Reference level playback


Hello to all, I have a theory to present that I feel is never fully addressed, it is in regard to the volume level that we listen at. This is in respect to vinyl only as I have no experience with CDs, I do not own a CD player and the one in my car is broken! That and the fact that I own about 10 CDs makes it impossible to have any regarded opinion in this matter.
I have seen in the past postings regarding listening levels, such as overall playback levels and playback levels for individual LPs. The two being distinguishable but not inseperatable. Recently someone said that it is a life time endeavor to find the correct playback levels as it changes from system to system, room to room and LP to LP. Also it has been posted that even crossover levels (and settings) should be used as freely as volume control settings. I disagree.
My experience has show that systems should be set at a reference level of 83db @ 1000hz and all LPs should be played back at this reference level. Set It and Forget It, is my motto.

I listen to all of my LPs at the same gain setting. I let the music and the engineer/producer/pressing dictate the playback level, and screw things up as they see fit! If you do not change the gain setting then you hear exactly what is on the record for evey record every time. I never change the volume control setting, it is set at 83db at 1000hz (plus or minus due to variations in my settings, room and references which does perhaps give you some leeway in any system, and may even be necessary). Some quiet non-bass heavy music plays at around mid 80s. Good rock plays at around the high 80s to low 90s. Music with big bass levels (orchestral and loud rock) plays around low to mid 90s with peaks to 100+. Emerson Lake and Palmers song Lucky Man hits 112db. Of course every record is completely different and that's the thrill and the reason. This is without changing the volume control setting. Want to listen to "quiet" music, put on some quiet music which was recorded appropriatly. Want some big bass Orb, well, it should play loudly. Want to hear the Monkees on Colegems, listen to it in your car.
I also do this for a number of other reasons:
1) All recordings now have the same vinyl recorded background noise, pops and clicks, noisy or quiet vinyl etc.. You hear each recording, pressing and condition of the LP for what it is. Turning down the volume on a noisy record does not make the record more quiet. Turning down the volume on a recording that was recorded too loudly does not help the sonics of this LP. Turning up the volume does not make a record more dynamic and it can only add more noise.
2) Bass levels are maintained through the Fletcher-Munson curve. Using the volume control has a huge effect on this. It makes it more difficult to balance bass levels when you are altering the Fletcher Munson curve. It is impossible to intergrate a sub when freq perception is changing due to overall gain settings for every recording or when listening at different levels according to your mood.
3) All recording engineers and producers have the same amount of dynamics available to themselves, did they make a dynamic, correct volume recording for the music that is recorded? I.e.: did they record an appropriately quiet section or style of music at an appropriate volume or did they compress the hell out of it and make a string quartet the same volume as a rock band? Its up to them to get this correct, not me. Lowering the volume does not help this LP. Is an Lp recorded too quietly and you want to hear it "rock out"? Increasing the volume does not help this if dynamics and overall gain is missing, plus "turning it up increases the noise levels in your system, and noises such as rumble and transient noise. This does not help this LP. How can you say record 1 is a good, quiet recording when played back at a lower gain setting comparing it to either itself or record 2 when played at a much higher setting? Did the pressing use good quiet vinyl? Is the pressing free of rumble and distortion? Changing gain setting dose not help any defiencies, they do not go away because you changed the volume level. Lets face it there are a lot of poor recordings, don't we really want to know which are good and which are bad? This is the way to find them.
4) If you "limit" yourself to one gain setting you will find that it is easier to set crossover settings, speaker placement and sub to main settings. You do this by getting the most out of your settings, not by pumping up or decreasing as is seen fit for that recording. again this shows the recording for what it is.
5) All records are played repeatadly at the same level so they always sound the same. From individual records played at different levels which would mess with the F-M curve and room interactions to all LPs which give some a more quiet background if played at a lower level to others where they become noisy cranked to 10!
6) Its an easily obtainable goal, who can't play at 83db at 1000hz? Therefore all of the other freq will be the same, you then only need your subs to be able to play 50hz and 20hz at 83db. Dont forget the required 20db dynamics! Why buy oversized amps and more gain than you need when all you are trying to do is get 83db at all freq?
7) We would all be listening at this level to make it easier to asses each others system at the same volume level.
8) This is the level that a good recording engineer should strive for. It gives him a natural level 83db with the ability to utilise 20db+ dynamics.
9) You only have to buy the size amp you need.
10) You only need things to be so quiet, is your system quiet at this level? Who cares if it is noisy turned up to 10, you are not listening there anyway.
11) If listening to an LP and the turntable has resonances or rumble or the amp has a low freq aberration changing the reference playback level will alter this underlying feel, sound, noise and this can not be correct-to evaluate at diff levels. This also pertains to number 1, regarding LP noise levels, whether condition or anomalies such as LP recorded hum or vinyl rumble.

