How loud do you listen?

[Ajani]

I recently downloaded an spl meter for my iPad to find out how loud my normal listening volume is. Apparently I listen in the high 70 db's range. A loud peak for me is up to 85db.

This really has me wondering about how much power I really need for a stereo. Most speakers I like have about a 90 db efficiency, so just 1 watt would be able to play louder than I would ever want to listen.

Anyone else tried measuring your regular volumes? If so, how loud do you listen?

[Luvin Da Blues]

I recently downloaded an spl meter for my iPad to find out how loud my normal listening volume is. Apparently I listen in the high 70 db's range. A loud peak for me is up to 85db.

This really has me wondering about how much power I really need for a stereo. Most speakers I like have about a 90 db efficiency, so just 1 watt would be able to play louder than I would ever want to listen.

Anyone else tried measuring your regular volumes? If so, how loud do you listen?

Pretty much the same for me but there are times when I like to crank it........ good to have 330w/ch (plus 200watts on each of the 2 subs) for those times.

[Feanor]

I recently downloaded an spl meter for my iPad to find out how loud my normal listening volume is. Apparently I listen in the high 70 db's range. A loud peak for me is up to 85db.

This really has me wondering about how much power I really need for a stereo. Most speakers I like have about a 90 db efficiency, so just 1 watt would be able to play louder than I would ever want to listen.

Anyone else tried measuring your regular volumes? If so, how loud do you listen?
I'm a little quieter than you, even for serious listening. I'd say average about 70 dB, peaks higher of course.

[Worf101]

I'm in the 65 to 75 range as well. But of course it depends on the age of the album (ie how it was recrorded) as modern albums are quite loud. Some genre's are louded than others.. The dynamic ranges of classical are much wider than pop, soul, rock etc.. And my mood. Sometimes I want to crash and bash, other times I just let Miles soothe me.

Worf

[E-Stat]

Apparently I listen in the high 70 db's range. A loud peak for me is up to 85db.
That's about the same for me. Last weekend at the symphony I was recording similar levels using an iPhone based app. There were perhaps four seconds scattered throughout the entire program that peaked in the high 90s with one at 101 db.

What I've found over the years is that the treasure is found at the low end of the dynamic scale. As systems get better and quieter, one can hear more detail at lower output levels.

[texlle]

I was testing out my free RTA app for my iphone and found that I listen around 65-75, depending on the type of music. This is for my 5.1. The dyns probably don't play much louder than 60 most of the time. I know, a mortal sin.

[JohnMichael]

What I've found over the years is that the treasure is found at the low end of the dynamic scale. As systems get better and quieter, one can hear more detail at lower output levels.


I agree completely.

My loudest listening sessions are usually at 3 AM most weekends. Just my way of letting the young women who live below know that I am not pleased with their continued partying. One weekend I cranked the Krell to 90 and my curtains were fluttering from the air out of the ports. One song and they quiet down. I hope I give them stereo envy.

[Hyfi]

I range from about 65 when there are people in the room and talking.

If I crank it up its between 75 and 80 depending on the recording. Lousier the recording the more chance it has to get turned down.

I just tested this first with Marcus Miller's M2 which is well recorded and I was comfortable upwards of 85.
Then I put on Metalica's S&M and right away had to lower it somewhere between 70 and 75.

I also put my pre in passive once in a while and as said above, it doesn't have to be real loud to sound real good.

[JoeE SP9]

Although there have been times when the level has been above 106dB that's the exception. Most of my listening is between 75 to 85dB. It's also program dependent. Some stuff just needs to be played louder. Other stuff needs much lower levels.

[Poultrygeist]

I just measured a comfortably loud range of 66 to 80dbs on Dire Straits' "So Far Away" SACD sitting at the apex of a nine foot triagle from my OB speakers in a 15X15 room. My Foreplay attenuators were at step 3 of 11 stepped positions. That's using less than one watt to reach a strong listening level. While I only have a 3.5 watt SET amp it's more than I could ever use with 94 db speakers.

When I add the OB bass H-frames driven by 150 watt mono-blocks at their half volume position I gain an additional 4 dbs ( 84db peak ). I don't listen to jazz this loud but Dire Straits ain't jazz.

JoeE, isn't 100 dbs the threshold for pain and damage?

I remember constantly turning the volume up on solid state amps to hear more whereas now I turn my SET amps down to hear more.

[recoveryone]

Its been awhile since I used my sound meter, but I'm sure I don't get above 60-65. As I have aged I just don't feel the need to pump up the volume. Its more about clarity and detail.

[SlumpBuster]

This a good topic for noobs who frequently question/boast about wattage and volume. I had the Rat Shack meter out this weekend while installing some new subs in my car.

My car system will do 120dbs with the windows up with no breakup. I've found average listening can actually quite loud, around 90 to 95db.

My home system will similarly do 120db at listening position without breaking a sweat. But there I too am doing 70db average with 85db peaks. The watt meter on the amp (for what its worth) never gets above 3 to 9 watts and is usually coasting at a fraction of a watt. Plus, 90% of my home listening is vinyl and I'm always wary about ultra low sub frequencies and rumble when turning it up too loud. While my turntable is well isolated, one errant bump and things can get ugly real quick above 90db.

[JoeE SP9]

I just measured a comfortably loud range of 66 to 80dbs on Dire Straits' "So Far Away" SACD sitting at the apex of a nine foot triagle from my OB speakers in a 15X15 room. My Foreplay attenuators were at step 3 of 11 stepped positions. That's using less than one watt to reach a strong listening level. While I only have a 3.5 watt SET amp it's more than I could ever use with 94 db speakers.

When I add the OB bass H-frames driven by 150 watt mono-blocks at their half volume position I gain an additional 4 dbs ( 84db peak ). I don't listen to jazz this loud but Dire Straits ain't jazz.

JoeE, isn't 100 dbs the threshold for pain and damage?

I remember constantly turning the volume up on solid state amps to hear more whereas now I turn my SET amps down to hear more.

Yes, that is very loud. I've only done it a few times. Most always when another audiophile tells me esl's can't play loud or have limited dynamics. Of course feeding them only 85Hz up makes a difference in maximum level. Levels around 80dB +/- 5dB are where I usually listen. It depends on the music, the company and above all my mood.

[oddiophool]

I recently downloaded an spl meter for my iPad to find out how loud my normal listening volume is. Apparently I listen in the high 70 db's range. A loud peak for me is up to 85db.

Same hear ;-)

[lomarica]

I have found over the years loud on a good/great system does not really sound that loud. If you can hold a brief conversation it is not too loud. However when it is played really loud you cannot hear a word to anyone even right next to you but the sound quality is still there.

This is when I have played DSOTM and WYWH Pink Floyd and Dire Straits SACD. I know it is very loud but do not have any way to measure it.

[StevenSurprenant]

70db peak for music on the stereo and 85 db peak on the surround system for movies. The only reason I listen to movies that loud is because of how they mix it. I adjust the loudness for the dialog which is more like 60-65 db but when the action scenes cut in, the volume climbs to 80-85 db.

I'd like to mention one thing and complain a little in the process. For some movies, especially movies with a lot of action, the people who mix these tend to try and bury the dialog in a flurry of beating drums,crashing objects, and what not... Many times, when the dialog is at a decent volume, the action scene starts and people in the room start yelling, "Turn it Down, it's loo loud!". I turn it down, but when the action stops, I have to grab the remote and turn the dialog back up. This goes on during the entire movie. There are also a number of movies that almost un-watchable because the background sounds drown out the dialog during the entire movie.

The point is that I'd like to watch movies at a lower volume, but if I am to hear the dialog, I can't.

I'm done complaining...

[frenchmon]

I'm in the 65 to 75 range as well. But of course it depends on the age of the album (ie how it was recrorded) as modern albums are quite loud. Some genre's are louded than others.. The dynamic ranges of classical are much wider than pop, soul, rock etc.. And my mood. Sometimes I want to crash and bash, other times I just let Miles soothe me.

WorfWorf....I noticed you said "albums".

Do you spin records? I ask because I cant recall you mentioning it before.


I listen in the 60-65 range....sometimes 70db's

[tube fan]

I have always listened to music at "live" levels. That can be quite loud in the case of pop, house, trance, and even some jazz. Even classical music can reach peaks over 100 db. Background music bores me.

[Poultrygeist]

A few years ago I attended a live performance of the 1812 Overture by the Cleveland Symphony and even the cannon shots didn't approach 100dbs.

[Mash]

Years ago we went to a Boston Pops outdoor 1812 ..... the Nat'l Guard howitzers were realistic......

85 dB for 8 hr is OSHA standard...... usta be 90 dB. Cut exposure time by 1/2 for each additional 5 dB.....

So....
85 dB 8 hr
90 dB 4 hr
95 dB 2 hr
100 dB 1 hr

[tube fan]

A few years ago I attended a live performance of the 1812 Overture by the Cleveland Symphony and even the cannon shots didn't approach 100dbs.

It depends on how close to the symphony your seat is. I prefer front row center.

[Poultrygeist]

I've played in a symphony orchestra and never experienced 100dbs levels. Maybe if I stuck my head in a tuba's bell. The last time I had meaningful flings with 100dbs and above was during my days in NG Artillery.

[tube fan]

I've played in a symphony orchestra and never experienced 100dbs levels. Maybe if I stuck my head in a tuba's bell. The last time I had meaningful flings with 100dbs and above was during my days in NG Artillery.

COMPLETELY WRONG: Symphonic music peaks reach between 120 and 137 db. 1/3 of the total power of a 75 piece orchestra comes from the bass drum. You need a more accurate meter!

[Poultrygeist]

100dbs is the threshold of pain.

[E-Stat]

COMPLETELY WRONG: Symphonic music peaks reach between 120 and 137 db.
Fortunately, none of the symphonies I've ever heard played at rock concert levels. :)

[Feanor]

Fortunately, none of the symphonies I've ever heard played at rock concert levels. :)
Same for me. 120 dB is absurd, I think even if you were sitting among the orchestra players.

[E-Stat]

... even if you were sitting among the orchestra players.
With your ear in the bell of a trombone, perhaps. :)

[tube fan]

The bass drum in the firebird suite can hit 100+dB. Either you have poor meters or listen at background levels. OH yes, your system might not be able to reproduce a bass drum full out!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'd like to mention one thing and complain a little in the process. For some movies, especially movies with a lot of action, the people who mix these tend to try and bury the dialog in a flurry of beating drums,crashing objects, and what not... Many times, when the dialog is at a decent volume, the action scene starts and people in the room start yelling, "Turn it Down, it's loo loud!". I turn it down, but when the action stops, I have to grab the remote and turn the dialog back up. This goes on during the entire movie. There are also a number of movies that almost un-watchable because the background sounds drown out the dialog during the entire movie.

When we mix the movies, we don't have this problem for several reasons.

1. The ambient levels of the mixing room are a lot lower than the average household room. The dubbing stage has at least NC-20, and the typical home is NC-45-50.

2. Aside from the studio I work for(Disney), most all movies on DVD or Bluray carry the theatrical mix. It was created and mixed in a room that is bigger than most houses, on speakers four or fives times larger and of a different design than most home speakers, and are perfectly matched across the front soundstage.

3. The mix is created in a room that follows SMPTE standards, and most folks don't follow SMPTE standards in their homes.

4. Most folks do not use identical speakers across the front soundstage. When one uses speakers with different frequency responses, all three sitting in much different environments (center on or under a television, and L/R mains on stands or close to walls), one speaker(s) can cloud the other speaker output.

One thing I have learned over the years with hometheater is the closer you match your playback system to the mixing system, the fewer playback errors you have.

For music I listen at about 75-80db average level. With movies it is an average of 70db at dialog level which leads to momentary peaks of around 105db.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

COMPLETELY WRONG: Symphonic music peaks reach between 120 and 137 db. 1/3 of the total power of a 75 piece orchestra comes from the bass drum. You need a more accurate meter!

Actually your information is wrong. You would destroy the bass drum playing it that loud. Over the last 25 years of recording and mixing, I have recorded all of the large classical works out there. I have recorded orchestras as large as 110 members(the average being around 80), and have never had levels close to 120db let alone 137db. Our level meters don't even peak that high.

