Welcome Guest! To enable all features please
Login
or
Register
.
Forum
Active Topics
Search
Help
Login
Register
Search
Notification
Error
OK
HIFICRITIC FORUM
»
HIFI Discussion Forums
»
General HIFI Discussion
»
Exact sound level for quality comparisons
Exact sound level for quality comparisons -
Assessing sound quality
Share
Email this topic
LinkBack Topic URL
Retweet this Topic
Share Topic on Google+
Like this Topic
Share on Facebook
Digg this Topic
Reddit this Topic
Share on Tumblr
Options
Watch this topic
Print this topic
» Normal
Threaded
Previous Topic
Next Topic
Martin Colloms
#1
Posted :
02 February 2020 12:24:01(UTC)
Retweet
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 3,054
Was thanked: 48 time(s) in 47 post(s)
Exact sound level for quality comparisons....... assessing sound quality
In review, the Towshend Allegri Reference, which has 0.5dB volume steps................
While making precise subjective comparisons at a very high quality level I judged a moderate sound quality difference between the test examples, for several parameters, including clarity, timbre and image depth , and these were noted.
On rechecking we found there was a calibrated 0.5dB error in level for the comparisons and when this was corrected those audible quality differences fell away.
However the overall quality difference assesed by comparisons with other references remained so the tests themselves were suffiently discriminating.
How many published comparisons are potentially at fault simply due to a lack of attention to precisely matching source replay levels?
Martin Colloms
User Profile
View All Posts by User
View Thanks
HansW
#2
Posted :
06 February 2020 08:49:15(UTC)
Retweet
Rank: HIFI Addict
Joined: 18/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 125
Location: Stockholm
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
This also raises the question about the point of spending a lot of effort in finding ’the best’ component if any quality differences can be overcome by a small increase in volume level.
Br
Hans
User Profile
View All Posts by User
View Thanks
Martin Colloms
#3
Posted :
07 February 2020 16:25:47(UTC)
Retweet
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 3,054
Was thanked: 48 time(s) in 47 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HansW
This also raises the question about the point of spending a lot of effort in finding ’the best’ component if any quality differences can be overcome by a small increase in volume level.
Br
Hans
Hans, I dispute your use of the term ‘any quality differences' ...!
Perceived sound quality is dependent on numerous sensitive aspects, of which sound level is just one.
Great systems and installations may be played louder than inferior ones.
The ear has to put up with many deficiencies in reproduced sound and when excessive tend to increase fatigue, both with extended listening and with increasing loudness.
The exact level matching issue is commonly found with digital audio sources with a nominal ‘2V’ output, of more usually 2.1V , here to try and gain a demo advantage, and we always guard against this possible error in level .
Martin
User Profile
View All Posts by User
View Thanks
HansW
#4
Posted :
08 February 2020 23:02:24(UTC)
Retweet
Rank: HIFI Addict
Joined: 18/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 125
Location: Stockholm
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Martin Colloms
Originally Posted by: HansW
This also raises the question about the point of spending a lot of effort in finding ’the best’ component if any quality differences can be overcome by a small increase in volume level.
Br
Hans
Hans, I dispute your use of the term ‘any quality differences' ...!
Perceived sound quality is dependent on numerous sensitive aspects, of which sound level is just one.
Great systems and installations may be played louder than inferior ones.
The ear has to put up with many deficiencies in reproduced sound and when excessive tend to increase fatigue, both with extended listening and with increasing loudness.
The exact level matching issue is commonly found with digital audio sources with a nominal ‘2V’ output, of more usually 2.1V , here to try and gain a demo advantage, and we always guard against this possible error in level .
Martin
Fair enough and ’any quality differences’ was overstating the point. I was reacting to your statement in the previous post ’... I judged a moderate sound quality difference between the test examples, for several parameters, including clarity, timbre and image depth , and these were noted. On rechecking we found there was a calibrated 0.5dB error in level for the comparisons and when this was corrected those audible quality differences fell away’.
I find A/B-ing quite difficult for the reasons you mention, amongst others. The fatigue issue for instance is not always easy to notice in short comparisons. Another complicating factor, in my limited experience, is that different systems seem to have different optimum volume levels.
