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 |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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 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 |
|
Hi Dave, sorry, my mistake assuming they didn't like something you were saying to me.
Bob |
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. |
I didn't say anything nasty to you.
Dave |
Hi Dave, why would you say something nasty to me? Have I offended you?
Bob |
Bob, the moderators didn't seem to like what I said to you, so you'll have to imagine.
Dave |
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 |
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, 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 |
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 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 |
BECAUSE ROCK MUSIC IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOUDER THAN string quarters |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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, 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
|
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 |
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. |
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. |
Bob, I have marked every one of my LPs with the volume setting that is necessary to achieve 90 db on peaks. Thus, I use that volume setting for that LP before I sit to listen.
Some recordings, naturally, sound better than others, usually due to the varying degree of compression used, but at least I am comparing at a standard playback level at my listening spot. When I change rooms or speakers, I chnge the gain on the power amplifier to obtain the same peaks at my listening position for the same volume settings that I have used on the pre-amp.
Works for me!
Salut, Bob p. |
Dear Bob: +++++ " 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 ." +++++
Looking to your nice single item audio system IMHO it is almost impossible to obtain ( per se ) your desired goal, many factors in your audio system preclude it: your phono stage has an un-desired non-flat inverse RIAA eq. that it is greater than 0.1db from 20-20kHz, your phono cartridge has a deviation on the same frequency over 1.0db, you have severe deviations on your speaker response due to a high output impedance in the amplifiers, room interaction, etc, etc.
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.
Now and speaking on your " same SPL " for every LP: I normally heard my system at the same SPL, SPL where my system is right on target where I can hear it for hours with out any fatigue " ear/brain " sign where I always enjoy what I'm hearing it does not matters what I'm hearing where my " foots " are always dancing where my brain and feelings are full of emotions.
Yes, there is one SPL for each audio system where everything is almost right but not necessary that fact means that every single LP should shine: NO!, there are several LPs that have its own and singular SPL ( different from what I hear normally ) where they are on target.
There are many examples about but one that comes to my memory is the Patricia Barber Cafe Blue 33rpm and 45rpm versions: many people say that the 45rpm version is not as good his 33rpm counterpart and that's is true if you want to hear both at the same volume but if you increment by 2-3db the SPL on the 45rpm everything comes on target.
So in the same way that every single audio system has its singular right SPL where it shine in the same way the LPs have its own SPL where it shine each one.
This means that if everyone of us always want to achieve the best ( about SPL ) on each one LP then we have to adjust the volume for each one LP where we can obtain the best natural tonal balance.
Now, what to do?, easy hear at the SPL where you are satisfied!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hi JPV, Thanks for your post, you are close to what I describe. Don't forget that the 83db is the volume that my system is set at, is a reference tone of 83db at 1000hz from a test LP. This is an important distinction. You would use your test LP (NOT playing back an unknown quantity such as a favorite LP) with a reference tone of 1000hz and find that 83db to be the goal, of course then all other freq should be close. This way LPs cut low will play low and LPs cut high will play loudly, In the mean time the system noise levels and also the LPs noise levels never change, except that a noisy LP will be noisy and a quiet LP will sound quiet.
A dynamic Lp will sound dynamic when directly compared to a LP lacking dynamics. A LP that is cut incorrectly, say a solo violin recorded/pressed too high, will not sound right and that turning it down will not help this LP to sound good. Think about that for a moment, you decrease your volume level and that will reduce your systems ability to give good dynamic swings and a good in room frequency response.
You will find that LPs cut and recorded correctly will sound best with minimal noise. LPs that are not recorded/cut correctly do not sound good no matter if the volume is manipulated up or down, as they don't sound "good" no matter what you do with the volume control. Just face it, it is not a good sounding LP, and therefore why adjust your system to it?
I dont believe many systems are capable of playing 83db all frequencies (or if you dont want to listen that loud) in that case go to a lower set level, say 80db or 77db and set your system to this level. Whatever you do, do not make changes to your system when playing back at different volume control setttings. And definitely don't adjust bass levels to make up for volume control changes or lack of bass in LPs.
