Acoustat6 said:
"Opalchip or others, please explain to me why you would change the volume level for different LPs, whether it be up or down, and what this can accomplish. Just how do you know where each was recorded? Or which LPs should be played back soft or loud."
Great thread, BTW.
I change the volume on each LP to the level that makes me happy at the time. Sometimes it's at a volume that I imagine for a live performance, at other times is softer than that and at other times it's louder than the probable performance level. My objective is to enjoy the music.
You obviously love music, given the size of your record collection. I don't think that most people collect that many records without loving music, so I'm going to assume that music attracted you to audio. I also suspect that you're a "numbers guy" of some sort.
I'm a "numbers guy" and make my living helping banks hedge certain interest rate risk and mortgage prepayment risk. I've been a CPA since 1970. Fixating on numbers is very common within corporate environments and can lead to unhealthy, unintended consequences. I see things go astray all the time, particularly when you start mixing numbers and egos. Most of us acknowledge that egos are not always rational and logical. It took me a long time to learn that numbers are not always rational and logical. Hopefully you'll trust me on that. Once I learned that, I started spending a lot more of my time trying to get people to focus on the "right number".
Just because something can be measured doesn't make it a appropriate or valuable goal. For instance, if you mainly listened to acoustic jazz, then a speaker that extended to 20hz rather than rolling off at 30Hz wouldn't increase your enjoyment of the music.
Another system might be flat up to 20kHz but then use nonlinear filters to make a hard response cut at 30kHz. Such a system might fatigue you, where a system that down 3dB at 16kHz, but rolls off smoothly up to 60kHz and higher might sound really smooth and be listenable for hours on end.
Why would you focus on volume, based on a reference that will likely not match your actual library of records? You might focus on such a goal because your hearing is already impaired and you want to avoid further impairment. That's a good goal and it'll extend your ability to enjoy music for a longer number of years. However, if the dynamics on a particular record or CD far exceed those on your reference, then you're hearing might still be at risk. Rather than using the reference, you'd be better off having a quick response SPL meter going all the time, that could flash red if you approached your danger threshold.
With all due respect, I think that you should focus on your own musical enjoyment. Measurements can never "validate" your system, since someone can always argue with what measurement is more important. OTOH, no one can say to you, "you couldn't enjoy that because the sound level wasn't realistic". You can answer back that "I enjoyed that thoroughly and played it at a level that was very pleasing for me at the time. Tomorrow I may play it louder or softer, but my goal will be to enjoy it, not match some perceived goal."
Just my two-cents...
Dave |
Why doesn't enjoyment define an audiophile? let's explore that some. You could have a system that's absolutely flat from 20Hz to 20kHz at 88dB. My system, OTOH rolls off at 30Hz and starts rolling off at the top after 12kHz (and it has anomalies throughout its response range). However, I've gone to great pains to place my speakers in my room in such a way that intermodulation distortion between the speakers and room is almost eliminated, making for a very coherant sound. OTOH, the 20-20 system speakers are set in such a way that they're not driving together and lack coherance from the listening position.
Who is "more of" an audiophile, the one with a system that's more enjoyable to listen to, or the one with better numbers???
Here's another example. I don't "tube roll" but I've got a mix of tube and SS components in my amplification chain. Each piece was selected because I liked the way it sounded in my system. Also, I use an intergrated amp (actually a control amp) and everything is stowed away in a beautiful armoire that my wife loves as much as me. Am I less of an audiophile because I don't have a couple of 120lb monoblocks, sitting on special stands on the floor, powering my rig??
Are the guys and gals over at www.head-fi.org any less audiophiles than us because they chose to use headphones? Maybe they're more so, but then how would you apply the 20-20 criteria when all the headphones that sound good (AKG, Grado, Sennheiser, etc.) all have very serious frequency response excursions when measured.
Acoustat6, 20Hz frequency response is a great goal, my point is that you won't use (hear) it with acoustic jazz recorded in a studio. OTOH, live music in a cathedral will surely lose some impact if that bottom octave isn't there. Even with just a soprano singing a capella, the building itself will produce low frequency information that helps you to identify how big the room is and add to the recorded ambience.
Still, MUST I have that last 10Hz to be an "audiophile", I think not.
I think an "audiophile" is someone that enjoys reproduced music beyond the level of just considering playback devices utilitities or commodities. They can be trying to achieve the best possible sound in their iPod, or adding the last $10,000 interconnect to their mega-dollar system. Each has a purpose and interest beyond thinking of their music reproduction as a utility. They might actually be the same people, just at different stages of the journey.
BTW buddy, no disrespect was meant in suggesting that you might be a "numbers guy." I exercise both sides of my brain. As an accountant that regularly plays trumpet and guitar with others that are totally artistic I walk, to varying degrees, on both sides of that street.
