Turn down the Volume!

I received some great audio advice early in my 20’s from a 75 year old, tone deaf, audio store owner who built his own speakers.  In his store, he had an LED watt meter so when we cranked the music, we could see how many watts we were really listening to.  We were amazed at how loud 1-2 watts could be!  His advice was to turn the music lower and save our ears, they are the only ones we get.  
 

As a result, I’ve always had a preference for low wattage gear.

To me, one of the most important subjective measure of a system is how it sounds at low volume.   As a system improves, one can enjoy the sound at lower and lower volume levels--it still sounds vibrant and rich and seems to fill the entire listening room.  High efficiency systems, particularly horn systems seem to do this better than other kinds of speakers.  That might explain why Japanese audiophiles have huge horn systems in their tiny apartment rooms (being culturally polite, they would not play the system so loud as to disturb neighbors).  It is, to me, wrong headed to seek a large horn system because that size suggests high volume capability--that may be the case, but, I still prefer horns that sing at quite low volume.  I have recently heard multi-way systems built around a wide-range driver (e.g., Cube Audio Nenuphar Basis) and even some single-driver systems that pull this off successfully (e.g., Charney Audio Companion).  

as with everything in hifi (and life in general), the key is finding the right balance, the correct degree of moderation, avoid excess

for me, low level sound quality is important, but we of course understand how we hear, and the fletcher munson effect, so we need to realize low level listening has its own challenges - still we live in domestic environments, and so low level listening for many is a must, so their systems better to tuned to sound good at levels they listen at

otoh, reproduced music can and should take on a scale and impact somewhat approximating a live performance... so to experience that, one needs to have the volume to a level where a piano sounds like a real piano, a real bass has the body and weight of a real bass, and so on... this requires a decent level of spl’s

for me, i do try to listen in the range of 80-85 db peaks, and do alot to try to preserve, and protect my hearing, which is obviously essential to our continuing to enjoy the hobby

I agree with the OP. When I upgraded my amp a few months ago, my system become much more engaging at moderate volume.

@larryi +1

As my system has gotten better, less and less volume is required. I am sure there is more than a couple reasons. But the first most obvious is the noise floor. Less expensive and old systems like in my youth had very high noise floors. Often it takes experience to “hear” this…. It is the jacked up quality to the sound and pressure on your ear drums. So, turning up the volume you are looking to increase the dynamics… the contrast. This also increases the noise floor.
 

Good systems tend to have a place where they sound best, balancing noise and dynamics. Great systems sound great at all volumes. This I one of the marks of a great system. They are engaging at a whisper and 90db. 

I remember being impressed going to a high end audio store in 1980 and achieving 110 db. The salesmen and I were really psyched at what we had done… but my ears were practically ringing. It was the incredible volume of the stuff in between the notes.

There are other reasons, faster bass transients…. And greater articulation.

Decade after decade as my systems improved the volume required the music sound great and dynamic has come down. While I used to play in the 90db range in the 1980s… now in the low 60’s to 70’s db. The music is completely satisfying.

My previous system I called my “reference system “ as it was really good at reproducing the venue, scale, and volume of music. It was very detailed and dynamic… encouraging me to match the venue. I have season tickets to the symphony.

So, I went through a period where I tried to find the “correct volume”. This is particularly important in classical since the entire dynamic is used… from the very quietest sound… a single flute played at low volume… slowly emerging from the dead silent background, to a crescendo over 100db with the whole 80 per orchestra playing at once. So, if the volume is too low… you miss the quiet passages… if too loud.. the crescendos are ear splitting.

Anyway, I spent a bought six months getting myself calibrated to adjust the volume correctly for that system.

It also depends on the source material. I turn the particular music up until the dynamics and balance between instruments feels correct and engaging. Too low becomes like muzak.

Protect your ears! Mine are 64 years old, and I am glad that I only have minor tinnitus and the typical high frequency loss above 12k. I’ve always avoided ear-damaging loud noise, including at concerts where I always wore ear plugs or improvised with kleenex. On the gun range, I’ve long used electronic muffs with foam plugs, double the protection.