The loudest peak I have ever recorded was 110db, and that was during the peak loudness of a 120 voice choir, a 110 person orchestra, and a 8 piece band in a large auditorium. That level was uncomfortable to some of the audience members in the front few rows of the auditorium.

[bobsticks]

Good stuff Terrence.



3. The mix is created in a room that follows SMPTE standards, and most folks don't follow SMPTE standards in their homes.

I'd imagine this plays into it more than just simply not following directives. Most folks within the hobby have de facto preferences between two channel and multi-channel reproduction. I can't tell you how any audiophiles tweak systems for two channel playback and then don't recalibrate for movie viewing...and wonder why FR and FL are too loud in the mix.

[mlsstl]

COMPLETELY WRONG: Symphonic music peaks reach between 120 and 137 db. 1/3 of the total power of a 75 piece orchestra comes from the bass drum. You need a more accurate meter!

I'm curious as to the source of your information and the details of how it was measured.

[tube fan]

I'm curious as to the source of your information and the details of how it was measured.

google gcaudio. A jet peaks at 140 dB; a 12 gage shotgun at 165 dB; a piano at 103 dB; a violin at 92; a cello at 111; an oboe at 112; a flute at 103 dB; a clarinet at 114 dB; a trombone at 144 dB; and a bass drum at 106 dB. Symphonic music PEAKS: 120-137 dB. Rock PEAKS: 150 dB. And, yes, 1/3 of a symphony's total power comes from the bass drum.

[mlsstl]

google gcaudio. A jet peaks at 140 dB; a 12 gage shotgun at 165 dB; a piano at 103 dB; a violin at 92; a cello at 111; an oboe at 112; a flute at 103 dB; a clarinet at 114 dB; a trombone at 144 dB; and a bass drum at 106 dB. Symphonic music PEAKS: 120-137 dB. Rock PEAKS: 150 dB. And, yes, 1/3 of a symphony's total power comes from the bass drum.

You missed answering the part that relates to "how it was measured".

And, at GCAudio, there was this little footnote: "There were some conflicting readings and, in many cases, authors did not specify at what distance the readings were taken or what the musician was actually playing. In general, when there were several readings, the higher one was chosen."

In reading through the material on the site, it is obvious they like to impress with big numbers.

Perceived loudness follows the inverse square rule in the open, which means volume drops quickly with distance, though how much varies with the acoustics when one is inside rooms.

One can play lots of games with this. Put the measurement microphone under the lid of a piano is going to give a much larger number than a measurement at a concert-goer's seat, whether the first row or back of the auditorium. However, even the piano player doesn't listen with his head inside the lid.

Similarly, if measuring multiple instruments (i.e., an orchestra), was a single mike used at a listener's position or were instruments individually measured close-up and the numbers added together. I strongly suspect the latter in your case which is not a "real world" number.

I've been to plenty of classical concerts at Powell Hall in St. Louis and other venues and never heard 137 dB. That's a pretend "shock" number, created on purpose using invalid measurement techniques in my book.

One can easily see the importance of discussing measurement technique as it directly impacts the validity of the results.

[Feanor]

...
I've been to plenty of classical concerts at Powell Hall in St. Louis and other venues and never heard 137 dB. That's a pretend "shock" number, created on purpose using invalid measurement techniques in my book.

One can easily see the importance of discussing measurement technique as it directly impacts the validity of the results.
Personally I've never heard an orchestra anywhere close to 120 dB, the number bandied about earlier.

[RGA]

At deafening levels our ears stink at discerning "quality"

I would say most of my listening at the listening chair is 60-80db. I value greatly systems that can play "well" at low levels - which most everything I have heard does a piss poor job of doing and SS with feedback perhaps is "the" worst at doing - which is why it's always the same "I can't make out the Oboe which is clearly there - let's turn the volume up so I can hear it. Almost but not quite as bad as those big box store home theaters where you could never bloody well hear the dialog properly so you would crank the receiver WAY up almost to the maximum (often the maximum) and then someone would put a cup on a table and it would go BOOM and you would get thrown through your seat.It was "awesome" in the store but Frak I hate holding the remote control through EVERY single movie adjusting the center volume and the rears and the turning down the fronts.

Pioneer I believe came out with Legato Link conversion and a leveler for CD - so every CD played would be at the exact same level. It sucked (just noise shaping circuits degrading the quality) but it did make sense from the annoyance factor especially if you had a mega changer or were recording to tape.. But they didn't do it for LD or DVD.

The dialogue channel is 99.9999999% the most important aspect to a move (unless it's a silent film - or the story is so inane and moronic that it's better not to know (which is 99.9999% of everything Hollywood has made in the last 15 years).

I never quite get the volume arguments - you want to go boom boom it's not terribly expensive to play astonishing loud. Cerwin Vega comes to mind. My Wharfedale Vanguards and the model up came in a DJ version (119db the Whharfedales will pound).

I am past the stage of Motley Crue at deafening levels - playing loud causes fatigue and it's not necessary - chances are if you feel like you have to play it loud something is seriously wrong.

Still you could do worse than a set of these at this price. (And he is not lying - they listed for $2000 back in 1990 - they were the best model they made while still being run by Wharfedale - a much better E-70 which is a bit of a classic these days. My set still needs work - might be cheaper just to buy his. Somewhat tempting.

Basically it's a refined sounding Cerwin Vega or Klipsch (which is why I bought them over those). It could pound but it still made sense of things like Vocals - Cher sounds like a transvestite on Cerwin Vega, so did the did from Roxette. I know Cher has a deep voice but...

And Klipsch KG4s were ear bleeding bright

$325 - Hmm Wharfedale Vanguard Speakers - Nanaimo Electronics For Sale - Kijiji Nanaimo Canada. (http://nanaimo.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-electronics-Wharfedale-Vanguard-Speakers-W0QQAdIdZ374957117)

[Poultrygeist]

"Loudness is often a substitute to create the illusion of seeing more. Then we forget what we really don't see. It's compensation. It proves out insufficient illumination at quieter levels. In plain speak, that's inferior and ultimately insufficient resolution. The need for SPL's nearly always signifies it".

- Srajen Ebaen

"And no amp can resolve detail at low levels like a SET".

- Poultrygeist

[tube fan]

You ALL are missing the point: these are PEAK dB levels. Most levels are in the 80 dB range. However, if your system cannot reproduce a bass drum at full level, you are missing a big factor in realism.

[mlsstl]

You ALL are missing the point: these are PEAK dB levels. Most levels are in the 80 dB range. However, if your system cannot reproduce a bass drum at full level, you are missing a big factor in realism.

And the central question is still being evaded: describe the measurement protocol.

It is very easy to produce "big numbers" if you stick a microphone inside an instrument. That never has been what a listener hears at any normal audience position.

[Poultrygeist]

The realism of sitting inside a bass drum at "full level" is a big factor I hope to avoid.

Tube fan, tell us about your car subs.

[VerdaMcEwen]

not clear about this.

[mlsstl]

Here's an illustration of why a clear description of measurement technique is important.

I ran a rough set of numbers on Powell Symphony Hall in St. Louis. It seats almost 2,700 people in a space of approximately 750,000 cubic feet. That's a lot of space to fill and a whole bunch of individual sound absorbers.

Let's say that one does get an instantaneous peak reading of 137 dB from a microphone placed 2 inches from a bass drum head. At the normal 1 meter measurement distance used for a speaker, the direct sound level has already dropped to 112 dB. Bass drums are usually toward the rear of the orchestra, so put the person in front-row center seat 10 meters from the bass drum and their instantaneous peak is down to to 92 dB. Perhaps one can add a few dB back for reflection and reinforcement from the room, but one still doesn't have a "137 dB" peak at the listener's eardrum.

Now, translate that to an ordinary listening room. Instead of 2,700 bodies, we have perhaps a couple. Instead of three-quarters of a million cubic feet, we have maybe 2,000. I am also perhaps 3 meters from the speakers instead of some multiple distance from the musicians, with more volume reinforcement from reflection due to the smaller room and closer walls.

If my goal is to reproduce, in my living room, the instantaneous peaks heard by a symphony listener at their front-row seat, I don't need to recreate the original volume produced at the drum head since I'm not in a symphony hall filled with thousands of people.

In fact, if I do recreate the total original power of the instruments in that home setting, I will have a completely unrealistic listening experience in my room that is far too loud to the point of discomfort or ear damage.

In short, without context and details, the sound level numbers bandied about can be rather meaningless.

[Mash]

1. Your ears have increasing distortion as SPL increases. As the (lower) distortion in your ears increases closer to the distortion in your sound system, the sound system sounds better.

2. Most SS amps have a downward sloping distortion curve as power increases & their lowest distortion is at power outputs a few dB below clipping. { i.e. Distortion at low power outputs is usually greater than it is at higher power outputs. See 1. Tube amps tend to be the other way.

3. Loudspeaker distortion varies all over the place.

4. Direct radiators {point-source loudspeakers} SPL drops with distance squared. Planar speakers (panels) show SPL constant with distance. This is noticeable outdoors & very large rooms.

5. Averaging SPL measurements? You do not simply add & divide.

You convert each reading to
(10)^(SPL/10)
Then add these numbers....... to SUM

Then Calculate SPL = (10) *(LOG10(SUM))

Easy with EXCEL, tedious with a hand calculator.

[Mash]

SPL is a measure of sound power density, i.e. sound power per unit of volume. So you can have the same SPL in your room at home as is measured in the concert hall, but you will not have the same total sound power in your room as existed in the concert hall. This is what makes SPL readings useful.

[Mash]

The cleanest speakers are either

Low-mass panels i.e. Magneplanars/Magnepans, or ESL, usually with tube amps

Or

Servo-feedback controlled dynamic (cone) speakers, where the feedback circuit both controls & corrects the cone motion as it tends to cancel amp distortions. Amp distortions are higher order frequencies (multiples) of the original signal's frequencies and so become far less audible at higher signal frequencies which are usually reproduced by tweeters.

[mlsstl]

... Planar speakers (panels) show SPL constant with distance. This is noticeable outdoors & very large rooms.

Actually, that can't be true as written. Otherwise the speaker would sound just as loud half-a-mile away as up close.

The dipole nature of a planar will engage the room more than a conventional box speaker, but sound levels will still decrease with distance.

[Mash]

A panel speaker will supposedly begin to transition toward a point source at about the same distance as the dimension of the panel, i.e. an 11 ft wide x 6 ft high Tympani will transition at about 6 feet. I have measured my Tympant at 1 ft, 3 ft, 6 ft, 9 ft, 12 ft, 15 ft, etc. all the way back to the listening position in a large room using pink noise & the SPL was constant. "A mile away" is a ridiculous measure.

See Olsens Theoretical Acoustics, I forget the page.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You ALL are missing the point: these are PEAK dB levels. Most levels are in the 80 dB range. However, if your system cannot reproduce a bass drum at full level, you are missing a big factor in realism.

So you can see how ridiculous you sound no recording format has 137db of dynamic range. Even 24bit which has a theoretical dynamic range of 144db, even the best consumer playback system will only get about 120db performance from it.

137db even in the bass frequencies is extremely loud. Unless you have subs like mine, and as many as I have, with the necessary power to push bass frequencies to very high levels, no speaker system will playback 137db(or even 120db), not even yours.

It takes me 4 H-PAS subwoofers in a tight cubical cluster and 4,000 watts of power to get 131db at 20hz. The digital cannons in the Telarc version of the 1812 Overture did not even come close to that level when played back at an average listening level of 80db. Those cannons are recorded louder than any bass drum can play without destroying it.

[mlsstl]

No need to be sensitive, but note that your original message on the subject specifically said "outdoors and very large rooms".

15 feet is not indicative to me of a "very large room" and certainly not outdoors. It is the contribution of the rear radiation of a dipole to the room sound that gives the effect you note and it would therefore be meaningless outdoors. The sound level of a panel speaker played outdoors does not stay constant over any meaningful distance.