Bob |
I think Bob's setting of a referance level does achieve a few things. I think what he has done is find the volume level where his system sounds the best. 83db is it for his system. Recording levels are set thats why there are engineers and meters on equipmnent. That is not what he is looking for. What Bob did do is set his system, room and mind up to fully take advatage of what is recorded on the records. He is not interested in jacking up the bass if its not there, he takes for what it is -a record with no bass. or a album that was recorded to low or to high. With a lot of background noise, rumble, or hiss. He has no need to play with speaker placement or wonder why now becuase I lowered the volume the sound change so let me get up and move thing around. I have tryed his approach and it works. You will have a system and room tuned to one volume that will come much closer to being enjoyed then if you don't. Keep in mind the is for critical listening. not when you a getting f*&^$d. Also thing of when you go to a audio store and listen to a speaker, amp, etc.. do you let the salesman screw with the volume control when listening. If you do you have a problem and probably like the speakers that it louder - unless they are Bose. |
Maybe this will clear things up a bit. Call it a compilation of both angles.
Bob is searching for a reference level for LP's. However, this is no one reference level for all LP's. Largely because all LP's were not recorded to the same standards and reference, one to another. Bob is in search of why can't all LP's be played back at the same reference volume level. To better answer his question, they could if they were all recorded to the same references in other areas across the board. Since they are not, it would be a bit difficult to achieve such a task. Not to say some LP's can't be grouped or catagorized using a reference level range, but to have a finite level is a very daunting task.
I believe this was the end result this conversation was intended to bring about. However, it would have happened if all parties had a better amount of working knowledge concerning reference, not to mention how it applies to volume level. Since it is not the common thought or concensus of audiophiles, they don't understand it. This not slam, just an observation. Fidelity inhanced would be a better description. Almost to the point where fidelity becomes a critical to achieving it. This where being an audiophile takes on a scientific role; the two worlds collide.
For once its good to see the grey area shrink a bit. Remove the subjective and find the foundation of why!
Bob...you're becoming more of an audiophile than you think. Keep at it!
Craig |
Hi Craig, I am with ya brother, Amen.
Goodbye,
Bob |
"Apparently everyone here on the Gon needs professional help, from the single driver speaker aficionados to the electrostatic speaker admirer to the SS amp lover and their tube lover counterparts and don't forget CD vs LP's, are we are all misguided if we think differently from each other? "
Yes...emphatically yes! Everyone's opinion is that if its not relevant in their minds, its misguided energy requiring professional help.
Welcome to the largest shortcoming on an audiophile...opinion. Reference is non-existent. This issue is the epitome of misguided energy; what should matter is now left to opinion and is so convoluted it no longer matters.
Acoustat6...let it go! You have an achievable goal that will enhance both your system, enjoyment and knowledge. It doesn't matter to others. Save yourself the trouble. Become a hermit like the rest of us and keep your knowledge to yourself. If someone really cares they'll reach out to those who have the true experience and not an opinion. Until then, keep at it and enjoy the trip.
Craig |
Bob, I'd remind you that it is easy to correctly quote a single sentence someone wrote but still have it be out of the original context in an effort to have it support an unrelated premise.
That appears to be what happened in this case. I'd further comment that it is also not uncommon for the person quoted out of context to be somewhat sensitive when they feel their words have been used to support a position with which they do not agree.
You've got a very unusual take on the subject of volume controls. That's fine but no need to be surprised that the world isn't following your lead. The only important thing is that it makes sense to you. |
Hi Emailists, I have not come here to bicker with you, but since you have not discussed anything with me, prior to your previous post, which was your first post to me. Where I correctly quote you..
"Our hobby is an obssesive one for sure, but when other people who share your zeal for the best reproduction possible are telling you that your focus is misguided, you may have to examen in your life what is going on, perhaps under the guidance of a professional."
And in your second post to me you say, and I quote,
"it's obvious the help you need is not to be found on any audio forum."
I had no idea who were or your thoughs on anything audio (except that you are a professional!) so I did read some of your posts.
If you would like to tell me why you think I am wrong, we can discuss it. Don't go right off the bat telling me I am wrong, and no reason why, except for your "professional opinion" (tin eared gardener?), AND that you think I need "professional help" or "advice not available in this forum."
