Superb low volume listening

[kordon]

Check my system out and tell me how to achieve this please.

[audio amateur]

You may wish to elaborate on that.

[Mr Peabody]

I don't have much experience with B&K but they are supposed to be pretty good, unless the PSB's are extremely difficult for the receiver to drive you should get decent low volume listening already. You must not though, or at least satisfactory or you wouldn't be here. :) A couple of things to try if you haven't already.

1. Set the mains to "large" when listening at low volume. Or, if that is your current set up, try setting them to small to relieve work from the receiver and using the sub may easier fill in the low frequencies at lower volume. Plus you can boost the sub if needed at low volume.

2. Obviously, utilize a "loudness" control if one is featured.

3. You might try turning your "night time" or sometimes called "dynamic compression" on. This limits the dynamic range and makes things easier to hear at lower volume.

4. Lastly, but not leastly, however, the most expensive, ad a more high current amplifier. If you are just talking music you can just add a stereo amp, if music and HT you'll need maybe a 5 channel.

[kordon]

Thank you for the tips, I'll give that a try.

[emesbee]

Or maybe just listen through headphones.

[kordon]

Or maybe just listen through headphones.

Nah, I just wish when I fired up my system it would wow me. Not sure what I need to do.

[Mr Peabody]

For music have you tried the analog output of the Arcam versus the digital output? The analog output the conversion is done by the Arcam DAC, when using digital output the conversion is done by the B&K. Although the Arcam is a DVD unit the internal DAC still could be better than the one in the B&K. Arcam usually puts music first in what ever product they have.

I looked at the specs on your receiver and I was surprised B&K gave a power rating of 150 wpc at 1kHz, that's a cheezy way of giving power ratings and I thought B&K was above that. Most quality manufacturer's give a full bandwidth power rating of 20-20kHz which is a more realistic rating. As I stated before if the PSB's lean toward a difficult load you might want to experiment with adding a stereo amp for the mains.

What exactly aren't you happy with in your system?

[blackraven]

Consider an external DAC for your music.

[kordon]

For music have you tried the analog output of the Arcam versus the digital output? The analog output the conversion is done by the Arcam DAC, when using digital output the conversion is done by the B&K. Although the Arcam is a DVD unit the internal DAC still could be better than the one in the B&K. Arcam usually puts music first in what ever product they have.

I looked at the specs on your receiver and I was surprised B&K gave a power rating of 150 wpc at 1kHz, that's a cheezy way of giving power ratings and I thought B&K was above that. Most quality manufacturer's give a full bandwidth power rating of 20-20kHz which is a more realistic rating. As I stated before if the PSB's lean toward a difficult load you might want to experiment with adding a stereo amp for the mains.

What exactly aren't you happy with in your system?

I'll try the analog out put as I'm running digital now. You may be on to something with the stereo amp. Not happy with the sound stage and the speakers don't come to life without volume.

[RGA]

Without opening a can of worms your best bet is to look into an entirely different kind of stereo system - and that may not be the popular stance since it is the costliest but that is my opinion. With High powered SS they typically perform better pushed - and most lower efficient speakers (all the one's I've used over 20 years) need to be pushed. I am thus not a fan of either high powered amps nor low efficient speakers but the products themselves made me "not a fan."

Unfortunately, most inexpensive High Efficiency speakers tended to bury themselves with irritating treble and insufficient box designs. Though that is getting better. However dealers continue to sell the numbers, as does the marketing, and until people get over the high numbers is better idea then things are not going to get much better.

[kordon]

Without opening a can of worms your best bet is to look into an entirely different kind of stereo system - and that may not be the popular stance since it is the costliest but that is my opinion. With High powered SS they typically perform better pushed - and most lower efficient speakers (all the one's I've used over 20 years) need to be pushed. I am thus not a fan of either high powered amps nor low efficient speakers but the products themselves made me "not a fan."

Unfortunately, most inexpensive High Efficiency speakers tended to bury themselves with irritating treble and insufficient box designs. Though that is getting better. However dealers continue to sell the numbers, as does the marketing, and until people get over the high numbers is better idea then things are not going to get much better.

