Power . How much do we need...

but Frank none of your references as best I can tell address the very question upon which we are all interested as mentioned above
The references note that higher levels of roughness, or I would here refer to audible levels of unpleasant distortion, creates the subjective impression of greater loudness, when the SPL's haven't changed significantly. So one can derive from that, that for a particular sound source, say an audio system that is warming up and changing SQ, "roughness", as it does so, that the perceived volume does alter ...

Frank
 
Gregg

I am also confused by the inference that a less powerful amp because it is clipping ir distorting starts sounding louder than a more powerful one ... My experience is different. I do understand that some amps distort more or less gracefully than others but this is new to me.
 
Distorted or dirty sound plays louder than a clean or less distorted sound. I would think so and isn't that why most audiophiles warm up there amplifiers. I know from my experience that the music becomes more open the longer the system is running from a cold start.
 
The latest discussion started with this comment from Frank regarding psychoacoustics: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ch-do-we-need...&p=78434&viewfull=1#post78434. Since you used the same phrase, I thought you were backing up his contention.
My contention is that the distortion and noise often escalates as power output increases. I am suggesting there is a correlation between noise and distortion and perceived loudness


If I asked you then about the observation regarding FM multipath, would you say it makes FM stations louder or just distorted?

The distortion (mulitpath) causes me to perceive it as louder.

Gregg

I am also confused by the inference that a less powerful amp because it is clipping ir distorting starts sounding louder than a more powerful one ... My experience is different. I do understand that some amps distort more or less gracefully than others but this is new to me.

Frantz

If I read the graphs correctly they show changes in THD and noise within the power rating I never said anything about clipping.
 
Last edited:
but Frank none of your references as best I can tell address the very question upon which we are all interested as mentioned above

Steve,

The only immediate reference I could find in a five minutes search was in a study about the effects of distortion in speech, carried at the Centre for Law Enforcement Audio Research of the Imperial College in London

There is a slight reference to it :

"Scientific studies of our perception of distortion appear to show that the quality of distorted speech is perceived along dimensions of overall clarity, signal-background distortion, and subjective loudness."

http://www.clear-labs.com/tutorial/eval09.php

I remember reading about the subjective effects of distortion in the 80s - unhappily it was before the internet and it is not possible to trace using google.
 
Apologies, just corrected it. It was addressed to you.
I have not had to level match speakers. I actually think that level matching speakers is not quite possible due to wide frequency response variations. I have read the research papers on various ways of doing it by weighing different frequency bands but at the extreme, we have to admit that we are not truly level matching them.
 
Couple of things:

With regard to hiss: "which listeners perceived sound with hiss as much "louder" than clean sound?" is not what Amir stated, rather that the subjective impression of hiss did not drop as much as he expected, given the difference in posted sensitivities of the speakers. What would be worthwhile knowing is: did Amir drop the volume on the 100dB speakers by 14dB, and note the subjective volume on music playback, and compare that with the 86dB speakers. If there was a good match, on average, then the ratings would be quite accurate, from the point of view of a listener. If he still felt that the hiss variation did not make sense, then is also easy to suggest a solution for that: speaker FR's are lucky to fit in a 6dB envelope, + and -3dB. So for 2 speakers there could easily be up to a 12dB difference in sensitivity over part of the spectrum, and if that happened to be in the area of the particularly "hissy" frequencies, and the differences favoured the right direction, then there would barely be any SPL variation in that key part of the audio band.

I was a little rough with my answer about roughness correlating with loudness, and doing some more research I'm finding out some facinating stuff: it's certainly accepted in the pro audio world that increased distortion in a sound gives it a perceived greater loudness, they're quite happy to call it psychoacoustic. Yet it appears that research people have little desire to link psychoacoustic elements of sound together: they largely take them as being mutually exclusive. The key criteria are sharpness, roughness, tonality, and loudness, all exist totally independently, in the academic minds, and it's all about "measuring" pleasantness of those "qualities". My goodness, you get less pleasantness with increasing sharpness, roughness, and and to some degree loudness -- who would have thunk it??!! Yet no-one seems to want to measure whether loudness is in fact dependent on roughness, and sharpness, someone must have decided that the ear/brain just doesn't work that way, oh well ...

Frank
 
Think I've found the right read: only problem, text not available unless someone pays. Any offers?