If anyone is interested in discussing my thoughts on a particular subject, thoughtfully and with interest, it is not you job to discredit me and and say that I am wrong with nothing to back it up except your "professional opinion" (what was that again?) and your (which, by the way you did not give in your origional post) or prior posters "anecdotes".
Is this the way we are discussing things?
Bob
|
Emailists, I'd have to comment that it is pretty common for people to use quotes out of context. The likelihood of this happening increases when you have someone like Bob who fervently believes he has stumbled onto an insight that few others, if any, have been lucky enough to see.
However, I'm glad you had a chance to correct the record (pun intended) regarding his misapplication of your words.
Bob's view that the volume control on a stereo system has one setting that is sacred above all others is rather unique. I have to say it certainly seems to offer him some type of satisfaction that increases his appreciation of his audiophile hobby.
That said, I still prefer adjusting the volume control so the level in my room is appropriate for the music I'm playing. That adds to my enjoyment and appreciation of the music.
I cannot fault the recording engineer and record producer for not wasting signal-to-noise ratio when they are making a recording of short duration, softly played music. Nor can I fault the engineer who reduces those levels to capture the sound of kettle drums in a long symphony. In both cases my opinion (which seems to be the more widely accepted one) is that the engineer is doing a fine job of making the most within the limitations of the media. The fact that I need to twiddle with my volume control a bit to take advantage of his efforts doesn't bother me. |
Hi Bob,
The post in which you quoted me was about low quality "bootleg recordings" made on microphones snuck into concerts.
It had nothing to do with LP playback at all. The gist was that on my high end system, some bootlegs didn't sound very good, yet on my lower quality computer system, the same bootlegs sounded more listenable. The entire thread was asking about if other people listened to very low quality recordings on high end systems.
This has nothing to do with your original question about establishing a reference level of LP playback. I offered you my proffessional input about reference playback levels from my field, in the hopes of getting you to realize that perhaps your efforts towards higher fidelity may best best be directed elsewhere.
Yet rather than address any of the annecdotes I or anyone else presented, you chose to read through a bunch of my past posts looking for anything resembling a contradiction with which to discredit me. I see the pattern here and it's obvious the help you need is not to be found on any audio forum. |
Hi Dave, The quotes were from "Emalists" posts, with my responses after. All words that are in quotes are from "Emailist" except for the "Dear doctor I think its you instead" Sorry it is not easier to read, Try reading it again and then tell me who has the problem, me or "Emailist" who is trying to give me some advice.
Bob |
Well Acoustat6, I think that I see your problem. You've got a seriously flawed system. If listening through your computer is superior, then you've got really big problems. Your speaker placement probably has you speakers behaving badly and literally fighting with each other. Get a Sumiko speaker set and you'll have totally different view of audiophile life. Seriously, if you're computer sounds better, then there's something really badly wrong with you system.
Dave |
Emailists said, "I realize this issue of playing back all LP's at a common level is important to you, but please realize that you are perhaps the only one in the world who this is important to."
Actually, it is important to everyone, its just that you don't realize it. I think, that perhaps, it is you who doesn' get it, the reasons why poorly recorded/mastered/pressed LPs sound bad. It is because they do! We all know that poorly recorded/pressed LPs can never sound good, so why keep denying it? And why keep altering you system to accomomdate them? Isn't this why we search for good/great sounding LPs? Can I/you put on an poorly recorded/pressed/mastered LP and and manipulate it enough to sound "good"? Including by manipulating the sound through the "biggest" equalizer we have, the volume control. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Do you think, that a crappy recording, if played on a less resolving system improves the recording or that perhaps we can manipulate it enough that it "becomes musical".
You, yourself, answered these questions here in one of your own posts.
In your recent post "Listening to low quality" you said;
"On my main system....The recording totally falls apart. Hard to listen to. Not overly bright- but just thin, echo'ey, distorted, and not too enjoyable.
Back in my computer system all is well and I can really enjoy the music again.
I'm Just trying to think through what if any implications this has for my main system. It may make me think about those less than stellar real recordings in a new way.
After all ,it is musical enjoyment and fidelity to the original recording we're after, but can too much fidelity subtract from the musical enjoyment?