Now I find that when listening to my stereo my appetite for louder volume varies (some some songs demand it! 😎), often by time of day and how long I have been listening. I have a decibel meter and try not to listen to sustained levels above 85db for very long. I typically don’t enjoy listening at low volumes, as the detail isn’t there and I have a pretty decent system with a low noise floor. I may get Ayre gear, which has a volume circuit that apparently enhances lower volume listening and holds the detail. My wife doesn’t like it too loud, so I often have to switch to headphones when she’s home in the evening.

As @ghdprentice said, this can be really challenging with content with wide dynamic range - particularly classical. Fortunately, a good bit of my listening genres have pretty narrow dynamic ranges, so moderate volumes sound great.

Occasionally on a great live album, I just have to be in attendance 😁

I have a horn system. It plays better at low volume than the s-state system I had before. Still, it sounds better with some more volume. I would like it to sound great even lower. But I think this is difficult to achieve. 

I don’t know what decibel I listen but I know a lot of HiFi stores turned me off because they played the music  too loud IMO. I guess they were trying to impress me.  Yet I generally play it louder than the casual listener. Often I don’t really think my system is that loud til I go to speak to my wife and I have to raise my voice quite a bit. This was one of the surprises to me is that it doesn’t sound that loud til i go to talk and I have a loud voice. However I am of the opinion that every album has a sweet spot where the volume is optimal for that album. I usually try to find that. I guess I need a db meter. tried on on my phone but didn’t trust its accuracy

Ambient noise levels have much impact on volume level needed for satisfying listening. Late night listening sessions, when external noise lower contributes nicely. Think about ambient noise levels at 50-60db in daytime vs. late night when I can reach down into 20's on good night, typically lower 30's, think how this 20-40db difference impacts dynamics, especially the micro! Micro dynamics give life to the performers, macro less important to this once a certain volume reached.

The volume knob is the only 'tone control' I ever use in my system.

Ah….

Would be so great to live in an area where the ambient db level is as low as the 20’s. Lowest we get in in the mid to low 40’s (would have to build a dedicated listening room to get that kind of ambient control where we live). As @sns points out, that can really make a difference in micro detail/dynamics. Had the pleaser of listening to a room systems with that benefit and it’s astonishing how little you need to drive the music. But ultimately depends on how the music is performed and recorded.

ESL's played quietly. Occasionally at 'normal' volume.

100% agree.  Hard for me to compare speakers at shows as they are all turned up to saturation (in my ears). 

a minority opinion here- what would benefit most systems in most listening environments the most, is a good compressor. the compressor would raise the bottom level of the music where it can more easily be heard above the environmental noise floor, so less overall volume is required to feel like one isn't missing the quiet bits. the record [LP and 78] engineers of old knew what they were doing when they had to restrict the dynamic range within about 40-50 db, as most people's total systems [including their listening environment and people within and around that environment] couldn't handle a greater dynamic range. 

If your speakers are good enough, low volumes will still be engaging.  

Over the years I’ve had great success at highly enjoyable low-volume listening with the famed Epi 100 speakers (Epicure)... they sound excellent at any volume... and with almost any amp, for that matter.

Now, I recently got Klipsch Heresy IV - yep, my first ever horn speakers, and the horn high-efficiency aspect has been discussed by other posters - and I am delighted to report that they do project magic into the room even at very low volumes and quiet night time listening.  Of course, they sound super when cranked up too, but a real test of quality speakers is Do They Sound Good At Any Volume, Including Low Volume.

@patrickdowns  that seems familiar. I haven’t experimented too much but recently tried several preamps. I’m still confused as to what a high quality preamp does, but in this instance the one I tried needed to be quite loud to have any impact compared to the great one I currently have. So that’s an area to explore. I figured it was more about amps, but perhaps it’s about the lowest current gains. I also have a fully balanced system so that seems to raise the average outputs, but as with all systems it seems to do with synergy. 

