to the entire listening session like this. Then the idea is to tweak every piece of equipment )one piece at a time!)to get the "best" out of it that you can. Set volume level LISTEN, adjust bass, move speakers LISTEN, move chair, adjust bass, adjust VTA, adj VTF, tweak the volume again LISTEN adjust VTF, fine tune crossover, ETC ETC... you may change anything you want but each time continue to listen to every LP at the same settings. This cannot be achieved overnight. You might find that you like the listening level but changing the crossover point makes the bass better and louder or lower then change volume level again if necessary, or moving your speakers improves the imaging or tweaking the VTF....etc.
Unfortunatly this does not work for those interested in "mood music for mating". You may have a default (lower or higher) level in the beginning (or any time but realise that this is not the optimum level), and never make any changes in your system at these different levels. Only make changes when you are doing some serious lisetening.
Dcstep, yeah, I'm out there and I'm loveing it!:)
I am sorry to have confused you with the quote from Peter Walker of Quad fame, and HE said "There is only one correct volume level for any particular piece of music". I did not say this and sorry to throw this into the mix and confuse things. I like to keep things rational you know! Though I have seen the quote as "there is only one volume level for every recording" NOW that reads completely different and that can be read two ways.
Acoustat6 said: ".... As a now confirmed audiophile, now that I have a realistic and perhaps more importantly a measurable goal, I could start figuring out which albums sound good and which do not. It was easy, every LP is played back at the same gain level (volume control setting if you will) and guess what you hear? Every Lp for what it actually sounds like."
I've read and re-read this. I think that this concludes that all records will be played with the same gain (volume setting) and he'll decide which "sound good" using that arbitrary setting.
In my view, this is totally out in left field.
Further he quoted "There is only one correct volume level for any particular piece of music". To me, that's saying the opposite thing. I can agree with this, except that I would say "volume range" not "volume level" to get away from an implication of unchanging accuracy that might not vary for person to person.
Why would someone arbitrarily test the goodness of their records by limiting the playback to one level? We all know that they're all recorded at different levels and some are way more dynamic than others. I believe that there's a volume range where each recording will sound its best. My Conrad Johnson CA200 has a stepped attenuator with 99 .7dB increments. The typical range for seriously listening to music is 50 to 80. That's quite a wide range. If I played all my recordings a 55, I'm certain that I wouldn't enjoy the ones that I normally play at 75 as much, yet today I might think that they are equally enjoyable.
So, I'm either not understanding Acoustat6 or I think his playback level goal and 20Hz-20kHz goals are misguided.
"1. Flat frequency response is overrated in the sense that it is the distortion that we listen through the most easily. Think about a live concert. Between concert room interactions to the sound guy doing EQ boosts and dips, live music is never flat, yet it is the gold standard for fidelity because it is real. We are more used to listening past frequency nonlinearities than any other type of distortion."
I hope I'm not to late and the overall thread thought hasn't passed, but here my take on this point, FWIW. It's not directed at or intended to pick on anyone, just a thought!
IMHO, this is where "reference point" becomes more distorted and open to interpretation. I can speak best for myself, but I would assume the purpose behind the chase for system fidelity, is to achieve/preserve the integrity of content. Meaning, if I'm listen to a recording of Bach and the engineers intend for the recording to sound a certain way (be it hard, balanced, warm, etc), the mode of playback SHOULD be design and setup to play the recording back as intended. In order to achieve this goal, I am unaware of any other way it can be achieved, outside of the end user portion being as close to neutral as possible; no characteristics to infer signature.
Keeping this in proper perspective, it's very difficult, at best, to build a system only to reach and maintain this absolute. When coupled with many other factors (room treatment, specific component selection, etc.), this absolute is within the scope of possibility. However, this should not deter from the attempt to reach this goal. Its a relevant goal; and the key to fidelity.
Now, throwing live recordings into the mix. No live sound is not flat. Yes, the engineers do tweak the frequencies and such to achieve a certain sound. But, you must keep in mind, this is the sound and feel the artist/production team intend for the material to be presented to the audience. For example, if the bass playback is muddy and the material calls for full bass, but not muddy, the engineers are trained and informed enough to know: 1. the bass is not supposed to be muddy, and 2. the bass needs to be corrected at a certain frequency/ies in order for the bass to sound full, not muddy. When you play the recording of the concert back, an audiophile grade system should play the bass back to sound full. Its the way the recording is supposed to sound, full bodied bass. It's double work to tweak the tweak to fit your taste unless it's done specifically to fit your taste. Otherwise, you're correcting the correction, which more than likely requires an EQ, which is a sore subject to most audiophiles. Some thing about the integrity of the playback, who knows!
