How loud do you listen?

[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]

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.

[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]

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!!!

[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

[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....

;-)

[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.

Regards,

D-Ray

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.....

[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!

[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