In summary there are two main reasons for this and the others come along for the ride. For your system, you only have to obtain a "flat" freq response from 20-20K @ 83db plus the ability for dynamics, a not so easily obtainable goal as it may first appear but at least a direction to go. This does not mean there is there is no "fiddling to be done". If your system is not capable of this setting tune your system to a more easily obtainable level such as 80db or 77db or less and get as full range as possible within your systems capability.
Secondly no record has an advantage due to increased or decreased volume setting, you hear the record for what it is, which is one of my main goals in listening.
I am not the only one to address this issue as you can research this on the net. I feel that that this is an important issue which is rarely ever discussed.
Bob
acoustat6
Just fall back on fundamental. Everything has got its own fundamental. The sad thing about sound reproduction is that it is never easy to be comprehened as what you can have for photography. But, to me, they always share a lot of similarities, I mean to the extent of reproduction of what have been captured beforehand. I do not challenge into the technicality of the gears as I am not a designer for any electrical or photographic equipment.

For photography, there is always the concept of format. There are different formats of negative that one uses for taking picture. The common ones is 35mm negative. But for most professional photographer, they will go for bigger formats such as 645 or 120. Why? The reason is they need to blow up the picture. For smaller format, it is well known for the fact that there is a limitation in the amount of light energy that can be captured with a smaller lens design together with a smaller and compact area available, the blown up picture (many times of the size of the negative)will not be perfect in reproducing the object which is captured under such condition. The technical terms concerning the reproduction are chromatical correction, aberration etc.. A set of well defined terminology has also been set up such as resolution, curvature of field, depth of field, tonal balance, colour saturation, contrast etc. All these words would allow one to discuss properly the subject we are aiming for. So it is also well known that though 35mm is not a perfect format but it is so widely used by all consumers in the world. The simple reason is that most of us will not need to magnify the photo and the development of the negative into 3R or 4R size of photo is good enough for our collection. With reputable company such as Leica, you can hardly spot any major flaw in the picture you have taken and you may even think that the picture quality is on par with those picture taken with larger format camera under a non-blown-up situation. Now for sound reproduction, there isn't clear to correlate the sound energy with the size and the type of accoustic of the room that sound reproduction is needed.

Another point to be taken note as in photo. The contrast and resolution and the lens design will cause different results in micro and macro details of the picture. It is apparent when you start to compare lenses produced by those Japanese and with that by Leica. The colour tone and the saturation of the photo and even the three dimensional effect from Leica will smoke it. So when one discuss sound reproduction on micro details, you have to becareful not just to focus in one subject but to remember all the sounds reproduced and heard are inter-related. This is what I call the energy distribution for each frequency throughout the whole sound spectrum of the reproduction must be able to reproduce those which was recorded and captured in the first place. If it is not the case, than I believe the reproduction will be so called dull or dark, yin or yang, terms which the reviewers have got the likes to use.

Overall it is still the acoustic and the size of the room versus the combination of the equipment you put together. And not to have the merry go round situation in looking and hunting for details as it is just part of the whole sound spectrum in the reproduction chain.
Hi Vincentkkho, nice analogy and it does work very well with our audio reproduction. If you do indeed think about it. If a film has a red or blue hue to it all of you pictures will be like that. If your lens is out of focus all of your pictures are out of focus. If all of your film is saturated all of your pictures will be.

You need to be able to reproduce the loudest and quietest LP in your collection at the same gain setting. If any LP is so loud or so quiet as not to be able to listen to it, then that LP must by its very nature must be so completely out of range of normalcy (for those of you with a psychology bent) that you should considered that LP unplayable or it is a system/room problem either frequency response based or lack of dynamics.
I have no such records in my collection. I have a lot of poorly recorded/pressed LPs. But there is not one that meets this criteria and yes I have a lot of dynamic recordings, so don't go there. But if a record is so far off from other LPs in terms of dynamics, noise levels, sonic qualities, frequency range etc.. Its a bad recording, why listen to it? If your system or room is colored/saturated every LP will be colored or saturated.