Investigations of the Effects of Nonlinear Distortions on Psychoacoustical Measures—Stephan Herzog, Technical University Kaiserslautern - Kaiserslautern, Germany

"The perception of nonlinear distortions of audio devices, in particular the perception of nonlinear distortions of digital audio, is only insufficiently described by typical measures like THD. To provide a better insight into perceptual effects of nonlinear distortions, their audibility, and the impact on the psychoacoustical measures like loudness and sharpness is examined. For this purpose a test method has been developed. The first step in the test is the measurement of the frequency response of the device under test with an efficient method to enable the separation of linear and nonlinear processing. The second step of the test consists of the computation of the psychoacoustical measures and the thresholds for the audibility of nonlinear distortions. Both computations are based on the same psychoacoustical model to obtain consistent results. Results for several types of distortion obtained with simulations and measurements on analog circuits are presented."

Frank
 
Tim, thanks for putting me on the spot :b! My "understanding" of this area is a combination of my own experiences, deliberating "testing" myself while listening to sound in various situations, and relatively lately, noting various references and more scholarly writings in a number of places over a period of time.

So, did a mad scramble to get something more concrete: in regard to AGC, Automatic Gain, or volume, Control with the ear, there is a lot of material out there, a start could be -- AUTOMATIC GAIN CONTROL IN COCHLEAR MECHANICS: http: www.dicklyon.com/tech/Hearing/AGC_MOH1990-Lyon.pdf

With regard to perceived volume vs. sound quality, a concept that is used is the "roughness" of the sound, gives an excellent impression of what is being focused on, try -- Psychoacoustics Analysis in ArtemiS II: http://www.head-acoustics.de/downloads/eng/application_notes/PsychoacousticAnalysesII_06_11e.pdf
and
The Psychoacoustics of Sound-Quality Evaluation: http://www.zainea.com/fastl.htm

Frank

I don't see your earlier statements answered in any of that. I think most of us would agree that distortion contributes to fatigue, makes us want to turn down the volume, makes the music seem more forward, harsh...yeah, louder. If that had been what you said, you would have had heads nodding to a resounding, "duh." At least mine would have been nodding. But you went much further than that:

A big part of the equation is that the ear/brain is excellent at compensating for actual, sound level meter readings; your mind does a lot of automatic volume adjustment, and this depends a great deal on the quality of the sound. If there is something wrong with the sound, like hiss, your brain winds up the internal volume control, and the "defect" screams at you!

My brain turns up the noise floor, relative to the signal? A pretty bold statement, totally unfettered by doubt. No "I think," "it seems to me" "I hear" just a statement of facts where, so far, there are none.

Likewise, when the quality of sound varies over a period of time, the apparent volume will change markedly: Roger will be upset with me saying this , but the actual SPL does not vary one bit while this is happening but your mind registers the impact of it as the system getting louder or softer: psychoacoustics, whether you like it or not, figures very prominently in the listening experience.

Now my brain is turning my system up and down with the "quality of the sound;" no manipulation of the volume control is required. Given your long history here, Frank, is it fair to assume that it would seem as if my favorite recording had suddenly been turned up when my neighbor turns on his washing machine?

This is not a rule or anything, which is why it is not green, but it seems to me that it would be useful, when you're just speculating like this, to say so instead of presenting it as established science without the slightest indication that you have taken a kernel of universal experience and imagined it into a barge load of pseudo-science. An "I imagine," or a "here's a thought," or "what if?"...might help lurkers and newbies, who don't understand your unique posting style quite as well as some of us, differentiate between your vivid imagination is at work, your personal experience unverified or repeated by anyone, anywhere, and those rare moments when you are actually talking about something that has been observed outside of your own mind.

Tim
 
Tim, some of what I've mentioned is established science for whatever that's worth, some is personal experience over the order of 20+ years, some is fueled by genuine enthusiasm for this hobby/interest. Also, the last time I checked this forum wasn't an alternative to Nature or New Scientist journals; I took it to be an arena, a place where ideas, thoughts, experiences and perspectives could be put forward without rigid dissection of every statement to an inch of its being, where political correctness wasn't the key quality control mechanism. My apologies for misunderstanding the purpose of this place ...

As regards some of the points I made, there is a great deal of material "claiming" that the ear does have a effective inner volume control, I'm not a lone voice here. And with respect to the perceived volume varying, a number of members have already echoed that point, and it is frequently remarked upon by others elsewhere in the audio world. The world of pyschoacoustics research is filled with material pointing out that the qualities of sound certainly have dramatic effects on the listening experience, though they use this rather remarkable and highly measurable variable called "pleasantness" to judge the impact of sound, my mistake was to confuse that with apparent loudness, as noted in my last post.

