Low level listening

Wow, I'm surprised that you fellows who are generally very knowledgeable about audio topics seem to know nothing about this topic.

No one (myself excluded) has mentioned the effects of compression or expansion and no one has even brought up the old Fletcher-Munson Loudness Curves: http://www.webervst.com/fm.htm

Basically, systems that are more compressed and have prominent highs and bass will tend to sound better at low listening levels. Unfortunately, as the volume raises to higher, more normal levels, flatter, non-compressed sound becomes more desireable and correct.

These factors are equally or even more important than ultimate resolution when listening at low levels.

In other words, two ways to preserve proper tonal balance and perceived resolution at low volumes are to use a loudness contour control and/or a compressor to compress the dynamic range...

These methods will work regardless of the system's resolution or transparency. Putting a compressor in the tape loop and dialing it in for low-level listening could work very well in many cases.

I used to employ a dbx compressor in conjunction with a set of Stax electrostatic headphones many years ago and that setup worked very well.

Good topic; lots of experience and wisdom expressed above.

In my opinion low level listening and detail retrieval can only be appreciated in the nearfield position.I run and Eico HF81 with a pair of RS LX5's with linaeum tweeter in the nearfield and am always amazed what they can do in low level listening. In my main I run Quad ESL 63's with a DK 100MKII and this cannot touch the Eico setup on low level. Full level listening is another matter.

Would someone translate Plato's comment...guess I'm an Aristotleian...
:-)

Bartokfan,

I'm not really sure what needs translating, but I'll give it a shot.

Compressing the sound results in a higher average perceived sound level. Making softer sounds closer in volume to louder sounds results in a perceived fuller balance for low volume listening. That's why you can listen to a cheap radio and feel like you're not missing that much -- because the sound is so compressed that all the musical sounds are presented at nearly the same volume level.

The Fletcher-Munson loudness curve has been known for decades and is the reason for a "loudness" control on many integrated amplifiers and receivers. The curves show that as the average volume level is decreased both the low frequencies and high frequencies must be boosted by increasingly higher amounts (in dB's on the graph link I supplied)in order to be perceived at the same relative volume level.

So beyond electronic means to compress the sound or supply loudness compensation, systems that are naturally compressed or have elevated bass and treble (as referenced to the midrange) will sound more natural (fuller, better-balanced) at lower listening levels. And these effects would be independent of system resolution.

I'm just saying that there is more than one reason why certain audio systems seem to sound good at low volume levels... And it may not always be the audiophile-preferred reason (immediacy or resolution).

One of the qualities that many audiophiles (myself included) strive for in sound reproduction is uncompressed dynamic range. Yet, if you think about it, the most dynamic systems should have the worst low-level listening balance because the volume difference between the very loudest and the very softest musical notes is the greatest. The quietest musical sounds/notes/passages can then be lost in the ambient room noise as volume is substantially decreased.

Therefore, the most dynamic audio systems would require compression and loudness compensation in order to sound correct and well-balanced at very low listening levels.