@curtdr I have the opposite sort of speakers (Magnepan) but a friend has horns. Listening to his system once and while it didn’t ‘seem’ loud, I checked and it was actually over 100db in average. Now perhaps it’s a mistake but could the ‘focus’ of horns have this effect? Bass also plays a huge role, having twin subs seems to counterintuitivey let me turn things down. 

Between 70 and 80 db for me. Anything less or more won't be pleasurable to my ears.

@dain. Well, I can’t speak for all horns, just the ones I own, the Heresy IV, but they play so cleanly  that they can get actually very loud without seeming as loud as they are... I’m not sure what you mean by focus, but the Heresy have a large soundstage without losing imaging, to the extent that it’s almost bizarre, and I can sit off to the side and still experience the imaging effects.  They are remarkable speakers in that I’ve never really experienced anything quite like them.  Plus, to the topic, all those qualities hold even at low volumes, including a non-boomy bass that somehow still pushes against my chest and pulses my legs ... even at low volumes!  

However, I also get great dispersion and imaging and sound quality from my good old Epicures (updated w Human Speakers parts now, so they’re even better although the originals were already excellent), including engaging bass that tickles the eardrums even at low volumes, though it doesn’t have the chest push of the Heresy...

The Heresy and the Epi 100 speakers are very different in their designs and approaches, but both are excellent at low volumes.  So, I think it’s not the design itself that matters, but the execution and the quality of the drivers.

And yes, a sub or two done right can certainly help maintain the foundational bass at low volumes.  I just use one modest but high-quality sub set to unobtrusive levels with low (40hz) cutoff levels because I believe in running speakers the full range that they were designed for, if they are designed and excecuted well, but either set of my speakers would still be excellent without it and in fact I ran w my Epi 100 for many years w/o a sub and they were fine indeed still at low volumes (or high).

@curtdr that was what I experienced. Very clean but still loud. For his speakers though, he was very focused on midrange, it felt like if there was more bass then you wouldn’t need that volume. Seems like your system and the heresy balances better. 

Kind of amazed  at this thread. I good system played low is nice but a bad system  has to be played low.  a bad system  when it is turned off your ears feel like oh that's better one if the things I think does that is a bright system.  S great system you can listen  to for eight hours straight  without getting  tired of it with total engagement  the whole time. With a great system you listen to a whole side of an lp or the while cd not just one song sne on to the next. Personally  I don't think it is hi-fi  without transparency.  That is the first thing I listen  for and if it is not at least

least  somewhat transparent  I don't want to hear more than five seconds. Time to leave the room. When the tonal balance is right and when it is transparent  you have the option  of  what volume  you want to listen  to. When those are not right you don't have an option  on what level you want to listen  at the only option is to go turn it off. 

IMHO, each and every room has a "perfect" volume setting.

Find it and enjoy.

This is one of those topics that can get lost in being to general of an approach. Volume is going to sound different to each individual that is a given and I won’t say anymore on that. My comments are more aimed at the quality and what is behind the volume. To often listeners get hung up on watts per channel as the measurement of an amps power. They don’t look further and realize that that is a very small part of what is driving the speakers. There are 500 wpc amps that can’t drive speakers snd then there are 10 wpc amps that can make them sing. They did not name the company “First Watt” as a gimmick, they did because that first watt is the most important. All amps and speakers have their sweet spots where they will sound their best and the “volume” is only the end result and not the cause. Enjoy the music and journey it takes you on!

Just wanted to note that this is one reason trying to compare speakers online on YouTube is at best a crapshoot. Is that honkiness you hear in the midrange or shrillness or grit in the tweeter always present in the speaker or are they overdriving the Hell out of it? How good of a mic are they using? What is its frequency range, distortion, how good was the mic preamp and did they know how to properly use it? Without knowing to what level at 1m the speakers are being driven to there’s no way to do any real comparisons.

Then we have the Fletcher Munson Curve to deal with as we turn the volume down. If you don’t use tone controls or a loudness button (a variable one preferably), there will only be ONE volume for any specific source or recording that ticks all the boxes. Lots of variables (and your room) to consider. But yeah, I love to listen at 60 to 70 dB and still enjoy the music with some dynamics still present.

