Low volume sound

[Holmz]

@DaveC
The best low volume speakers are single drivers. Especially ones with light cones and a very flexible suspension. Then the amp must have a great 1st watt, so a good SET amp. Use very neutral speaker cables (UPOCC silver) including in the cabinet, since there is no crossover at all the speaker cables make a large difference.

What?
How does the weight (mass) of the cone affect things?
If they are able to play some tone, then one would assume that they are able to move fine at that frequency.
And most cones and voice coils are all light. Is there really much difference between them, other than comparing sub-woofers to tweeters?

Secondly; the suspension is still, flexible or somewhere in between.
It should not have “stiction” like an old rusty motorcycle fork… if it did, it would be like having crossover distortion from a class-B amp.

 

[sigbergaudio]

What?
How does the weight (mass) of the cone affect things?
If they are able to play some tone, then one would assume that they are able to move fine at that frequency.
And most cones and voice coils are all light. Is there really much difference between them, other than comparing sub-woofers to tweeters?

Secondly; the suspension is still, flexible or somewhere in between.
It should not have “stiction” like an old rusty motorcycle fork… if it did, it would be like having crossover distortion from a class-B amp.

The difference can be relatively large. The combination of driver types and crossover choices in different speakers means you can have a driver in one speaker that is twice the weight of a driver in a different speaker reproducing the same frequency.

Personally I would argue that a single driver speaker has far too many other compromises (frequency range, dynamic range). To use our own speakers as example we go the complete other way to 4-way systems. This way we are able to use lightweight drivers with high dynamic range for the important midbass/midrange.

 

[skids929]

How does ^all that^ affect post #17?

I don't understand the nature of the question...I wasn't responding to that post I was responding to the original post.

Alot of what the OP is referring to is related to and proven in Fletcher/Munson study. As volume decreases it flattens the different tones as it goes down and the perceived difference to the ear is dynamics fade so you need to compensate for it. You can EQ it, use a loudness switches etc, or if a purist and don't want to mess with the signal get a dac with a hotter output stage and a preamp with high gain which behaves in a similar manor. The output of my DAC is 7V and lose almost none of the dynamics or frequency response when listening at VERY low levels.

 

[mtemur]

According to arthur salvatore.....the lower you can turn the volume down with all the music being there the better the component is

Exactly the opposite. He cannot be more wrong. The higher you can turn the volume up to realistic levels without fatigue the better the components are.

 

[skids929]

I would argue bo

Exactly the opposite. He cannot be more wrong. The higher you can turn the volume up to realistic levels without fatigue the better the components are.

I would argue both can be true. I don't think anyone is "wrong" here.

 

[JackD201]

Would be much appreciated for advice in how to achieve low volume sound level playing whilst retaining full clarity, micro details, dynamics, etc. in a small room of 15 m2 (160 square feet).

To date, addressing my room acoustics, isolation, power and upstream feed to a Kinki Studios EX M1 Amplifier and Buchardt S400 Mk II speakers does produce a very good sound.
At a certain volume level, the sound, becomes even more alive, up front, with a more detail soundstage.
This volume level is by no means loud, and to most people with normal hearing including myself not so long ago, this decibel level of sound wouldn’t be a problem or classed excessive, but nowadays, as the years progress, the ears are becoming more sensitive.

• Would changing speakers be a good place to start looking, or addressing the type of amplifier (class, power/head room, current etc) return better results?
• Are there certain speakers better at playing at lower sound levels or certain amps to drive the sound through a speaker at lower sound volume levels and whilst still retaining all the finer details?
• Or does the law of physics play the biggest part in a small room and changing components can only change the outcome marginally if any?

Much appreciate your thoughts.

-

• Are there certain speakers better at playing at lower sound levels or certain amps to drive the sound through a speaker at lower sound volume levels and whilst still retaining all the finer details?