Of course, this is all a side distraction. My entry into this conversation had to do with the SPL numbers that one had to supposedly duplicate in your listening room to recreate the same volume as a live symphony concert. To suggest that one cannot get a realistic reproduction of symphonic music in a home setting unless your speaker can reproduce sound at 137 dB is silliness of the first order.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A panel speaker will supposedly begin to transition toward a point source at about the same distance as the dimension of the panel, i.e. an 11 ft wide x 6 ft high Tympani will transition at about 6 feet. I have measured my Tympant at 1 ft, 3 ft, 6 ft, 9 ft, 12 ft, 15 ft, etc. all the way back to the listening position in a large room using pink noise & the SPL was constant. "A mile away" is a ridiculous measure.

See Olsens Theoretical Acoustics, I forget the page.

Doesn't this apply to line arrays and not conventional speakers?

[Mash]

Line arrays? You mean a (vertical) stack of cone speakers? If so, this would be a line of point sources with multiple cancellations, etc. This is complicated. I do not understand such an array to act as a planar source but rather as a line source, i.e. SPL drops with distance. At some specific distance I believe it will transition into a point source.

These things usually transition Planar >> Line >> Point.

A planar source would be sound caused in an air duct wherein sound can travel significalt distances unabated. Another example is the shperical radiation of the sun which is a planar radiation at the Earth because the Earth is a very tiny segment of that huge shperical radiation pattern.

Magneplanars are a stack of closely placed smaller panel transducers of varying heights (different resonance frequencies) so you have smaller panels stacked to act as one large panel. Jim Whiney was brilliant.

ESL's come in different flavors so there is something for everyone.

[tube fan]

So you can see how ridiculous you sound no recording format has 137db of dynamic range. Even 24bit which has a theoretical dynamic range of 144db, even the best consumer playback system will only get about 120db performance from it.

137db even in the bass frequencies is extremely loud. Unless you have subs like mine, and as many as I have, with the necessary power to push bass frequencies to very high levels, no speaker system will playback 137db(or even 120db), not even yours.

It takes me 4 H-PAS subwoofers in a tight cubical cluster and 4,000 watts of power to get 131db at 20hz. The digital cannons in the Telarc version of the 1812 Overture did not even come close to that level when played back at an average listening level of 80db. Those cannons are recorded louder than any bass drum can play without destroying it.

We are talking PEAK dBs, NOT AVERAGE! ALL the peak dBs I listed are correct. My system measured 106 dB on the "Firebird".
That was with the Dunlavy ScIv speakers. With my Fulton Js, the dBs would have been higher. Then there is house, trance, and rock.

[Feanor]

We are talking PEAK dBs, NOT AVERAGE! ALL the peak dBs I listed are correct. My system measured 106 dB on the "Firebird".
That was with the Dunlavy ScIv speakers. With my Fulton Js, the dBs would have been higher. Then there is house, trance, and rock.
What was the average or typical level for Firebird in the instance where you got 106 dB peak? If your typical level was, say, -15 dB off the peak, that would make it 90 dB.

Personally I never listen at home at 90 dB typical on any kind of music, and I don't believe I've ever heard that in the concert hall either; (maybe I just haven't been in the right concert halls).

All this does point to the fact that the power of you amp does depend on personal listening levels as much as anything else.

[mlsstl]

ALL the peak dBs I listed are correct.

Based on what? Where's the requested detail? The numbers are "correct" because you said so, or you read them somewhere?

I gave a detailed illustration of how one can easily misrepresent what a concert listener hears at his eardrum. There has been no response at all from you - no explanation of what was missed or what error was made. No comment on the difference between filling a concert venue with sound versus a home listening room.

As for rock, trance and other music, yes their live concerts are very loud thanks to massive amplification and vast speaker arrays. The only limit there is the volume knob and when the concert system runs out of steam. However, those concerts are also just loud - not much dynamic range is involved.

[E-Stat]

Based on what? Where's the requested detail? The numbers are "correct" because you said so, or you read them somewhere?
Because the widely referenced study by Marshall Chasin fails to provide any such information other than the 137 db figure was achieved during Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen.

Since he is an audiologist with a concern for hearing loss, I suspect the measurements are from a player's perspective and not the audience.

Hear Music (http://www.thewell.vcu.edu/docs/hear_music.pdf)

I too, noted the the notion that when readings conflicted, they used the higher one. Like if you bumped the microphone. :)

[mlsstl]

Because the widely referenced study by Marshall Chasin fails to provide any such information other than the 137 db figure was achieved during Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen.

Since he is an audiologist with a concern for hearing loss, I suspect the measurements are from a player's perspective and not the audience.

That's in keeping with what I suspected.

It still gets back to the issue that it is unnecessary for your system to reproduce a 137 dB sound in your living room. A symphonic concert-goer would never experience that in the audience.

Hearing loss is a concern even for classical musicians, but except for the rarest of oddities, recordings are made from the listener's perspective. The thought that I should go deaf in my left ear in sympathy with the violinist because I like Kreisler's "Leibesleid" makes no sense. ;-)

Context and details are important.

[tube fan]

The average dB level in the "Firebird" is in the 70 dB range. HOWEVER, if your system cannot reproduce those peaks, you will miss much of the impact of the music. Of course, house, trance, and pop usually has very limited dynamic range (one of the reasons that makes those forms of music boring for me). The AVERAGE dB level at many clubs is WAY, WAY too loud. I used to hang out with many pop groups (sixties and seventies), and, fortunately, I used earplugs at live concerts.

[Feanor]

The average dB level in the "Firebird" is in the 70 dB range. HOWEVER, if your system cannot reproduce those peaks, you will miss much of the impact of the music. Of course, house, trance, and pop usually has very limited dynamic range (one of the reasons that makes those forms of music boring for me). The AVERAGE dB level at many clubs is WAY, WAY too loud. I used to hang out with many pop groups (sixties and seventies), and, fortunately, I used earplugs at live concerts.
I find it hard to believe that the peaks are 36 dB above the average level, even in The Firebird. And even if it were true in live performance, it wouldn't be the case on a recording.

[mlsstl]

HOWEVER, if your system cannot reproduce those peaks, you will miss much of the impact of the music.

I'll take one more pass at this before I give up.

Just because an instrument creates a 137 dB peak in a concert hall with three-quarters a million cubic feet of space to fill and thousands of bodies absorbing sound, does not mean a home system needs to duplicate that exact volume level in order to recreate the volume heard by an audience listener at the concert.

This is an issue you've continued to ignore. I think you just like the thought of the phrase "137 dB" - it sounds impressive! ;-)

But that's like thinking if it takes a 500 horsepower engine to get a 70,000 pound truck to highway speeds, I also need 500 HP in my Toyota sedan to hit 70 mph. That's not true either.

[Mash]

Actually one can produce 137 dB in their home with a fraction of the total power that produced 137 dB in a concert hall.

Why they would want to............. I have no idea.

If you need to use high SPL's for good sound in your home, improve your sound system. Quality will always trump quantity.

[tube fan]

I REPEAT: 70% of a symphony's power comes from the bass drum. If your system is unable to reproduce the bass drum on the "Firebird" accurately, then you will miss much of the emotional impact of the performance. OF COURSE, the peak loudness levels are more than 36 dBs above average levels! Science!!!

[mlsstl]

"Science" involves documenting the test protocol so others can repeat an experiment. That has not happened in this case. Apparently the spectacularly big number being tossed about is so important that it cannot be questioned.

Or, it could be that Tubey's season ticket to the symphony is for a position prostrate on the floor with his head in front of the bass drum....

;-)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

We are talking PEAK dBs, NOT AVERAGE! ALL the peak dBs I listed are correct. My system measured 106 dB on the "Firebird".
That was with the Dunlavy ScIv speakers. With my Fulton Js, the dBs would have been higher. Then there is house, trance, and rock.

I understand exactly where you are coming from, and 106db is a more reasonable peak. 120db or 137db as you originally quoted is not.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I REPEAT: 70% of a symphony's power comes from the bass drum. If your system is unable to reproduce the bass drum on the "Firebird" accurately, then you will miss much of the emotional impact of the performance. OF COURSE, the peak loudness levels are more than 36 dBs above average levels! Science!!!

In the concert hall up close to the bass drum what you are saying is probably true. However any engineer worth their salt would not record a bass drum at 120-137db because we know that recording will be played on a wide variety of speakers. I would not want to create a recording that caused a speaker to burp up its bass driver while trying to reproduce the recording.

I think you are mixing up what happens live in front of the microphone with what happens front of the speaker during playback.

[tube fan]

In the concert hall up close to the bass drum what you are saying is probably true. However any engineer worth their salt would not record a bass drum at 120-137db because we know that recording will be played on a wide variety of speakers. I would not want to create a recording that caused a speaker to burp up its bass driver while trying to reproduce the recording.

I think you are mixing up what happens live in front of the microphone with what happens front of the speaker during playback.

Yes, and, AS I STATED, I measured the bass drum at 106 dB through my system (Dunlavy SCIV speakers, Audio Research SP 8 preamp, D70 amp, Auditorum 23 tranny, VPI Scoutmaster TT, Benz Ruby 3 cartridge).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yes, and, AS I STATED, I measured the bass drum at 106 dB through my system (Dunlavy SCIV speakers, Audio Research SP 8 preamp, D70 amp, Auditorum 23 tranny, VPI Scoutmaster TT, Benz Ruby 3 cartridge).

106db is a far cry from 120-137db isn't it?

It always helps to be realistic and not make outrageous claims.

[tube fan]

106db is a far cry from 120-137db isn't it?

It always helps to be realistic and not make outrageous claims.

I never claimed that you need to match the absolute peak possible. HOWEVER, very few audio systems can accurately reproduce a bass drum at around 106 dBs. From the looks of your system, you should have no problems in that area. TTT, you must admit that the low bass is rarely reproduced at anything approaching realistic levels. Without deep bass, you will miss a lot of the impact of pop, house, trance, and some classical and jazz. Small two way speakers simply cannot reproduce the big sound that I love. Ditto for electrostatics (without subs). Even my Dunlavy SCIVs (flat to about 30 Hz) cannot come close to matching the powerful bass of my Fulton Js (flat to 20 Hz). Of course, the Dunlavy's are flatter in frequency response
and time coherent. From the looks of your system, I suspect that I would love it. And, remember, I agreed with you that multi-channel, surround sound is vastly more realistic than two channel audio. Cost and software is my only problem

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I never claimed that you need to match the absolute peak possible. HOWEVER, very few audio systems can accurately reproduce a bass drum at around 106 dBs. From the looks of your system, you should have no problems in that area. TTT, you must admit that the low bass is rarely reproduced at anything approaching realistic levels. Without deep bass, you will miss a lot of the impact of pop, house, trance, and some classical and jazz. Small two way speakers simply cannot reproduce the big sound that I love. Ditto for electrostatics (without subs). Even my Dunlavy SCIVs (flat to about 30 Hz) cannot come close to matching the powerful bass of my Fulton Js (flat to 20 Hz). Of course, the Dunlavy's are flatter in frequency response
and time coherent. From the looks of your system, I suspect that I would love it. And, remember, I agreed with you that multi-channel, surround sound is vastly more realistic than two channel audio. Cost and software is my only problem

We agree on this. I have 7 SC-V, and two TSW-VI subs from Dunlavy in my main mastering room. I dare to say that two SCV's can reproduce realistic deep bass when combined with Bryston 28B monoblocks.

[Feanor]

I never claimed that you need to match the absolute peak possible. HOWEVER, very few audio systems can accurately reproduce a bass drum at around 106 dBs. From the looks of your system, you should have no problems in that area. TTT, you must admit that the low bass is rarely reproduced at anything approaching realistic levels. Without deep bass, you will miss a lot of the impact of pop, house, trance, and some classical and jazz. Small two way speakers simply cannot reproduce the big sound that I love. Ditto for electrostatics (without subs)....
As I recall you mentioned Firebird and a peak of 106 dB; you also said that you thought that the corresponding average level was about 70 dB. That's a remarkable 36 dB spread -- does this really happen?

My sonically best Firebird recording is this one, which I have in the form of a 24/88.2 PCM file from HDTracks ...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51odO1%2BaICL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

When I listen at an average of 70 db I don't hear any 106 dB peaks. The greatest peak, I think, occurs around 9:10 - 9:25 into the piece. At this point there is bass drum note or two, (and possibly some tympani). The sound is pretty good with from my Magneplanar 1.6's plus subwoofer, however I don't measure this close to 106 but roughly 90 dB.

