detailed sound at low volumes

[wdunham]

for five years now i have been listening to Klipsch RF3s powered by an NAD c340. i have been generally happy with this combo, but have grown increasingly frustrated with its poor reproduction of music played at low volumes. when i listen at low volume, a reality of my shared-apartment life, the music is muddy and unenjoyable. the set-up sounds great when i can crank it a little, but otherwise i get a very flat and muddled sound. no separation, clarity, etc.

The c340 only provides 40 watts per channel, so my first instinct was to search for speakers with greater efficiency than the RF3s. turns out that the RF3s have high efficiency, and that efficiency is really more about producing loud volumes with little power. I'm not quite sure what the characteristic i'm searching for is called, or what speaker specs might determine it, so i thought i would write and ask you all for advice or recommendations. once again, i want a clear and detailed sound at low volumes. i'm thinking bookshelf speakers, and i'd like to stay under $800 for the pair.

thanks for any help you can provide.

will

[drseid]

I recommend auditioning the Linn Katans at that price point new...

---Dave

[Woochifer]

It might just have to do with how human hearing has differing sensitivities at different frequencies. At low levels, we simply hear the highs and lows differently than we do at higher levels.

Older vintage amplifiers had loudness switches, designed to boost the highs and lows specifically for low level listening. Yamaha's two-channel receivers and amps have an adjustable loudness contour that you would use instead of a volume control (basically, you set your maximum listening volume, and use the loudness contour to control the overall level, which maintains a higher proportion of highs and lows to compensate for reduced hearing sensitivity at lower volumes). If your receiver/amp has tone controls, you might want to try adjusting those first.

I don't know if the speakers would have anything to do with this, but your amp might have an inherent noise level that would show up more when using sensitive speakers that can go loud with only a minimal amount of output.

[JoeE SP9]

for five years now i have been listening to Klipsch RF3s powered by an NAD c340. i have been generally happy with this combo, but have grown increasingly frustrated with its poor reproduction of music played at low volumes. when i listen at low volume, a reality of my shared-apartment life, the music is muddy and unenjoyable. the set-up sounds great when i can crank it a little, but otherwise i get a very flat and muddled sound. no separation, clarity, etc.

The c340 only provides 40 watts per channel, so my first instinct was to search for speakers with greater efficiency than the RF3s. turns out that the RF3s have high efficiency, and that efficiency is really more about producing loud volumes with little power. I'm not quite sure what the characteristic i'm searching for is called, or what speaker specs might determine it, so i thought i would write and ask you all for advice or recommendations. once again, i want a clear and detailed sound at low volumes. i'm thinking bookshelf speakers, and i'd like to stay under $800 for the pair.

thanks for any help you can provide.

will
I have found that electrostatic speakers tend to sound extremely good at low volumes. Panel speakers in general tend to sound good at the lower levels. This may be a result of the large radiating surface although I'm not sure. Try some mini Mag's (MMG) from Magnepan or any used electrostatic. Of course panel speakers do have some placement considerations you must take into account before buying them.

[topspeed]

Low level resolution is combination of the speakers and the amplification. IME, some amplifiers are better at delivering a balanced drive across the spectrum, regardless of the amount of gain, versus others that require more juice. IOW, some amps require you to pour on the power for the sound to properly coelesce. Whereas your Klipsh's are pretty efficient, I don't know if efficiency has any correlation to perceived low level resolution. You might try borrowing some other amps/integrateds and see if you get better results. I know I did.

Hope this helps.

[Wireworm5]

A few suggestions other than buying a Bryston amp. I find that if you can increase the detail level of your system then you will find the volume level will go down and still be perceived as loud as before. Having a good source such as a sacd universal player should bring out more detail in the recordings. The liviliness of your room makes a big difference. Being that you live in an apartment I would guess your options are limited. When I moved my system to a more lively room I found that I had better detail at about 5 decibles lower. Another thing that will focus the sound a bit is styrofoam Acoustic panels. You don't have to glue them to them wall. Just place them around the bottom half of your room by leaning them against the wall. When your finished listening, stack em up and put em away till next time.
Good luck

[Geoffcin]

I have found that electrostatic speakers tend to sound extremely good at low volumes. Panel speakers in general tend to sound good at the lower levels. This may be a result of the large radiating surface although I'm not sure. Try some mini Mag's (MMG) from Magnepan or any used electrostatic. Of course panel speakers do have some placement considerations you must take into account before buying them.