Taste is one thing; that's the purpose of an EQ, give it more this or less that. Great! Fidelity and true reference is another. Taste no longer becomes a factor. Interpretation is obsolete; recording preservation is saved.
+/- 0db or bust!!! (It's a joke)
Bob has his eye on the prize and will get it far faster that most audiophiles who have been at it 6x longer. Keep at it, Bob, and good luck!!
Hi Dave, sorry to confuse the issue but I was going through some literature and saw that. I always want to be open minded believe it or not. I am not sure if that is Walkers exact quote, I believe I have seen it quoted in slightly different wording. Speak the word friend and ye shall enter. I have to go to work now and will answer your question later. Bob
If "there is only one correct volume level for any particular piece of music" is true (I agree that there is a range, but would disagree that there's one exact level, but let's forget that for now), then how can referencing your playback system to one specific reference achieve Walker's goal? As you acknowledge, output levels from record to record vary widely. If we're going to adjust the level for a particular piece of recorded music to its "correct" level, then we need the freedom to vary from the reference.
That lead me to think that I must be misunderstanding your stated goal. I'm thinking, perhaps incorrectly, that your goal is 20Hz-20kHz at a reference SPL. Am I misunderstanding that?
I enjoyed the regonaudio piece, but conclude that the recording perspective is entirely arbitrary and cannot be set to formula. We all prefer different seats in the same house, so how can the engineer presume to know what that is. I think that he or she can only chose something that's pleasing to them. I happen to prefer the sound from the trumpet chairs, but no one could make a living selling recordings that only trumpeters would buy. When I read reviews of classical music, I love it when the reviewer tells me which seats it sounds like it's coming from.
Hi dcstep, thanks for your thoughtful response even if it veered off topic to "what is an audiophile"? You said "Acoustat6, 20Hz frequency response is a great goal, my point is that you won't use (hear) it with acoustic jazz recorded in a studio. OTOH, live music in a cathedral will surely lose some impact if that bottom octave isn't there. Even with just a soprano singing a capella, the building itself will produce low frequency information that helps you to identify how big the room is and add to the recorded ambience."
I say it is not OK to be missing valuable information ie: one octave, or to have a ragged freq response and to not be concerned about this, regardless of the music genre. It is still missing whether you think the LP has it or not. If you dont have the last octave, just how do you know what is or is not there? If your system has a 12db peak at 80 hz it is there for every LP. This is the "sound of your system" in conjunction with your speakers voicing.
"Still, MUST I have that last 10Hz to be an "audiophile", I think not."
I say no, you can do as you please. It was, as all know, used to be a free country and I for one would like to keep it that way. All that I am saying is that this is a good goal, if you can get to 20 hz at the reference level.
"I think an "audiophile" is someone that enjoys reproduced music beyond the level of just considering playback devices utilitities or commodities. They can be trying to achieve the best possible sound in their iPod,"
Oh good, we just officially made all BOSE Wave Radio listeners certified audiophiles!
"BTW buddy, no disrespect was meant in suggesting that you might be a "numbers guy." I exercise both sides of my brain."
No offense taken, I do wish I was "better" at numbers, but math has never been my strong point. Maybe its time for me to put to memory once and for all the 12x12 multiplication table:). 7x7 is, 9x9 is.....
"Back to your "goal". With all due respect, I think that you need to rethink it. A goal without an objective is nothing. (Making a goal and objective, in and of itself, is dangerous). You need an objective related to why you're an audiophile. It couldn't possibly be to hear all your music at 88dB, me thinks. Some people are only into audio for music, while some love the glow of tubes (it IS really seductive, I KNOW) or some want to have a system entirely from Stereophiles A-list or some want the biggest, baddest looking system possible. ALL of those are legit reasons."
I have allready stated my goals, as an audiophile. One is to enjoy music, which I do. Two is to be able to evaluate LPs for their sonic qualities, which I can. There are others but they do not relate to this discussion at the moment.
Setting up a system as stated, you do not wind up with all music being played back at the same SPL level. This is absolutly what we are trying to avoid! All LPs have different dynamics from LP to LP and within the LP itself, and yes totally different "overall gain" if you will, this is what you want to hear. This is what makes LPs so exciting. You are searching for ways to enhance your systems ability to play the lowest recorded level LPs and the loudest recorded LPs at the same volume setting. This is my audiophile goal. This ensures that your system is operating within its limits for ever LPs potential for upward as well as downward dynamics and to play at a natural volume for LPs that are recorded well.
Here are some interesting reading for those interested.