So how do we reconcile your observations and mine? Either (1) the 36 dB average to peak spread is too not correct, i.e. when you measured 106 dB, your average level was actually higher, say over 80 dB, or (2) my system doesn't have the "umph" to produce the sound level.

I should mention that I'm not really interested in listen much above the 70 dB average: maybe as high as 75 dB but no higher on average. I would say my current system is adequate for my listening room and my volume preference.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As I recall you mentioned Firebird and a peak of 106 dB; you also said that you thought that the corresponding average level was about 70 dB. That's a remarkable 36 dB spread -- does this really happen?

My sonically best Firebird recording is this one, which I have in the form of a 24/88.2 PCM file from HDTracks ...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51odO1%2BaICL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

When I listen at an average of 70 db I don't hear any 106 dB peaks. The greatest peak, I think, occurs around 9:10 - 9:25 into the piece. At this point there is bass drum note or two, (and possibly some tympani). The sound is pretty good with from my Magneplanar 1.6's plus subwoofer, however I don't measure this close to 106 but roughly 90 dB.

So how do we reconcile your observations and mine? Either (1) the 36 dB average to peak spread is too not correct, i.e. when you measured 106 dB, your average level was actually higher, say over 80 dB, or (2) my system doesn't have the "umph" to produce the sound level.

I should mention that I'm not really interested in listen much above the 70 dB average: maybe as high as 75 dB but no higher on average. I would say my current system is adequate for my listening room and my volume preference.

Feanor, I am going to offer this. Not all recordings of the same piece will have the same dynamic range. On the Firebird piece, it really depends on the size of the bass drum, the recorded dynamics of the tympani, and the size of the Orchestra - and let's throw in the format as well(multichannel versus stereo).
You also have to take into consideration the dynamic capabilities of your system at low frequencies.

I have four recordings of the Firebird Suite, well actually five. One is a stereo recording, another a multichannel 5.1 SACD recording, another, a 4.1, and lastly one I recorded myself with the Birmingham Symphony three years ago. I also have a digital copy of the Original recording that Disney did for Fantasia 2000. Each one of these recordings uses a different size orchestra, with a different size bass drum for the climax. The Fantasia recording(pre-mastered for DVD and theatrical exhibition) has the most dynamic range - easily 35-40db because it uses a field bass drum which is three to four times as large as a concert bass drum(it was so large is had wheels), and a orchestra of 110 members as opposed to the typical 80.

A stereo recording will probably not have the dynamic impact at low frequencies that a multichannel will. The LFE channel allows us to mix in 10db of ADDED signal below 120hz(most likely filtered at 80hz). All of my multichannel recordings of Firebird have louder and deeper bass than the stereo one thanks to the use of the LFE channel.

[d-ray657]

My answer would be in terms of WP and WA (wife present and wife absent) My WP listening level is probably in the 50-60 range. My WA listening level is in the 75-80 range. The WA level applies after the wife has left for work in the evening, in the mancave or in the garage. :14:

Regards,

D-Ray

[tube fan]

As I recall you mentioned Firebird and a peak of 106 dB; you also said that you thought that the corresponding average level was about 70 dB. That's a remarkable 36 dB spread -- does this really happen?

My sonically best Firebird recording is this one, which I have in the form of a 24/88.2 PCM file from HDTracks ...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51odO1%2BaICL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

When I listen at an average of 70 db I don't hear any 106 dB peaks. The greatest peak, I think, occurs around 9:10 - 9:25 into the piece. At this point there is bass drum note or two, (and possibly some tympani). The sound is pretty good with from my Magneplanar 1.6's plus subwoofer, however I don't measure this close to 106 but roughly 90 dB.

So how do we reconcile your observations and mine? Either (1) the 36 dB average to peak spread is too not correct, i.e. when you measured 106 dB, your average level was actually higher, say over 80 dB, or (2) my system doesn't have the "umph" to produce the sound level.

I should mention that I'm not really interested in listen much above the 70 dB average: maybe as high as 75 dB but no higher on average. I would say my current system is adequate for my listening room and my volume preference.

I use the Antal Dorati "Firebird" with the London Symphony Orchestra. Yes, VINYL! The bass drum is simply HUGE! It's really scary. And, yes, my average level may be 75-80 dB, but the dynamic range on this record is immense. Another great vinyl record with NO COMPRESSION is the Hugh Masekela "hope" one, especially "The Coal Train" track. The peak levels, if EVERYTHING matches (like in TTT's system), are definitely scary. Of course, trance or house, played at similar levels heard in clubs, is WAY, WAY over 100 dB. Fortunately for my hearing, I rarely listen to either, but when I do, it's at a level only slightly below live levels.

[tube fan]

Feanor, I am going to offer this. Not all recordings of the same piece will have the same dynamic range. On the Firebird piece, it really depends on the size of the bass drum, the recorded dynamics of the tympani, and the size of the Orchestra - and let's throw in the format as well(multichannel versus stereo).
You also have to take into consideration the dynamic capabilities of your system at low frequencies.

I have four recordings of the Firebird Suite, well actually five. One is a stereo recording, another a multichannel 5.1 SACD recording, another, a 4.1, and lastly one I recorded myself with the Birmingham Symphony three years ago. I also have a digital copy of the Original recording that Disney did for Fantasia 2000. Each one of these recordings uses a different size orchestra, with a different size bass drum for the climax. The Fantasia recording(pre-mastered for DVD and theatrical exhibition) has the most dynamic range - easily 35-40db because it uses a field bass drum which is three to four times as large as a concert bass drum(it was so large is had wheels), and a orchestra of 110 members as opposed to the typical 80.

A stereo recording will probably not have the dynamic impact at low frequencies that a multichannel will. The LFE channel allows us to mix in 10db of ADDED signal below 120hz(most likely filtered at 80hz). All of my multichannel recordings of Firebird have louder and deeper bass than the stereo one thanks to the use of the LFE channel.

I've heard countless two way systems, and NOTHING significantly sounds more like live music than my system. However, EVERY high-end multichannel I have heard, simply sounds live in a way that even the best stereo one doesn't. Yes, IMO.

BTW, TTT must have a huge listening room to hold all those speakers.

[Feanor]

Feanor, I am going to offer this. Not all recordings of the same piece will have the same dynamic range. On the Firebird piece, it really depends on the size of the bass drum, the recorded dynamics of the tympani, and the size of the Orchestra - and let's throw in the format as well(multichannel versus stereo).
You also have to take into consideration the dynamic capabilities of your system at low frequencies.

I have four recordings of the Firebird Suite, well actually five. One is a stereo recording, another a multichannel 5.1 SACD recording, another, a 4.1, and lastly one I recorded myself with the Birmingham Symphony three years ago. I also have a digital copy of the Original recording that Disney did for Fantasia 2000. Each one of these recordings uses a different size orchestra, with a different size bass drum for the climax. The Fantasia recording(pre-mastered for DVD and theatrical exhibition) has the most dynamic range - easily 35-40db because it uses a field bass drum which is three to four times as large as a concert bass drum(it was so large is had wheels), and a orchestra of 110 members as opposed to the typical 80.

A stereo recording will probably not have the dynamic impact at low frequencies that a multichannel will. The LFE channel allows us to mix in 10db of ADDED signal below 120hz(most likely filtered at 80hz). All of my multichannel recordings of Firebird have louder and deeper bass than the stereo one thanks to the use of the LFE channel.
Thanks, Sir T. Here again you personal experience & expertise places you comments on a different plain.

I'm certainly persuade even from my own experience that multi-channel can deliver much more impact than stereo and a more concert hall-like experience in general. I still do my most serious listening on my stereo system than our HT system, however this due to several circumstances including that my stereo components are higher quality.

[Feanor]

I use the Antal Dorati "Firebird" with the London Symphony Orchestra. Yes, VINYL! The bass drum is simply HUGE! It's really scary. And, yes, my average level may be 75-80 dB, but the dynamic range on this record is immense. Another great vinyl record with NO COMPRESSION is the Hugh Masekela "hope" one, especially "The Coal Train" track. The peak levels, if EVERYTHING matches (like in TTT's system), are definitely scary. Of course, trance or house, played at similar levels heard in clubs, is WAY, WAY over 100 dB. Fortunately for my hearing, I rarely listen to either, but when I do, it's at a level only slightly below live levels.
Sounds like quite a recording, but I ask, what is the theoretical dynamic range of a vinyl LP? Also, there is a big difference between an average level of 70 dB and 85 dB.

[Feanor]

I've heard countless two way systems, and NOTHING significantly sounds more like live music than my system. However, EVERY high-end multichannel I have heard, simply sounds live in a way that even the best stereo one doesn't. Yes, IMO. ...
I agree about multi-channel.


..
BTW, TTT must have a huge listening room to hold all those speakers.
I think you can be sure of that!

[mlsstl]

Sounds like quite a recording, but I ask, what is the theoretical dynamic range of a vinyl LP? Also, there is a big difference between an average level of 70 dB and 85 dB.

It is difficult to find a turntable with a rumble spec more that -60 or -65 dB. (In fact, most of the really high end turntable don't list a specification for this, presumably due to the fact the numbers aren't impressively big enough.)

People also forget that LP production also requires a 40 dB adjustment to frequency response when the records are cut. To keep groove size manageable (and trackable), bass frequencies are cut up to 20 dB and highs boosted 20 dB. The playback curve corrects for this.

As a result, records are limited to about 15 minutes a side if you want full bass response at the LP's maximum volume level. (This is why records with long sides either lose bass, volume or both.)

And, as a side comment, the main problem with HT for an avid music listener is simply a dearth of material. I'd probably lose 99% of my collection if I were limited to that format.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And, as a side comment, the main problem with HT for an avid music listener is simply a dearth of material. I'd probably lose 99% of my collection if I were limited to that format.

You are looking at this from the wrong angle. You don't lose a thing with a multichannel system, you gain flexibility with it. Can you play multichannel recordings on your two channel system? The logical answer is no, you would be missing or folding the other channels. Not the optimum way to listen to multichannel. Can I play stereo recordings on my multichannel system? The answer is a resounding yes! The added benefit is that I can send all of the bass below 80hz to a subwoofer, which actually increases the dynamics of the main channels. This can't been done with a stereo system.

I am a lover of classical music, and classical music heard in high resolution is quite a different experience than with redbook CD. There are ton's of classical music recordings in the high resolution multichannel format. I have almost 800 titles on SACD, DVD-A, Bluray, and personal recordings.

[mlsstl]

I won't argue that you can't play 2 channel music on an HT system. In my case, I simply have no room nor the extra money for the calibre of equipment I'd want in expanding to an HT system. Also, no one in our household has the least interest in the genre of movies that seem to make the most use of multi-channel sound, so no justification there for me.

Even though you personally have a lot titles (though your "personal recordings" don't help me any more than the private items in my collection do anything for you), there's little new stuff being released SACD or DVD-A and not a whole lot of Blu Ray audio either. Looking at all 3 categories combined, we're talking a title inventory of maybe three-tenths of one percent of the total CD releases available.

So, no debate that it sounds great when you have that special recording, but acquiring the system is a lot of work and expense for a low-percentage experience. It all works a lot better when one also has a strong interest in Hollywood's current offerings, which I don't.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I won't argue that you can't play 2 channel music on an HT system. In my case, I simply have no room nor the extra money for the calibre of equipment I'd want in expanding to an HT system. Also, no one in our household has the least interest in the genre of movies that seem to make the most use of multi-channel sound, so no justification there for me.

While I understand that I cannot comment on folks personal spaces or finances, the idea that it takes more money to put together a good quality multichannel system that what some spend on a two channel system is ridiculous.


Even though you personally have a lot titles (though your "personal recordings" don't help me any more than the private items in my collection do anything for you), there's little new stuff being released SACD or DVD-A and not a whole lot of Blu Ray audio either. Looking at all 3 categories combined, we're talking a title inventory of maybe three-tenths of one percent of the total CD releases available.

I guess my audio priorities and your are quite different. I look for quality, not quantity. I would strongly prefer a small catalog of high resolution releases over a huge catalog of medium resolution releases.