I've found that my maggies really "come alive" when I bring the volume past 80dB or so. I don't do much low-level serious listening though, perhaps this is the reason, rather than the cause.

[kexodusc]

It might just have to do with how human hearing has differing sensitivities at different frequencies. At low levels, we simply hear the highs and lows differently than we do at higher levels.


I think you've nailed it here. My employer's health plan requires hearing tests annually. The one that I've thought I've failed twice now is the one where a chord consisting of 3 or 4 notes is played while the volume increases over 90 seconds or so. Dammit if the prominent notes don't change as the volume does. According to the techie they don't really change, it's just that the vast majority of people perceive that it does. Something about the time you notice the note change is used to calculate when your hearing "shifts" at which volumes, etc. You'd swear the chord changes from a major to it's relative minor (C to A minor, IRC) at some points

Could also explain why some people are tone deaf?

[E-Stat]

when i listen at low volume, a reality of my shared-apartment life, the music is muddy and unenjoyable. the set-up sounds great when i can crank it a little, but otherwise i get a very flat and muddled sound. no separation, clarity, etc.
Will,

To tell you the truth, everything matters. I've been exploring that very topic of low level resolution in my systems as of late. While I concur with Joe that electrostats offer the best potential (I am a stat fancier also), you should be able to get good results with your speakers. Similarly, some amps don't do as well at low levels as high levels. I learned that first in 1972 when I bought an AR Integrated amp. Wonderful at full tilt, but fell flat on its face at low levels. The same is true when I compared an otherwise excellent Conrad-Johnson MV-75 power amp to my Threshold. The C-J just didn't fare well at sub one watt levels. I have a NAD HT receiver and find them to do well at low levels so your C340 should be ok..

In the past couple of months, I have re-cabled my vintage system using Double New Advents, Pioneer PD-54 CDP, Threshold Stasis amp, and DIY attenuators with hand me downs from the main system. I find cables of all sorts to be the last frontier in reducing low level noise thus improving low level rez. I am amazed at the detail I am now getting at the one-tenth of a watt ouput according to the Threshold's LED output ladders. Even with 70s speakers.

In my experience, better ICs, speaker cables, and power cords each contribute to a blacker background. I use shielded JPS Labs cables that are good at rejecting RFI / RMI generated by all sorts of digital devices found throughout homes, including the nearby CD player. The speaker cables are modest DH Labs T-14s. The usual argument against the value of power cords revolves around the notion that you are somehow trying to improve the quality of the power delivered miles away. How can the last three feet improve miles and miles of cable? The villains are located instead a few feet away as CDP or nearby as digital cable boxes, wireless routers, and the like. RFI manifests itself as a bright edge cast over the sound.

So - what can you do? If your NAD amp has an IEC cord, you can upgrade it. I was able to do that with my T763. While there are some hideously expensive ones available (as a point of reference, Harry Pearson of TAS uses twelve $3000 Nordost Valhallas in his system and it is dead quiet even on phono), I've found benefit with some at the under $100 level. Another approach would be to buy a power conditioner and plug your components into it. There are lots of brands available, but I've had good luck with a relatively inexpensive Monster HTS-1000 now used in an HT system. If your speaker wire is older than a couple of years, it has likely oxidized. Buy some new 12 gauge stuff. The same can be said of interconnects. One tweak that even the lab coats endorse is a good contact cleaner like the Caig ProGold and Deoxit products.

Good luck!

rw

[jaree]

It might just have to do with how human hearing has differing sensitivities at different frequencies. At low levels, we simply hear the highs and lows differently than we do at higher levels.