Br
Hans
User Profile
View All Posts by User
View Thanks
Martin Colloms
#5
Posted :
09 February 2020 10:01:34(UTC)
Retweet
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 3,054
Was thanked: 48 time(s) in 47 post(s)
Hans : Fair enough and ’any quality differences’ was overstating the point. I was reacting to your statement in the previous post ’
... I judged a moderate sound quality difference between the test examples, for several parameters, including clarity, timbre and image depth , and these were noted. On rechecking we found there was a calibrated 0.5dB error in level for the comparisons and when this was corrected those audible quality differences fell away’.
I find A/B-ing quite difficult for the reasons you mention, amongst others. The fatigue issue for instance is not always easy to notice in short comparisons. Another complicating factor, in my limited experience, is that different systems seem to have different optimum volume levels.
MC replies:
This is a wonderfully complex subject which has occupied many minds for more than 70 years.
Imperfections in the recordings, sound system and room together control tolerable dynamic range.
Tolerable because response irregularities, distortion, room standing waves and program quality work together to determine and even limit subjective loudness, on grounds of fatigue and even annoyance.
For almost every programme and reproducing system there is a ‘natural’ sound level, volume setting, for the best experience, the optimal degree of musical communication. Too quiet and the low level sections lose detail. Too loud and the ear is overloaded by the acoustically driven room modes.
In a given room the better the system and the set up, this for all components including the listener position, the clearer and cleaner it sounds and the louder it will play.
That is why headphone listening allows much greater sound levels, the room is eliminated though with other compromises to the sense of realism.
Martin Colloms
Edited by user
09 February 2020 10:02:29(UTC)
|
Reason: Not specified
User Profile
View All Posts by User
View Thanks
ashandger
#6
Posted :
10 February 2020 16:28:43(UTC)
Retweet
Rank: HIFI Addict
Joined: 14/04/2011(UTC)
Posts: 100
Location: Ireland
Originally Posted by: Martin Colloms
Hans : Fair enough and ’any quality differences’ was overstating the point. I was reacting to your statement in the previous post ’
... I judged a moderate sound quality difference between the test examples, for several parameters, including clarity, timbre and image depth , and these were noted. On rechecking we found there was a calibrated 0.5dB error in level for the comparisons and when this was corrected those audible quality differences fell away’.
I find A/B-ing quite difficult for the reasons you mention, amongst others. The fatigue issue for instance is not always easy to notice in short comparisons. Another complicating factor, in my limited experience, is that different systems seem to have different optimum volume levels.
MC replies:
This is a wonderfully complex subject which has occupied many minds for more than 70 years.
Imperfections in the recordings, sound system and room together control tolerable dynamic range.
Tolerable because response irregularities, distortion, room standing waves and program quality work together to determine and even limit subjective loudness, on grounds of fatigue and even annoyance.
For almost every programme and reproducing system there is a ‘natural’ sound level, volume setting, for the best experience, the optimal degree of musical communication. Too quiet and the low level sections lose detail. Too loud and the ear is overloaded by the acoustically driven room modes.
In a given room the better the system and the set up, this for all components including the listener position, the clearer and cleaner it sounds and the louder it will play.
That is why headphone listening allows much greater sound levels, the room is eliminated though with other compromises to the sense of realism.
Martin Colloms
Really glad to see you bring up this critical point. I would like to see reviewers include listening levels in dB in their reviews and perhaps use 2-3 different, consistent, settings for ongoing comparisons between products. For example, performance at moderate listening levels of around 70dB is a lot more important to me than peak levels of 100dB.
WWW
User Profile
View All Posts by User
View Thanks
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
HIFICRITIC FORUM
»
HIFI Discussion Forums
»
General HIFI Discussion
»
Exact sound level for quality comparisons
Forum Jump
HIFICRITIC FORUM
Admin Forums
- New Members and Introductions
- HIFICRITIC FORUM site information
HIFI Discussion Forums
- General HIFI Discussion
- DIY HIFI
- Music and Software
Other Forums
- All else
You
cannot
post new topics in this forum.
You
cannot
reply to topics in this forum.
You
cannot
delete your posts in this forum.
You
cannot
edit your posts in this forum.
You
cannot
create polls in this forum.
You
cannot
vote in polls in this forum.
Powered by YAF.NET 2.2.3
|
YAF.NET © 2003-2021, Yet Another Forum.NET