So, no debate that it sounds great when you have that special recording, but acquiring the system is a lot of work and expense for a low-percentage experience. It all works a lot better when one also has a strong interest in Hollywood's current offerings, which I don't.

I do not agree with you here AT ALL. Putting together a multichannel system is no more(and one can argue even less) of a hassle than putting together a two channel system.

[mlsstl]

Guess we'll just have to agree our priorities are different. I'm very happy with my Spendor monitors and tube amp. There are very few other speakers I've ever heard that do voice the way they do and I'm not really interested in replacing them or trying to find compatible additional speakers for which I don't have placement spots. Just because it's not a hassle for you doesn't mean others are similarly blessed.

I'd hope that, when you look at your own list of equipment, you'd admit it is somewhat out of the ordinary and simply not practical for most.

As for the music catalog, there is simply far too much music that I love that isn't available in high res, be it 2 channel or more. I just don't buy that taking my Pablo Casals 1938 mono recording of Bach's unaccompanied cello suites and playing multi-channel games with it improves anything. I understand that "interesting" things can be done with digital processing, but a lot it comes off to my ear as the audio equivalent of colorizing classic B&W films. A lot of people like that, but it's not for me.

Simply put, a "small catalog of high resolution releases" simply loses too much music for me.

Sounds like we've found different ways to pursue our hobby that, while rewarding for our respective selves, would not be suitable for the other.

[Feanor]

...
I am a lover of classical music, and classical music heard in high resolution is quite a different experience than with redbook CD. There are ton's of classical music recordings in the high resolution multichannel format. I have almost 800 titles on SACD, DVD-A, Bluray, and personal recordings.
I've discovered this, albeit on a more modest scale -- maybe 3 dozen recordings. But no doubt m/c is ultimately a higher level of experience of classical music.

My very modest Sony Blu-ray plays SACD, converting DSD to PCM for output via HDMI. The fact that it's PCM permits my Onkyo AVR to provide its full DSP, that is, equalization and time delay. It's great. :yesnod:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Guess we'll just have to agree our priorities are different. I'm very happy with my Spendor monitors and tube amp. There are very few other speakers I've ever heard that do voice the way they do and I'm not really interested in replacing them or trying to find compatible additional speakers for which I don't have placement spots. Just because it's not a hassle for you doesn't mean others are similarly blessed.

Most folks make it more of a hassle than it really is. The only real hassle is the same hassle you have when you put together a two channel system - and that is the choice of speakers and sub. Positioning these speakers is well documented and achievable (even in small room via minimonitors), and calibrating and equalizing is just one push of a button via Audyssey room calibration.


I'd hope that, when you look at your own list of equipment, you'd admit it is somewhat out of the ordinary and simply not practical for most.

That is just one system. My smallest system is quite simple and does extremely well with high resolution multichannel audio(movies and music). It features a Onkyo PR-SC5508, Emotiva QPA-5 and 3, and seven custom upgraded mini-monitors with a H-PAS sub. A Oppo BD-93 handles the disc's.


As for the music catalog, there is simply far too much music that I love that isn't available in high res, be it 2 channel or more. I just don't buy that taking my Pablo Casals 1938 mono recording of Bach's unaccompanied cello suites and playing multi-channel games with it improves anything. I understand that "interesting" things can be done with digital processing, but a lot it comes off to my ear as the audio equivalent of colorizing classic B&W films. A lot of people like that, but it's not for me.

If this is your impression of high resolution multichannel audio, then I would say you are VERY inexperienced with the format. I would also add that recording techniques and quality have come a long way since 1938.


Simply put, a "small catalog of high resolution releases" simply loses too much music for me.

Sounds like we've found different ways to pursue our hobby that, while rewarding for our respective selves, would not be suitable for the other.

Once again, you don't lose anything with a multichannel audio system, you gain flexibility. You can play anything from your 1938 mono recording, to 2L reference multichannel recordings on it, so where is the loss? There are no limits to what you can play back on a multichannel audio system, but there is with a two channel system. So exactly where is the loss in this scenario? Your focus on the software side of things causes you to lose focus on the bigger picture.

[mlsstl]

Terrence, you seem to have a one track mind. What is so hard to understand that I simply do not have a place to put nor want five speakers and a subwoofer in my room, no matter how "easy" it is for you? I'm glad your multiple systems make you happy, but that's you, not me.

You also completely miss the point about the 1938 Pablo Casals recording. Sure, recordings have improved since then, but Pablo's been dead for almost 40 years. He isn't making any new records. The same thing is true about many artists who have performances that cannot be duplicated by any current artist (who may have fine recordings of their own, but those performances are not the same).

So we're back to the same thing I said last time. I'm not interested in spending more money on equipment that is ill-suited for my situation that does nothing for the bulk of my collection (even if it is nice enough to "allow" me to continue doing what I do now) , just so I can gain an advantage on a small percentage of modern recordings. To me, it's like building a system so the old Lincoln Mayorga Sheffield LPs were at their sonic peak - it still wasn't worth it as the music wasn't very good.

I know you're an avid HT enthusiast, but like anything else in life, opinions do vary. This reminds me of conversations I had some years back with a Martin Logan dealer. I've always heard poor integration between their electrostatic panels and the conventional woofer. His answer was always that I hadn't heard the latest model - that would change my mind. It never did; the "house sound" was always there, but that never prevented him from telling me that next time would be different. He was always looking for a story to make me like MLs and save me from myself.

Now, perhaps this is all due to my unsophisticated ear or inherent ignorance, but I've stated where I stand. Perhaps your time would be better spent aimed at a different prospect.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence, you seem to have a one track mind. What is so hard to understand that I simply do not have a place to put nor want five speakers and a subwoofer in my room, no matter how "easy" it is for you? I'm glad your multiple systems make you happy, but that's you, not me.

I think I have made in patently clear that I respect an individual preference, but I do separate that from the benefits of a format. You may not have the budget or space to do multichannel, but it does not take away from the quality and flexibility of the software or hardware. I am simply saying some of your arguments are without merit on careful scrutiny. The amount of software is not tied to the flexibility of the hardware, and it is short sighted to look at this in that way.


You also completely miss the point about the 1938 Pablo Casals recording. Sure, recordings have improved since then, but Pablo's been dead for almost 40 years. He isn't making any new records. The same thing is true about many artists who have performances that cannot be duplicated by any current artist (who may have fine recordings of their own, but those performances are not the same).

And you have missed the point as well. It has been well documented that you get better performance from a dedicated speaker, than you get from phantom images placed in between them. Having a dedicated center speaker playing back mono recordings(based on the quality of the speaker) is far more an accurate presentation than phantom images between two speakers. THX and the Canadian Radio Society have both conducted measurements and listening test on this that have been published through AES and SMPTE. With all things being equal, a mono recording will sound better coming from the center channel of a multichannel audio system, than it would as a phantom image between tow speakers.


So we're back to the same thing I said last time. I'm not interested in spending more money on equipment that is ill-suited for my situation that does nothing for the bulk of my collection (even if it is nice enough to "allow" me to continue doing what I do now) , just so I can gain an advantage on a small percentage of modern recordings. To me, it's like building a system so the old Lincoln Mayorga Sheffield LPs were at their sonic peak - it still wasn't worth it as the music wasn't very good.

Can't argue with personal opinion can I? Everyone has their standards.....


I know you're an avid HT enthusiast, but like anything else in life, opinions do vary. This reminds me of conversations I had some years back with a Martin Logan dealer. I've always heard poor integration between their electrostatic panels and the conventional woofer. His answer was always that I hadn't heard the latest model - that would change my mind. It never did; the "house sound" was always there, but that never prevented him from telling me that next time would be different. He was always looking for a story to make me like MLs and save me from myself.

Let's not get this twisted, I am not interested in changing your mind, but responding to your inexperience and not so realistic perspective. I have absolutely no interest in changing a mind stuck in a vice grip.


Now, perhaps this is all due to my unsophisticated ear or inherent ignorance, but I've stated where I stand. Perhaps your time would be better spent aimed at a different prospect.

See above.....

[E-Stat]

Once again, you don't lose anything with a multichannel audio system, you gain flexibility.
Would you rather have a two channel system with the Dunlavys driven by the 28B or your small MC system?

There is absolutely no question as to which I would prefer for the vast majority of recorded music.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Would you rather have a two channel system with the Dunlavys driven by the 28B or your small MC system?

There is absolutely no question as to which I would prefer for the vast majority of recorded music.

This is the wrong question to ask considering the Dunlavy's can not be optimized in the room the size of my small MC room sits in, and the small MC system could not be optimized for playback in a size room the Dunlavy's are optimized for. In that 12x15x10 room I would strongly prefer the MC system because it is properly scaled for that size room.

[E-Stat]

... the small MC system could not be optimized for playback in a size room the Dunlavy's are optimized for.
So you can lose something with MC.

Obviously, the real world question is what you could do with a given budget. Once again, there is absolutely no question in my mind what I'd do with any budget less than about $100k. For those who understand the level of performance available on the market today, you must necessarily compromise the component quality for five (or seven) channels as compared with only two.

It all depends upon what you'd rather sacrifice.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So you can lose something with MC.

It has nothing to do with MC as a format, but scaling the speakers properly with the room. If you don't properly scale the system to the room, you are going to have gross reproduction issues regardless of the sound format.


Obviously, the real world question is what you could do with a given budget. Once again, there is absolutely no question in my mind what I'd do with any budget less than about $100k. For those who understand the level of performance available on the market today, you must necessarily compromise the component quality for five (or seven) channels as compared with only two.

It all depends upon what you'd rather sacrifice.

Its a snip here to gain something there, and that goes for both stereo and multichannel. The price of the components alone do not equate to performance. What you gain in paying more per component with stereo, you lose in spatial accuracy and system flexibility. What you could potentially gain along the stereo axis, you lose down the center axis, and to the sides and rear. A little snip in ultimate performance gains you access to a better center, and side and rear axis. The trade offs is incremental increase in quality versus a more realistic playback spatially. As the budget goes up, the quality goes up in MC, but comes to a point of diminishing returns in stereo. At some point the pipeline chokes any quality gains afforded by the equipment quality. You can only squeeze so much out of two channels, and at 16/44.1khz

[E-Stat]

Its a snip here to gain something there, and that goes for both stereo and multichannel.
You've just rephrased my concluding comment.


As the budget goes up, the quality goes up in MC, but comes to a point of diminishing returns in stereo.
Such is true - when factors like resolution, microdynamics, and coherence are unimportant to you.


At some point the pipeline chokes any quality gains afforded by the equipment quality.
It remains a shame that the music industry at large doesn't grasp that concept. Imagine finding all your favorite music available in hi-rez - instead of iTunes format.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You've just rephrased my concluding comment.

Fleshed it out would be more appropriate


Such is true - when factors like resolution, microdynamics, and coherence are unimportant to you.

If this was not important to me, I would not be talking about high resolution audio so much. How much of this do you think you are getting from 16/44.1khz audio when compared to 24/96khz or 24/192khz?


It remains a shame that the music industry at large doesn't grasp that concept. Imagine finding all your favorite music available in hi-rez - instead of iTunes format.

Well, the industry put out SACD and DVD-A, and now high resolution two channel, and some just refuse to support it. If you don't support something, then the industry does not think you are interested in it.

[Feanor]

...
Well, the industry put out SACD and DVD-A, and now high resolution two channel, and some just refuse to support it. If you don't support something, then the industry does not think you are interested in it.
I blame ageing audiophiles adherence to vinyl LP and prejudice against digital -- something I've never understood.

[E-Stat]

If this was not important to me, I would not be talking about high resolution audio so much.
First of all, there is no correlation between the resolution of the recording and the number of channels. What's really important, however, is system resolution. As in the sum of all of the parts. A hi-rez recording played back through lesser gear will still sound like lesser gear.


Well, the industry put out SACD and DVD-A, and now high resolution two channel, and some just refuse to support it.
The CD format became successful because the industry wholly supported a single format. It didn't confuse buyers by offering multiple formats for some, but not all content. Not to mention penalizing legitimate buyers from the convenience of ripping content for computer based audio. Clearly, Sony shot itself in the foot. You can buy hi-rez downloads on places like HDTracks, but you're limited to niche artists and remastered old stuff. BR Audio will remain a niche product like vinyl because buyers don't want to be limited to using a disk player.

