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
 
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
acoustat6 OP
357 posts
 
Hi dcstep, thanks for your thoughtful response even if it veered off topic to "what is an audiophile"?
You said
"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."

I say it is not OK to be missing valuable information ie: one octave, or to have a ragged freq response and to not be concerned about this, regardless of the music genre. It is still missing whether you think the LP has it or not. If you dont have the last octave, just how do you know what is or is not there? If your system has a 12db peak at 80 hz it is there for every LP. This is the "sound of your system" in conjunction with your speakers voicing.

"Still, MUST I have that last 10Hz to be an "audiophile", I think not."

I say no, you can do as you please. It was, as all know, used to be a free country and I for one would like to keep it that way. All that I am saying is that this is a good goal, if you can get to 20 hz at the reference level.

"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,"

Oh good, we just officially made all BOSE Wave Radio listeners certified audiophiles!

"BTW buddy, no disrespect was meant in suggesting that you might be a "numbers guy." I exercise both sides of my brain."

No offense taken, I do wish I was "better" at numbers, but math has never been my strong point. Maybe its time for me to put to memory once and for all the 12x12 multiplication table:). 7x7 is, 9x9 is.....

"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."

I have allready stated my goals, as an audiophile. One is to enjoy music, which I do. Two is to be able to evaluate LPs for their sonic qualities, which I can. There are others but they do not relate to this discussion at the moment.

Setting up a system as stated, you do not wind up with all music being played back at the same SPL level. This is absolutly what we are trying to avoid! All LPs have different dynamics from LP to LP and within the LP itself, and yes totally different "overall gain" if you will, this is what you want to hear. This is what makes LPs so exciting. You are searching for ways to enhance your systems ability to play the lowest recorded level LPs and the loudest recorded LPs at the same volume setting. This is my audiophile goal. This ensures that your system is operating within its limits for ever LPs potential for upward as well as downward dynamics and to play at a natural volume for LPs that are recorded well.

Here are some interesting reading for those interested.

http://www.regonaudio.com/Records%20and%20Reality.html

http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/calibration.html

What did Peter Walker mean when he said?
"There is only one correct volume level for any particular piece of music" Peter Walker, Quad Electronics.

Bob
dcstep
1,518 posts
 
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
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!!
More to discover