This is absolutely correct. At low sound levels, the human ear has differing levels of sensitivities for various frequencies. So, for example, 1000hz at 50db will seem to be louder than 100hz at 50db or 7000hz at 50db. This is why in recording studios, a sound level of 84-89 db is considered optimal to ensure accurate mastering (any less than that range and you will have a very bad master recroding). This subject has been studied in great detail and you can find more information here:

http://www.webervst.com/fm.htm
http://www.allchurchsound.com/ACS/edart/fmelc.html

Meanwhile, a loudness control may come in handy at low levels.

[hometheaterbug]

e c340 only provides 40 watts per channel, so my first instinct was to search for speakers with greater efficiency than the RF3s. turns out that the RF3s have high efficiency, and that efficiency is really more about producing loud volumes with little power


Muddy is one word I would never use with rf3's , I have them. They are best at low volumes in my opinion.At louder volumes they *UCKIN POUND and do not breakup.I had some muddiness with my center channel (RC3) when playing movies.I don't know if your having room reflection problems or what but...I think your having power problems just as a guess.

In-your-face-sound....yes
muddy or breakup...no way,they'll play loud enough to make your ears bleed and not break up.

[RGA]

I find a lot of systems need to me to turn the volume up so that I can make out what is going on - this is simply a low resoloution system because at the moment of silence to the first sound if somethig is missing - turning it up isn;t going to bring it back. You will read on some forums with people who have a lot of experience that they refer to getting the first watt right because the next 1000 watts doesn't matter if the first sounds are not "right."


Generally I have found higher sensitivity to be better at lower volumes but then that is typically where SS performs worst and certainly where Compact Disc performs it's worst. This is not surprising why s many reviewers and consumers note this "window" of "level" for their system being best when it is in this "window." Some of these problems have been dithered and fixed up -- but that's not the way it sounds to the ear - so they need some more fixin.

With the Klipsch you may want to try (I say TRY not BUY) some lower watt tube all class A amplifiers. The AQ 1003DT or if SS try a Sugden A21a or SEP or SET amps - they range in price but Almarro seems to be relatively inexpensive and getting some good talk. Try this forum for amps that like horns and high sensitivity. Speakers that reveal the flaws of SS amps is not necessarily a bad thing to have in a speaker. http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/set/bbs.html

[E-Stat]

This is absolutely correct. At low sound levels, the human ear has differing levels of sensitivities for various frequencies.
While the Fletcher-Munson curves explain apparent reductions at the frequency extremes, it doesn't explain to me a drop in resolution. Regardless of level, a system shouldn't be muddy sounding.

rw

[Woochifer]

Generally I have found higher sensitivity to be better at lower volumes but then that is typically where SS performs worst and certainly where Compact Disc performs it's worst. This is not surprising why s many reviewers and consumers note this "window" of "level" for their system being best when it is in this "window." Some of these problems have been dithered and fixed up -- but that's not the way it sounds to the ear - so they need some more fixin.

You might be confusing low levels at the preamp level with low volume levels on the amplifier itself. CDs have audible problems when the source level is at a very low level, typically during quiet passages with acoustic sources (conversely, it will distort if the transfer was done at too high a level). But, if the source is at a relatively consistent level with not a whole lot of quiet passages or extreme peaks, it should not matter if you're listening to a CD or an LP at a low volume level.

[Worf101]

This is one of the most informative threads I've read here EVER. WDunham posed a question that's been nagging me for 6 years now and the braintrust here has given me more enlightenment on the subject than I could've hoped for. The relationship of the volume of a particular system to ones perceived hearing of material. Outstanding...

Thanks to everyone who responded.