[E-Stat]

I blame ageing audiophiles...
I've got news for you. The success or failure of anything having to do with the music industry has nothing at all to do with that tiny minority of the market called audiophiles.

Think back to the days when vinyl was the only game. How much content was recorded direct-to-disk or pressed in 12" 45 RPM?

[tube fan]

I love my stereo system (Dunlavy SCIV, VPI Scoutmaster, Benz Ruby 3, Auditorum 23 tranny, Audio Research SP8 or Mystere CA 21 preamp, Audio Research D70 amp, Audio Research PH3 phono). NOTHING I have heard, either at an audio show, or at a store improves on my system (yes, IMO). HOWEVER, I have heard three high end MC systems, and they all are VASTLY more realistic than my system. Conclusion: I need a bigger listening room, and a bigger audio budget!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

First of all, there is no correlation between the resolution of the recording and the number of channels. What's really important, however, is system resolution. As in the sum of all of the parts. A hi-rez recording played back through lesser gear will still sound like lesser gear.

I guess our views of the sum of all the parts is quite different. Your focus on the quality of the gear just like most audiophiles. My sum of all the parts begins with the room, then the equipment, and then the resolution of the source. What is "lesser" gear when everyone sound preference is quite different?. This sounds like subjective snobbery to me. My "lesser" gear opinion may be sombody else's idea of superior gear. So what decides "lesser" gear, our sound preference, cost? Surely you can't be saying that your idea, or somebody else's idea of good sound sets the mark for good sound, and the rest of us the might disagree surely has "tin"ears.




The CD format became successful because the industry wholly supported a single format. It didn't confuse buyers by offering multiple formats for some, but not all content. Not to mention penalizing legitimate buyers from the convenience of ripping content for computer based audio. Clearly, Sony shot itself in the foot. You can buy hi-rez downloads on places like HDTracks, but you're limited to niche artists and remastered old stuff. BR Audio will remain a niche product like vinyl because buyers don't want to be limited to using a disk player.

Upon close scrutiny some of your points fail. SACD's decline(not demise) started before computer based audio was widely talked about, or way people listen to audio. And the reason that places like HDTracks exist is because some people like high quality audio that might be too "niche" for places like Itunes. These same people do not like to listen to "lossy" highly compressed audio

SACD failed because two channel audiophiles(especially those lovers of classical and jazz) would not embrace anything that required more than two channels. And the reasons sited for this unwillingness(lesser qualtiy and cost) are just nothing more than excuses to justify their hanging on to two channel formats.

[Feanor]

...
SACD failed because two channel audiophiles(especially those lovers of classical and jazz) would not embrace anything that required more than two channels. And the reasons sited for this unwillingness(lesser qualtiy and cost) are just nothing more than excuses to justify their hanging on to two channel formats.
Without disagreeing I would added that SACD has always available in a stereo version; if I'm not mistaken, the earliest SACDs were stereo only.

At the time SACD was launched the vinyl revival had already begun. Many audiophiles had decided they didn't like digital based on early CD experience. Hence many hard-core audiophiles were biased against SACD only because it was digital. Add to that that the first SACD, (mainly stereo), players were relatively expensive and they stayed away in droves.

Personally I consider it absurd, but many audiophiles still prefer the LP to any digital including SACD and hi-rez of any sort.

[Brett A]

So much if it has to do with the hardware.

I just bought my first universal player; a Marantz DV-8400 (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue10/marantz8400.htm). It was cheap enough to buy it out of curiosity. It plays Redbook CDs and SACDs well as DVD-As I don't have any DVD-As, but i do have several SACD (hybrids). I have found that my 12+ year old Rotel RCD-991AE playing a redbook CD sounds much better than the Marantz even when it's playing SACD.

Now I don't intend to make a blanket statement here, I'm just saying that the format, to a very large degree, is secondary to the hardware that's spinning it.

I've also found the further up the quality lines you go, the more the formats sound alike; CDs get warmer and smoother and LPs get clearer, more resolved and more open sounding.

EDIT TO ADD:

Oh, and BTW, I listen around 80db with peaks sometimes over 100.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Without disagreeing I would added that SACD has always available in a stereo version; if I'm not mistaken, the earliest SACDs were stereo only.

You are correct, and that was to appeal to audiophiles first. They would not even embrace that.


At the time SACD was launched the vinyl revival had already begun. Many audiophiles had decided they didn't like digital based on early CD experience. Hence many hard-core audiophiles were biased against SACD only because it was digital. Add to that that the first SACD, (mainly stereo), players were relatively expensive and they stayed away in droves.

Annd this is an aside to the fact that the first SACD stereo players cost about the same as a good turntable and high quality cartidge.


Personally I consider it absurd, but many audiophiles still prefer the LP to any digital including SACD and hi-rez of any sort.

I agree, and never mind that vinyl is the least accurate as well. This is why the word "audiophile" has so confused me.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So much if it has to do with the hardware.

I just bought my first universal player; a Marantz DV-8400 (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue10/marantz8400.htm). It was cheap enough to buy it out of curiosity. It plays Redbook CDs and SACDs well as DVD-As I don't have any DVD-As, but i do have several SACD (hybrids). I have found that my 12+ year old Rotel RCD-991AE playing a redbook CD sounds much better than the Marantz even when it's playing SACD.

Now I don't intend to make a blanket statement here, I'm just saying that the format, to a very large degree, is secondary to the hardware that's spinning it.

I've also found the further up the quality lines you go, the more the formats sound alike; CDs get warmer and smoother and LPs get clearer, more resolved and more open sounding.

EDIT TO ADD:

Oh, and BTW, I listen around 80db with peaks sometimes over 100.

The hardware does play a huge role, but the hardware does not make much difference if the software is flawed, and the room the hardware plays in is flawed. The software has to be of very high quality, and the room has to be treated to reduce it influence before the quality of the hardware really makes a huge difference.

[E-Stat]

Your focus on the quality of the gear just like most audiophiles
You ASSume incorrectly. That is ONE of the parts.


. My sum of all the parts begins with the room, then the equipment, and then the resolution of the source.
That is what I mean by "the sum of all of the parts". Which is why I have a dedicated listening room using room treatments which were placed aided with measurements. Pictures available by following my systems link. As for recording quality, I have little to no control over it. I buy music that I like to hear. It is what it is. Which is why I wish the the industry standard was raised - not just the "special version of certain content" category. All of the parts are - well all of the parts!


What is "lesser" gear when everyone sound preference is quite different?.
I couldn't agree more. Which is why I wouldn't sell my two channel system and replace it with a decidedly lesser version using five channels. It would sacrifice aspects that are critical to me.


This sounds like subjective snobbery to me
So does the assertion that you must necessarily start with a multi-channel mindset. I do understand, however, that is how you earn your livelihood. My preferences are in no way associated with what puts food on my table.


So what decides "lesser" gear, our sound preference, cost? Surely you can't be saying that your idea, or somebody else's idea of good sound sets the mark for good sound, and the rest of us the might disagree surely has "tin"ears.
Cost alone is certainly not what has driven any of the audio purchases I've made - other than keeping them within my budget. The most expensive item I own was purchased used. I'll agree once again that this is solely a matter of preference.



SACD's decline(not demise) started before computer based audio was widely talked about, or way people listen to audio.
It's time for you to re-read my comments. Start with the first reason I gave. You are referencing the second reason.


And the reason that places like HDTracks exist is because some people like high quality audio that might be too "niche" for places like Itunes. These same people do not like to listen to "lossy" highly compressed audio
Obviously.


SACD failed because two channel audiophiles(especially those lovers of classical and jazz) would not embrace anything that required more than two channels.
Do you really think that the 2% "audiophile market" controlled Sony's destiny? I sure don't. Not any more than their other failed concept, the root kit based DRM (http://http://www.pcworld.com/article/123362/sony_ships_sneaky_drm_software.html) did. If those who market BR Audio also believe their success is based upon the whims of the "audiophile market" circa 2012, I think they're in for a rude awakening. :)

[E-Stat]

Personally I consider it absurd, but many audiophiles still prefer the LP to any digital including SACD and hi-rez of any sort.
I fit into that category only to the extent that I am loathe to completely replace my vinyl library with digital copies (at least where I could). For a handful of cases, I own both formats and find advantages to each. What I'd really like to do is make digital copies of them. I still maintain two turntables simply due to inertia. Other than isolated cases of buying used LPs, I haven't bought one as my "primary music copy" for a very long time.

Similarly, the preamp upstairs gets very light use since it is only for vinyl playback. My two sets of backup Amperex 7308 tubes will likely last me forever. I am, however, in the process of having the cartridge in the vintage system getting retipped at Soundsmith.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You ASSume incorrectly. That is ONE of the parts.

That was not an assumption, but a direct observation.



That is what I mean by "the sum of all of the parts". Which is why I have a dedicated listening room using room treatments which were placed aided with measurements. Pictures available by following my systems link. As for recording quality, I have little to no control over it. I buy music that I like to hear. It is what it is. Which is why I wish the the industry standard was raised - not just the "special version of certain content" category. All of the parts are - well all of the parts!

Since I have only read comments from you that are equipment focused, I thought your sum of all of the parts meant the sum of all the equipment. Thanks for the clarification.



I couldn't agree more. Which is why I wouldn't sell my two channel system and replace it with a decidedly lesser version using five channels. It would sacrifice aspects that are critical to me.

What would that be? Resolution, coherence? What else?



So does the assertion that you must necessarily start with a multi-channel mindset.

Who made that assertion? I didn't. My comments have always been I like the flexibility of being able to play all formats, and do them all well. You don't have to sacrifice resolution, coherence, clarity, soundstaging macro or micro dynamics either.



I do understand, however, that is how you earn your livelihood. My preferences are in no way associated with what puts food on my table.

Its another ASSumption that I enjoy multichannel because that is how I earn my livelihood. I enjoy multichannel because of the you are there experience, it has no spatial errors built into the format, and more than one person can enjoy those spatial qualities.






Do you really think that the 2% "audiophile market" controlled Sony's destiny? I sure don't. Not any more than their other failed concept, the root kit based DRM (http://http://www.pcworld.com/article/123362/sony_ships_sneaky_drm_software.html) did. If those who market BR Audio also believe their success is based upon the whims of the "audiophile market" circa 2012, I think they're in for a rude awakening. :)

Sony rolled out the SACD format marketing it first to audiophile community with the intention on a more widespread marketing campaign to the masses to follow. The audiophiles largely did not play, and that sunk the format. The BR audio format is being marketed towards the audiophile or audio enthusiast, and it quite frankly is doing quite well. Tying high resolution audio playback to Bluray makes it a better sell, because the players can do video, and the format itself support the highest resolution audio we have ever seen.

[E-Stat]

Resolution, coherence? What else?
Bandwidth without resorting to subs. At least not pricey dipolar ones. Back to coherence.


Who made that assertion? I didn't.
Sure you did:

As the budget goes up, the quality goes up in MC, but comes to a point of diminishing returns in stereo.

That is utter BS - or lack of exposure to what I refer.


Its another ASSumption that I enjoy multichannel because that is how I earn my livelihood.
As you say, that is an observation.


The audiophiles largely did not play, and that sunk the format.
Which was never the case with CD. It was rolled out across the board as the norm.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Bandwidth without resorting to subs. At least not pricey dipolar ones. Back to coherence.

So you are saying adding subs reduces coherence. Bull****! With calibration software like TACT, Audyssey, ARC, and Trinnov make subwoofer integration issues a thing of the past. There are very few speakers that can deliver 20-20khz with exceptionally low distortion, which makes subwoofers quite necessary.



Sure you did:

As the budget goes up, the quality goes up in MC, but comes to a point of diminishing returns in stereo.

That is utter BS - or lack of exposure to what I refer.

Two channels can only deliver so much information clearly. Anyone who has mixed and mastered both stereo and multichannel recordings is well aware of this. You can throw as much money as you want at stereo, and it still has that problem. Three speakers across the front can deliver a more accurate spatial picture than two. Five can do more than three, and seven can do more than 5. Two channels require FAR more equalization to get individual elements balanced, and that really goes for phantom images stretched between them. Stereo is a flawed format, and even Bell Labs knew that back in 1932 - so what is taking you so long to catch up?