Knowing that you're NOT a numbers guy gives me another clue. I find that non-numbers people sometimes think there's some comfort in the "absoluteness" of numbers. Old and humbled numbers people, OTOH, realize that there's little "certainty" in numbers. How does the saying go, "Statistics don't lie, but liers..." Thus, my waryness at latching onto numbers. (I'm a professional numbers guy BTW, when it comes to accounting a risk measurement numbers, I can do a backwards slam dunk over most other numbers guys).
Back to your "goal". With all due respect, I think that you need to rethink it. A goal without an objective is nothing. (Making a goal and objective, in and of itself, is dangerous). You need an objective related to why you're an audiophile. It couldn't possibly be to hear all your music at 88dB, me thinks. Some people are only into audio for music, while some love the glow of tubes (it IS really seductive, I KNOW) or some want to have a system entirely from Stereophiles A-list or some want the biggest, baddest looking system possible. ALL of those are legit reasons. After all, not everyone riding a Harley could take it onto a dirt track and slide it through the corners wheel-to-wheel with some other crazy at 100mph. It's the same in audiophilia and there's room for all of us.
Ciao amigo,
Dave |
If "there is only one correct volume level for any particular piece of music" is true (I agree that there is a range, but would disagree that there's one exact level, but let's forget that for now), then how can referencing your playback system to one specific reference achieve Walker's goal? As you acknowledge, output levels from record to record vary widely. If we're going to adjust the level for a particular piece of recorded music to its "correct" level, then we need the freedom to vary from the reference.
That lead me to think that I must be misunderstanding your stated goal. I'm thinking, perhaps incorrectly, that your goal is 20Hz-20kHz at a reference SPL. Am I misunderstanding that?
I enjoyed the regonaudio piece, but conclude that the recording perspective is entirely arbitrary and cannot be set to formula. We all prefer different seats in the same house, so how can the engineer presume to know what that is. I think that he or she can only chose something that's pleasing to them. I happen to prefer the sound from the trumpet chairs, but no one could make a living selling recordings that only trumpeters would buy. When I read reviews of classical music, I love it when the reviewer tells me which seats it sounds like it's coming from.
Dave |
Well Acoustat6, I think that I see your problem. You've got a seriously flawed system. If listening through your computer is superior, then you've got really big problems. Your speaker placement probably has you speakers behaving badly and literally fighting with each other. Get a Sumiko speaker set and you'll have totally different view of audiophile life. Seriously, if you're computer sounds better, then there's something really badly wrong with you system.
Dave |
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 said:
"I do believe that all LPs can/should be played back at the same level, if you like the sound of the LP is another question entirely or if your system is capable of the dynamics."
I guess that I should have asked this earlier (I've re-read and can't find my answer), but why? Other than to create a goal, which seems purely arbitrary to me, why do you "believe that all LPs can/should be played back at the same level"? If you gave a reason, I missed it at least a few times.
Your fellow audio buddy,
Dave
BTW, thanks for the REG link. He has lots of interesting views. I can't agree with everything he writes, but he does a great job of laying out his position. |
Bob, you gave it a mighty try, but I'll need to agree to disagree. I seem not to have budged you one bit and I still think your goal will not yield fruit.
Thanks for the fun discussion and happy holidays.
Dave |
Bob, I just re-read the thread, looked at your system, looked at you Ducatis (nice indeed) and can't figure this thread out. I'm beginning to think that you're pulling our legs. I think you're exercising your ability to take a silly position and then debate it.
Come clean, is this a prank or do you really believe this stuff?
Dave |
Bob, the moderators didn't seem to like what I said to you, so you'll have to imagine.
Dave |
I didn't say anything nasty to you.
Dave |
Exactly Raul. Most audiophiles don't realize how much intermodulation distortion they're introducing in a 2-channel system due to poor speaker placement. When I finally the had my speakers properly set using the Sumiko Master Set method, the volume control went up 20 to 33% over previous levels. Amazingly you could now have a conversation without raising your voice with 90+dB peaks and average level at around 87dB.
Of course any distortion hurts. After my speaker set I improved my cabling, minimizing one more source of low level distortion. Given the opportunity, I now listen for several hours at a time with NO fatigue.
Dave |
Analogue Production's 180 gram, 45 rpm version of Hugh Mesekela's "Hope" has close to 40dB of dynamic range. If you set it for its peak at 90dB, lots of it is going to be playing at a very low level (below 60dB).
I find that short bursts up above 90 and even 100dB are not harsh or harmful in my system. I do go for an average in the mid 80dB range. With "Hope" I'll lower that about 6dB, which still results in some HUGE sounds at the peaks, but for only short bursts.
Dave |
|
