@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.
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
@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:-) |
@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 |
- 87 posts total