I rarely go above 92 dB for any length of time, rocking out, anymore. (Not that there is anything wrong with it in moderation for younger ears).

I learned a long time ago.  It is not how loud your system can play, it is how soft your system can play and bring you all the detail and expressions you want.

Good thing I practice that.  In my present living conditions, it is essential.  Or I'll get evicted.

I chuckle to myself when I hear or someone tells me, "It sound better the louder I play it". Sure, it does sound great.  Turn the level down, the bass disappears and image collapses.  Okay.... not for me.

There certainly are more fitting volume levels depending on the source material, as has been pointed to - for some musical content more rigidly than others. Watching movies the reference volume level is adjusted from the most natural dialogue reproduction SPL-wise around which the rest of the soundscape then "settles" itself, and this can lead to rather staggering macro-dynamic outburst while also accommodating proper intelligibility in quieter scenes.

The sheer breadth in sound design and the variety presented with movies, both with regard to dynamic bandwidth as well as the specific sound design elements can be an impressive experience to witness when capably reproduced, while also being a tough test for one's speaker setup and its abilities into versatility; where for most audiophiles music may be the exclusive tool to evaluate system performance, I include movies (Blu-ray's/4K UHD's) as an additional testing means, finding this to reveal more effectively reveal the truer potential and possible limitations of one's speaker setup (+ remaining gear and acoustics), and the qualities I deem important here. 

Unless as a background experience I prefer movies and well-recorded classical music reproduced at their more or less rigid reference volume levels, whereas other musical genres would seem more accommodating for enjoyment at lower levels. I love listening to jazz piano (like Keith Jarrett) at lower levels in the late evenings, as well as jazz in general, and fortunately I have the setup to make it come alive at lower levels. While as a system ability sonic proficiency of lower levels is vital to me I wouldn't want to be without the effortless presentation at the other end of the SPL-spectrum either.

To some loud playback may be regarded as the young individual's (fool's) game, but in measured doses and as mostly dynamic peaks emulating live events I find it to be indispensable reflecting musical (and movie) material. Indeed, since I started these audio endeavors my system has become better at playing at lower levels as well as loud beyond measure, which is what really matters in an effort to encompass most material.  

It’s always something. Auto tune is the new compression! Which was EQuing the old Compression lol

compression is a tool. Used well and judiciously, it shouldn’t be noticed by even good ears. There were loudness wars…mainly started by competing FM stations trying to pump up the volume which in turn led to artists wanting their songs to “stand out” vs the “competition.” Louder sounds “better” in comparison situations which is why AB testing requires volume matching A and B!

The transition from CD’s to streaming should, and is resolving this. Also I believe the FCC stepped in with terrestrial broadcasting. Most if not all streaming services have volume moderation algorithms in place.

Rick Beato has a good YT video on compression and Tim Pierce (maybe Rhett Schul) cover how compression on guitars is used in recording…all on their YT Channels.

I was going to post on a related issue. But what the heck it involves loudness.

Anyway, I happen to like the sound of tubes combined with good solid state. For years, I have had a CJ tube preamp into a Krell solid state set up. Recently I upgraded to a better CJ and discovered what I think is too often overlooked.

I also feel kinda dummy like not knowing this fact of life but…the output impedance of a pre amp needs to be matched to the impedance of the amp. (A side issue is the current delivered to your speakers..not so much the rms stuff).

I found I could not set the CJ volume control  at any reasonable level without getting an unacceptable overall volume level from my speakers. I called CJ and they recommended attenuators. I now use them to lower the input into the Krell by 10db.

I believe there is a volume sweet spot for most systems. My Swart guitar amp at 5w    
combined with the guitar pickups/volume has a definite point where clarity begins to  gradually enter a realm of very nice distortion. 

I think many of us need to consider where our systems sound best. It is important to consider the source material. So many CD’s (especially) are just poorly recorded. It’s not the playback. A badly compressed cd will sound bad regardless of what adjustments we make in our playback.

