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’.
Turn down the Volume!
One topic that seems rarely discussed is volume. If you listen to mixing engineers, it’s their most feared aspect of how their work is measured, since it’s out of their control. This leads to things like loudness wars (assume the worst). As my system has improved, my main takeaway is I can be engaged with 60db peaks, where when I hear other systems you often have to turn it up to 90db peaks for it to sound decent. I’m pretty sure it all has to do with bass and room energy, but wonder if others have a similar experience. Side note that reviews or any subjective ‘better’ statements about gear rarely indicate how loud they are listening. since all we can perceive if volume it is puzzling. I will say if it sounds good with 110 db peaks then that is impressive.
- ...
- 87 posts total
@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 --
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.
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.
|
@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:-) |
- 87 posts total