If your system is unable to play the reference level 83db, then there must be a system or room acoustics problem. If it is system based then it it either distortion or a frequency response problem within your system. If it is room based, it is a frequency response problem. This is ultimatly not a problem, you just have to realise this is the limitations of your system and work within these confines. Tune your system within its limitations as you cannot exced them.
You want to ideally get your system to be as full range (20 to 20K )as possible at that gain setting, with 83db reference level maximum. Find a gain setting that is appropriate for your system/room with 83db maximum. You cannot just set for 83db reference level you need to approach it. Your gain setting limit (not including the max 83db limit) is the loudest or quietest LP that you can play unless you want to disregard those Lps as anomalies. Do your own research on 83db reference levels, and you have to find your own test LP for this, I have several test LPs and just like all records some are more "correct" than others. For LP playback you must use an LP as using any computer or CD based test will not correlate when you then playback an LP.

The more you have to change gain settings, the more your system is lacking dynamics. This is an indication of system compression. This is a serious problem.

So don't be a school boy , figure this out. Your ears will love you for it.

Fortunately LPs are like women, there is usually something I can find that I like about them.

The ridiculous post of "what is the best $5000 cable" that I posted as a joke has better response than this thread. A pure indicator of the fact that most audiophiles don't care or don't want to be able to listen to great LPs or tune their system properly.

Listen to the music, the answer is right there in your hands.

Just another diatribe.
Stir pot add spice.

Bob
"""But if a record is so far off from other LPs in terms of dynamics, noise levels, sonic qualities, frequency range etc.. Its a bad recording, why listen to it? If your system or room is colored/saturated every LP will be colored or saturated."" ---

There are three sets of variables which you referred to. The recording, the system and the room.

""If your system is unable to play the reference level 83db, then there must be a system or room acoustics problem.""----

Here you intend to miss out something and lead to the confusion of your argument. It still falls back on the three elements. If the recording is poorly done, than there is not reason for you to play it to the so called reference level. Combination of the system will give rise to tonal balance or distortion or intensification or attenuation of energy level at specific frequency range within the whole sound spectrum reproduced. But it will not alter the inter-relationship of different sound frequency which is recorded and arranged in the first place. This same reason goes for room acoustic. And you miss out the combined effect of the system and the room.

""You want to ideally get your system to be as full range (20 to 20K )as possible at that gain setting, with 83db reference level maximum.""---

I disagree with this statement. Your system whether will be as full range is dependant on the limitations imposed on the designed specification in each of the components. Certainly, the reproduction of sound is also greatly affected by the room acoustic due to reinforcement or cancellation of sound. And the combinations of these two factors speak for another set of situation.
I had abandoned this post a few days ago. I see you have taken offense at my saying that your diatribe was obsessive compulsive.
Actually there is telepsychiatry and the diagnosis may be made with sparse data collected from other professionals such as yourself. I do not have the luxury of seeing every patient in time to make the decisions I am required to. I speak to people in the labs and others who may be free at the bedside. As you should know all diagnosis are differential and subject to change but one must formulate an opinion. I did not nor do I make any actual diagnosis in my field, on Audiogon. However I thought the post if it was not a joke was a very good example of a person with clear, blatant, obvious OCD you did a superb job imitating such a person. I said "there is help" if you were serious but clearly you are not experiencing fixed delusions yes I saw it.
I think you should avoid saying a preliminary or real diagnosis of any illness or a potential health problem is a slur. I would hope you of all people would be sensitive to that. People who suffer with mental illness do not chose it and there should not be any shame associated with it.
The fact that you do think it offensive do have OCD is more than unfortunate, it tells us that are you intolerant and worse.I wonder where you work? Do they permit this sort of disdane for certain illnesses? Or are you unable to realize that mental illness is very real, and not made up by the patient for secondary gain.
My wife has continued to keep me abreast of how Psychiatry is practiced. What did you think I was saying? She discusses many cases with me and I learn from what she says, she teaches me. Thus RN or LPN or LN Acoustat6, I will leave her where she always is. I could care less that you think her relationship with me has no place in a discussion of a particular disorder.
BTW the length of many of your posts tells me something else. Since you are so very clever and well informed, a comedian and a wordsmith and a medical professional. Please tell me what that is a sign of.
Yours
Hello,
Mechams wrote, "BTW the length of many of your posts tells me something else. Since you are so very clever and well informed, a comedian and a wordsmith and a medical professional. Please tell me what that is a sign of."

Hi Mechams, it is a sign of, that even after all of your years of being a doctor you still have a hard time believing that nurses are as intelligent as you. :)

Now can we get back to the business at hand?
Your friend,
Bob