As you say, that is an observation.

Well your observation is flawed.



Which was never the case with CD. It was rolled out across the board as the norm.

So was Bluray, which is why ist audio only sales surpassed DVD-A and SACD.

[E-Stat]

So you are saying adding subs reduces coherence.
As a blanket statement applying to all systems, no. Whoever said that? Do you remember what we were talking about? Here, I'll remind you. The context is how I would have to reallocate my two channel investment with necessarily smaller dipolar planars requiring a relatively high, low pass filter. Which relates to why I'm not a fan of Martin-Logan hybrids.


With calibration software like TACT, Audyssey, ARC, and Trinnov make subwoofer integration issues a thing of the past.
With very low frequency low pass filters, yes. That's not what would be possible with the MC compromise using my fixed budget. I'm with Siggy Linkwitz in that monopole subs should be used below 40hz with dipole mains.


There are very few speakers that can deliver 20-20khz with exceptionally low distortion, which makes subwoofers quite necessary.
No debate there when you desire high output levels.


You can throw as much money as you want at stereo, and it still has that problem.
What I'm observing is I find that threshold is much higher than you suggest. I'll take HP's two channel system any day over lesser MCs with the vast majority of recorded music. Including his extremely nice MC system in Room 1. I do, however, really enjoy it for movies.


Three speakers across the front can deliver a more accurate spatial picture than two.
That statement of the obvious in no way contradicts my previous observation.


so what is taking you so long to catch up?
Me? The correct answer is: The Music Industry. I like "audiophile quality" niche recordings as much as the next guy. What we need is for that to be the standard.


Well your observation is flawed.
My apologies. For some reason, I thought you got paid for making MC recordings.

[tube fan]

Trust me on this: in 15 years ALL serious high end audio will be MC.

[E-Stat]

Trust me on this: in 15 years ALL serious high end audio will be MC.
It would really be nice if the software were more popular. According to the RIAA, the sum of all music videos, SACD, BR Audio together represent about 3% of the physical media market (which is about half of the overall total). By comparison, vinyl (your favorite) is about 2.5%.

We're not even close.

Unless of course, you're like a guy who I knew many moons ago whose music library consisted almost entirely of Sheffield and Crystal Clear "audiophile disks".

RIAA data for 2011
(http://76.74.24.142/FA8A2072-6BF8-D44D-B9C8-CE5F55BBC050.pdf)

[tube fan]

It would really be nice if the software were more popular. According to the RIAA, the sum of all music videos, SACD, BR Audio together represent about 3% of the physical media market (which is about half of the overall total). By comparison, vinyl (your favorite) is about 2.5%.

We're not even close.

Unless of course, you're like a guy who I knew many moons ago whose music library consisted almost entirely of Sheffield and Crystal Clear "audiophile disks".

RIAA data for 2011
(http://76.74.24.142/FA8A2072-6BF8-D44D-B9C8-CE5F55BBC050.pdf)

We are at a pivot point in audio. Digital has dramatically improved, and will get better very fast. Phillip K Dick predicted all this many decades ago!

[E-Stat]

We are at a pivot point in audio. Digital has dramatically improved, and will get better very fast. Phillip K Dick predicted all this many decades ago!
I don't disagree that higher bit rate and sample size music is desirable and computer storage to handle it has become inherently cheaper.

The challenge remains with the music industry's choice of primary format to promote. The CD turns 30 this year.

[tube fan]

I don't disagree that higher bit rate and sample size music is desirable and computer storage to handle it has become inherently cheaper.

The challenge remains with the music industry's choice of primary format to promote. The CD turns 30 this year.

I have detested digital since it was introduced. However, the very best high res has improved to the point where it is only slightly less realistic than analogue. And that only applies to two channel audio. To my ears, the best MC simply sounds much more like live music than any two channel analogue. And, yes, I totally agree with TTT that two channel "improvements" are EXTREMELY slight with higher cost, compared to a budget system. I have NEVER heard a two channel audio system that is significantly more realistic than my modest one (Dunlavy SCIV speakers, VPI Scoutmaster TT, Benz Ruby 3, Auditorium tranny, Audio Research SP 8 preamp, Audio research D 70 amp). The very best MC is a big advance in realism. Yes, software is a problem now. That will be cured in time. I'm old school, but, IMO, the golden era of audio lies in the near future.

[Mash]

Why do people complain about music reproduced on digital mediums?

Your ears are digital.

Or do you think that those nerves connecting your ears to your brains are like megabuck interconnects.... rather that nerves that convey nerve impulses, i.e. "1" and "0" signals....??

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Why do people complain about music reproduced on digital mediums?

Your ears are digital.

Or do you think that those nerves connecting your ears to your brains are like megabuck interconnects.... rather that nerves that convey nerve impulses, i.e. "1" and "0" signals....??

Mash, because digital is a very different animal than analog(which everyone seems to be accustom to), and the digital format that has been around for years was compromised from the very start.

Its not just the 0 and 1's, it is the brickwall filters, oversampling, and the various other band aids applied to the format that are the problem. Pre-ringing is a big problem in digital, and that is not a problem with analog. Jitter is a big problem in digital audio, and it does not exist in the analog domain. 16bits is not enough for recording audio, and the sample rate is not high enough. Two channels are not enough to convey a realistic sense of "being there", and that was understood way back in 1932.

You will find that once people break out of the "Redbook Standard", those complaints evaporate very quickly.

[E-Stat]

You will find that once people break out of the "Redbook Standard", those complaints evaporate very quickly.
Hear, hear!

I truly look forward to the day when hi-rez MC becomes the dominant medium of the music industry - not the 2% solution it is today. Computer storage, processing power and network bandwidth have all significantly improved over the past thirty years providing few technical stumbling blocks.

The industry will, however, have to get over the crippling aspect of current copy protection schemes. Requiring the spinning of a disk to hear music will not play with iPhone dependent GEN Y/Milleniums.

[Poultrygeist]

My ears may be digital but my piano is an open baffle.:biggrin5:

[Feanor]

Hear, hear!

I truly look forward to the day when hi-rez MC becomes the dominant medium of the music industry - not the 2% solution it is today. Computer storage, processing power and network bandwidth have all significantly improved over the past thirty years providing few technical stumbling blocks.

The industry will, however, have to get over the crippling aspect of current copy protection schemes. Requiring the spinning of a disk to hear music will not play with iPhone dependent GEN Y/Milleniums.
Well said, 'Stat.

I don't know when M/C will come to portable devices, but I do know that virtually all my serious listening is to computer files, not discs, the exception being SACDs, Blu-ray, or DVD-A, (only got a couple of the last).

[E-Stat]

I don't know when M/C will come to portable devices,
Interesting consideration. Independent of sample size and rate, IEM based systems will always be stereo. There must be a two channel layer somewhere. Sir T groans... :)


but I do know that virtually all my serious listening is to computer files, not discs, the exception being SACDs, Blu-ray, or DVD-A, (only got a couple of the last).
I'm splitting hairs, but presumably any *serious* listening (aka what can this puppy do?) would be with the hi-rez discs. We're two old guys who don't have any trouble spinning a disk of some sort to play music - because that is the way it always was for us. Nor are we the target audience for the music industry as a whole. Largely irrelevant.

Pitching the spinning of a disc per album, however, to Gen Yers will be received with a "WTF?" They're accustomed to instant access to any track (or combination thereof). The genie is already out of the bottle.

P.S. Quite a bit of my listening is done on the vintage system sourced by the Touch

[BoJonJovi]

In my teens, twenties and early thirties I listened to music pretty loud. I was also around woodworking tools fairly regularly. I also drove around with the drivers side window open in my car. Then I experienced a shotgun blast where the muzzle was within two feet of my left ear. My left ear pardon the pun is shot.
I am now making a nice set of speakers. My son asked me why. I told him because there is allot more going on with music than 20-20000HZ.
I wish as a younger man I would have protected my ears at every opportunity as well as my lungs and my eyesight. But then again I never even saw a bicycle helmet until I had my own kids. It just was not thought about much in the 60's and 70's.
Today I try to keep the volume pretty low. I wish I would have all my life. But gosh I loved loud music when I was young man. Regrets ya, I got a few.

[Poultrygeist]

My hearing should be shot but somehow I managed to survive several years as a cannoneer on an M42 Duster.

[tube fan]

Why do people complain about music reproduced on digital mediums?

Your ears are digital.

Or do you think that those nerves connecting your ears to your brains are like megabuck interconnects.... rather that nerves that convey nerve impulses, i.e. "1" and "0" signals....??

This is simply idiotic!!! Sound for HUMAN beings is AND ALWAYS WILL BE analogue. Try listening to a CD that does not have a DAC converter. At the 2011 CAS NOT ONE of the representatives of various systems, including pure digital, disputed my claim that analogue was more true to the absolute sound than even the highest digital. In all digital recordings, the original analogue sound must be converted to digital bits, and, then, after processing those bits in trillions of ways, MUST be reconverted back to analogue!!! What a monumental waste!!!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is simply idiotic!!! Sound for HUMAN beings is AND ALWAYS WILL BE analogue. Try listening to a CD that does not have a DAC converter. At the 2011 CAS NOT ONE of the representatives of various systems, including pure digital, disputed my claim that analogue was more true to the absolute sound than even the highest digital. In all digital recordings, the original analogue sound must be converted to digital bits, and, then, after processing those bits in trillions of ways, MUST be reconverted back to analogue!!! What a monumental waste!!!

Tube Fan, you have been listening to BS in terms of digital sound, and it seems clear you do not have a firm educational grasp of digital sound. . Most folks that make the claim that analog is truer to absolute sound have never heard anything above red book standard. Once you record in DXD 32/352.8 or 32/384, there is absolutely no analog source out there that is in the same ballpark. Neither vinyl(the most inaccurate way to present audio) nor magnetic tape can approach the resolution of this format. It can be downcoverted to 176.4khz or 192khz without any degradation, and down to 88.2 and 96khz with some slight degradation when compared to the original master(but still sound better than redbook CD).

When you record in digital, you are not processing bits in "trillions" of ways, so cut the hyperbole. Most digitally recorded classical music only have small volume changes made to make sure the recording is balance. There is no other processing other than that. So much for your trillions. And the conversion to analog is done at a far higher resolution than both vinyl and mag tape. It is not a waste to record in digital even if you have to convert it back to analog in the end. Even if you do have to process the signal for any reason, you can do it digitally without degradation as long as you reclock the entire signal to prevent jitter. In analog, each bit of processing degrades the signal, as there is no graceful way in the studio to process analog signals without loss.

You have a very bad habit of overstating your point.

[tube fan]

Tube Fan, you have been listening to BS in terms of digital sound, and it seems clear you do not have a firm educational grasp of digital sound. . Most folks that make the claim that analog is truer to absolute sound have never heard anything above red book standard. Once you record in DXD 32/352.8 or 32/384, there is absolutely no analog source out there that is in the same ballpark. Neither vinyl(the most inaccurate way to present audio) nor magnetic tape can approach the resolution of this format. It can be downcoverted to 176.4khz or 192khz without any degradation, and down to 88.2 and 96khz with some slight degradation when compared to the original master(but still sound better than redbook CD).

When you record in digital, you are not processing bits in "trillions" of ways, so cut the hyperbole. Most digitally recorded classical music only have small volume changes made to make sure the recording is balance. There is no other processing other than that. So much for your trillions. And the conversion to analog is done at a far higher resolution than both vinyl and mag tape. It is not a waste to record in digital even if you have to convert it back to analog in the end. Even if you do have to process the signal for any reason, you can do it digitally without degradation as long as you reclock the entire signal to prevent jitter. In analog, each bit of processing degrades the signal, as there is no graceful way in the studio to process analog signals without loss.

You have a very bad habit of overstating your point.

Gee, a warning from TTT not to overstate my case!!! I've heard the "best" "high res" digital (yes, of course, it's not perfect as they keep making improvements), and, as I have stated, digital is now at least listenable. I got the high res recording representatives at the 2011 CAS to admit that analogue tape was MUCH more accurate than the highest res digital (compared to live acoustic music, yes by listening, NOT by measuring!).