Would you recommend the AN speakers with my setup?

[markw]

It's your ears that lack. Our ears are less sensitive to low and high frequencies than they are to midrange frequencies, particularly at low levels. When listening at low levels, many an otherwise fine sounding system tends to sound "washed out" when playing at low levels. That's why many stereos had a "loudness" button on them, to boost the bass when playing at a low volume level.

Somehow, these have fallen out of favor in recent years but that doesn't mean our ears are any less impared. That's like taking spare tires out of cars and expecting that that we'll never have flat tires again. Just because the cure ain't there doesn't mean the problem is gone.

Boost the bass when listening at low levels.

[RGA]

Would you recommend the AN speakers with my setup?

Not really. Audio Note amps are low powered and won't sufficiently drive your speakers and the Audio Note speakers are designed for their amplifiers.

I disagree that speakers or ears are incapable of producing at low volumes - unfortunately the vast majority of gear is poor at low volumes. Quad electrostatic panels are quite excellent at low volumes and so quite often are HE speakers mated with single ended amplifiers. Sugden or Audio Note amps with Audio Note or the better tannoy speakers or if you like horns there are many out there.

Usually the reason we want to turn the volume up is because the stereo lacks resolution and dynamics. So we turn the volume up hoping to hear more of what's on the disc and to get the dynamics back. However we simply mistake it for volume. Loudness papers over the cracks - well for awhile. Often this become a long term issue for the listener who eventually gets into upgrade mode - and rightly so.

I would not suggest Audio Note - certainly listen if you can someplace but there are other Higher efficiency examples and tube or non tube SE amps. The Quad is terrific but the 2905 runs $14,000. So I'm thinking saner price levels.

Omega loudspeakers is intriguing at around $1200.00 and mated to a nice SE amp might do the trick - but I have not heard it yet. I recently reviewed Grant Fidelity gear and this company is offerring some attractive prices on amplifiers but I have not as yet heard any of their speakers.

I suggest this, albeit frustrating advice, because the alternative of buying new amplifiers with those speakers may not end up working. Try and view the entire system as a whole rather than a bunch of parts thrown together in the hopes it will work. When the chef is in charge of your entire meal it will more likely be good then having three chefs with three different levels of abilities putting things on your plate. One dish may ruin the other two.

The best suggestion is to listen to stuff way out of your price range to get a reference what is possible - these truly great set-ups will be memorable - then seek out auditions in people's homes or the better dealers and listen to systems - find one that truly moves you, write down the components and get those.

Of course I like Audio Note and would recommend an audition - but never buy without hearing it for yourself first.

Most of us don't have the cash to do it all at once, I certainly don't, so we're forced to buy a speaker to match with the amp we have or vice versa. But if you have a clear objective you will be better off. I started with the AN J with full awareness that I would be purchasing a matching amp and CD player - I elected to forgo the CD upgrade for the turntable but it takes time - and money - as a teacher - well I have to wait longer than some professions - but I'm patient.

[markw]

I disagree that speakers or ears are incapable of producing at low volumes - unfortunately the vast majority of gear is poor at low volumes.People can believe whatever they wish, wether it's true or not. Belief does not require facts.

Yes, speakers are capable of producing at low volumes.

But, science has proven, over and over again, that as volume is lowered our ears are non-linear in their ability to hear low and high tones as opposed to mid-range tones .

So, this is a case of the pitcher doing a fine job of throwing the ball. It's the catcher's fault he can't catch it.

Google "Fletcher-Munson" or, if you''re really feeling froggy, check with an audiologist for some facts.

[theaudiohobby]

Follow markw advice rather than chasing your tale. Get preamplifier/receiver with a loudness switch such as one like the marantz (http://www.marantz.com/new/index.cfm?fuseaction=Products.ProdSpecs&cont=eu&bus=hf&prod_id=3519&type=amp&series=comp) featured here.

[RGA]

People can believe whatever they wish, wether it's true or not. Belief does not require facts.

Yes, speakers are capable of producing at low volumes.