Just thinking out loud. Could something like a very tubey, bloomey, bufferstage that actually lowers resolution by a large amount and blurs musical details be a potential bandaid?"
Emailists
10-20-07
"Our hobby is an obssesive one for sure, but when other people who share your zeal for the best reproduction possible are telling you that your focus is misguided, you may have to examen in your life what is going on, perhaps under the guidance of a professional...."
Apparently everyone here on the Gon needs profesional help, from the single driver speaker aficionodos to the electrosattic speaker admirer to the SS amp lover and their tube lover counterparts and dont forget CD vs LPs, are we are all misguided if we think differently from each other?
How about Acoustic Resonators surely I didn't recommend "professional help" when you said,
"I put the Resonator on its stand (which was still stuck to the wall) behind me, and imediatley it sounded more dimensional, so I am once again a believer."
"Dear doctor I think its you instead"
"You might even find you're enjoying listening to music more without worrying about the levels each LP/recording was cut at."
I am enjoying it perfectly well, and do not have to worry about the different playback levels, that is the wonder of the way my system is set up.
Bob |
|
I would like to contribute my humble thoughts. I am not looking to upset anyone or cause confrontation, just expressing my thoughts.
We live in a world that deprived us of true individuality, clear insight into life, how to reason and most of all the truth. Our education system which is responsible for this (mainstream commonfolk education system) is designed to get us to conform, obey the law and allow the rich to toy with society at large. In general the system does not reinforce enough that everything should be questioned. Most everything that is said or beleived by individuals is just repeated and never evaluated. Everything the media pushes on us is to distract us from real issues. Proof is what "they" get away with.
I don't want to rant but this is the heart of the matter. We have been lied to from day one to such a large extent that the truth is nearly impossible to find. Sure it works for the most part, the country is stable, but at what expense. What percentage of the population understands and enjoys fine cuisine, good music and cultural destinations ? Food is not explicitely to arouse our taste senses only but to nourish us as well. This contributes to robust health and balanced cognitive function. We need to nourish ourselves in order to function optimally, but without knowing this we can not reverse this destructive cycle.
We should be spoiling ourselves! Fine food, vacations to cultural destinations, concert subscriptions etc. should be a part of everyones life!! But because the rich run our country the middleclass cannot afford to live a fullfilling life because it is paying more than it should in taxes.
Audiophiles represent a segment of society with higher intellect. We appreciate music, an artform that moves the soul. We connect with musicians and composers. Music makes us happy. We learned to think for ourselves and don't blindly follow mags reviews.
I would tend to believe most audiophiles are moved by food as well.
We should be enjoying life and loving what we do.
Ask yourself- Am I enjoying my listening sessions?
We all have different tastes and perceptions. Find what works for you and take it to a higher level by exploring different components or rituals.
And by the way my hearing is influenced by my diet and supplementation, it may make a difference for you as well.
I hope what I said helped. If it angered anyone just ignore what I said most of my shallow friends do and I prefer it that way.
In the end I would like to see everyone have fun and find meaning in life. |
Bob, you gave it a mighty try, but I'll need to agree to disagree. I seem not to have budged you one bit and I still think your goal will not yield fruit.
Thanks for the fun discussion and happy holidays.
Dave |
Hi Dave, Thanks for having continued interest in this discussion. Actually there are many reasons for this and not limited to the few listed now.
A set level where all LPs have the ability to reveal their sonic character.
A set level for system noise.
A set level for LP/TT noise.
A set level that is consistent with human hearing at a "reasonable" level. This is NOT an arbitrary number/level.
To obtain a consistent and natural frequency level.
To set your system up within it limitations of system performance.
To obtain synergy between components.
To know what is needed to improve your system so all LPs can sound as good as they can sound, while poorly recorded LPs are revealed for what they are.
To be able to have some set goals that are obtainable and realistic.
There are other reasons that go along for the ride.
You only need so much amplification and you will know how much you need.
We don't look like a fools jumping up and down to impress our friends with our intimate knowledge of the volume control. Saying things like, this drum solo sound great LOUD, and now this part sounds great like this...
Do you wonder, if you have to do this, that your system is compressing dynamics?