Why doesn't enjoyment define an audiophile? let's explore that some. You could have a system that's absolutely flat from 20Hz to 20kHz at 88dB. My system, OTOH rolls off at 30Hz and starts rolling off at the top after 12kHz (and it has anomalies throughout its response range). However, I've gone to great pains to place my speakers in my room in such a way that intermodulation distortion between the speakers and room is almost eliminated, making for a very coherant sound. OTOH, the 20-20 system speakers are set in such a way that they're not driving together and lack coherance from the listening position.
Who is "more of" an audiophile, the one with a system that's more enjoyable to listen to, or the one with better numbers???
Here's another example. I don't "tube roll" but I've got a mix of tube and SS components in my amplification chain. Each piece was selected because I liked the way it sounded in my system. Also, I use an intergrated amp (actually a control amp) and everything is stowed away in a beautiful armoire that my wife loves as much as me. Am I less of an audiophile because I don't have a couple of 120lb monoblocks, sitting on special stands on the floor, powering my rig??
Are the guys and gals over at www.head-fi.org any less audiophiles than us because they chose to use headphones? Maybe they're more so, but then how would you apply the 20-20 criteria when all the headphones that sound good (AKG, Grado, Sennheiser, etc.) all have very serious frequency response excursions when measured.
Acoustat6, 20Hz frequency response is a great goal, my point is that you won't use (hear) it with acoustic jazz recorded in a studio. OTOH, live music in a cathedral will surely lose some impact if that bottom octave isn't there. Even with just a soprano singing a capella, the building itself will produce low frequency information that helps you to identify how big the room is and add to the recorded ambience.
Still, MUST I have that last 10Hz to be an "audiophile", I think not.
I think an "audiophile" is someone that enjoys reproduced music beyond the level of just considering playback devices utilitities or commodities. They can be trying to achieve the best possible sound in their iPod, or adding the last $10,000 interconnect to their mega-dollar system. Each has a purpose and interest beyond thinking of their music reproduction as a utility. They might actually be the same people, just at different stages of the journey.
BTW buddy, no disrespect was meant in suggesting that you might be a "numbers guy." I exercise both sides of my brain. As an accountant that regularly plays trumpet and guitar with others that are totally artistic I walk, to varying degrees, on both sides of that street.
Knowing that you're NOT a numbers guy gives me another clue. I find that non-numbers people sometimes think there's some comfort in the "absoluteness" of numbers. Old and humbled numbers people, OTOH, realize that there's little "certainty" in numbers. How does the saying go, "Statistics don't lie, but liers..." Thus, my waryness at latching onto numbers. (I'm a professional numbers guy BTW, when it comes to accounting a risk measurement numbers, I can do a backwards slam dunk over most other numbers guys).
Back to your "goal". With all due respect, I think that you need to rethink it. A goal without an objective is nothing. (Making a goal and objective, in and of itself, is dangerous). You need an objective related to why you're an audiophile. It couldn't possibly be to hear all your music at 88dB, me thinks. Some people are only into audio for music, while some love the glow of tubes (it IS really seductive, I KNOW) or some want to have a system entirely from Stereophiles A-list or some want the biggest, baddest looking system possible. ALL of those are legit reasons. After all, not everyone riding a Harley could take it onto a dirt track and slide it through the corners wheel-to-wheel with some other crazy at 100mph. It's the same in audiophilia and there's room for all of us.
Hi Opalchip, how about LOUD mood music for arguing and then mood music in a nice and soft level for the make up sex.
I think you are focusing, perhaps, too much on the "flat" part of it, yes it is a "goal", not withstanding the F-M curve and the BBC dip etc.. And the volume level DOES affect playback in the freq domain. So dont forget the "reference level", its is most important, if it is achievable with your system and to play it within its limitations and conversly to not be bamboozled by an overly loud system in the name of dynamics (turning it up does not increase dynamics) or a "live sound". What you can achieve, is a natural sounding recording showing off its limitations and it strong suits and most importantly to reveal the LPs for what they are.
HI Dcstep, Thanks for discussing this important subject and enjoying the thread. It is an important subject and I do believe there are some important answers also. If I can at least get people to think about it, it is a step in the right direction.
I believe that just being happy does not make an audiophile. We really do need some goals even personal goals for our systems and as I said I do have several, this being one of them which goes hand in hand with the others. Give me an other "goal" and maybe I can forget this one!
The last thing I am is a "numbers guy", really, I consider myself much more as "an artist". Not in a literal sense but more in my life pursuits. Aesthetics and philosophy are some of my life goals. Dont forget that I had realised this idea from just listening to my LPs, it was not a "numbers thing" to begin with. This is a way to tune your system and no you dont need a test LP to do this, as you are ultimatly tuning your system to its own maximum capabilites.