I could get somewhat pessimistic about reactions to my contributions here, but I'm fortunate enough to have the HT lift my spirits, put on a $1 CD picked up from the markets, of a local blues outfit for the first time today: the minimalist recording technique allowed all the grit and bite of the sound of a real group through, and in those moments what anyone thinks what my listening experience is like can go jump ...

Frank
 
Last edited:
No apologies are necessary, Frank as I do not speak for the purpose of this place. I just think it's a really good idea, when speaking broadly, speculatively, of things you've theorized and perhaps experienced in personal experiments with hair dryers, aluminum foil and HT, to make it clear that's what you're talking about instead of implying that it is fact. That's my personal opinion, not an official position of the board. And yes, you can find material tangentially related to your very specific statements, and probably plenty of it. That is seldom difficult, no matter how...theoretical...the statements. That doesn't make presenting your specific WAG of the day without qualification any more honest.

MHO. YBSMV.

Tim
 
(...) Also, the last time I checked this forum wasn't an alternative to Nature or New Scientist journals; I took it to be an arena, a place where ideas, thoughts, experiences and perspectives could be put forward without rigid dissection of every statement to an inch of its being, where political correctness wasn't the key quality control mechanism. My apologies for misunderstanding the purpose of this place ...
(...)

Frank,
I think you are not alone - this is also my idea of this forum and why I keep posting.
Surely, WBF technical experts posts with a more rigid formal approach are also a great !
 
Tim, some of what I've mentioned is established science for whatever that's worth, some is personal experience over the order of 20+ years, some is fueled by genuine enthusiasm for this hobby/interest. Also, the last time I checked this forum wasn't an alternative to Nature or New Scientist journals; I took it to be an arena, a place where ideas, thoughts, experiences and perspectives could be put forward without rigid dissection of every statement to an inch of its being, where political correctness wasn't the key quality control mechanism. My apologies for misunderstanding the purpose of this place ...

Frank
Frank, as Tim noted, what he post is his personal opinions, not the formal position of the forum.

I will speak however as official position of the forum now :). There is absolutely no issue with sharing experiences and opinions of audio. You can say that black is white and white is black as a matter of *your opinion* and that is OK.

What is not OK is to say the science says X and then not back that, especially if it is a concept that is new such as what we were discussing. The notion that the brain adjusts the volume when hearing the exact same noise in two different setups is highly unorthodox. It may be true. But requires the back up in the first post or it should be said as, "I don't know if this is true or proven by research but I think it works this way." Here is how you put it instead:

A big part of the equation is that the ear/brain is excellent at compensating for actual, sound level meter readings; your mind does a lot of automatic volume adjustment, and this depends a great deal on the quality of the sound. If there is something wrong with the sound, like hiss, your brain winds up the internal volume control, and the "defect" screams at you!

From my read of your posts, it seemed that you said that and then went on to try to find research to back it. That is backward. If your experience told you the above was true, you would have needed to go and do the research first, then post it together with your opinion of it.

I don't want to be overly formal about this but we have this in our Terms of Service:
"9. Where possible, please avoid generalizations which create heated arguments. Please don’t say “all amps sound the same” but rather, “all the amps I have heard sound the same to me.” Following this rule not only makes for a calmer atmosphere, but also saves you hours and days of aggravation while you try to defend your point of view!"

Again, nothing here is against people sharing experiences or opinions of any nature. It is all about stating a scientific point as factual that is unusual but not putting forward back up for it. Hope you understand :).
 
I don't want to be overly formal about this but we have this in our Terms of Service:
"9. Where possible, please avoid generalizations which create heated arguments. Please don’t say “all amps sound the same” but rather, “all the amps I have heard sound the same to me.” Following this rule not only makes for a calmer atmosphere, but also saves you hours and days of aggravation while you try to defend your point of view!"

Again, nothing here is against people sharing experiences or opinions of any nature. It is all about stating a scientific point as factual that is unusual but not putting forward back up for it. Hope you understand :).
Fair enough ...

Thanks for that, Amir.

Frank
 
Sorry to continue here, but for my personal understanding I like to explore sufficiently to get a firm grasp on a subject. If I feel something intuitively, I need to find some strong counter arguments to support the opposing point of view. So anyway, still chasing down this loudness thing, came across a seemingly excellent book, entitled strangely enough "Loudness", by Mary Florentine et al, which goes into the subject somewhat in depth. And I like their point of view ...

Some quotes, from what's available in Google preview:

"There is no simple one-to-one correspondence between loudness and any physical property of a sound, including level. A review of how loudness changes with physical properties of sound can be found in ..."

