2. analog
  3. 1179765549

Reference level playback

Hello to all, I have a theory to present that I feel is never fully addressed, it is in regard to the volume level that we listen at. This is in respect to vinyl only as I have no experience with CDs, I do not own a CD player and the one in my car is broken! That and the fact that I own about 10 CDs makes it impossible to have any regarded opinion in this matter.
I have seen in the past postings regarding listening levels, such as overall playback levels and playback levels for individual LPs. The two being distinguishable but not inseperatable. Recently someone said that it is a life time endeavor to find the correct playback levels as it changes from system to system, room to room and LP to LP. Also it has been posted that even crossover levels (and settings) should be used as freely as volume control settings. I disagree.
My experience has show that systems should be set at a reference level of 83db @ 1000hz and all LPs should be played back at this reference level. Set It and Forget It, is my motto.

I listen to all of my LPs at the same gain setting. I let the music and the engineer/producer/pressing dictate the playback level, and screw things up as they see fit! If you do not change the gain setting then you hear exactly what is on the record for evey record every time. I never change the volume control setting, it is set at 83db at 1000hz (plus or minus due to variations in my settings, room and references which does perhaps give you some leeway in any system, and may even be necessary). Some quiet non-bass heavy music plays at around mid 80s. Good rock plays at around the high 80s to low 90s. Music with big bass levels (orchestral and loud rock) plays around low to mid 90s with peaks to 100+. Emerson Lake and Palmers song Lucky Man hits 112db. Of course every record is completely different and that's the thrill and the reason. This is without changing the volume control setting. Want to listen to "quiet" music, put on some quiet music which was recorded appropriatly. Want some big bass Orb, well, it should play loudly. Want to hear the Monkees on Colegems, listen to it in your car.
I also do this for a number of other reasons:
1) All recordings now have the same vinyl recorded background noise, pops and clicks, noisy or quiet vinyl etc.. You hear each recording, pressing and condition of the LP for what it is. Turning down the volume on a noisy record does not make the record more quiet. Turning down the volume on a recording that was recorded too loudly does not help the sonics of this LP. Turning up the volume does not make a record more dynamic and it can only add more noise.
2) Bass levels are maintained through the Fletcher-Munson curve. Using the volume control has a huge effect on this. It makes it more difficult to balance bass levels when you are altering the Fletcher Munson curve. It is impossible to intergrate a sub when freq perception is changing due to overall gain settings for every recording or when listening at different levels according to your mood.
3) All recording engineers and producers have the same amount of dynamics available to themselves, did they make a dynamic, correct volume recording for the music that is recorded? I.e.: did they record an appropriately quiet section or style of music at an appropriate volume or did they compress the hell out of it and make a string quartet the same volume as a rock band? Its up to them to get this correct, not me. Lowering the volume does not help this LP. Is an Lp recorded too quietly and you want to hear it "rock out"? Increasing the volume does not help this if dynamics and overall gain is missing, plus "turning it up increases the noise levels in your system, and noises such as rumble and transient noise. This does not help this LP. How can you say record 1 is a good, quiet recording when played back at a lower gain setting comparing it to either itself or record 2 when played at a much higher setting? Did the pressing use good quiet vinyl? Is the pressing free of rumble and distortion? Changing gain setting dose not help any defiencies, they do not go away because you changed the volume level. Lets face it there are a lot of poor recordings, don't we really want to know which are good and which are bad? This is the way to find them.
4) If you "limit" yourself to one gain setting you will find that it is easier to set crossover settings, speaker placement and sub to main settings. You do this by getting the most out of your settings, not by pumping up or decreasing as is seen fit for that recording. again this shows the recording for what it is.
5) All records are played repeatadly at the same level so they always sound the same. From individual records played at different levels which would mess with the F-M curve and room interactions to all LPs which give some a more quiet background if played at a lower level to others where they become noisy cranked to 10!
6) Its an easily obtainable goal, who can't play at 83db at 1000hz? Therefore all of the other freq will be the same, you then only need your subs to be able to play 50hz and 20hz at 83db. Dont forget the required 20db dynamics! Why buy oversized amps and more gain than you need when all you are trying to do is get 83db at all freq?
7) We would all be listening at this level to make it easier to asses each others system at the same volume level.
8) This is the level that a good recording engineer should strive for. It gives him a natural level 83db with the ability to utilise 20db+ dynamics.
9) You only have to buy the size amp you need.
10) You only need things to be so quiet, is your system quiet at this level? Who cares if it is noisy turned up to 10, you are not listening there anyway.
11) If listening to an LP and the turntable has resonances or rumble or the amp has a low freq aberration changing the reference playback level will alter this underlying feel, sound, noise and this can not be correct-to evaluate at diff levels. This also pertains to number 1, regarding LP noise levels, whether condition or anomalies such as LP recorded hum or vinyl rumble.