But, science has proven, over and over again, that as volume is lowered our ears are non-linear in their ability to hear low and high tones as opposed to mid-range tones .

So, this is a case of the pitcher doing a fine job of throwing the ball. It's the catcher's fault he can't catch it.

Google "Fletcher-Munson" or, if you''re really feeling froggy, check with an audiologist for some facts.

I am not sure what you are referring to here - are you talking about frequency response or volume level? If frequency response I agree.

But if you have listened to a wealth of audio speakers or headphones you would very well know that some gear is clearer (resolute) and retains dynamics, timbre, etc when played at low volumes better than other products. While a lot of gear needs to be played a lot louder to "seemingly" sound as good. My dealer run a blind test and found subjects felt one speaker was as "louder" than the others despite being a full 3db louder because the speaker was clearer and balanced properly.

This is especially useful for late night listening. This is why I suspect Quad is so popular because - well they can't play loud very well. And of course people's definitions of low volume levels may be different so we may be talking about the same thing:2: 72db in the listening position is what I consider to be a medium+ volume level - while others would call 85db medium level. I did not go to a lot of rock concerts and I avoid loud levels so what I call low volume would be different than Mick Jagger - Low to him might be 100db.

[markw]

I am not sure what you are referring to here - are you talking about frequency response or volume level? If frequency response I agree.I didn't post here to educate you. That's a hopeless cause.

Sometimes, it's hard to separate the dazzle that comes from brilliance and the baffle that comes from BS. I just jumped in here just to let the OP and the rest know that you're babbling on about stuff that has no bearing on the situation at hand.

One more time and then I'll let you have the last few thousand words. I'm sure I've made my point to those who want to understand and followed some of the links that Google provided.

It's simply that as volume levels go down, the human ear is less sensitive to low and high frequencies. A system that sounds good at a higher volume levels can and will sound "washed out" at low volumes. It's a simple, proven fact of human design that you seem to refuse to accept and, unless you're one of the X men, you're subject to the same physical foibles as the rest of us mortals.

No amount of words is going to change that. So, enjoy your ego posts. I'm outta here.

Q.E.D.

[RoadRunner6]

Many of us are familiar with "Fletcher-Munson" and the loudness controls very popular especially years ago in stereo receivers and integrated amps.

There are some recent efforts in this area to improve on the effectiveness of such controls and to blend them into HT receivers and pre/pro's, etc (in addition to what we have already seen). The Emotiva new pre/pro soon to be out apparently will include some version of the Dolby "Dolby Volume" leveling technology in addition to some Arcam receivers, etc. There are other brands out there that do somewhat simliar functions such as Audyssey Dynamic Volume and THX Loudness Plus, etc.

I think you might see a proliferation of these types of loudness compensation features to lower or increase the perceived flattness of the frequency response at less than ideal volume levels. Perhaps some of them would be applicable to 2 channel systems.

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/dolby-volume-works.html

Some audiophiles might reject these attempts as heresy but time will tell if they are considered effective.

RR6

[RGA]

I didn't post here to educate you. That's a hopeless cause.

Sometimes, it's hard to separate the dazzle that comes from brilliance and the baffle that comes from BS. I just jumped in here just to let the OP and the rest know that you're babbling on about stuff that has no bearing on the situation at hand.

One more time and then I'll let you have the last few thousand words. I'm sure I've made my point to those who want to understand and followed some of the links that Google provided.

It's simply that as volume levels go down, the human ear is less sensitive to low and high frequencies. A system that sounds good at a higher volume levels can and will sound "washed out" at low volumes. It's a simple, proven fact of human design that you seem to refuse to accept and, unless you're one of the X men, you're subject to the same physical foibles as the rest of us mortals.

No amount of words is going to change that. So, enjoy your ego posts. I'm outta here.

Q.E.D.

I'm not sure what your problem is with me but perhaps if you read what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions you might figure out that I was agreeing with you. But let me spell it out for you.

Our ear is less able to detect low and high frequencies at lower volume levels than medium and higher volume levels - that is what you wrote that is what I agree with - and BTW I have run Double blind Experiments in psychology at University at A levels so I know full well what these tests are capable of. And I AGREE with what you wrote.

