2. digital
  3. 1424006288

Is Louder always Better?

i'm inclined to say yes.

first, context: you are not generating impedance mismatches when A/Bing gear, you have amps w/ more than enough power for your speakers / room (ie no clipping) and you haven't disconnected your tweeters (ala monster subs in cars) or sitting horribly off-axis.

the thing about home audio (digital particularly) is that as external noise is reduced, you are left w/ a purer signal--simple S/N ratio folks. generally, live instruments don't hurt your ears, but when a home rig does, i'd contend that its the noise riding on the signal, as its mostly concentrated on the upper mids thru treble, and this is where fatigue is generated (again, monster sub in car example for bass as non-fatiguing). the external & objectionable noise found in this frequency range determines final listening SPLs (the listener naturally arrives at a volume setting where the artifact noise doesn't cause overt fatigue). as noise is reduced, the final SPL level can be increased while generating no incremental listening fatigue.

but, at all volumes, it also implies greater microdetail & clarity (again higher S/N ratio), while also being more enjoyable---i consider those findings as evidence that 'louder is better' is a fine litmus test. if you make changes that result in your listening louder without your ears immediately objecting, you are highly likely listening to an improvement in home playback (given original context).

what is this getting at? external noise (aka Distortion) not only obscures micro-detail in the upper mids & treble, but it also causes listening fatigue and ultimately limits the volume you can listen comfortably at (ergo the thread title). i've found that external noise removal is a function of 3 efforts, all of which are equally important:
1) power conditioning
2) vibrations
3) room acoustics

(one visionary poster referred to them as the holy trinity of audio, i agree).

i figure i've put 10% of my audio budget into these 3, and it ultimately is the difference between a decent but disappointing rig, and a very satisfying one.

YMMV, but probably won't.
128x128rhyno

Showing 4 responses by larryi

larryi
3,759 posts
 
I find the use of the term S/N ratio and "noise" confusing here. Is noise a catchall for harmonic and intermodulation distortion, phase anomalies, frequency response variation, and signal/sound that is uncorrelated with the musical content (what I consider to be "noise") and any other forms of distortion? If that is the case, all that is being said is that if bad stuff is lower in level relative to signal, that is better than when bad stuff is higher in level and does little to explain what are the most important types and sources of distortion.

If what is being discussed is noise (uncorrelated with the signal) as measured as S/N ratio, I would think this is of minor importance once noise falls below a certain level. A lot of cheap gear will have vanishing low levels of noise, as measured by S/N ratio, that high end tube gear will never come close to matching, and that hardly matters.

As far as what I look for in gear, I am with Charles1dad. I have little interest in how loud I can get the system before fatigue sets in. I look for the very oppposite--I like gear that is resolving, sounds full and satisfying, and has great dynamics when playing at lower volume levels; the better my system has become, the LOWER I tend to set the volume.
larryi
3,759 posts
 
Now that I think about it, Rhyno is probably referring to headroom--how loud a system can get beyond normal listening level before distortion, in all of its forms, becomes too obtrusive. It IS important that the amps not distort or clip before reaching the highest level that the listener wants to listen at, and it IS important that the speakers not compress or the speaker cone be free of excessive "breakup" (non-pistonic) behavior. However, we each have different loudness levels we like, and different priorities. I don't place as high a priority on being able to play loudly as I do on being able to play very softly and sound good. It is a VERY rare thing that a system can do it all without compromises.

I have replaced the midrange driver and horn in my system with another that is, to me, extraordinarily good at low volume levels. I accept that it does have a tendency to "shout" at lower levels than other similar drivers, but I value its abilities at low volume enough to accept that compromise. It is equally understandable that someone else would hate the compromise I made because they place a much higher priority on high volume abilities. System building involves determining what one likes (priorities) and then finding the best way to minimize compromises.
larryi
3,759 posts
 
Al,

I listen to a lot of classical music too. While I agree that it is nice to have the ability to play large orchestral pieces at realistic volume levels, practically speaking, it is not something that can be done because recordings simply do not have a realistic dynamic range--if you set the volume for realistic peaks, the softer passages are WAY too loud. No recording provides a realistic range because the public would object (the recording would be totally unlistenable in a car, for example).
larryi
3,759 posts
 
Hi Al,

I actually have the Romeo and Juliet recording on the direct to disc LP and I have the Telarc Firebird, also on LP. The dynamic range of those recordings is quite staggering. The classical recording with the wideest dynamic range that I have is probably a CD made by Clarity of the Rites of Spring; it has a big warning on the cover about the potential to damage speakers.

The vast majority of my recordings don't come close to those in terms of sound quality. These days, most of my classical music listening is from CDs and very few are "audiophile" recordings. Still, I am quite pleased with most current releases, in terms of sound quality, even though dynamic range is not realistic.
More to discover