2. analog
  3. 1197397501

An Audiophile Goal

An Audiophile Goal.

I have been grappling with the perceived problem of listening to LPs at the same volume setting, for every LP. The original post that I addressed this problem with is here http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1179765549&openmine&zzAcoustat6&4&5#Acoustat6. It was to discuss my idea of playing back all LPs at the same volume setting regardless of type of music or recording etc. To say it was a debacle would be an understatement to say the least. The discussion did not start the way I thought it would and went quickly downhill from there. I would like to put that behind me and realize why it was so controversial and failed as a discussion. As I originally said this idea was new to me and it took such a long time to coagulate my thoughts about this and the reasons why it works. The answer is obvious now. I didn't have an audiophile goal.

I got the answer from reading the recent post about J. Gordon Holts article in Stereophile which was discussed on Audiogon. .
The reference being about an audiophile goal in one of the posts. This was my thought, myself and audiophiles in general don't have an audiophile goal (actually, I do have several but I will stick to the topic). It seems that no one can agree on a goal, its all so subjective some say, I like it loud, I like it quiet, I like a lot of bass, I like imaging and on and on. This is fine, that is why we all buy different speakers and equipment. It comes down to you can't measure music. You have to hear it, does it make your toe tap? Can you listen at a low level? Is the tweeter too bright? Is the Bass too loud? Ad nauseum. And there we go again are my toes tapping enough? What is low level listening? Is the bass loud enough for hip hop but too loud for a violin concerto?

I found myself an audiophile goal and an easy one at that, its 20-20k hz. Yeah, you like it too. Right? You buy phono cartridges, pre-amps amps etc. that are flat 20-20k hz. So my audiophile goal is to get 20-20k hz flat (as possible). I said I needed a goal! I know there is more to it than that, but undeniably it is a goal. Now if I go with a test reference of 83db at 1000hz from my test LP this will be an excellent level for dynamics, noise levels and acuteness of hearing. All that is required is 1000hz at 83db from the test LP and all other freq matching this level, So 10,000hz and 5,000hz along with 500,100, 80, 50 and 30hz with all of the freq in between at the specified level of 83db will all be played back off of the test LP at the same level or as close as possible as can be obtained within a systems speakers and equipment and rooms limitations. Find this level and you leave your volume control set to this position for every LP you play. Pretty simple actually.

The original idea came to me slowly over the last three to four years, though I struggled with the quandary for as long as I can remember and I have yet to hear anyone say, sure you don't do that? I thought we all did. All because I didn't have an audiophile goal. Now I find out that perhaps even J. Gordon Holt may not have an audiophile goal, even one as simple as this. The best thing is now I get to listen to all of my LPs at the same gain setting with its attendant qualities of dynamics, constant noise levels, unchanging freq response and a host of other benefits which come along for the ride.

I knew it was wrong to be changing volume levels and bass levels for different LPs. Jumping up in the middle of a song to hear the bass drums or turning it down for a quiet violin solo and doing the same for complete albums. It was insane, I always felt like I was in junior high school cranking it up for the cool parts. But every one does it, so did I. I was missing that audiophile goal.

I enjoy listening to my Lps, many of which I still have from my early high school days and everything in between which amounts to about 2500 quality LPs. As a now confirmed audiophile, now that I have a realistic and perhaps more importantly a measurable goal, I could start figuring out which albums sound good and which do not. It was easy, every LP is played back at the same gain level (volume control setting if you will) and guess what you hear? Every Lp for what it actually sounds like.

Another benefit is that every system you hear is played back to the same standard from the same test LP, perhaps it could even be used at audio shows where every room is played back at this reference setting. If you choose not to listen at the standard then it is stated at the door that reference setting is either higher or lower than the reference. This way if you choose not to abuse your hearing in a room that is 6db above the reference standard you are warned before entering.

And all of this because J Gordon Holt didn't have an audiophile goal.

If you can listen to one Lp at a certain level whether it be a high or low level why can't you listen to any other record at that level?

Just a few thoughts.
Thanks,
Bob
acoustat6
acoustat6 OP
357 posts
 
Hi Dave, sorry to confuse the issue but I was going through some literature and saw that. I always want to be open minded believe it or not. I am not sure if that is Walkers exact quote, I believe I have seen it quoted in slightly different wording.
Speak the word friend and ye shall enter.
I have to go to work now and will answer your question later.
Bob
cdwallace
216 posts
 
Johnnyb53 stated:

"1. Flat frequency response is overrated in the sense that it is the distortion that we listen through the most easily. Think about a live concert. Between concert room interactions to the sound guy doing EQ boosts and dips, live music is never flat, yet it is the gold standard for fidelity because it is real. We are more used to listening past frequency nonlinearities than any other type of distortion."

I hope I'm not to late and the overall thread thought hasn't passed, but here my take on this point, FWIW. It's not directed at or intended to pick on anyone, just a thought!