You said that if one listens to acoustic jazz then you may not need 20hz. I suggest that even if that is the case where have we gone wrong as an audiophile? Who makes the determination that its OK to miss a lower octave or two? I say find the lower octave at a correct level and you will have a goal and your system playback will be better for it.
Again one of my other "goals" is evaluating LPs, how does one do this when they are missing the last one, or I am sure, two octaves as many systems do. Can you actually say to me that a LP is quiet, when infact a LP has a high level rumble say and your system is not reproducing it. Or it is 20db down due to not being "flat" and now that you are listening at another reduced level because it is "acoustic jazz" this noise is now 40 db down, sure would be a quiet LP then, but is it?
Is a scratched LP quieter if it is a jazz LP played at a low level or if the same scratched LP is a rock LP and played at a higher level is it now a badly scratched LP. Can you grade a LP at different playback levels?
Changing playback levels does signifcantly change the sound of the room and you equipment out of its optimal range. Including I believe the Fletcher-Munson curve which does not change with the recording, but stays constant with the playback level, this I believe is very important idea/thought/possibility, which I believe to be true but am not positive of.
I always find it amusing when someone states how loud they listen to a certain recording, they dont take into account that if their system is bass shy from 40hz down for an example. that they are now indeed listening much louder to reach that level and it is all with "high freq". Someone listening like this may now be listening to their system at a 1000hz reference tone at 89db for example. Now thats loud. Rather than someone with a full range system which is capable of the same overall volume level but is listening to the standard 1000hz at a "reasonable/appropriate" level. While all the time missing those important low freq at a correct level, as an audiophile goal.
Also I believe that we are not reproducing a live event but in fact we are reproducing a recording of the live event, a large distinction.
....audio as a mood enhancer for mating. Now we're talkin'!
I agree in principal with the Hardesty camp. But it is just a starting place, ESPECIALLY when it comes to vinyl. You have to realize that in the golden age of LP's, nobody cared about Flat or Phase correctness. The recording signal probably went through 3 or 4 processors before landing on the Master tape, and not only that, but different tracks of the performance went through different processors at different settings. The mixing and mastering engineer used at a minimum - a peak limiter, compression, and an equalizer - in addition to whatever went on in the mixing board. If a voice was involved, they probably added a small amount of reverb to that track. And what's more, little attention was paid to "absolute phase" of each of these boxes. The end result that went onto the LP was actually far, far SUPERIOR to what a "Flat" recording of the studio performance would sound like. (In addition - and it's not a minor consideration - everyone's hearing is different. Your ears do not have a remotely flat frequency response.)
SO... if one can accept these facts:
One can also accept that a "flat" playback in your room is: 1. Not necessarily the best sounding - for, one, because your room is not and never will be, flat. 2. Flat what? - there is ZERO "flat" information on an lp to begin with. If you adjust the output of your system so that it sounds "better" it does not mean you are introducing coloration or distortion.
Should you NOT wear eyeglasses, in order to keep your vision "flat"? If you don't wear glasses is your vision more "honest"?
Now, I agree with Hardesty that "Flat, Time and Phase Correct" is a worthy goal and test of the ability of playback EQUIPMENT. But that does not mean that you want to use it "Flat". (And also, none of "Flat, Time and Phase Correct" is affected in the least by the volume control.)
My "audiophile goal" is simply to enjoy myself the most I can. If something sounds better to me, I enjoy myself more. This was the goal of the recording artist and mastering engineer in the first place. If an lp sounds better at one volume setting than on another, that IS the right setting. How do I decide if one lp is better than another IMO - I compare them both sounding their best.
If I find a piece of equipment that makes ALL my lp's sound better than before - that is a better piece of equipment. Simple.
Acoustat6 said: "Opalchip or others, please explain to me why you would change the volume level for different LPs, whether it be up or down, and what this can accomplish. Just how do you know where each was recorded? Or which LPs should be played back soft or loud."
Great thread, BTW.
I change the volume on each LP to the level that makes me happy at the time. Sometimes it's at a volume that I imagine for a live performance, at other times is softer than that and at other times it's louder than the probable performance level. My objective is to enjoy the music.
You obviously love music, given the size of your record collection. I don't think that most people collect that many records without loving music, so I'm going to assume that music attracted you to audio. I also suspect that you're a "numbers guy" of some sort.