My KEF’s sound good from 40-90+ dbs and get fatiguing above that. But my happy place is in the 65-85 db range, so I can listen all day long.

i think people know this, but just in case...

https://www.noisyplanet.nidcd.nih.gov/parents/too-loud-too-long

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html

https://leader.pubs.asha.org/do/10.1044/leader.FTR2.25052020.52

https://www.miracle-ear.com/blog-news/what-is-loud-decibel-chart

@jjss49

Thanks. Those are very interesting. I have a general understanding, but was interesting to see the details. I started plugging my ears at concerts 30 years ago as I started to realize I really did not want to damage my hearing and most electrified concerts are too loud. I just stopped attending electrified concerts about 15 years ago; they sound terrible and are usually too loud.

For me, it’s simple. I raise the volume to the point of the music, whatever it may be, sounds realistic and actually scales per the performance. 

If it is louder, it seems artificial and too large, too quiet, the opposite.

I would say for most all, it is between 75-85 db. If louder, it typically means that it is still a realistic ‘size’ in my room.

@bkeske I think that’s what I’m trying to address. When auditioning a new amp/ preamp, the music was lifeless and dull until it got to that 80 db area. But with my normal system it sounds great at 60. So it seems to impact the hobby and wondered why it isn’t mentioned more. Especially in reviews it never mentions listening levels. Also at 60 the music is just as lively, just perhaps ‘farther away’ in the soundstage. 

@dain 

Well, in my room, I agree, the louder usually, means ‘more forward’ and I lose the soundstage. But again, my room. If it was larger, and I sat further away, I might be able to crank it to 90 more often, and still be ‘in scale’.

@dain You are right when you mention different systems have different loudness levels at any given dB reading. The Loudness Wars are all about dynamic compression. Soft passages sound almost as loud as the loud ones. It is pretty strange when a single violin sounds as loud as the entire orchestra. People seem to think this sounds better in their cars. 

We perceive other issues as "volume" like distortion and sibilance, both want to make us turn it down.

If you do not know about Fletcher-Munson curves read up on it. You can make a system sound louder by modifying it's frequency response to match that of our hearing at any given level, the old Loudness switch. 

Next is the volume the recording was mastered at. Recordings mastered at high volumes will sound dull and bass-less  at low volumes. Recordings mastered at low levels will sound bright and bassy at loud levels, see Fletcher Munson.

Finally, there is the overall quality of the system. Powerful, low distortion systems ( I include the room as part of the system) with reasonably flat response curves never seem to be playing as loud as they actually are. 95 dB can be very comfortable and satisfying for no longer than an hour or two or you risk damaging your hearing. Volumes above 100 dB should be avoided. But, in order to handle peaks well a system should be able to push out 105 dB without noticeable distress.

@bkeske has it right. Every recording has a "right" volume level again depending on how it was mixed and the type or genre of the music. 

@mijostyn  that’s fascinating. And f-m curves make sense. Much of this is in our brains rather than our ears. I’m not sure about ‘ level it was mastered at’  that would mean what? I’m thinking of if you hear music playing from afar, you can usually tell if it’s a live band or a recording. So it’s really about peak volumes very apart from average. Genre dependent for sure. I’m interested in streaming, since they have rules or algorithms to keep one song from out powering another. But it still leaves us to decide where the knob goes. If hitting 95 peaks for hours as you say it would seem risky, if it’s highly compressed (made constantly loud) it would be ‘fatiguing’, but that’s why I wonder why it isn’t mentioned more often. 

@bkeske --

For me, it’s simple. I raise the volume to the point of the music, whatever it may be, sounds realistic and actually scales per the performance. 

If it is louder, it seems artificial and too large, too quiet, the opposite.

Exactly. With some setups and speaker/acoustics combos the music "comes alive" at a relatively low volume level, but the scaling and overall presence would likely be off and need some more volume to fall into place. Low level listening and a sense of aliveness here is a great boon with late evening/night listening so not to disturb potential neighbors and/or sleeping family members, but for the music to more properly fill out the listening space - again, depending on personal preference, the material and recording nature - higher SPL's are necessitated. 