Hi NZS in a nutshell. Yes. Typically loudspeakers with lighter diaphragms, pliable suspension and strong magnetics in the voicecoil gap will be able to track the input signals better the lower the signal gets because of the lower inertia. Unfortunately to maintain musical integrity this will also require very good integration between the drivers so they continue to present the sound pressure with one voice. In other words they should succumb to inertia at pretty much the same time. Ultimately it is a resolution issue. The equal loudness curve has been mentioned here already but your question was specific in that it is qualitative. The Fletcher Munson Curve deals with tonal balance not resolution. The balance fix especially for a small room is relatively easy and is actually basic. Use your room boundaries to adjust bass and directionality the highs. It is also free. Again it doesn't mean that even with the desired balance that the transients and timbres have not degraded to a level that has become untenable.

Then there's noise (quality of power) and parasitics (quality of passive parts in the crossovers and the volume attenuation of your amplification device). Noise will mask (RFI) or distort (EMI) low level signals. Like someone already mentioned, the first watt is crucial. When we are talking low level listening the clarity and micro detail you speak of is in milliwatt territory. It is not a headroom issue.

Finally there is the issue of gain matching between the source and the amplification. In digital sources like somebody already mentioned, output voltage matters. The standard 2V is fine for most every application but in my experience the DACs that have fared best have all been 4V and up. Given of course that the receiving stage of the preamplifier or amplifier can take it. That is easy to test. If the volume control gives you very little leeway from soft to loud, the input sensitivity is too low and if you have too much leeway then the input sensitivity is too high. Input sensitivity being the voltage required to reach full output.

The low level champs are usually electrostatics because of the very low weight. In a 15sqm room however, these can be problematic. Most electrostatics are dipoles and might eat up too much precious real estate. Horns? Even if we are talking about simply a horn loaded tweeter, it all still boils down to how good that tweeter is. Wave guides are complimentary not a cure all.

In my mind, for your specific situation, that leaves me looking for 2way speakers that have soft domes that are sub 1", diamond or beryllium tweeters or ribbons with mid woofers of stiff, light, paper but more likely some sort of ceramics like those made by fostex on the more affordable side to say Accuton on the more expensive.

Just my 2 cents. Happy hunting!

 

[DaveC]

The difference can be relatively large. The combination of driver types and crossover choices in different speakers means you can have a driver in one speaker that is twice the weight of a driver in a different speaker reproducing the same frequency.

Personally I would argue that a single driver speaker has far too many other compromises (frequency range, dynamic range). To use our own speakers as example we go the complete other way to 4-way systems. This way we are able to use lightweight drivers with high dynamic range for the important midbass/midrange.

Agree, but with the caveat of listening at low volume, a single driver setup nearfield is still the best choice. With a brand like Omega the cost is low enough they could easily be a secondary speaker/system to be used for low volume and even simple acoustic and vocal music at moderate volumes. AER prices are hard to wrap my head around, but they do sound good.

As an all around speaker the single drivers are usually too compromised as complex music and/or higher volumes are not their strong suit. They were more popular 10-15+ years ago when it was hard to find a competent multi-way speaker. Now we have a ton of great choices of well integrated multi way speakers.

When you consider a speaker that will excel at complex music at realistic volumes, that requires at minimum a 3 way design and the drivers need to have very stiff cones which generally requires higher weight and a stiffer suspension that can control them, along with a relatively complex crossover, and now you have a system that requires some volume to sound good, and an amp that has good electrical control of the drivers.

 

[Holmz]

I don't understand the nature of the question...I wasn't responding to that post I was responding to the original post.

Alot of what the OP is referring to is related to and proven in Fletcher/Munson study. As volume decreases it flattens the different tones as it goes down and the perceived difference to the ear is dynamics fade so you need to compensate for it. You can EQ it, use a loudness switches etc, or if a purist and don't want to mess with the signal get a dac with a hotter output stage and a preamp with high gain which behaves in a similar manor. The output of my DAC is 7V and lose almost none of the dynamics or frequency response when listening at VERY low levels.

^Agree 100% on Fletcher Munson.^
I don’t think my comments in this thread are contrary to that.

However in post #17 the OP also mentioned the Rega TT.
So I assume that the low volume listening is not solely a problem with the digital side.

The difference can be relatively large. The combination of driver types and crossover choices in different speakers means you can have a driver in one speaker that is twice the weight of a driver in a different speaker reproducing the same frequency.

Agree that the driver weight can vary a lot, but is that the cone and voice coil? Or more on the motor/magnet and basket side?

