Better systems more revealing in soft passages?

[Rip Van Woofer]

In BuckleMeister's excellent RealTraps review thread I went on a bit of a tangent wondering if really good speakers and/or really good rooms are more revealing in softer passages. He made a cogent reply (not the 'daft' part ). I thought rather than hijack the thread I'd put it here as a new thread (if only for those suffering from cabin fever) so here we are. Here's the relevant excerpt from my comments:

---

...Maybe you can confirm (or tell me I'm daft) something I've noticed: with each genuine upgrade I've made (i.e., better speakers or even rudimentary room improvements) the sound quality improvement is revealed as much or more in soft passages than loud - small details of attacks and decays seem to be more noticeable and contribute mightily to the realism. At least it seems to me.​

To which he said:

----

Nah. Just daft.

...For example, imagine someone was talking to you and suddenly spoke in hushed tones. You'd almost automatically lean forward to better hear what they were saying. With a quiet passage of music, you may not lean forward, but I suspect you still listen more attentively than during louder passages. Does this make sense?

Makes sense. And of course when you've made a system change you're naturally listening even more closely and will "hear" more whether it's there or not.

Another possiblilty: A good speaker/room system will naturally invite higher SPLs due to lower distortion (and perhaps a certain eagerness) so naturally you'll hear more even in soft parts simply because you're playing them louder.

However, I still think that there's something to my impression. Wonder if any objective research has been done on that? Calling Mtry and WmAx....!

Anyone else? Or is he right about my daft-ness (keep it to this subject!)

 

[Francious70]

You have to figure that at lower volumes the room interferes less and there is less cancellation and lower distortion, so I'd venture to agree with you.

 

[mtrycrafts]

You have to figure that at lower volumes the room interferes less and there is less cancellation and lower distortion, so I'd venture to agree with you.

Less distortion from speakers at lower volume for sure but less everything else, room interaction?? I seriously doubt it. That doesn't depend on volume, just frequencies, source locations, dimensions, etc.

 

[jaxvon]

Mtry,

I would venture to say that a lower volume the super-soft sounds that are reproduced by the speaker might not be audible by the time they make it to your ears. A well treated room or excellent speakers that have a flat response will ensure that these sounds reach your ears. You can also turn up the volume to help this, but there's only so high you can go.

As far as my opinion goes, I'd say it doesn't really just affect soft passages the most. Everything (IMO) is equally improved. Obviously some speakers do a better job with microdynamics, but at least in terms of room treatment, a good room will reveal small details as well as ensure intelligibility at all volumes.

 

[WmAx]

Another possiblilty: A good speaker/room system will naturally invite higher SPLs due to lower distortion (and perhaps a certain eagerness) so naturally you'll hear more even in soft parts simply because you're playing them louder.

This is all getting way OT! Sorry. But I still think that there's something to my impression. Wonder if any objective research has been done on that? Calling Mtry and WmAx....![/indent]

Anyone else?

Put on some headphones and compare to the stereo if you want to see the contrasted effect at maximum potential. This is simply an acoustic rule that less reverb/echo = greater intelligibility.

I recently replied to Buckle-Meister in a thread relating to this:
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=134578#post134578

Off on a bit of a tangent, I'll add that for differences in sound quality vs. treatments, this is specific to the room and speaker and the positions. If you have speakers with excellent power response, and the room has otherwise well controlled acoustics, and use standard stereo recordings(as opposed to special control recordings) then you can destroy sound quality(if you define sound quality as realistic spatial effect giving a more plausible space) of a speaker system if you remove certain reflections. However, there is always a compromise. You can for example, trade clarity and imaging precision(with a heavily dampened room, including all 1st reflections) for realistic ambience/space(which will not be possible with normal stereo recordings in an evironment that removes the reflective phantom sources). It depends on many variables. For example: If you have a well controlled room, and have speakers that have a response that is basicly similar at all axises, then the 1st reflections at the side and rear walls will contribute a signficant amount of realistic ambient effect, so long as the spacing from the wall allows a total return path that is greater than 5ms. But if you do the same with a speaker that does not have this excellent power response, then the previous example would not yeild the same results. And in the end, the user may even prefer using the speaker with omnipolar response with completely dampened 1st reflections. It depends on the music as well. If the music used is mainly 'dry'(as in no or little reverb or delay), then it will probably sound better with the dampened 1st reflections. But for music with spatial effects or ambience, the added spatial realism may defeat the clarity and imaging preference. User dependant.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

Mtry,

I would venture to say that a lower volume the super-soft sounds that are reproduced by the speaker might not be audible by the time they make it to your ears. A well treated room or excellent speakers that have a flat response will ensure that these sounds reach your ears. You can also turn up the volume to help this, but there's only so high you can go.