More importantly however, IMHO, a speaker's advantageous abilities into low-level detail retrieval and sense of aliveness here isn't so much about being a benefit to low-level listening as it is to the way it affects average and higher volume levels and where it matters mostly - certainly insofar anything approaching a fuller experience matters; whatever accounts for this ability at lower SPL's isn't confined to this range alone, but brings with it a sense of "ignition" and live feel at higher volume levels as well. 

I would say for most all, it is between 75-85 db. If louder, it typically means that it is still a realistic ‘size’ in my room.

That's about the average SPL range here as well, if occasionally a bit lower with music, and with movies somewhat higher in peak levels (but of course averaging lower). 

What strikes me as a bit posh is the notion, if such is actually presented, that low-level listening is somehow a finer arts and cultivation to strive for with music reproduction in one's home. I'm all for preserving our hearing in these endeavors and not bombarding them with unnecessarily high average SPL's over longer durations, but fullness, proper dynamics, physicality and presence in reproduction has become curiously unfashionable starting decades ago, making you wonder if a live acoustical reference is really the overall goal in audiophilia. 

John DeVore hits the nail on its head wonderfully precise here in his latest video blog:

 

@dain , It is not that complicated. If the mixing engineer is mastering at a higher volume he is going to keep the bass and treble a little lower to get a balanced sound. When you listen to it at a low level it sounds dull and bass-less. But, if you turn it up to the volume the mastering engineer was mixing at, it sound fine. Again, all this is based on the Fletcher-Munson effect. Every recording has a "right" volume level based on the type of music and the way it was mastered. The way around this is called dynamic loudness compensation. TacT Audio is the only company to have done this. In the old days just used tone controls. Now, some of us have digital EQ. Me, I just turn up the volume till it sounds right:-)

@phusis , an actual live acoustical reference certainly is the goal, at least as far as I am concerned. The problem for all of us is that a live acoustical reference is a moving target and ones that are not electrified into oblivion are hard to find. One of my favorite references is the conservatory string quartet. If I were to record one I would want the reproduction to sound exactly like that, room and all. Jazz in the right venue offers another opportunity for a realistic reference. It is easy for any great system to outperform most rock and pop concerts as they are in most instances distorted mono. I suppose I am looking for a rock concert with the imaging of a live string quartet, but with the bass, power and dynamics of rock. This is the audiophile me talking not the music lover me. The music lover me will gladly listen to a 78 of Enrico Caruso. I am not quite sure which lover John is speaking for. The general public is routinely astounded when they hear a big system. As he explains, many of them never knew systems like these existed. When you tell them the price they think you are crazy, probably true. Do they enjoy it? Sure, like any amusement park ride. They are certainly not making or even thinking about an analysis of the performance for accuracy. There is a scale of accuracy. Some systems (includes the room) are more accurate than others. Accurate and enjoyable are two separate issues. John is talking about enjoyable which more or less comes down to taste. Accurate is that string quartet sounding exactly as it did at the live performance. There are millions of almost accurates , but only one accurate.  Some of us prefer a more surrealistic version of reality. I will alter the sound somewhat to suit my own taste, to replicate my memory of the live performance at reasonable levels. It always is a matter of memory and we all hear music differently. I have yet to see anyone AB a live performance with a recording of it. We have no trouble remembering what we heard, but we have a real hard time remembering what we heard sounded like. There are so many confounding factors which is why there are so many opinions regarding the quality of music systems. John thinks if it sounds good, if it is "enjoyable" then it is valid. This approach is fine for most people. IMHO this is an avoidance tactic and certainly a lot less stressful than that search for the one accurate. This has nothing to do with validity. Any old which way you can enjoy music is valid. If you are looking for accurate you are in for a rough ride.

To all a Happy 4th!