Personally I would argue that a single driver speaker has far too many other compromises (frequency range, dynamic range). To use our own speakers as example we go the complete other way to 4-way systems. This way we are able to use lightweight drivers with high dynamic range for the important midbass/midrange.

IME there is mostly has a problem with compression and power handling, that a 3 or 4 way address.
The cone breakup modes also play a huge factor in the crossover choices, so the choice of drivers is tied at the hip to the crossover.

The idea that there is “light weight” that makes the driver more nuanced and resolving seems logical, but the physics of the system sort of falls apart when we have a driver that can play say 20lHz. It must be light enough, to move fast enough, or it would not be able to play the 20KHz.
Now if “driver B” plays 40Khz and some lesser “driver A” stopped at 20KHz, then maybe we could attribute that to the driver’s cone weight… assuming that the digital side even lets 40KHz through.

 

[skids929]

^Agree 100% on Fletcher Munson.^
I don’t think my comments in this thread are contrary to that.

However in post #17 the OP also mentioned the Rega TT.
So I assume that the low volume listening is not solely a problem with the digital side.




Agree that the driver weight can vary a lot, but is that the cone and voice coil? Or more on the motor/magnet and basket side?



IME there is mostly has a problem with compression and power handling, that a 3 or 4 way address.
The cone breakup modes also play a huge factor in the crossover choices, so the choice of drivers is tied at the hip to the crossover.

The idea that there is “light weight” that makes the driver more nuanced and resolving seems logical, but the physics of the system sort of falls apart when we have a driver that can play say 20lHz. It must be light enough, to move fast enough, or it would not be able to play the 20KHz.
Now if “driver B” plays 40Khz and some lesser “driver A” stopped at 20KHz, then maybe we could attribute that to the driver’s cone weight… assuming that the digital side even lets 40KHz through.

Possibly, but could be the same issue there with the Phono Stage though. I am hesitant to say it's solved with lighter speaker drivers since that seems like a amp power issue to me. My experience is the hotter the outputs on the DAC and higher gain the preamp is the better the low level listening results I've gotten..Other option would be to seek a preamp or dac with adjustable gain.

 

[DaveC]

^Agree 100% on Fletcher Munson.^
I don’t think my comments in this thread are contrary to that.

However in post #17 the OP also mentioned the Rega TT.
So I assume that the low volume listening is not solely a problem with the digital side.




Agree that the driver weight can vary a lot, but is that the cone and voice coil? Or more on the motor/magnet and basket side?



IME there is mostly has a problem with compression and power handling, that a 3 or 4 way address.
The cone breakup modes also play a huge factor in the crossover choices, so the choice of drivers is tied at the hip to the crossover.

The idea that there is “light weight” that makes the driver more nuanced and resolving seems logical, but the physics of the system sort of falls apart when we have a driver that can play say 20lHz. It must be light enough, to move fast enough, or it would not be able to play the 20KHz.
Now if “driver B” plays 40Khz and some lesser “driver A” stopped at 20KHz, then maybe we could attribute that to the driver’s cone weight… assuming that the digital side even lets 40KHz through.

Intermodulation distortion and the requirement for a flexible cone to extend response or a whizzer cone are the main issues keeping single drivers from doing a great job reproducing complex music. You can take the same multi-way speaker and change crossover slopes and easily hear this. The crossover is one of the main things that have improved in the last couple decades and makes current multi way speakers far superior to previous versions. When you get it right even speakers that use fairly resonant cabinets and non ideal drivers like Harbeth can reproduce complex music competently. Without a good xo even mfg'ers that go to great lengths to make ideal cabinets and drivers can sound bad and incoherent, like older YG and Wilson speakers.

All driver mfg'ers go to great lengths to use lighter diaphragms, such as using carbon fiber, ceramics, magnesium, titanium and even beryllium. But the cone also needs to be rigid and non resonant within it's operating range, so there are limits and trade-offs.

 

[AudioHR]

Exactly the opposite. He cannot be more wrong. The higher you can turn the volume up to realistic levels without fatigue the better the components are.

Possibly, both could be true.

Turning the volume up brings a lot of things into play. Room, associated components and what is healthy for your hearing to name a few. Realistic levels by whose definition? Do many of todays speakers need to be played loud to sound good?