I'm a "numbers guy" and make my living helping banks hedge certain interest rate risk and mortgage prepayment risk. I've been a CPA since 1970. Fixating on numbers is very common within corporate environments and can lead to unhealthy, unintended consequences. I see things go astray all the time, particularly when you start mixing numbers and egos. Most of us acknowledge that egos are not always rational and logical. It took me a long time to learn that numbers are not always rational and logical. Hopefully you'll trust me on that. Once I learned that, I started spending a lot more of my time trying to get people to focus on the "right number".
Just because something can be measured doesn't make it a appropriate or valuable goal. For instance, if you mainly listened to acoustic jazz, then a speaker that extended to 20hz rather than rolling off at 30Hz wouldn't increase your enjoyment of the music.
Another system might be flat up to 20kHz but then use nonlinear filters to make a hard response cut at 30kHz. Such a system might fatigue you, where a system that down 3dB at 16kHz, but rolls off smoothly up to 60kHz and higher might sound really smooth and be listenable for hours on end.
Why would you focus on volume, based on a reference that will likely not match your actual library of records? You might focus on such a goal because your hearing is already impaired and you want to avoid further impairment. That's a good goal and it'll extend your ability to enjoy music for a longer number of years. However, if the dynamics on a particular record or CD far exceed those on your reference, then you're hearing might still be at risk. Rather than using the reference, you'd be better off having a quick response SPL meter going all the time, that could flash red if you approached your danger threshold.
With all due respect, I think that you should focus on your own musical enjoyment. Measurements can never "validate" your system, since someone can always argue with what measurement is more important. OTOH, no one can say to you, "you couldn't enjoy that because the sound level wasn't realistic". You can answer back that "I enjoyed that thoroughly and played it at a level that was very pleasing for me at the time. Tomorrow I may play it louder or softer, but my goal will be to enjoy it, not match some perceived goal."
...you tell me what changing volume levels does to improve the record?
Changing your volume knob's setting is a way to bring that recording closer to the actual experience of the live event.
Example 1: Our 15 minute per side harpsichord recording. It is recorded at full available groove modulation due to the short length of the musical composition and the lack of bass inherent in the instrument. At a live performance, let's say the average perceived volume at my seat is 72 dB.
I play the record with a preset volume control. Due to the LP I am presented with, I have a harpsichord blasting away at 90 dB. That hardly strikes me as desirable if one is trying to closely recreate the live experience.
Example 2: We have a LP of a 50 minute Mahler symphony. At the concert, the average SPL at my seat is 90 dB. Due to the inherent limitations of the LP format, the LP was pressed with lower groove modulations. (This is NOT because the engineer did a "lousy" job. The physics of LP production required that lower level.) When I play back this record on my fixed-volume level stereo, I get a 75 dB playback level. That is substantially softer than what I heard live.
The solution for the vast majority of music listeners is to turn down the volume somewhat when listening to the harpsichord recording and to turn it up when listening to the full symphony.
The quality of the record is just what it is. There is nothing we can do to "improve" that recording once it has left the pressing plant. However, one variable we do have control over is adjusting the playback volume to match that of a realistic concert. If you choose to listen to loud music at a low volume and soft music at a loud volume, that is certainly your prerogative. Of course, there are certainly times where the volume setting will be a good match for your LP. However, to not play a particular record at all, or to listen to it at an inappropriate volume simply because of a volume mismatch strikes me as unnecessarily robbing yourself of otherwise enjoyable experience.
In my opinion there is nothing magic about a particular volume setting on a preamp since the output volume of source material varies so widely. (This is also true of CD, open reel, FM broadcast and other music sources as well as LPs.) Having music play at an appropriate volume for the piece in question is important to me (and many others I suspect) and it is something over which I have control. It seems you choose otherwise, but that is certainly your option. Just remember to enjoy your music.
Hello, Trust me it is registering what you are saying, and conversely you are not hearing what I am saying. LPs are limited to only so much energy available to them, as an example, and it is up to the engineer to get the most out of this. I can only provide the vehicle for the LP to reveal itself as either a "good" or "bad" recording of music or perhaps its sonics are somewhere inbetween. If it is not there, there is nothing you can do to fix this, and all other problems with LPs including, but not limited to, previous groove damage, lack of dynamics, rumble, pops/clicks, noisy vinyl, bad pressings, LPs that are recorded too loud or too low etc... you tell me what changing volume levels does to improve the record? Or what you can do to improve them in general that would not adversly affect the sonics of a well recorded LP? Perhaps even why you want to say a record with those problems, if they are serious enough, are worth listening to?
Thats just it, most LPs suck, many are OK, a number are good and few are great. Or are you tring to tell me that all LPs are great? If you manipulate them enough... Its not my job to correct what some lousy engineer, bad pressing or poor condition LP has to offer by manipulating my system so no LP sounds good. I do have an slp meter.