IMHO, this is where "reference point" becomes more distorted and open to interpretation. I can speak best for myself, but I would assume the purpose behind the chase for system fidelity, is to achieve/preserve the integrity of content. Meaning, if I'm listen to a recording of Bach and the engineers intend for the recording to sound a certain way (be it hard, balanced, warm, etc), the mode of playback SHOULD be design and setup to play the recording back as intended. In order to achieve this goal, I am unaware of any other way it can be achieved, outside of the end user portion being as close to neutral as possible; no characteristics to infer signature.

Keeping this in proper perspective, it's very difficult, at best, to build a system only to reach and maintain this absolute. When coupled with many other factors (room treatment, specific component selection, etc.), this absolute is within the scope of possibility. However, this should not deter from the attempt to reach this goal. Its a relevant goal; and the key to fidelity.

Now, throwing live recordings into the mix. No live sound is not flat. Yes, the engineers do tweak the frequencies and such to achieve a certain sound. But, you must keep in mind, this is the sound and feel the artist/production team intend for the material to be presented to the audience. For example, if the bass playback is muddy and the material calls for full bass, but not muddy, the engineers are trained and informed enough to know: 1. the bass is not supposed to be muddy, and 2. the bass needs to be corrected at a certain frequency/ies in order for the bass to sound full, not muddy. When you play the recording of the concert back, an audiophile grade system should play the bass back to sound full. Its the way the recording is supposed to sound, full bodied bass. It's double work to tweak the tweak to fit your taste unless it's done specifically to fit your taste. Otherwise, you're correcting the correction, which more than likely requires an EQ, which is a sore subject to most audiophiles. Some thing about the integrity of the playback, who knows!

Taste is one thing; that's the purpose of an EQ, give it more this or less that. Great! Fidelity and true reference is another. Taste no longer becomes a factor. Interpretation is obsolete; recording preservation is saved.

+/- 0db or bust!!! (It's a joke)

Bob has his eye on the prize and will get it far faster that most audiophiles who have been at it 6x longer. Keep at it, Bob, and good luck!!
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
Acoustat6 said:
".... As a now confirmed audiophile, now that I have a realistic and perhaps more importantly a measurable goal, I could start figuring out which albums sound good and which do not. It was easy, every LP is played back at the same gain level (volume control setting if you will) and guess what you hear? Every Lp for what it actually sounds like."

I've read and re-read this. I think that this concludes that all records will be played with the same gain (volume setting) and he'll decide which "sound good" using that arbitrary setting.

In my view, this is totally out in left field.

Further he quoted "There is only one correct volume level for any particular piece of music". To me, that's saying the opposite thing. I can agree with this, except that I would say "volume range" not "volume level" to get away from an implication of unchanging accuracy that might not vary for person to person.

Why would someone arbitrarily test the goodness of their records by limiting the playback to one level? We all know that they're all recorded at different levels and some are way more dynamic than others. I believe that there's a volume range where each recording will sound its best. My Conrad Johnson CA200 has a stepped attenuator with 99 .7dB increments. The typical range for seriously listening to music is 50 to 80. That's quite a wide range. If I played all my recordings a 55, I'm certain that I wouldn't enjoy the ones that I normally play at 75 as much, yet today I might think that they are equally enjoyable.

So, I'm either not understanding Acoustat6 or I think his playback level goal and 20Hz-20kHz goals are misguided.

Dave
acoustat6 OP
357 posts
 
Hello, Cdwallace is onto it, as I see it. True fidelty of the recording, but dont forget that more importantly is that this is a great way to tune your system.

Think of it this way, you select a volume setting and it would be low initially and listen to the entire listening session like this. Then the idea is to tweak every piece of equipment )one piece at a time!)to get the "best" out of it that you can. Set volume level LISTEN, adjust bass, move speakers LISTEN, move chair, adjust bass, adjust VTA, adj VTF, tweak the volume again LISTEN adjust VTF, fine tune crossover, ETC ETC... you may change anything you want but each time continue to listen to every LP at the same settings. This cannot be achieved overnight. You might find that you like the listening level but changing the crossover point makes the bass better and louder or lower then change volume level again if necessary, or moving your speakers improves the imaging or tweaking the VTF....etc.

Unfortunatly this does not work for those interested in "mood music for mating". You may have a default (lower or higher) level in the beginning (or any time but realise that this is not the optimum level), and never make any changes in your system at these different levels. Only make changes when you are doing some serious lisetening.

Dcstep, yeah, I'm out there and I'm loveing it!:)

I am sorry to have confused you with the quote from Peter Walker of Quad fame, and HE said "There is only one correct volume level for any particular piece of music". I did not say this and sorry to throw this into the mix and confuse things. I like to keep things rational you know!
Though I have seen the quote as "there is only one volume level for every recording" NOW that reads completely different and that can be read two ways.


Bob
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,242 posts
 
Walker very clearly meant that for every individual recording there is one optimal playback level. It a factor of the instruments used, the distance from the instruments to the microphone(s), and the acoustic sizes of the recording venue and playback room. That means that for any individual recording the optimal playback volume can vary somewhat from room to room.
More to discover