A bit off topic but I would note in passing that in my opinion some very good speakers at the 2024 Munich High Show were not able to perform optimally because they were played to loud. Of course this is a show so the room can be less than ideal but the components were certainly expensive enough and I would hope that the exhibitors would pay attention to component matching so the sound should be acceptable. My point is that regardless of how good a speaker is, to loud is to LOUD.

In my experience every piece of music has a volume level where it sounds best. Some music is meant to be played loud, other music sounds best at a more moderate level.

Regardless of absolute quality some systems play nice with better resolution at lower volume. My advice to the initial poster would be to try the obvious like near field listening and speaker positioning. If your system is still not allowing you to play the music at a level where it sounds best to you then you need to investigate what system changes would meet your needs.

 

[Holmz]

…
All driver mfg'ers go to great lengths to use lighter diaphragms, such as using carbon fiber, ceramics, magnesium, titanium and even beryllium. But the cone also needs to be rigid and non resonant within it's operating range, so there are limits and trade-offs.

Is that to:
- make them lighter?
- make them stiffer?
- affect breakup modes?

Many paper cones are resonant within their operating range.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Ultimately it is a resolution issue. The equal loudness curve has been mentioned here already but your question was specific in that it is qualitative. The Fletcher Munson Curve deals with tonal balance not resolution. The balance fix especially for a small room is relatively easy and is actually basic. Use your room boundaries to adjust bass and directionality the highs. It is also free. Again it doesn't mean that even with the desired balance that the transients and timbres have not degraded to a level that has become untenable.

I would argue that the perceived quality/resolution and loudness is connected. If you blind tested two speakers and one of them were louder, you'd be likely to perceive that one as better, because the higher volume will allow you to hear more detail, thus finding it to have higher resolution and/or quality.

We also know that people generally rate speakers with good bass higher, which further supports the idea that a loudspeaker playing softer (and thus with less perceived bass due to Fletcher Munson) will not be perceived as good.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Agree that the driver weight can vary a lot, but is that the cone and voice coil? Or more on the motor/magnet and basket side?

I am referring to the cone / the moving mass of the driver. We address this specifically in our designs so let me use that as an example. In our Manta speaker, the 12" midbass driver has an mms of just 60g. The 12" we use in our subwoofers has a mms of 135g, so more than double.

Doing this we can have both very high dynamic range, combined with very lightweight drivers from 100hz and up.

The other extreme would be a 2-way speaker tuned to go low in the bass. There you'd have a relatively heavy driver that had to play all the way up to probably 2-3khz where the tweeter takes over.

 

[JackD201]

I would argue that the perceived quality/resolution and loudness is connected. If you blind tested two speakers and one of them were louder, you'd be likely to perceive that one as better, because the higher volume will allow you to hear more detail, thus finding it to have higher resolution and/or quality.

We also know that people generally rate speakers with good bass higher, which further supports the idea that a loudspeaker playing softer (and thus with less perceived bass due to Fletcher Munson) will not be perceived as good.

Generally yes and that is why I specifically noted in bold and italic the OP's situation, one that is specifically qualitative to a device under test.

When I post I try my best to address any OP's stated situation. More often than not the reason the question is posted in the first place is because the possible answers might be on the fringes of the generally accepted. That is not to say that my recommendations may not have negative ramifications under different conditions. It is just my thoughts on what "tools" might be most practical for the situation. Nothing more.

 

[JackD201]

.....

Regardless of absolute quality some systems play nice with better resolution at lower volume. My advice to the initial poster would be to try the obvious like near field listening and speaker positioning. If your system is still not allowing you to play the music at a level where it sounds best to you then you need to investigate what system changes would meet your needs.

Yes!

 

[DaveC]

Is that to:
- make them lighter?
- make them stiffer?
- affect breakup modes?

Many paper cones are resonant within their operating range.

Yes, all are considerations.

Paper often has more benign breakup relative to other materials and only shows up as an audible problem at higher volumes, with hard cones you need to avoid them and and it's here I think a steeper or elliptical xo slope is required. it can make the difference between a driver like Accuton sounding mechanical and hard to listen to vs just sounding really amazing with no hint of that mechanical noise.

