Superb low volume listening

[markw]

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

It turns out they were Sennheiser 580s in disguise

[budgetaudio76]

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

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

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

hmmmm, some of you seem awfully familiar,

[RGA]

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

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

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

Unless I am seriously missing the point, here, doesn't it seem remotely intuitively obvious that resolution, dynamics and all the "good stuff" that folks (usually) associate with kick-ass stereo sound go out the window at low volumes?

For me, that is where the treasure is found. There is a wealth of low level detail on the recordings that is masked by many a system.

Naturally, when listening to material at a low level, you will experience the same loss as anyone else would.

My experience suggests otherwise. Many a system buries detail in the noise floor. Line sources also reduce level in a linear fashion while point sources drop off more drastically. As I walk up to my stats from a distance, the loudness changes very little.

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

I aver that there is.

rw

[Auricauricle]

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

Considering characteristics of instrumentation and volume:

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

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

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

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

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

[RGA]

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

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

[kordon]

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

[Mr Peabody]

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

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

[Auricauricle]

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

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

[Mr Peabody]

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

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

Yeah, what you said

[audio amateur]

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

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

Pretty good point!