Opalchip or others, please explain to me why you would change the volume level for different LPs, whether it be up or down, and what this can accomplish.
This has already been discussed several times but it is apparently not registering.
Look at the basic design of an LP. It is a piece of plastic with a modulated groove pressed into it. Due to various design parameters (which include characteristics of stylus size and shape on the playback cartridge) there is a maximum modulated level that can be pressed into a record.
If a musical piece has a lot of low bass present, this requires wider grooves than music that doesn't have as much bass. As a practical matter, if you want the full volume on music with a lot of bass content, you are limited to about 15 minutes on each side of the record.
Unfortunately, not all musical pieces are conveniently cut into 15 minute segments. If you have a symphonic piece that is 50 minutes long (25 minutes a side), but still has lots of kettle drum action, the record stamping plant must press the record with a lower modulation level in the grooves to get it all on the record. That is just a fact of life.
With your system of finding a single spot where you permanently park your volume knob setting, this means that some records are going to be played louder than they should and some records will be softer. That long symphony (or Led Zeppelin) record you have will be played at too low a volume. However, a short record (say our harpsichord) would end up being played too loudly under your system.
You might be better off buying yourself an inexpensive sound level meter. Take it to some live concerts and check the actual volume you are hearing where you sit. Then go home, and use the meter to set your stereo to that volume. You'll be far closer to getting an authentic experience with this method than the one you're trying to use.
Hi opalchip, Thanks for an insightful reply. While I understand some of your arguments, I must repeat that what I explained works very well for me and I suspect it will for others also, except for those that use audio as a mood enhancer for mating.
Actually you dont need a test LP, my suggestion is to start at a "low" level and listen to your LPs at that level and continue to increase it as you tune your system to suite every LP. The key here is to listen to every LP without changing the level set. You may and should change speaker locations, tuning your cartridge and TT, sub/main speaker levels, seating location etc. Now if you need to increse or decrease volume setting do it and continue this untill yuo have reaced a point where the best LPs sound their best and lesser LPs are revealed for what they are. I believe that this will tune your system to its most natural and truthful ability. This will take some time, this is not accomplished in one listening session or overnight but is a long term goal. Except now that you know this is possible, perhaps the process can be accelerated.
The fact that every LP was recorded/pressed different is what I want to hear. Do we increase or decrease the volume on LPs that are dynamic? Do you turn up or down a LP that is noisy with limited gain on the LP? Do you turn up or down an LP with "big" bass or do you adjust the bass levels then turn it up? Does a rock LP that is "required" to be played loud get a special compensation now that the noise level of the LP is twice as loud as the "quiet" violin concerto played at half the volume level? Which LP is truly quiet? Which LP has great dynamics? How do you really know if the target is always moving?
Opalchip or others, please explain to me why you would change the volume level for different LPs, whether it be up or down, and what this can accomplish. Just how do you know where each was recorded? Or which LPs should be played back soft or loud.
We are supposed to be audiophiles for goodness sake and I find it just unbelivable that even something as simple as a good in room freq response at a certain level to be contemptuous is just amazing. Yes, I know it does not tell the whole story but it is a large part of it.
Opalchip, sorry to glean some of your quotes from your past postings, but feel that we are searching for some truth somewhere as you state.
"So I very much agree with the Hardesty camp that Flat, Time and Phase Correct HAS to be the holy grail, at least as a starting point, for serious listening."
"And that's OK - each to his own. Reproduction accuracy is not an ethical standard like "truth", it's a preference. And it's not a very popular one. Even "truth" itself isn't exactly a popular standard anymore. Not to get into politics, but look around! So why on earth would audio accuracy be important?"
"I prefer hearing what was actually recorded coming out of the front of my speakers..."
What you're missing that people are trying to explain is that there is no correlation AT ALL between where your Volume knob is set and achieving 83db IN ROOM listening level on a particular record. And because human hearing itself responds differently at higher and lower listening levels, as does the relative response of room mode factors - You must have identical in room's to compare two lp's. The only way you could do that would be if every lp had a test tone track incorporated.
What you do by leaving your Volume knob at a spot where your system produces 83db from ONE randomly chosen test disc, is measure how much relative gain the Mastering engineer applied to the cutter head of each record - kind of. I say "kind of" because even this would only be true if all lp's were recorded at the same In Studio db level.
In cutting lp's, each performance has different requirements determined by how much the stylus travels during low frequence peaks and also by random decisions made about how many minutes and which tracks to put on each side of the lp. The more minutes, and the louder the bass content, the lower the gain you can apply to the cutter head - it's that simple.