My contention was merely to note that some speakers (stereo systems) are better able to produce at low volume levels the same kind of balance. Of course human hearing is less acute at the frequency extremems at lower volumes but that does not mean you are completely deaf at low volumes and if one speaker is vastly better at low volume than another and you want a stereo for lower volume levels - YOU will still be able to tell which speaker is better than the other - at the very least in the midrange. The ear is not particularly sensitive above 6khz. To be able to hear low frequencies at very low volumes you could need a 20db or more boost to achieve the same level as a 1khz signal. Ie; the lower the volume the worse it gets at the frequency extremes. Having said that the midrange is still hwere 90% of music resides and our hearing is still pretty good - a speaker that perfroms well at low levels will produce that 90% quite well retaining dynamics etc. A speaker that can't arguably can't at any level because turning the speaker up isn't going to miraculously allow it to put back music that it lost at low levels.

Who knows maybe I like my Audio Note's in corners because of their 18db gain and senstivity gain - which in a way is like a loudness level boost to the bottom octaves!

[markw]

I'm not sure what your problem is with me but perhaps if you read what I wrote instead of jumping to conclusions you might figure out that I was agreeing with you. But let me spell it out for you.the problem I have with you here is simply that you confuse opinion with facts. And, in an attempt to appear to be the know-it-all you resort to obfuscation. Berevity is welcomed.


Our ear is less able to detect low and high frequencies at lower volume levels than medium and higher volume levels - that is what you wrote that is what I agree with - and BTW I have run Double blind Experiments in psychology at University at A levels so I know full well what these tests are capable of. And I AGREE with what you wrote.Well. getting you to acknowledge it was like pulling teeth. Was it that hard?


My contention was merely to note that some speakers (stereo systems) are better able to produce at low volume levels the same kind of balance.But at low levels it's gonna take some help, electronically but it should have less effect asthe volume increases. Otherwise it would be "off balance" over the rest of the range at higher levels. That'swhat a "loudness" control is supposed to do.


Of course human hearing is less acute at the frequency extremems at lower volumes but that does not mean you are completely deaf at low volumes and if one speaker is vastly better at low volume than another and you want a stereo for lower volume levels - YOU will still be able to tell which speaker is better than the other - at the very least in the midrange.And, your point is? So, what does this have to do with the tea in China? I never said that there wasn't a difference in the quality of the midrange, did I?

That's called a "straw man" argument. I thought you were above that.


The ear is not particularly sensitive above 6khz. To be able to hear low frequencies at very low volumes you could need a 20db or more boost to achieve the same level as a 1khz signal.You make that sound like a bad thing or that it's impossible to accomplish. They did this is the 70's. Actually, the ear's sensitivity peaks somewhere around 1 khz. There's that bass boost again. And, a properly designed one provides a bit of boost to the high end as well.


Ie; the lower the volume the worse it gets at the frequency extremes.Well, duh! Somehow, I think I said something like this several posts earlier, no?


Having said that the midrange is still hwere 90% of music resides and our hearing is still pretty good - a speaker that perfroms well at low levels will produce that 90% quite well retaining dynamics etc....but that 10% that resides in the lower registers has quite an impact on one's enjoyment of the experience, no? If not, why even bother with it? Heck, who needs anything below 100hz? After all, in a 20 - 20khz world that's less than 1% of the spectrum! Who cares?


A speaker that can't arguably can't at any level because turning the speaker up isn't going to miraculously allow it to put back music that it lost at low levels.I really don't quite understand what point you're trying to make here but I'll give it a stab. No, but controlled application of a bit of boost at certain frequencies sure can help. Hey, let's call that a "loudness control"!

The music isn't "lost", it's merely attenuated (as far as our hearing is concerned) and a bit of boost at certain frequencies and levels certainly goes a long way to restoring it.


Who knows maybe I like my Audio Note's in corners because of their 18db gain and senstivity gain - which in a way is like a loudness level boost to the bottom octaves!Wonderful! A built-in loudness control! Tell me, how are they able to discern when to apply that bass boost and when to not?

