Is Louder always Better?

I find the use of the term S/N ratio and "noise" confusing here. Is noise a catchall for harmonic and intermodulation distortion, phase anomalies, frequency response variation, and signal/sound that is uncorrelated with the musical content (what I consider to be "noise") and any other forms of distortion? If that is the case, all that is being said is that if bad stuff is lower in level relative to signal, that is better than when bad stuff is higher in level and does little to explain what are the most important types and sources of distortion.

If what is being discussed is noise (uncorrelated with the signal) as measured as S/N ratio, I would think this is of minor importance once noise falls below a certain level. A lot of cheap gear will have vanishing low levels of noise, as measured by S/N ratio, that high end tube gear will never come close to matching, and that hardly matters.

As far as what I look for in gear, I am with Charles1dad. I have little interest in how loud I can get the system before fatigue sets in. I look for the very oppposite--I like gear that is resolving, sounds full and satisfying, and has great dynamics when playing at lower volume levels; the better my system has become, the LOWER I tend to set the volume.

Larry
Yes, that's exactly my point and observation. Superior resolution induces lower listening levels due to improved intelligibility.
Charles,

Now that I think about it, Rhyno is probably referring to headroom--how loud a system can get beyond normal listening level before distortion, in all of its forms, becomes too obtrusive. It IS important that the amps not distort or clip before reaching the highest level that the listener wants to listen at, and it IS important that the speakers not compress or the speaker cone be free of excessive "breakup" (non-pistonic) behavior. However, we each have different loudness levels we like, and different priorities. I don't place as high a priority on being able to play loudly as I do on being able to play very softly and sound good. It is a VERY rare thing that a system can do it all without compromises.

I have replaced the midrange driver and horn in my system with another that is, to me, extraordinarily good at low volume levels. I accept that it does have a tendency to "shout" at lower levels than other similar drivers, but I value its abilities at low volume enough to accept that compromise. It is equally understandable that someone else would hate the compromise I made because they place a much higher priority on high volume abilities. System building involves determining what one likes (priorities) and then finding the best way to minimize compromises.

Lots of good comments above. As Bombaywalla and Larryi alluded to, I think the OP is conflating noise, and the ratio of signal-to-noise, with distortion in its various forms. Noise and distortion are very different things, having different causes and different effects.

As I see it distortion, which can exist in many forms, is what will typically cause listener fatigue, and also often result in the listener preferring to listen at a less than realistic volume and/or at a lower volume than he or she may otherwise prefer. And as Bombaywalla indicated, and assuming good source material, speakers and system components are likely to be the main contributors to distortion.

That is all consistent with comments Ralph/Atmasphere has made many times, to the effect that certain higher order odd harmonic distortion components are used by our hearing mechanisms as loudness cues, and minimizing or eliminating those distortion components is essential to the system being able to replicate, or at least approximate, the sense of "ease" which characterizes the dynamic peaks of unamplified music heard live.

Noise and the ratio of signal to noise, on the other hand, which I certainly agree can be helped in many cases by power conditioning, and in some cases also by vibration control, but which can also often be limited by the intrinsic performance of the electronics, involve low level effects that can adversely affect resolution, inner detail, ambience, micro-dynamics, and other such things. But I would not expect noise, or its relation to signal level (i.e., S/N ratio), to have much if any effect on the maximum volume that may be preferred.

Regarding the comments by Charles and Larryi about listening at relatively low volumes, I certainly agree that the ability of a system to perform well at those levels is a desirable attribute. But given the premise that we want our systems to reproduce well recorded music as realistically as possible, my feeling is that that cannot be accomplished without listening at a volume level approximating, or at least approaching, the volume level at which a particular piece of music would typically be heard when performed live. One reason for that being the Fletcher-Munson Effect. The tonal balance of our hearing mechanisms is different at different volume levels.

Most of my listening is to classical music, and IME the dynamic peaks of most live classical music, when listened to from a decent seat in a good hall, are LOUD. Not only in the case of orchestral music, but even when it comes to small chamber ensembles, solo piano, etc. Jafant alluded to this point in his post earlier in the thread.

For that reason, while I almost always agree with just about everything Charles and Larryi have to say in these forums, with respect to this particular point, which as Larry indicated is subjective and a matter of individual preference, I see it somewhat differently.

Best regards,
-- Al

I actually believe Larry, Al and I are in agreement. Lowering distortion thus improving resolution is an advantage in both directions of volume levels. You don't "need" to crank it up to hear nuance, detail and enhance one's engagement. On the other hand you can listen at louder levels with less strain or discomfort. I believe true natural resolution is an all positive proposition regardless of preferred listening levels. The end result is much more SPL flexibility
Charles,