Let's take for example, an lp that has nothing but a 1000hz tone that was actually recorded while the tone was being played at a measured in room 83db level in the recording studio. Covering all of side A is 17 minutes of this tone and covering all of Side B is 23 minutes of the exact same 1000hz tone played into the microphone at 83db.
Now - keep in mind that the disk mastering engineer has to reduce the excursion of the cutter head to fit the extra 6 minutes of grooves onto Side B. The tone was still recorded at 83db in the recording studio, however - Same tone, Same vinyl, same stamper number. But the grooves on the 23 min. side will have smaller squiggles and your cartridge will produce less db gain as the coils or magnets travel back and forth a correspondingly shorter distance in the same amount of time.
What happens now?
Not only does it tell you NOTHING about the recording itself to play back both sides with your Volume Knob at the same place - it is FLAT OUT misleading. If you set your Vol. Knob to measure in room 83db while playing the 17 minute side - producing the sound pressure level EXACTLY AS IT WAS RECORDED, and you leave your Vol. Knob where it is to play Side B - you would NOT produce in room 83db and therefore NOT be playing the tone EXACTLY AS IT WAS RECORDED. Case closed.
The 15 minute side will be louder. And it will sound slightly better to you because of that fact alone. (We don't need to prove that the same software, cut at a lower gain will produce more rumble and expose more noise in a system than one cut at a higher gain. We know that.)
Now it's obvious, but with 2 different lp's - before you can decide if one lp is of better quality, either as recorded OR as your system reproduces it - you have to turn your Vol. knob to the point where the the lp is measuring in your room at the level (or a fixed minus/plus db of the level) where EACH WAS RECORDED - which we don't know. The closest you can come is to guesstimate - based on the type of music and the circumstances - but it will virtually never be to leave the Volume output of the preamp at one fixed setting.
I believe what a number of you missed was not only the 20-20k response important but more importantly is the 83db 1000hz level. Really it is the place to start and I found it by accident just like Madame Curie and Galileo found... Oh nevermind.
Here are some of my thoughs recently and why I needed an audiophile goal. I believe that perhaps as you get closer to "a good freq response" all you need is 83db at 1000hz playedback from a test LP for an "easily" accomplished goal. This goal is a nice place to be, it is working for me. There are a number of reasons that 83db is used and I suggest you research "83db reference level". And if you all get lazy let me know and I will attach some links. My though would be most have heard of this allready.
For myself I am not expecting flat 20-20khz in my room and I do have a slight tilt up in the last octave which I like. I am still working on my room and system as I would like a better freq response. I know about the BBC curve also.
Now wouldn't it be nice to go to a show or a friends house and listen at the same levels? Of course being that the only freq you are expected to get correct is the 1000hz signal, all of the others freqs, being like mine and everyone elses systems, probably not nearly as flat as we would like. Would that not be what we are listening to? How you get there and how well you you do is your thing and if you choose not to listen at that level it would just be duly noted that your system is playing at a louder or softer level than the reference.
Tarsando said, "Playing them back at the same "volume control level" tells you nothing."
How can playing all LPs back at the same playback level tell you nothing? Would it not tell you which LP is recorded louder or quiter? Would it not reveal which LPs are more dynamic than the others? Would you not hear which has quiet vinyl, more or louder pops and clicks, which has distorted grooves? Which Lps have rumble and to what levels? Could you not hear which LP has more or less bass or has an overly aggressive top end? It would tell you which LPs you system has problems dealing with. It would tell you that if you system developed noise at this level something changed. Wouldn't it tell you your system needs to be only so quiet? It needs to be quiet at this level though, who cares if it gets noisy when the volume is turned up to 10. Would it tell me that if you listen to your LPs not at the 1000hz 83db reference playback level and say that you are listening at 73db 1000hz level that LPs that sound quiet to you could sound noisy to me? Bob
Picking up on what others have said, and I hope adding to it, instead of driving yourself nuts trying to "equalize" your room, there is a fairly reasonable path to your goal, costwise, using digital equalizers. Several of these have been reviewed especially by Robert E Greene of TAS whose obsession with flat in-room response is similar to yours. You should be reading his articles, not Holt's. Equalizing in the digital domain ameliorates or avoids phase problems, too. You might be able to find one of the units that REG has reviewed in the Agon for sale listings, for a "reasonable" price.
Having said that, I can tell you that I listen to most all my records at one of two volume settings on my preamp, and they are only one click apart, i.e., about 9 o'clock and about 9:30 on the dial. (I have a very high gain LOMC-capable preamp.) But almost all LPs sound fine at 9 o'clock. So have I reached some sonic nirvana by doing that? I don't know, never thought about it in that vein, but I AM loving my phono playback system these days. My cdp is on the workbench for some upgrades, for the past 2 months, because I don't miss it.