I knew that you would eventually bring up Audio Note as the perfect solution. So typical of a fanboy!

[E-Stat]

It's simply that as volume levels go down, the human ear is less sensitive to low and high frequencies. A system that sounds good at a higher volume levels can and will sound "washed out" at low volumes.
While no one disputes the Fletcher-Munson data, I think there is more to the puzzle than just that. Setting aside the ear's reduced sensitivity to bass (and to a lesser extent, the upper treble), transducers and amplification circuits do not necessary have the same linearity at very low levels. I first learned of that with an AR integrated amp back in the seventies. It sounded great at high level, but the resolution went out the window at very low levels. I found the same true later when I compared a Threshold Stasis to a Conrad-Johnson MV-75a. The Connie simply could not resolve as well as the Stasis at the lowest levels. I love Maggies, but the ones I've owned and others I've heard (such as the excellent 20.1s) do not resolve as well at the lowest levels to these ears as the best electrostats. Similarly, not all amplifiers do as well at the milliwatt level due to non-linearity and noise. RF noise injected into most modern homes add another dimension to the question - as in the system's ability to reject the added noise components.

I find there is a hidden world of dynamics found at the bottom of scale that many systems simply do not plumb for various reasons.

rw

[Auricauricle]

Unless I am seriously missing the point, here, doesn't it seem remotely intuitively obvious that resolution, dynamics and all the "good stuff" that folks (usually) associate with kick-ass stereo sound go out the window at low volumes? Whether it's live performance at the stage or behind closed doors and in a building three blocks away makes a difference: you are going to experience accentuation and loss of information depending on your proximity to the source and other factors.

Naturally, when listening to material at a low level, you will experience the same loss as anyone else would. So, the question is, what happens to sound when it attenuated? Three scenarios: (A) What happens as volume is turned down? (B) What happens when we move further away from it? (C) What happens when objects are put in between us and the source? Question A seems to pertain to the question. Answer: Dynamics drop off (disparities between peaks and troughs become ambiguous); Some frequencies become more noticeable, others die (ever heard a subwoofer booming in the middle of the night?); etc. (I know nothin' about physics, Miss Scarlet!). So when ya say that you wanna listen to "superb low volume music listening", maybe (and correct me if I'm wrong, Brothers and Sisters) there just ain't no such thing!

[markw]

So when ya say that you wanna listen to "superb low volume music listening", maybe (and correct me if I'm wrong, Brothers and Sisters) there just ain't no such thing!But,unless our less-than-eloquent OP can come up with something a bit more descriptive besides "Not happy with the sound stage and the speakers don't come to life without volume.", I'll stick to boosting the bass, and perhaps a little goose to the treble, as a good starting point.

It may not capture the dynamics of more volume, but it can make low-level listening a bit more satisfying.

[Auricauricle]

That's why God invented headphones, son!

[Mr Peabody]

I wondered what those were on Moses ears in my picture Bible. Which brand was invented by God, I want to get some good ones? I bet it was Sennheiser, of course that sounds German and I think God was for the Jews........

[markw]

....and all along I thought those were cinnamon buns on the side of Princess Leia's head.

It turns out they were Sennheiser 580s in disguise

[budgetaudio76]

i think i have a decent solution here. 2 pairs of RSa stacked. with a pioneer cs 51 book shelf speak, to attenuate the mids. has an excellent mid driver.(pe 12) huge alnico. even at low volumes of less than half a watt it has satisfiying bass(system as a whole). i spend alot of time around .002 watts rms. no not shelf rattling bass. but what is there is deep and discernible in regards to timbre and instruments used.

i was using an equalizer both analog and digital. and right now im not using either. because i dont need them. what was i thinking. sure its good for the ht reciever. but 2 channel rig dont need it at all.

i guess the 200 watts on the bottom rsa helps, as well as the 100 watt mosfet on the top rsa. hey....it sure works for me, even at lower levels late at nite.

hmmmm, some of you seem awfully familiar, :D :D :D

[RGA]

Unless I am seriously missing the point, here, doesn't it seem remotely intuitively obvious that resolution, dynamics and all the "good stuff" that folks (usually) associate with kick-ass stereo sound go out the window at low volumes? Whether it's live performance at the stage or behind closed doors and in a building three blocks away makes a difference: you are going to experience accentuation and loss of information depending on your proximity to the source and other factors.