Da Worfster :D

[jaree]

While the Fletcher-Munson curves explain apparent reductions at the frequency extremes, it doesn't explain to me a drop in resolution. Regardless of level, a system shouldn't be muddy sounding.
rw

"muddy sounding" can be a bit subjective. What is muddy sounding to some can be clear to others - it depends upon a lot of factors, including age. Your hearing at 40 years of age is way worse than what it was at 15. This is why grandma needs to turn up the TV volume, because at low levels it sounds muddy to her, though the 10 year old grandson can hear the same thing clearly at that low level. This is also the reason that you need at least a 85db level to accurately master recordings in a studio, no matter what the "resolution" of the $50k+ monitoring system is (better than most home systems).

The only way to accurately measure the so called "resolution" would be to use a high quality microphone and a test rig that would measure the response produced by the speakers/system in question at 50db, 60db and so on. Then make the same measurements using a different system and compare the response.

[GMichael]

This is one of the most informative threads I've read here EVER. WDunham posed a question that's been nagging me for 6 years now and the braintrust here has given me more enlightenment on the subject than I could've hoped for. The relationship of the volume of a particular system to ones perceived hearing of material. Outstanding...

Thanks to everyone who responded.

Da Worfster :D

Glad you get it. I read it twice and still don't know the answer.

[Kursun]

I have found bright speakers produce very good results at low listening levels. This may have to do with the Fletcher-Munson curves as mentioned.

I would try some Triangle and JM Labs speakers.

[E-Stat]

"muddy sounding" can be a bit subjective. What is muddy sounding to some can be clear to others - it depends upon a lot of factors, including age.
I would agree that all such terms are subjective by nature. I attempted to address the ways in which I've observed electronics can blur or render musical details indistinct at lower levels.


This is also the reason that you need at least a 85db level to accurately master recordings in a studio, no matter what the "resolution" of the $50k+ monitoring system is (better than most home systems).
I guess its a good thing I don't do mastering as all my listening is done in the 60-80 db range. I get quite good resolution at those levels, especially with my full range electrostats (better than most studio systems).


The only way to accurately measure the so called "resolution" would be to use a high quality microphone and a test rig that would measure the response produced by the speakers/system in question at 50db, 60db and so on. Then make the same measurements using a different system and compare the response.
One can observe the differences I noted, however, without such a test rig using familiar musical content..

rw

[jaree]

One can observe the differences I noted, however, without such a test rig using familiar musical content..
rw

Yes, assuming one has perfect hearing at low levels and can discern a 17k and a 30hz note as clearly as a 2k one at 60db or lower levels.

[E-Stat]

Yes, assuming one has perfect hearing at low levels and can discern a 17k and a 30hz note as clearly as a 2k one at 60db or lower levels.
It would seem we are talking about different phenomena. The original question had to do with a "muddiness" at low levels. You can get quite clear response, albeit not as high in relative level at the extremes, while listening in the 60s and 70s with good gear and recordings.

While not a great recording (a fun one for sure), I was listening yesterday to Thomas Newman's soundtrack from "Lemony Snicket". The bells in the first two bands can be heard quite clearly and crisply while listening at sub 70 db levels (plus or minus the error of my trusty Rat Shack meter while using the fast "C" weighting)

rw

[Canadia507]

Glad you get it. I read it twice and still don't know the answer.

Haha, amen!

[Mike Anderson]

I've been in the same situation. I *hated* living where I couldn't play loud music, not the least of which because I'm a musician. Everything sounds better loud.

My advice? Move. Then turn it up!

Life's too short not to play it LOUD!

[Bernd]

Will,

To tell you the truth, everything matters. I've been exploring that very topic of low level resolution in my systems as of late. While I concur with Joe that electrostats offer the best potential (I am a stat fancier also), you should be able to get good results with your speakers. Similarly, some amps don't do as well at low levels as high levels. I learned that first in 1972 when I bought an AR Integrated amp. Wonderful at full tilt, but fell flat on its face at low levels. The same is true when I compared an otherwise excellent Conrad-Johnson MV-75 power amp to my Threshold. The C-J just didn't fare well at sub one watt levels. I have a NAD HT receiver and find them to do well at low levels so your C340 should be ok..

