Turn down the Volume!

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.  

@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:

 

@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.

@mijostyn --

What about the rest? Every little detail is important, some more than others. ...

I didn't address my question about "the rest" to you, but rather aimed it at a general tendency in audiophilia to be less invested in a range of core parameters (i.e.: the rest) like dynamics, scale, size of presentation, ease, etc. 

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. 

You somehow got the derogatory idea about Mr. Turnbull's setup, through Mr. DeVore descriptions, that is was merely "enjoyable" sounding to the ears of a novice audience who were easily impressed, and opposed it with the more desirable high-end trait of "accuracy." I just found it a reductive remark and an odd takeaway from the video. Listen to what John has to say from 10:07:

The interesting observation I have made over the years is most people, even those who are not HiFi addicts know when they hear it.

Exactly; why would the ones who heard Mr. Turnbull's setup be less right in this regard?