Naturally, when listening to material at a low level, you will experience the same loss as anyone else would. So, the question is, what happens to sound when it attenuated? Three scenarios: (A) What happens as volume is turned down? (B) What happens when we move further away from it? (C) What happens when objects are put in between us and the source? Question A seems to pertain to the question. Answer: Dynamics drop off (disparities between peaks and troughs become ambiguous); Some frequencies become more noticeable, others die (ever heard a subwoofer booming in the middle of the night?); etc. (I know nothin' about physics, Miss Scarlet!). So when ya say that you wanna listen to "superb low volume music listening", maybe (and correct me if I'm wrong, Brothers and Sisters) there just ain't no such thing!

I think in a sense you are correct in that listening at very low volumes is less ideal than listening at comfortably loud levels or less than live acoustic intrument levels. But not everything is always ideal - not the listener, not the stereo, not the room and certainly not the recordings. Things are "relative". If I live in an apartment and I want to listen to my stereo at 10PM - 12pm 5 nights per week then I am forced to listen at lower volumes or be evicted. If I listen to 100 loudspeakers speaker (call them A- A99) that sound truly abysmal at 40-50db while the other(call it B) sounds quite a lot better then B is a superb performer. But no that doesn't mean that relative to playing at 80db it's better.

It's called keeping apples to apples - that is the point of "level matching" so that stereos are kept at the same levels to not give an advantage to the other. If you want to add a loudness button or some other equalization to boost frequencies or ranges of frequencies that might work - but again if you boost the bass in an apartment at 11pm the neighbors may get you evicted.

Headphones are a wonderful compromise because you can play as loud as you wish without bothering anyone - but some people just hate headphones.

[E-Stat]

Unless I am seriously missing the point, here, doesn't it seem remotely intuitively obvious that resolution, dynamics and all the "good stuff" that folks (usually) associate with kick-ass stereo sound go out the window at low volumes?
For me, that is where the treasure is found. There is a wealth of low level detail on the recordings that is masked by many a system.


Naturally, when listening to material at a low level, you will experience the same loss as anyone else would.
My experience suggests otherwise. Many a system buries detail in the noise floor. Line sources also reduce level in a linear fashion while point sources drop off more drastically. As I walk up to my stats from a distance, the loudness changes very little.


So when ya say that you wanna listen to "superb low volume music listening", maybe (and correct me if I'm wrong, Brothers and Sisters) there just ain't no such thing!
I aver that there is.

rw

[Auricauricle]

Let me see if I can sort this out and get what you guys are trying to say here....Again, correct me if I am mistaken:

Considering characteristics of instrumentation and volume:

First:
a.) A chief goal of stereophonic equipment is to recreate the original source as much as possible.
b.) In creating such equipment, there are limitations based on cost-effectiveness, space, and other characteristics of the listening environment that are not congruent with the space in which the original source was recorded.
c.) Because of these limitations, manufacturers have included various artificial means of allowing users to more closely approximate the original.
d.) These means, however, also introduce artifacts and distortion that may, in fact, take the listener further away from his goal.

Second:
a.) Another goal of high fidelity manufacturing is the maintenance of sonically accurate reproduction of material at volumes and spaces that are more confined than those of the original.
b.) Although bass levels can be boosted to compensate for its apparent loss, doing so is not reflective of what happens in real life. Bass information and detail goes out the window as volume and distance are attenuated and lengthened.
c.) Again, stretching of the medium in pursuit of aural gratification at low-volume and less than ideal space is futile and risks introduction of characteristics that are unnatural and distortive.