I went to great lengths with my very light paper cone wideband midrange driver to mitigate resonance. It's a ~4.5" driver with a 1.2g cone, but I add a few tenths of a gram of varnish and anti-resonant material. The main goal is to have the driver sound the same at low volumes vs high volumes. By design it can do low volumes really well but it took some effort to get it to sound exactly the same at higher volumes. It also naturally has a rising response, but it's matched to a horn that increases efficiency at lower frequencies, both linearizing response and controlling dispersion at the same time. It's really good at low volumes but it's paired with a lower efficiency woofer with a much stiffer cone and a horn tweeter.

I think the main point is that a speaker that's great at complex music is great for reasons that also make it less ideal at very low volumes. I'm sure there are some exceptions, maybe some really large and high efficiency speakers that use an amp that is powerful, yet also has a good 1st watt. But in general, if low volume listening is really important purchasing a single driver/SET to go along with your big 3-4 way system isn't a bad solution.

 

[Holmz]

Is that to:
- make them lighter?
- make them stiffer?
- affect breakup modes?

Many paper cones are resonant within their operating range.

Yes, all are considerations.

I thought it was an either or choice, not all the above.

Paper often has more benign breakup relative to other materials and only shows up as an audible problem at higher volumes, with hard cones you need to avoid them and and it's here I think a steeper or elliptical xo slope is required. it can make the difference between a driver like Accuton sounding mechanical and hard to listen to vs just sounding really amazing with no hint of that mechanical noise.

Ok - I think we are back to cone breakup.

I went to great lengths with my very light paper cone wideband midrange driver to mitigate resonance. It's a ~4.5" driver with a 1.2g cone, but I add a few tenths of a gram of varnish and anti-resonant material. The main goal is to have the driver sound the same at low volumes vs high volumes. By design it can do low volumes really well but it took some effort to get it to sound exactly the same at higher volumes. It also naturally has a rising response, but it's matched to a horn that increases efficiency at lower frequencies, both linearizing response and controlling dispersion at the same time. It's really good at low volumes but it's paired with a lower efficiency woofer with a much stiffer cone and a horn tweeter.

The main goal of some of the other designs are to be more pistonic, or stiffer, or stronger.
Particularly the ones using the exotic materials like Beryllium and ceramics.
The paper mache style cones are certainly as old as anything else, and a good solution… and it is not like one is using them at 20Hz to pump air in-n-out of a port, where they might need an alloy cone..

I think the main point is that a speaker that's great at complex music is great for reasons that also make it less ideal at very low volumes. I'm sure there are some exceptions, maybe some really large and high efficiency speakers that use an amp that is powerful, yet also has a good 1st watt. But in general, if low volume listening is really important purchasing a single driver/SET to go along with your big 3-4 way system isn't a bad solution.

I am still having a hard time seeing how a higher mms in particular can make a speaker that does not work at low volumes.
These driver have essentially zero friction, and can move on the order of angstroms and produce low level sound.
The air’s mass is also stuck to the cone, to an extent, so it is not like the driver is trying to flap away, but cannot because the cone is too heavy. A heavier cone just means it takes more power to accelerate it, and a large number of drivers are now 4 ohm, so it is not like the driver people care a lot about the power required to make sound.

 

[DaveC]

I am still having a hard time seeing how a higher mms in particular can make a speaker that does not work at low volumes.
These driver have essentially zero friction, and can move on the order of angstroms and produce low level sound.
The air’s mass is also stuck to the cone, to an extent, so it is not like the driver is trying to flap away, but cannot because the cone is too heavy. A heavier cone just means it takes more power to accelerate it, and a large number of drivers are now 4 ohm, so it is not like the driver people care a lot about the power required to make sound.

I'm just trying to relate my own actual in real life experience.

In general, a driver with a heavier cone is going to have a less compliant suspension, it has nothing to do with friction, but how much force is required to move the driver's suspension, like the force required to move a spring. So the moving mass of the system plus the force required to move the suspension determines power required. A lighter cone with a lighter and more compliant suspension will require less power and IME is also capable of maintaining dynamics and resolution at lower volumes.

 

[PeterA]

Exactly the opposite. He cannot be more wrong. The higher you can turn the volume up to realistic levels without fatigue the better the components are.

Why would it not be the ability to go both soft and loud?