"For example, a red sports car will be judged to be slightly louder than a green sports car ..."

... and, very interestingly:

"... another fascinating empirical phenomenon is how loudness depends on the manner in which sounds are presented and the listening environment. In general, loudness changes with distance from the sound source, but not always. Loudness can remain constant in the presence of substantial changes in the physical stimulus caused by varying sound distance. ... This phenomenon is referred to as loudness constancy."

Perhaps like moving closer and further away from a speaker ...??

And, finally:

"Another common error is use of the term "intensity" to connote loudness. Loudness is a subjective attribute of sound, whereas intensity is a physical attribute of sound."

Fascinating stuff, certainly takes it beyond the standard curves people quote ...

Frank
 
This is a hot potato if ever there was one.. How much power? In simple terms, "as much as you need to reproduce the desired program material without audible or measurable distortion".

Loudspeaker efficiency plays a huge role, as does power compression and flux/core saturation in dynamic drivers.

Most any high powered audiophile system is going to be fine with Chamber music. Things get a bit dicey when the program consists of a full orchestra with big bass drums. Even more interesting when there's pipe organ and 32' pedals, on top of bass drums. Still more interesting when it's the 1812 and there's live cannons in the recording!

I've been through more than ten iterations of stereo systems since the 1960s, pursuing my goal of unfettered audio performance. I've moved from my OTL triode amps to solid state and went back to tubes for a while until the SS got better. I remember my first SS amp, a Fisher TX200. Ugh. Awful sound, unreliable and unstable.

In search of decibels, I built many horn-loaded systems, and used molded horns for midrange. That was the tail end of the tube era for me. They were pretty loud, but sounded awful.

I continued going up in wattage, to 800 wpc with the Phase Linear D500, but the speakers of that era just kept smoking and failing. Not to mention microscopic amounts of Xmax on so-called "woofers" of that era, all combined for a frustrating experience and many trips to the reconing shops.

Things got better in 2006, and new woofers were finally able to reach parity and beyond with the very fine mid/hf systems I was using since 1982. The wattage went up even more, and multiple arrays of speakers increased overall efficiency again through mutual coupling.

A while back, I did want to get some hard data, so I ran a 2.0v rms (measured with H/P AC voltmeter) brown noise (band limited 0-150Hz) into one dual 18" woofer cabinet (4 ohms) and measured the SPL, which was averaged to about 112dB. With the whole array of speakers operating, a 'signal present' threshold on the QSC amplifiers is 6 watts per amplifier. From the listening position some 8-9' away, the SPL runs about 129dB. When the -20dB LED starts to flicker, SPL hits the 140dB range, the meter's limit. But that's loud enough for me.

I run 2000W into each mid/hf driver (2000W is the short term measured dynamic head room into 8 ohms) which are industrial/professional drivers of very high sensitivity, have 4" voice coils, only .4mH of inductance and enormous power handling.

I listen to a lot of interesting stuff, mostly recordings I've made of pyrotechnics, orchestras and other stuff. Fireworks require very fast transient response and the ability to go very loud (close range recording, in this case, I was commissioned by Zambelli Fireworks to make a sound and video recording of one of their shows). There are probably only a handful of sound systems in the world that can reproduce the transients and the SPLs realistically.

Telarc's "1812" used to be a benchmark, though I was aware early on that at least 5 of the cannon shots were badly clipped in the recording.

My GBS recording sessions demonstrated that the loudest orchestral peak was 105dB at 4th row center, during rehearsal with the full orchestra. Average levels were around 97dB for all but the very loudest crescendos involving percussion.

At home, when I'm listening to Classical, I use the 105dB max peak as reference level. But when I listen to pop/rock or some heavy electronic music, realism becomes an oxymoron due to the electronic nature of the music--it's not acoustic anymore, so the rules about calibrated SPL are out the window. So it's 'as loud as it feels good' and for me that usually ends up with bass at around 137dB, enough for solid full body vibration, but not so much as to prevent breathing.

So, how much power? That depends on what you listen to. I currently maintain 16.5K of amplifier power on tap, though the circuit breakers would never support using anywhere near that amount. But I haven't blown anymore speakers since the 2006 upgrade.
 
Very impressive stuff, Mark!! I particularly find interesting that the peak SPL's for orchestral playback from the point of view of someone in the audience is only 105dB, not such a difficult number to achieve theoretically with today's equipment ...

You've mentioned a number of times the peak volumes achieved by your setup in the bass region; would you perchance have determined what the peak db's would be in the midrange, and treble areas, at least from the point of view of short term or pulse driving?

Frank
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu