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
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
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
opalchip
354 posts
 
....audio as a mood enhancer for mating. Now we're talkin'!

I agree in principal with the Hardesty camp. But it is just a starting place, ESPECIALLY when it comes to vinyl. You have to realize that in the golden age of LP's, nobody cared about Flat or Phase correctness. The recording signal probably went through 3 or 4 processors before landing on the Master tape, and not only that, but different tracks of the performance went through different processors at different settings. The mixing and mastering engineer used at a minimum - a peak limiter, compression, and an equalizer - in addition to whatever went on in the mixing board. If a voice was involved, they probably added a small amount of reverb to that track. And what's more, little attention was paid to "absolute phase" of each of these boxes. The end result that went onto the LP was actually far, far SUPERIOR to what a "Flat" recording of the studio performance would sound like. (In addition - and it's not a minor consideration - everyone's hearing is different. Your ears do not have a remotely flat frequency response.)

SO... if one can accept these facts:

One can also accept that a "flat" playback in your room is:
1. Not necessarily the best sounding - for, one, because your room is not and never will be, flat.
2. Flat what? - there is ZERO "flat" information on an lp to begin with. If you adjust the output of your system so that it sounds "better" it does not mean you are introducing coloration or distortion.

Should you NOT wear eyeglasses, in order to keep your vision "flat"? If you don't wear glasses is your vision more "honest"?

Now, I agree with Hardesty that "Flat, Time and Phase Correct" is a worthy goal and test of the ability of playback EQUIPMENT. But that does not mean that you want to use it "Flat". (And also, none of "Flat, Time and Phase Correct" is affected in the least by the volume control.)

My "audiophile goal" is simply to enjoy myself the most I can. If something sounds better to me, I enjoy myself more. This was the goal of the recording artist and mastering engineer in the first place. If an lp sounds better at one volume setting than on another, that IS the right setting. How do I decide if one lp is better than another IMO - I compare them both sounding their best.

If I find a piece of equipment that makes ALL my lp's sound better than before - that is a better piece of equipment. Simple.
acoustat6 OP
357 posts
 
HI Dcstep, Thanks for discussing this important subject and enjoying the thread. It is an important subject and I do believe there are some important answers also. If I can at least get people to think about it, it is a step in the right direction.

I believe that just being happy does not make an audiophile. We really do need some goals even personal goals for our systems and as I said I do have several, this being one of them which goes hand in hand with the others. Give me an other "goal" and maybe I can forget this one!

The last thing I am is a "numbers guy", really, I consider myself much more as "an artist". Not in a literal sense but more in my life pursuits. Aesthetics and philosophy are some of my life goals. Dont forget that I had realised this idea from just listening to my LPs, it was not a "numbers thing" to begin with. This is a way to tune your system and no you dont need a test LP to do this, as you are ultimatly tuning your system to its own maximum capabilites.

You said that if one listens to acoustic jazz then you may not need 20hz. I suggest that even if that is the case where have we gone wrong as an audiophile? Who makes the determination that its OK to miss a lower octave or two? I say find the lower octave at a correct level and you will have a goal and your system playback will be better for it.

Again one of my other "goals" is evaluating LPs, how does one do this when they are missing the last one, or I am sure, two octaves as many systems do. Can you actually say to me that a LP is quiet, when infact a LP has a high level rumble say and your system is not reproducing it. Or it is 20db down due to not being "flat" and now that you are listening at another reduced level because it is "acoustic jazz" this noise is now 40 db down, sure would be a quiet LP then, but is it?

Is a scratched LP quieter if it is a jazz LP played at a low level or if the same scratched LP is a rock LP and played at a higher level is it now a badly scratched LP. Can you grade a LP at different playback levels?

Changing playback levels does signifcantly change the sound of the room and you equipment out of its optimal range. Including I believe the Fletcher-Munson curve which does not change with the recording, but stays constant with the playback level, this I believe is very important idea/thought/possibility, which I believe to be true but am not positive of.

I always find it amusing when someone states how loud they listen to a certain recording, they dont take into account that if their system is bass shy from 40hz down for an example. that they are now indeed listening much louder to reach that level and it is all with "high freq". Someone listening like this may now be listening to their system at a 1000hz reference tone at 89db for example. Now thats loud. Rather than someone with a full range system which is capable of the same overall volume level but is listening to the standard 1000hz at a "reasonable/appropriate" level. While all the time missing those important low freq at a correct level, as an audiophile goal.

Also I believe that we are not reproducing a live event but in fact we are reproducing a recording of the live event, a large distinction.

Bob
acoustat6 OP
357 posts
 
Hi Opalchip, how about LOUD mood music for arguing and then mood music in a nice and soft level for the make up sex.

I think you are focusing, perhaps, too much on the "flat" part of it, yes it is a "goal", not withstanding the F-M curve and the BBC dip etc.. And the volume level DOES affect playback in the freq domain. So dont forget the "reference level", its is most important, if it is achievable with your system and to play it within its limitations and conversly to not be bamboozled by an overly loud system in the name of dynamics (turning it up does not increase dynamics) or a "live sound". What you can achieve, is a natural sounding recording showing off its limitations and it strong suits and most importantly to reveal the LPs for what they are.

Bob
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
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
More to discover