An LP has a dynamic range in the 60 to 70 dB range. There are physical constraints on the maximum groove excursions that can be stamped into a record.
The length of a record also affects the volume at which a record can be cut. If you want the max out of an LP, you can't put much more than 15 minutes a side on a record. If the recording doesn't have much bass, you can make this longer. If the engineer is willing to lower the record level, you can get still more time.
You also don't want to intentionally record at a lower volume than needed, as this will sacrifice the signal to noise ratio of the recording.
Examples: if I have a 30 minute harpsichord recording and make use of the headroom available on the LP, it will sound much louder than a 50 minute Led Zeppelin record with heavy bass. The recording level pressed into the Led Zep LP had to be significantly reduced to accommodate the extra bass modulation and time.
You have to use your volume control to play each of those records at a volume appropriate to the live version.
A LP record has a set of fixed constraints that an engineer must work within. How he juggles those to best match the demands of a particular recording will vary widely from LP to LP.
Putting your efforts and money into 20-20KHz +/- 0dB is counterproductive for several reasons.
1. Flat frequency response is overrated in the sense that it is the distortion that we listen through the most easily. Think about a live concert. Between concert room interactions to the sound guy doing EQ boosts and dips, live music is never flat, yet it is the gold standard for fidelity because it is real. We are more used to listening past frequency nonlinearities than any other type of distortion.
2. Flat frequency response would be nice if it were achieved from one end of the signal chain to the very end, but it never is. So having a flat response for playback only preserves the last tweaks during mastering. Some recordings are mastered to sound good on an iPod or a car radio. Is this how you want to hear them through a 20-20KHz flat system? Personally, I can't BEAR to hear Motown CD reissues on a hi-rez system.
3. Some means of achieving flat frequency response wreck other sonic cues for which human hearing is more sensitive. For example, heavy-handed equalizing messes up phase relationships, which we use to identify timbre and location. That's one reason 1st generation CD players sounded so bad--they used a "brick wall" analog filter to shut down any frequencies above 20KHz, and wrecked the phase relationships of the audible overtones from 5-20Khz in the process.
4. 20KHz is nowhere near high enough to achieve realistic-sounding fidelity. It's not that we can easily identify test tones above 20KHz, but the upper frequency response also defines the rise time of every reproduced note. If my math is correct, a 20Khz top end limits rise time to 1/40,000 of a second. Listen to a system with electronics rated out to 150KHz and the music sounds more lively with faster and more dramatic transients. Good transparency requires speed. Look at how the Gram Slee Era Gold is such a highly regarded phono stage for the money. The designer is adamant that having a frequency response out into the MHz range is essential for preserving speed and upper octave overtones and therefore, timbre.
Those posts above are absolutely correct... Also, does one really want to hear a string quartet at Tina Turner levels? Even Tina sings softer or louder as the music dictates. The really good part of this is that although we may not have on/off switches, we all have volume controls. They are your ears, in your house, do what you want.
Bob these are just my knee-jerk thoughts on reading your post, they are of no value!
1) 20-20,000 Hz flat response has a lot less to do with your gear than it does your room!
2) 20-20,000 Hz while looking good on paper is rarely enjoyable for listening. While audiophiles like to pretend they are neutral in their listening preferences, this is a fallacy. I had a former friend (who it turns out is mentally unstable) come over with a computer and test equipment and measure my room. It turns out that all of us present preferred the sound of the colored room to the more neutral room.
I would have sworn up and down (just like you are right now) that I want my room to be as neutral as possible, but I did not like how it sounded. I did alter my room tuning devices, but could not keep the room where it sounded the most neutral.
3) Short of spending more money on your room than you did on your house you will never get a 20-20,000 Hz flat response...
I'm not sure I see the point of listening to all your LPs at the same volume, unless you plan to buy a pre-amp that does not have a volume control. If you can bypass that connection, then you are that much better off!
I think volume is more dependent on mood, or the purpose for listening than it is to allow a certain level of musicality into the experience, but I'm usually wrong!
The flaw in this argument, I believe, is that lps (and cds) are cut at varying volume levels. Some direct-to-disk lps have higher levels than any standardly cut lp. Playing them back at the same "volume control level" tells you nothing. Not to mention distortion, compression etc. And every now and then you'll see a recording (usually of Wellington's Victory) that warns you not to play it too loud because you'll blow your speakers when the cannos go off. I believe your intentions are good, but conceptually muddled--at least the way I read them.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