It will force some people to actually listen to the music, recordings and their system. This statement is sure to get a few peoples undies in a bunch, I am ready.
Perhaps its a bit of a Zen thing at first. Just sitting there and listening to music. Maybe for the first time you will listen to the music, recording, pressing and condition of your LP playback.
Perhaps it will draw you in, to listen to downward dynamics and then shock you with your systems upward dynamics. Setting up your sytem this way encourages this. And unfortunatly show you that most LPs are compressed, noisy and have bad sonics. Fortunatly many LPs are quite listenable, even revealing the shortcomings, and great LPs are revealed.
So we all know, when stating things like I listen loud/soft, the dealer, audio show, friend etc.. cranked it up, we know what is meant by that.
Bob |
Bob,
I think you are focusing and obesessing about aspects of reproduction that are not going to further fidelity.
In the video world we have different levels of 1hkz tone for different tape formats, be they analog or digital. No one would expect to play them all back at the same level - even different machines will record at different levels, and therefore they must be compensated for.
I realize this issue of playing back all LP's at a common level is important to you, but please realize that you are perhaps the only one in the world who this is important to. If in fact you were looking to design a system that had no volume control to denigrate the sound, then yes, I could see this discussion bearing fruit. But that does not seem to be the case.
Our hobby is an obssesive one for sure, but when other people who share your zeal for the best reproduction possible are telling you that your focus is misguided, you may have to examen in your life what is going on, perhaps under the guidance of a professional. You seem like a very nice guy, well educated, insightful, etc. It's really worth investing in yourself to be the best person you can be. You might even find you're enjoying listening to music more without worrying about the levels each LP/recording was cut at.
Have a great holiday. |
Acoustat6 said:
"I do believe that all LPs can/should be played back at the same level, if you like the sound of the LP is another question entirely or if your system is capable of the dynamics."
I guess that I should have asked this earlier (I've re-read and can't find my answer), but why? Other than to create a goal, which seems purely arbitrary to me, why do you "believe that all LPs can/should be played back at the same level"? If you gave a reason, I missed it at least a few times.
Your fellow audio buddy,
Dave
BTW, thanks for the REG link. He has lots of interesting views. I can't agree with everything he writes, but he does a great job of laying out his position. |
Hello, Cdwallace is onto it, as I see it. True fidelity of the recording, but don't 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, adjust 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 quieter, then change volume level again if necessary, or moving your speakers improves the imaging and bass or tweaking the VTF....etc. keep working these refinements to improve your systems playback at that level.
Unfortunately 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 realize 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 listening.
Dcstep, yeah, I'm out there and I'm loving 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.
Dave, said that "we all know of the LPs different recording levels and dynamic levels."
That is what I am trying to celebrate and encourage, these differences that make LPs so different (from each other) and exciting. I do believe that all LPs can/should be played back at the same level, if you like the sound of the LP is another question entirely or if your system is capable of the dynamics.
Bob |
My goal when I listen to music is to be moved by the music. Whether the system goes from 20-20000 hz. has nothing to do with it..as long as the system can reproduce the music in a musical way. A big problem with many systems is that not the big dynamics necessarily, but the micro dynamics are missing. To understand what the music is doing, the seperate notes ebb and flow. Listen to the Joshua Bell or Jasha Heifiz versions of the Beethoven violin concerto. They are both excellent, both recorded well, and yet they are almost 2 different pieces in enterpretation. Every single note is at a different loudness level as the one after or the one before. This variation brings understanding to the piece. Just as in a stage play the slight emphasis on this or that word can change the whole meaning of the sentence, so it is with music. This is most obvious to me in classical music, but works for rock, pop, etc. One of the big faults of my system is that at low listening levels, you (or maybe just I) don't hear this ebb and flow. If I bring up the level, there is a place that those dynamics are suddenly exposed. Sure there are a myriad of aspects to music, but just touching on this one, I always find the most rewarding turn of the volume control for each piece. |
Walker very clearly meant that for every individual recording there is one optimal playback level. It a factor of the instruments used, the distance from the instruments to the microphone(s), and the acoustic sizes of the recording venue and playback room. That means that for any individual recording the optimal playback volume can vary somewhat from room to room. |
