2. digital
  3. 1424006288

Is Louder always Better?

i'm inclined to say yes.

first, context: you are not generating impedance mismatches when A/Bing gear, you have amps w/ more than enough power for your speakers / room (ie no clipping) and you haven't disconnected your tweeters (ala monster subs in cars) or sitting horribly off-axis.

the thing about home audio (digital particularly) is that as external noise is reduced, you are left w/ a purer signal--simple S/N ratio folks. generally, live instruments don't hurt your ears, but when a home rig does, i'd contend that its the noise riding on the signal, as its mostly concentrated on the upper mids thru treble, and this is where fatigue is generated (again, monster sub in car example for bass as non-fatiguing). the external & objectionable noise found in this frequency range determines final listening SPLs (the listener naturally arrives at a volume setting where the artifact noise doesn't cause overt fatigue). as noise is reduced, the final SPL level can be increased while generating no incremental listening fatigue.

but, at all volumes, it also implies greater microdetail & clarity (again higher S/N ratio), while also being more enjoyable---i consider those findings as evidence that 'louder is better' is a fine litmus test. if you make changes that result in your listening louder without your ears immediately objecting, you are highly likely listening to an improvement in home playback (given original context).

what is this getting at? external noise (aka Distortion) not only obscures micro-detail in the upper mids & treble, but it also causes listening fatigue and ultimately limits the volume you can listen comfortably at (ergo the thread title). i've found that external noise removal is a function of 3 efforts, all of which are equally important:
1) power conditioning
2) vibrations
3) room acoustics

(one visionary poster referred to them as the holy trinity of audio, i agree).

i figure i've put 10% of my audio budget into these 3, and it ultimately is the difference between a decent but disappointing rig, and a very satisfying one.

YMMV, but probably won't.
128x128rhyno
bombaywalla's avatar
bombaywalla
1,958 posts
 
good post, Almarg. We are in agreement & I also indicated in my post that each music has a volume setting that makes it sound correct. Pretty similar to what you wrote.
I had to read the OP's post several times to try to understand his usage of S/N & noise - very confusingly used, I agree.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,170 posts
 
It's all about keeping noise and distortion to a minimum at any volume.
larryi
3,968 posts
 
Al,

I listen to a lot of classical music too. While I agree that it is nice to have the ability to play large orchestral pieces at realistic volume levels, practically speaking, it is not something that can be done because recordings simply do not have a realistic dynamic range--if you set the volume for realistic peaks, the softer passages are WAY too loud. No recording provides a realistic range because the public would object (the recording would be totally unlistenable in a car, for example).
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
Hi Larry,

I certainly agree with your point with respect to the majority of classical recordings. However, as you no doubt realize there are nevertheless many classical recordings, especially on smaller labels that prioritize sonic quality and know how to achieve it, which are produced with minimal or even no dynamic compression. Despite the fact that, as you indicated, such recordings will be unlistenable in a car or other noisy environment.

For example, the following statement appears on many of the Telarc LPs of the 1980's:
As with all Telarc recordings, once an appropriate microphone placement and recording level have been established, no further adjustments are made during the course of the session. This leaves the responsibility for dynamics and balance in the hands of the conductor and the musicians. During the recording of the digital masters and subsequent transfer to disc, the audio chain was entirely transformerless. Nor was the signal passed through any processing devices (i.e., compressors, limiters, equalizers, etc.) at any step during production.
Also, out of curiosity I once looked at the waveforms of the CD version of the Sheffield Lab recording of Prokofiev's "Romeo and Juliet," conducted by Erich Leinsdorf, using an audio editing program I have on my computer. I found that the difference in volume between the loudest and the softest notes was an amazing 55 db. And sure enough, when I play that CD, or its original direct-to-disc LP release which I also have (which has considerably better sonics, btw, as might be expected), peaks reach about 105 db at my listening position, while soft notes reach down into the 50's.

To put that 55 db figure in perspective, btw, I'll add that it means that about 316,000 times as much power is required to reproduce the loudest notes on that recording than is required to reproduce the softest notes. And I have many other recordings in my collection which I feel certain approach that figure. The Telarc recording of Stravinsky's "Firebird Suite," conducted by Robert Shaw, being one of many examples I could cite.

One of the priorities I've had as my system has evolved is to be able to play such recordings (I have many of them) with no sense of strain. As you indicated, though, priorities will differ among different individuals, as will the kinds of recordings they listen to.

Best regards,
-- Al
larryi
3,968 posts
 
Hi Al,

I actually have the Romeo and Juliet recording on the direct to disc LP and I have the Telarc Firebird, also on LP. The dynamic range of those recordings is quite staggering. The classical recording with the wideest dynamic range that I have is probably a CD made by Clarity of the Rites of Spring; it has a big warning on the cover about the potential to damage speakers.

The vast majority of my recordings don't come close to those in terms of sound quality. These days, most of my classical music listening is from CDs and very few are "audiophile" recordings. Still, I am quite pleased with most current releases, in terms of sound quality, even though dynamic range is not realistic.
More to discover