Conclusion:
a.) No system will provide you with perfect reproduction of a performance. Even as expenses are made available to more closely approximate this ideal, the consumer must always realise that these measures are only approximate.
b.) So consumers must either start hiring musicians to come by the house (apartment or whatever) to perform in person...
c.) Or close their eyes and be content with what they've got.

Or like me, they can load up on tweaks.....!

Like an old teacher of mine once said: "Truth is asymptotic".

[RGA]

I think I would agree with most of your points. A stereo no matter how good is no substitute for live - but since I can't have Sarah McLachlan in my house to sing every night then a stereo is the next best thing. The term accuracy holds no meaning unless there is one agreed upon answer. 2+2=4 and everyone knows this is the accurate answer. 5 may be closer that 498,090,0990, but unless you truly know the question and there is an actual answer in our possession then the word holds no meaning. It's no wonder so many compare to subjective thing - accurate to instruments, accurate to the disc, accurate to live.

I go by this article in enjoythemusic.com but even here - it can't account for any sort of "absolute" accuracy but it is subjectively a "good" way to judge - if a logistics nightmare http://www.enjoythemusic.com/audiohell.htm

[kordon]

I must say I've learned a lot reading your posts back and forth. Thanks for all the info.
Sincerely,
and I quote "less-than-eloquent OP"

[Mr Peabody]

I know that hi fi may not be quite as good at low volumes but I don't notice my system falling apart either at low volumes so good equipment must be able to minimize the effect. Also, as I think was mentioned what's low to one person may not be low to another.

It also depends on what is meant by "not sounding as good". At low volume my system sounds pretty good. On the other hand it isn't going to have the same realism when a drum is struck because striking a drum is not normally a quiet sound. Striking a Tom Tom has a certain impact and depth to it. Reproduction isn't going to be quite as convincing at a lower volume.

[Auricauricle]

I think you're hinting around a valid point, Mr. P. At lower volumes, perhaps it isn't always a matter of sounds becoming less precise; they are just different. As you describe, the characteristics of a tom-tom struck at a subdued fashion will sound different than one played with vigor. LIkewise, as an amplified source becomes attenuated, is the sound less precise or is it simply softer and by nature of the softening merely different? I would venture to say that because neither the incoming nor outgoing signal changes significantly (except for volume), the outgoing signal's interaction with the environment must be the culprit. In other words, musicians must do things differently to play softly; the amp, not knowing this but being asked to do something similar produces the same signal it would if it were played loudly. Because no compensative measures are in place, the environment must respond to the signal in like fashion. Hence, the deterioration of sound quality.

Or something like that....Um...

[Mr Peabody]

I think you're hinting around a valid point, Mr. P. At lower volumes, perhaps it isn't always a matter of sounds becoming less precise; they are just different. As you describe, the characteristics of a tom-tom struck at a subdued fashion will sound different than one played with vigor. LIkewise, as an amplified source becomes attenuated, is the sound less precise or is it simply softer and by nature of the softening merely different? I would venture to say that because neither the incoming nor outgoing signal changes significantly (except for volume), the outgoing signal's interaction with the environment must be the culprit. In other words, musicians must do things differently to play softly; the amp, not knowing this but being asked to do something similar produces the same signal it would if it were played loudly. Because no compensative measures are in place, the environment must respond to the signal in like fashion. Hence, the deterioration of sound quality.

Or something like that....Um...

Yeah, what you said :)

[audio amateur]

I think you're hinting around a valid point, Mr. P. At lower volumes, perhaps it isn't always a matter of sounds becoming less precise; they are just different. As you describe, the characteristics of a tom-tom struck at a subdued fashion will sound different than one played with vigor. LIkewise, as an amplified source becomes attenuated, is the sound less precise or is it simply softer and by nature of the softening merely different? I would venture to say that because neither the incoming nor outgoing signal changes significantly (except for volume), the outgoing signal's interaction with the environment must be the culprit. In other words, musicians must do things differently to play softly; the amp, not knowing this but being asked to do something similar produces the same signal it would if it were played loudly. Because no compensative measures are in place, the environment must respond to the signal in like fashion. Hence, the deterioration of sound quality.

Or something like that....Um...
Pretty good point!