Low level listening

Would someone translate Plato's comment...guess I'm an Aristotleian...
:-)

Bartokfan,

I'm not really sure what needs translating, but I'll give it a shot.

Compressing the sound results in a higher average perceived sound level. Making softer sounds closer in volume to louder sounds results in a perceived fuller balance for low volume listening. That's why you can listen to a cheap radio and feel like you're not missing that much -- because the sound is so compressed that all the musical sounds are presented at nearly the same volume level.

The Fletcher-Munson loudness curve has been known for decades and is the reason for a "loudness" control on many integrated amplifiers and receivers. The curves show that as the average volume level is decreased both the low frequencies and high frequencies must be boosted by increasingly higher amounts (in dB's on the graph link I supplied)in order to be perceived at the same relative volume level.

So beyond electronic means to compress the sound or supply loudness compensation, systems that are naturally compressed or have elevated bass and treble (as referenced to the midrange) will sound more natural (fuller, better-balanced) at lower listening levels. And these effects would be independent of system resolution.

I'm just saying that there is more than one reason why certain audio systems seem to sound good at low volume levels... And it may not always be the audiophile-preferred reason (immediacy or resolution).

One of the qualities that many audiophiles (myself included) strive for in sound reproduction is uncompressed dynamic range. Yet, if you think about it, the most dynamic systems should have the worst low-level listening balance because the volume difference between the very loudest and the very softest musical notes is the greatest. The quietest musical sounds/notes/passages can then be lost in the ambient room noise as volume is substantially decreased.

Therefore, the most dynamic audio systems would require compression and loudness compensation in order to sound correct and well-balanced at very low listening levels.

Agree, just about any stereo sytem sounds good to excellent at low volume levels. I'm refering to less than 9 o'clock on the control. Now just after 9 o'clock on the contriol, this is point where any average sounding amp, begins to show its coloration/distortion.
As you crank the control even higher to say 11 o'oclock, this is where the coloration/distortion make for fatigue.
Same applies to pseakers as well.
So when testing equipment, don't listen to low/nor to loud. Too loud will overwhelm the senses and if you are not experienced in what is true fidelity , you may be misled.
I'm amazed at how poor some audiophiles senses are when it comes to high fidelity. When doing a comparison listening, try to be as objective as possible. Your mind should somehow make the hearing sense as an objective function.
I had a friend back in new orleans had a $$$$ system with a Audio Research 200 tube amp and pre, Cary 202, Talon speakers, and Mirage One speakers. Sounded aweful, I did not enjoy the sound one bit.
I imagined he thought his system sounded great.
btw since he had the power, he use to listen loud, which made it worse.
Big money does not ever equal great sound. And never ever forget that.

Paul

Bartokfan,
A good speaker should be able to reproduce actual volumes of the instruments acoustic ones in particular along with its dynamic range.
An accoustic piano among all instruments has the largest dynamic range. So if accoustic piano can sound on the same volume level as real with the same dynamic range, than speaker is considered to be good one.

how many folks actually own apiano to compare the speaker with it?
How many here actually listen to only piano solo?
After having heard more than 50 speakers in the past 5 yrs, I can tell you there was not one that matches the Thors. A few had deeper bass, but then those speakers had either smokey fatiguing mids and/or steely "fake' highs.
None matched the Thors as a balanced in all 3 sprectums. ..., even though the Thors were among the lowest in price range.