In summary there are two main reasons for this and the others come along for the ride. For your system, you only have to obtain a "flat" freq response from 20-20K @ 83db plus the ability for dynamics, a not so easily obtainable goal as it may first appear but at least a direction to go. This does not mean there is there is no "fiddling to be done". If your system is not capable of this setting tune your system to a more easily obtainable level such as 80db or 77db or less and get as full range as possible within your systems capability.
Secondly no record has an advantage due to increased or decreased volume setting, you hear the record for what it is, which is one of my main goals in listening.
I am not the only one to address this issue as you can research this on the net. I feel that that this is an important issue which is rarely ever discussed.
Bob
acoustat6

Showing 4 responses by mechans

mechans
3,048 posts
 
Acoustat- If that diatribe wasn't toungue in cheek. I recommend you get the DSM IV out and look up obsessive compulsive disorder. Easier do a search on line . Help is available.
BTW the Audiophile 20db of dynamic range is not generally available for Monkees recordings.
I have been told by a recording engineer who worked with simpletons like David Hafler, that it has been 10db for over 25 yrs because the play back was indeed optimized for radio and cars.(The great unwashed)
mechans
3,048 posts
 
If you are a nurse then you have what is known as poor insight technically. The behavior you describe is absolutely obssesive and if you can only listen that way it is a compulsion. I say this with some degree of confidence My wife and I are seasoned MDs and she just so happens to be the Chair of a Psych Dept. I can say only this -after 14 years of her describing various cases every night no names all HIPPA o.K. and that I myself was good in Psychiatry got Honors etc blew the boards through the roof etc. - typical MD narcisiscm.
In any event why do you deny it was a long winded aguement vetting a very clear statement repeatedly. I think it was an arguement for that method as such a diatribe.
Please don't impose more insanity of ridgid inflexible behavior as the single and only correct way. Anyone who deviates from this single correct manner is not a person who appreciates music as audiophile . That is a diatribe.
Nothing wrong with having a point of view. However the degree and extent of a fixed pattern of behavior speaks volumes.
There is help-
mechans
3,048 posts
 
I had abandoned this post a few days ago. I see you have taken offense at my saying that your diatribe was obsessive compulsive.
Actually there is telepsychiatry and the diagnosis may be made with sparse data collected from other professionals such as yourself. I do not have the luxury of seeing every patient in time to make the decisions I am required to. I speak to people in the labs and others who may be free at the bedside. As you should know all diagnosis are differential and subject to change but one must formulate an opinion. I did not nor do I make any actual diagnosis in my field, on Audiogon. However I thought the post if it was not a joke was a very good example of a person with clear, blatant, obvious OCD you did a superb job imitating such a person. I said "there is help" if you were serious but clearly you are not experiencing fixed delusions yes I saw it.
I think you should avoid saying a preliminary or real diagnosis of any illness or a potential health problem is a slur. I would hope you of all people would be sensitive to that. People who suffer with mental illness do not chose it and there should not be any shame associated with it.
The fact that you do think it offensive do have OCD is more than unfortunate, it tells us that are you intolerant and worse.I wonder where you work? Do they permit this sort of disdane for certain illnesses? Or are you unable to realize that mental illness is very real, and not made up by the patient for secondary gain.
My wife has continued to keep me abreast of how Psychiatry is practiced. What did you think I was saying? She discusses many cases with me and I learn from what she says, she teaches me. Thus RN or LPN or LN Acoustat6, I will leave her where she always is. I could care less that you think her relationship with me has no place in a discussion of a particular disorder.
BTW the length of many of your posts tells me something else. Since you are so very clever and well informed, a comedian and a wordsmith and a medical professional. Please tell me what that is a sign of.
Yours
mechans
3,048 posts
 
So Nurse Acoustat what is the answer? If you are as intellegent as you claim.
Doctors are not by definition smarter in terms of acumen but the competition is fierce, even today, to get into medical school. That doesn't mean they have higher Sanford Benet scores but they either do or they worked very, very hard and spent hours upon hours of their lives studying.
The reward is to undergo a residency in the prime of their young adulthood in a residency program which still averages 80 hours a week, thus they are trained differently.
There seems to be a prevelance and cultural shift towards anti physician. This is actually caused IMHO by the ridiculously small amount of time that we can spend with patients all because of insurance.
In addition the other health care personel naturally dislike authority. This is simply a fact. It is not seen in healthcare alone.
So continue your smart sarcasm and demonstration of this phenomena. I am used to it, but when the spit hits the fan guess who everyone turns to? Who is ultimately accountable? BTW when a person is truly ill they come the hospital to see who. The administration ? the social workers? the phamarcists ?
More to discover