Volume is one area which makes people think cd is better than streaming. Most streamers are low on volume and it’s only once you’ve adjusted the fixed volume to higher where things change drastically. 
 

now as much as volume is important, the listening environment is just as important. In a treated room, you’d enjoy your system. Volume is key but the environment is very very important. I can literally hear the sound from the highway as I type this. How do I expect my system to sound good under such conditions

@amosm  If you don't want to hear your car rattle, turn up the radio. This is called masking. The same holds true of your highway noise. Play vinyl which has a higher background noise level and turn up the volume till you don't notice the highway.\

Your only other option is to move. I 

I know of no house that is absolutely quiet. Mine certainly is not but, it never bothers me until I am taking measurements then I turn everything in the house off.

I suspect that the reason high-efficiency speakers tend to sound more dynamic than low-efficiency speakers has to do with thermal compression.  For any given output level, low-efficiency speakers have to run more power through the drivers, with a larger portion of that power being dissipated as heat vis-a-vis  high efficiency drivers.  That heat actually increases the resistance of the voice coil and this reduces the power that can delivered to the coil, thereby reducing its sound output.  Hence, there is more of this sort of compression of louder signals with low-efficiency speakers.  That is why high efficiency speakers sound more lively at any given sound level.  I think they sound particularly lively at low levels.

Higher ambient noise levels mask micro dynamics, hearing the full measure of micro dynamics contained within a recording is what makes the music come alive and creates engagement. 20db differences in ambient noise levels, lets say from daytime to quiet night,  within any particular room will greatly affect satisfactory macro dynamic or volume level of system. If one wants to have satisfactory low volume level listening, lower that ambient noise level!

Certainly, the type of music played also has bearing on this. Classical recordings with their generally higher levels of dynamic expression will be more problematic in the noisy environment, rock far less.

I tend to agree that high efficiency speakers and tubes perform better at low level volumes. Tubes, especially directly heated triodes I've found to have greater micro dynamic expression at low volume levels vs push pull and SS. High efficiency speakers, especially horns, expose the full potential of tubes in this area.

I agree - avoid ambient and background noise - but NOT the ambient sound in the recording, which is there for a reason, like a band playing *together* and not each player on their own, the "good ambience" which is often pro-tooled away in modern remasters.

And adjust your speakers (work with this). And some - not too much - treatment of the room. the lower your volume, while still hearing the music clear and good - the better.

Another underestimated factor is the RELATIVE volume, or gain, in your system. If you have two or more gain stages, and can adjust the volume on these, it pays to pay attention to which volume settings that give the best sound. If your system chain is tuned in this way, chances are, you can turn the overall volume down, and still have good sound.

Note that, in my experience, this relative volume tuning varies a lot. Generally if the source is turned too low, the music sounds dull and insipid. If too high it becomes too loud, insistent and harsh. However it also depends on the quality of the gain stages. So for example, for many years, I ran digital music from a pc to active speakers in my home office. I discovered that including a tube headphone amp between the source and the speakers gave better sound. Instead of two gain stages - lowly solid state in the pc, and similar in the active speaker amp, I now had three, a higher quality component in between - and discovered a new rule of thumb - make the best gain stage carry as much of the load as possible.

I downloaded the app for the Spectrum audio analyzer. Works great for very basic measurements. I use it all the time and find that I rarely listen to anything above 85db. As long as the system can handle the peaks, that's plenty for my uses.

@mijostyn --

an actual live acoustical reference certainly is the goal, at least as far as I am concerned. The problem for all of us is that a live acoustical reference is a moving target and ones that are not electrified into oblivion are hard to find.

Sure, I’m aware of that. My main objective here (and at the same time avoiding the reference to live, amplified concerts) was pointing to live acoustics concerts as events that weren’t confined to stale 60-70dB peak outputs, not that such volume levels can’t bring about worthwhile musical experiences in front of one’s home setup.

It’s the divide to the live concerts that not only in this respect is apparent, and where audiophilia, certain in some quarters has grown into a centered-around-itself snob cultivation that would almost want to have you bow at their faux achievements, while resembling anything but the live event in core parameters - at staggering prices, mind you. High-end audio in large part has become about soundstaging only, but what about the rest?