[E-Stat]

I've heard the "best" "high res" digital ...
Just curious. Where did you hear a DXD master?

I would aver that the problem remains with the industry failing to provide to the consumer what formats exist.

[tube fan]

Just curious. Where did you hear a DXD master?

I would aver that the problem remains with the industry failing to provide to the consumer what formats exist.

The Magico Q5 room played high res digital, and it was NOT impressive. I had just come from the Sonist room where they were using decades old analogue tapes as their source, and the sound was dramatically more realistic than any digital I have heard, either at the 2010 or 2011 CASs or in an audio store. BTW, those who are now singing the praises of "high res" digital, have been singing the praises of "low res" digital FOR DECADES!!!

[tube fan]

Just curious. Where did you hear a DXD master?

I would aver that the problem remains with the industry failing to provide to the consumer what formats exist.

Of course, the main problem with "high res" digital is the lack of recordings. It will NEVER be possible to have true high res versions of my favorite jazz recordings, which are decades old.

[E-Stat]

The Magico Q5 room played high res digital, and it was NOT impressive.
We're not talking about the same thing. I don't know of any commercially available DXD recordings. They do, however, exist and run at least double the resolution of SACD and 192/24.

And yes, the ongoing problem with high rez digital is due to two things:

1. It represents under 2% of the released content any given year
2. Most of it is limited to disk playback - which will NEVER become popular with Y Gen / Milennials.

[tube fan]

We're not talking about the same thing. I don't know of any commercially available DXD recordings. They do, however, exist and run at least double the resolution of SACD and 192/24.

And yes, the ongoing problem with high rez digital is due to two things:

1. It represents under 2% of the released content any given year
2. Most of it is limited to disk playback - which will NEVER become popular with Y Gen / Milennials.

Then, I humbly ask: WHAT IS THE POINT!!!

[E-Stat]

Then, I humbly ask: WHAT IS THE POINT!!!
Don't you love the irony of Sir T's observation?

Yesterday, I went to a music store and bought five used records and a CD. :)

[tube fan]

Don't you love the irony of Sir T's observation?

Yesterday, I went to a music store and bought five used records and a CD. :)

I have about 2,000 vinyl records and 90 CDs. So far, I have NO high res downloads, and don't want any. I'll just to keep listening to my Miles, Coltrane, Evans, Monk, etc ORIGINAL VINYL records. Is there ANY great music in "high res"?

[JoeE SP9]

I have about 2,000 vinyl records and 90 CDs. So far, I have NO high res downloads, and don't want any. I'll just to keep listening to my Miles, Coltrane, Evans, Monk, etc ORIGINAL VINYL records. Is there ANY great music in "high res"?

That depends on what you consider great music. I have downloaded 2 LP's/CD's worth of high res music. I like both CD's(?). You may not like either. It's likely I'll download more. If you're curious the only way to find out is to give it a try. The high res files I have sound fantastic.

My real objection to downloaded music is the lack of a physical carrier. I realize I can burn (I do) high res files to DVD-A. That still restricts playback to either my computer (high res files) or a player that can play DVD-A. Of course this is slightly better than SACD which won't play on a computer. BTW SACD's sound superb.

I really don't care what medium music is on. As long as I can acquire and listen to it I'm happy.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Don't you love the irony of Sir T's observation?

Yesterday, I went to a music store and bought five used records and a CD. :)

My comments are based on sound quality only, not statistics or a sheeple mentality.

I find it so ironic that you would complain about recording practices, and then buy music on an inaccurate format, and one that has limited resolution. Maybe that is why your comments don't resonant very well with me.

[E-Stat]

I find it so ironic that you would complain about recording practices, and then buy music on an inaccurate format, and one that has limited resolution.Maybe that is why your comments don't resonant very well with me.
Well, call me crazy but my purchases are driven by musical content, not format. :)

I enjoy "audiophile quality" recordings as well as the next guy so long as I find them interesting to hear.. A high rez multi-channel recording of something that I don't really enjoy has zero value to me, cool as it may be.

Unfortunately, the music industry provides us zero choice. For 99% of released musical content, their question is: "Would you like the CD or the lossy download?"

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, call me crazy but my purchases are driven by musical content, not format. :)

I enjoy "audiophile quality" recordings as well as the next guy so long as I find them interesting to hear.. A high rez multi-channel recording of something that I don't really enjoy has zero value to me, cool as it may be.

Unfortunately, the music industry provides us zero choice. For 99% of released musical content, their question is: "Would you like the CD or the lossy download?"

If you purchases are driven by musical content, then perhaps you should keep your mouth shut about recording and musical quality.

The music industry gave you a choice by way of SACD and DVD-A, and "audiophiles" rejected it soundly for the lower quality CD, and the inaccurate vinyl disc. Had these formats been supported, there would have been a lot more music destined for it, and we would not be talking about the lack of content on these formats.

Download sites these days have more than just "lossy" downloads. Perhaps more exploration outside of Itunes in is order.

[E-Stat]

If you purchases are driven by musical content, then perhaps you should keep your mouth shut about recording and musical quality.
The two are not always mutually exclusive. Since you don't care about content, then who cares?


IThe music industry gave you a choice by way of SACD and DVD-A, and "audiophiles" rejected it soundly for the lower quality CD, and the inaccurate vinyl disc.
How many times do you need to be told that "audiophiles" aren't responsible for determining what the music industry does? Do you really not understand that the music industry is driven by the masses? The fact that 1% of released music was available in a better sounding format made ZERO difference! The music industry most certainly dropped the ball in trying to introduce a new standard. FAIL.


IHad these formats been supported, there would have been a lot more music destined for it, and we would not be talking about the lack of content on these formats.
I couldn't agree more. When the CD entered the market, it was supported by EVERY label for EVERY release. SACD/DVD-A? 1% !


IDownload sites these days have more than just "lossy" downloads. Perhaps more exploration outside of Itunes in is order.
As I've indicated, that is one of two primary formats. The CD being the other standard. Apparently, you've never tried to locate 99% of recordings that are available today.

That's fine for those who don't give a crap as to what content they buy.

[Feanor]

...
The music industry gave you a choice by way of SACD and DVD-A, and "audiophiles" rejected it soundly for the lower quality CD, and the inaccurate vinyl disc. Had these formats been supported, there would have been a lot more music destined for it, and we would not be talking about the lack of content on these formats. ....
Totally how I feel about it. If audiophiles had embraced hi-rez with enthusiasm mass acceptance and availability of hi-rez would have been much higher. In particular audiophiles continued to embrace the ludicrous LP medium.

I gave up on LPs as soon as I could afford a CD player. Early, valid criticisms of CD technology had largely vanished by the early '90s. Of course the are poor CD and hi-rez recordings but that was certainly true of LPs too.

What we have to understand that there is still a struggle between accuracy (to the recording) and the euphonic. Audiophiles tend to the latter. People like Tube Fan, Poultrygeist, Morricab, and many others, deceive themselves that vinyl and/or tube equipment are more "life-like". Their recollection of live music is idealized and romaniticized; (although poor recordings are the other side of that coin).

[Poultrygeist]

I'm still buying SACD jazz like crazy but have learned what a difference a good tube phono preamp can make.

Before the modded Jolida JD9 I had pretty much given up on vinyl.

[E-Stat]

If audiophiles had embraced hi-rez with enthusiasm mass acceptance and availability of hi-rez would have been much higher. In particular audiophiles continued to embrace the ludicrous LP medium.

So how many billions of dollars do you think were spent by US *audiophiles* around 1999/2000 when SACD and DVD-A were introduced? Five years later? Do you note the contribution by vinyl, aka LP/EP? I realize the thin black line is difficult to see.

For argument's sake, let's use some really optimistic estimates and say audiophiles number 200,000 and every one spent $1000 per year. Is that what you usually spend? $200M represents under 2% of the market. Do you really think the music industry would make a radical change for such a minority?

[Feanor]

So how many billions of dollars do you think were spent by US *audiophiles* around 1999/2000 when SACD and DVD-A were introduced? Five years later? Do you note the contribution by vinyl, aka LP/EP? I realize the thin black line is difficult to see.

For argument's sake, let's use some really optimistic estimates and say audiophiles number 200,000 and every one spent $1000 per year. Is that what you usually spend? $200M represents under 2% of the market. Do you really think the music industry would make a radical change for such a minority?
Audiophiles always were and remain a niche market. Still, marketers are willing to cater to niche markets, and often the choices of "elites" are touted the as aspirational choices for mainstream consumers. Yes, I believe that if audiophiles had whole-heartedly embraced SACD (or DVD-A) there would be far better choice in these media even thought they would likely remain niche.

The combination of classical music + hi-rez is about as niche as you can get. Yet new SACD releases are still pretty common in that genre from smaller labels at least, because of the relatively high acceptance of the medium by classical listeners.

[E-Stat]

. Yes, I believe that if audiophiles had whole-heartedly embraced SACD (or DVD-A) there would be far better choice in these media even thought they would likely remain niche.
So, what percent of the market do YOU think *audiophiles* represent? Including the insignificant contribution of vinyl.

edit: Hi-rez won't go anywhere in the future for GenY and Millenials so long as the industry *requires* disk playback. Disk playback? WTF?

[Feanor]

So, what percent of the market do YOU think *audiophiles* represent? Including the insignificant contribution of vinyl.

edit: Hi-rez won't go anywhere in the future for GenY and Millenials so long as the industry *requires* disk playback. Disk playback? WTF?
I thought I was clear. The audiophile segment was, is, and will remain small. My point is that hi-rez, (within that segment), would by now be affording a much greater choice and availability if it were not for the (logically inexplicable) endurance of the LP.

It would nice to have downloadable multi-channel hi-rez and there is no technical barrier except that imposed by recording industry fear of piracy. But GenY and Millenials? The tiny minority who become audiophiles will by discs if that's what it takes.

[E-Stat]

My point is that hi-rez, (within that segment), would by now be affording a much greater choice and availability if it were not for the (logically inexplicable) endurance of the LP.
Bill, do you notice that the sales of vinyl flat-lined to barely perceptible levels many years before the advent of the SACD and DVD-A.? Adding barely-there to *tiny minority* still results in *tiny minority*.


The tiny minority who become audiophiles will by discs if that's what it takes.
Yes, tiny minority. Like I said, hi-rez will be going nowhere with current record industry thinking.

[Feanor]

Bill, do you notice that the sales of vinyl flat-lined to barely perceptible levels many years before the advent of the SACD and DVD-A.? Adding barely-there to *tiny minority* still results in *tiny minority*.

Yes, tiny minority. Like I said, hi-rez will be going nowhere with current record industry thinking.
I think we agree, afterall, that hi-rez won't be consumer mainstream in the foreseeable future or perhaps ever.

[E-Stat]

I think we agree, afterall, that hi-rez won't be consumer mainstream in the foreseeable future or perhaps ever.
That is the answer. Industry indifference to current technology and generational norms.

It has nothing AT ALL to do with "audiophiles who continued to embrace the ludicrous LP medium.". That number can be counted on the head of a pin.

[tube fan]

That is the answer. Industry indifference to current technology and generational norms.

It has nothing AT ALL to do with "audiophiles who continued to embrace the ludicrous LP medium.". That number can be counted on the head of a pin.

We vinyl lovers may is small in number, but, judging by my experience at recent audio shows, analogue continues to smoke the best digital. My very favorite room used HE speakers, an SET amp, and analogue tape (bought on e-bay). My least favorite room used LE speakers, digital, and 1,000+ watt ss amps.

[Feanor]

We vinyl lovers may is small in number, but, judging by my experience at recent audio shows, analogue continues to smoke the best digital. My very favorite room used HE speakers, an SET amp, and analogue tape (bought on e-bay). My least favorite room used LE speakers, digital, and 1,000+ watt ss amps.
TL, perhaps you'll agree that your continued, personal preference for vinyl reduces demand for digital media including hi-rez.

You & I might differ in our preferences but both of us prefer "niche" media format, and IMO, these formats cannibalize each other.

[RoyY51]

Stumbled across the ol' Rat Shack SPL meter...80 to 85 db. at the 9 ft. listening position.


...just to address the original question...continue on, gentlemen.