In the past couple of months, I have re-cabled my vintage system using Double New Advents, Pioneer PD-54 CDP, Threshold Stasis amp, and DIY attenuators with hand me downs from the main system. I find cables of all sorts to be the last frontier in reducing low level noise thus improving low level rez. I am amazed at the detail I am now getting at the one-tenth of a watt ouput according to the Threshold's LED output ladders. Even with 70s speakers.

In my experience, better ICs, speaker cables, and power cords each contribute to a blacker background. I use shielded JPS Labs cables that are good at rejecting RFI / RMI generated by all sorts of digital devices found throughout homes, including the nearby CD player. The speaker cables are modest DH Labs T-14s. The usual argument against the value of power cords revolves around the notion that you are somehow trying to improve the quality of the power delivered miles away. How can the last three feet improve miles and miles of cable? The villains are located instead a few feet away as CDP or nearby as digital cable boxes, wireless routers, and the like. RFI manifests itself as a bright edge cast over the sound.

So - what can you do? If your NAD amp has an IEC cord, you can upgrade it. I was able to do that with my T763. While there are some hideously expensive ones available (as a point of reference, Harry Pearson of TAS uses twelve $3000 Nordost Valhallas in his system and it is dead quiet even on phono), I've found benefit with some at the under $100 level. Another approach would be to buy a power conditioner and plug your components into it. There are lots of brands available, but I've had good luck with a relatively inexpensive Monster HTS-1000 now used in an HT system. If your speaker wire is older than a couple of years, it has likely oxidized. Buy some new 12 gauge stuff. The same can be said of interconnects. One tweak that even the lab coats endorse is a good contact cleaner like the Caig ProGold and Deoxit products.

Good luck!

rw
Hi,
I agree with that. If you want resolution at low level you need to have really clean mains. I sometimes stayed up till the wee hours and found some resolution lacking. I have very good cabling and after I installed the "Isotek Titan" mains product the inky black background was just that. I can now hear all the detail even at very low level.I also clean all the connections and sockets and fuses with "Kontak". Worked for me.
But I also know that we hear different at loud volumes. My theory is that we can feel the music at loud volumes and not just hear it and therefore have a different experience.

Good Luck.

Peace

Bernd

[Florian]

What ya need is low level resolution and micro dynamics. Most people think that dynamics are going from a small volume to a loud one. But you need a speaker that can show the small differences too. You need a driver that react to every bit of sonic shift, a huge driving force over a light membrane to get all the detail and resolution at low volume. For me personally, ony magnetotostatics and electrostatics and some very good horns can do that. But then again, thats just me :-)

-Flo

[Greekguy]

for five years now i have been listening to Klipsch RF3s powered by an NAD c340. i have been generally happy with this combo, but have grown increasingly frustrated with its poor reproduction of music played at low volumes. when i listen at low volume, a reality of my shared-apartment life, the music is muddy and unenjoyable. the set-up sounds great when i can crank it a little, but otherwise i get a very flat and muddled sound. no separation, clarity, etc.

The c340 only provides 40 watts per channel, so my first instinct was to search for speakers with greater efficiency than the RF3s. turns out that the RF3s have high efficiency, and that efficiency is really more about producing loud volumes with little power. I'm not quite sure what the characteristic i'm searching for is called, or what speaker specs might determine it, so i thought i would write and ask you all for advice or recommendations. once again, i want a clear and detailed sound at low volumes. i'm thinking bookshelf speakers, and i'd like to stay under $800 for the pair.

thanks for any help you can provide.

will
I'd personally say that you would have to account for a number of things to improve your sound. Generally, any decent 3-way speaker from most major speaker companies should fit the bill, provided they have a decent efficiency rating, I'd say 92db would be ideal. A high-end power cord would also make a huge difference, provided your amp will allow you to switch cords. Investing in a decent pair of speaker cables would help to bring out the detail a little more too, no need to go crazy on these in terms of $$$. Room acoustics also play a big factor, just make sure you have ideal speaker placement and try dampening material to reduce reverberation. It will take some experimenting, but eventually you'll find something that works.