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
acoustat6 OP
357 posts
 
Hi Stringreen, Yes, you are correct that rock sounds better loud than string quartets. But that still does not mean that if the recording is poorly done that turning up or down the volume control will assure proper playback.

I am definatly saying I never touch the volume control, except when raising/lowering the tonearm, for obvious reasons.

I am not sure if where you sit in a concert hall has anything to do with a LP recording. Really, you cannot change your seating position in your listening room to simulate a concert hall seating change. It does not work like that. You hear what is on the recording good or bad and changing seating position or volume level never changes that.

Now the hard part. You said "When I play my stereo, I modulate the sound as to its meaning. Pink Floyd works best pumping hard... Heifitz does his thing with counter clockwise rotation of the volume control. I don't know any other way to enjoy the music."

So, when Pink Floyd is playing the loud parts, should they not be turned up even further? When Heifitz goes for a crescendo, do you turn it up? Then turn it back down? Does one turn up or down Meddle?

I didn't know any other way to enjoy music either, before this. But then I realised I was unable to tune my system, turn the volume up and now the bass is too much, turn it down and now you have to turn up the bass. Toe in changes at different volume levels. Noise levels change with different volume levels. You cannot tell which LP is the most dynamic changing volume levels. and on and on.

Perhaps it is also a bit of a Zen thing. Presenting the LP for what its is and not something you wished it was. To listen to well recorded high volume LPs and to find LPs that were properly recorded for the music it represents at lower levels.
A Zen thing to listen to dynamic music and to be able to have your system play the soft as well as the loud parts within the capability of your system. But the best part is that this is most definatly a tuning tool for your system. This is how one achieves the best their system can be. Make it dynamic and go for freq extension and playback at a volume level that is suited to your system and room with 83db @1000hz -20db as your goal.

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

That is what this encourages and you will find this will get you there.

This is another way to listen to music. Take it for what it is. Hope this helps, any other questions let me know.
Bob
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
4,163 posts
 
I've read this post in an on-again/off-again fashion and I've yet to understand what problem you're really solving. As a system tuning tool it makes sense to listen at standardized volumes, but I don't see how that directly translates to listening to and enjoying music. As far as I can ascertain there is no magic to 83dB. It's just an arbitrary volume level used to standardize movie theater sound. It makes sense in that context because there is a good level of standardization in making movie soundtracks. No such level of standardization is practice in the production of pop/jazz/classical music.

So, when Pink Floyd is playing the loud parts, should they not be turned up even further?

Actually the answer to that may be, yes. Typically when engineers record loud sections of music they physically lower the recording volume in order to maintain recording headroom. The practice is called gain riding. If you really wanted in insure proper playback you would have to increase the volume during those passages. Unfortunately, as consumers we can never know where those passages are and by how much the volume was trimmed. With no standards during the recording process I just don't understand how imposing a rigid standard during playback is anything but arbitrary.
acoustat6 OP
357 posts
 
Hi Onhwy61, first off, nice Ducati and Revox equipment. I have always liked Revox, I had a 790/795? turntable years ago when they first came out. Ducatis, I still have a few.

Thanks for your input, Just think about it on occasion, that's all I ask.
Bob
rauliruegas
9,123 posts
 
Dear Bob: Please read carefully this statements from your calibration link:

" The audio industry doesn't have any standard for listening level. "

" If all CDs were mastered in such a way "

" We know CDs aren't made like this. There is NO audio standard replay level "

" but the movie industry has worked to an 83dB "

Bob, evrything have " if " or are speaking of the movie industry not the audio one. The 83db point is no trouble but any one could choose a different one say it: 82 or 86 ( at a fact each one of us are sensitive at SPL in different ways, my ears SPL limits are different from yours ).
Other factor is that many of what we buy ( LPs ) today are re-issues that comes with a random SPL original recording or re-mastered at random SPL recording: there is no oficial standard about!!!!

Maybe what you have to do is to convince to the RIAA about your subject because with out standards is very difficult to follow a " rule " like you want.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
mlsstl
694 posts
 
Raul wrote:
Maybe what you have to do is to convince to the RIAA about your subject because with out standards is very difficult to follow a " rule " like you want.
Bob is certainly entranced with his way of looking at this issue but as with most things in life, simple theories are typically complicated by reality.

First, we have a massive inventory of already recorded material that doesn't follow his rules. The bulk of this can't be re-recorded, what with dead artists and a lot of the still-living ones likely not interested in the issue from his viewpoint.

But even if all new recordings from this point forward followed his rules, this would mean compromises that would adversely affect sound quality in other ways.

Some time ago I pointed out that the live sound level of a harpsichord is much lower than that of a full symphony orchestra. The book "The Physics of Musical Instruments" by Fletcher & Rossing indicates the harpsichord's volume level is about 68 DB +/- 5 dB. A symphony orchestra can easily exceed 100 dB.

If I set the recording medium to allow for 110 dB peaks from the symphony without distortion, that means my harpsichord should be recorded 37 dB under (110 db orchestra - 68 dB + 5 harpsichord = 37) under that level. Only then will my relative playback levels be correct for each recording without adjusting the amplifier volume knob.

The reality is that I've just intentionally thrown away 37 dB of signal to noise ratio for my harpsichord recording. S/N ratio is precious in recording, particularly for vinyl records where you're doing pretty good if you have much over 60 dB to start with. I find nothing "audiophile" by intentionally reducing my S/N ratio in the recorded medium to 23 dB (60 - 37) just to satisfy an urge to avoid touching the amp volume.

The reality is that the playback electronics have a lot more S/N bandwidth to spare than a LP. It makes no sense to me to give up something in short supply in order to conserve something I have lots of.

That said, I appreciate that Bob's method is meaningful to him and seems to provide him with increased listening pleasure. However, there are some very good reasons that it is unlikely to gain popularity with most people.
More to discover