I am not quite sure which lover John is speaking for. The general public is routinely astounded when they hear a big system. As he explains, many of them never knew systems like these existed. When you tell them the price they think you are crazy, probably true. Do they enjoy it? Sure, like any amusement park ride.

Sorry, man, but that’s a borderline arrogant comment that ties nicely into Mr. DeVore’s main contention here: comparing the setup demoed by Mr. Turnbull (i.e.: vintage, large horn-loaded and very high efficiency speakers fed by low-powered tube amps) with an amusement park ride, and effectively robbing it of anything that aspires to High-End. Make it sound big and them novices will be easily impressed, right? Or, maybe it’s what is typically represented by high-end audio and what it lacks: size of representation, unrestrained dynamics, a sense of aliveness, presence, and something that just sounds real.

What you find to be a weakness with regard to assessing an audio setup’s capabilities from the "general public" I rather see as the un-schooled minds that haven’t been trained to beforementioned centered-around-itself sonic preference by audiophiles, and instead reacts genuinely to something reproduced. They haven’t been preconditioned to being wowed by small 2-way standmounted speakers costing a fortune, because it doesn’t sound real to them, so why bother - not least at a very high price?

They are certainly not making or even thinking about an analysis of the performance for accuracy. There is a scale of accuracy. Some systems (includes the room) are more accurate than others. Accurate and enjoyable are two separate issues. John is talking about enjoyable which more or less comes down to taste. Accurate is that string quartet sounding exactly as it did at the live performance. There are millions of almost accurates , but only one accurate. Some of us prefer a more surrealistic version of reality.

Accurate vs. enjoyable - well, to my mind that’s a severely shortchanging and reductive terminology to describe different setups, at least "the ones" that are being centered here. I would only add: "accurate" in relation to which range of aspects and references?

I will alter the sound somewhat to suit my own taste, to replicate my memory of the live performance at reasonable levels. It always is a matter of memory and we all hear music differently. I have yet to see anyone AB a live performance with a recording of it. We have no trouble remembering what we heard, but we have a real hard time remembering what we heard sounded like. There are so many confounding factors which is why there are so many opinions regarding the quality of music systems.

Absolutely, I fully agree on this.

John thinks if it sounds good, if it is "enjoyable" then it is valid. This approach is fine for most people. IMHO this is an avoidance tactic and certainly a lot less stressful than that search for the one accurate. This has nothing to do with validity. Any old which way you can enjoy music is valid. If you are looking for accurate you are in for a rough ride.

You’re certainly avoiding being more specific, and you cling to the term "enjoyable" (in conjunction with Mr. Turnbull setup, or at least that type of speaker-amp setup which it represents) as if it was the only way to describe and being any actual ’accurate’ and exhaustive correlative to its sound. That’s a wild presumption, I’d say, and one many won’t agree with. I would refer to your paragraph above (that I agree with), a paragraph that to my mind effectively undermines your adherence to accuracy here when the recollection of a reference can be quite obscure.

@phusis, thank you for the psychoanalysis. 

What about the rest? Every little detail is important, some more than others. It is attention to details that moves a system towards state of the art performance, even the minor ones. I stated exactly what accurate is and it is a target to shoot at, a reference point. Although our audio memory stinks those of us who frequent live events on a regular basis and are paying attention usually have a good idea what accurate is even though we can not define it. We know when we hear it. 

Specific about what? People's preferences? What "enjoyable" is varies from person to person and depends on that individual's experience and expectations. Wild presumption? No, fact of life and I could care less who agrees with me. Your paragraph makes no sense by the way. You might want to rephrase it. Let me do it for you. In my own little pathetic world I am an arrogant, HiFi snob and proud of it. I love every inch of the the ride and am more than happy to share and assist others as well a accept advice from those whose opinions I respect. Although accuracy in sound reproduction is a vague topic and difficult to describe, it does exist. The interesting observation I have made over the years is most people, even those who are not HiFi addicts know when they hear it.