As far as my opinion goes, I'd say it doesn't really just affect soft passages the most. Everything (IMO) is equally improved. Obviously some speakers do a better job with microdynamics, but at least in terms of room treatment, a good room will reveal small details as well as ensure intelligibility at all volumes.

Yes, a well treated room and flat speaker will sound better at all levels.

But, at low levels, the spl falls off no matter what, equally with other speakers. you will loose more of the low levels if you turn the volume down hoping to get better details, dynamics, etc.
At low levels the hearing ability is also reduced. The JND is higher to detect small differences compared to say at 70dB spl, so, you will actually loose more with those micro-dynamics becoming inaudible or not detect it being a dynamic change if the JND approaches 1.5 dB spl, vs .3dB spl at higher level. You tell me which would be better?

In the end, you need a recording with well recorded low levels and listen at normal volume to detect it, or else, it is history, no?

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Yes, a well treated room and flat speaker will sound better at all levels.

But, at low levels, the spl falls off no matter what, equally with other speakers. you will loose more of the low levels if you turn the volume down hoping to get better details, dynamics, etc.
At low levels the hearing ability is also reduced. The JND is higher to detect small differences compared to say at 70dB spl, so, you will actually loose more with those micro-dynamics becoming inaudible or not detect it being a dynamic change if the JND approaches 1.5 dB spl, vs .3dB spl at higher level. You tell me which would be better?

In the end, you need a recording with well recorded low levels and listen at normal volume to detect it, or else, it is history, no?

Jaxvon and Mtry hit it on the head. When listening at low levels, the lowest and highest Hz are most difficult to reproduce. All the room treatments in the world won't raise the highest Hz to audible levels compared to those in the midrange. Remember the old "loudness" buttons on equipment - some car headunits still have them. They boost the lowest and highest frequencies when listening at lower levels. Adding an eq would do wonders if one prefers lower level listening - that terrible word audiophools dispise.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Another possiblilty: A good speaker/room system will naturally invite higher SPLs due to lower distortion (and perhaps a certain eagerness) so naturally you'll hear more even in soft parts simply because you're playing them louder.

From the point of view that there'll be a tendency to want to 'crank up the volume' when, having added room treatment and finding the clarity noticably improved, I agree.

You have to figure that at lower volumes the room interferes less and there is less cancellation and lower distortion, so I'd venture to agree with you.

I'm not sure I agree. As far as I know, sound heard at a point is comprised of the algebraic sum of all direct and reflected sound. I think the room interferes by the same proportion at all levels.

I would venture to say that a lower volume the super-soft sounds that are reproduced by the speaker might not be audible by the time they make it to your ears. A well treated room or excellent speakers that have a flat response will ensure that these sounds reach your ears.

I'm not sure I agree. Adding room treatment wont allow sound that wasn't reaching your ears before suddenly to 'make it the distance'. It'll simply absorb sound that had tended to mask what you were always hearing, thereby appearing to bring the now apparent sound 'to the forefront' as it were.

...I'd say it doesn't really just affect soft passages the most. Everything (IMO) is equally improved...in terms of room treatment, a good room will reveal small details as well as ensure intelligibility at all volumes.

It's the 'at all volumes' that I again must respectfully disagree with. As volume is increased further and further, there must come a point when room treatment can no longer absorb. It must have become 'saturated with sound' as it were. What this volume is I don't know, but would hazard a guess that it would depend upon the music content; bassy music causing saturation of treatment at a lower level than music with less bass content.

When listening at low levels, the lowest and highest Hz are most difficult to reproduce.

But Rip Van Woofer's question was not about listening at low volumes. It was about listening to quiet passages.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

But Rip Van Woofer's question was not about listening at low volumes. It was about listening to quiet passages.

Exactly. A number of replies exhibit confusion on this point!

 

[Dan Banquer]

..."Maybe you can confirm (or tell me I'm daft) something I've noticed: with each genuine upgrade I've made (i.e., better speakers or even rudimentary room improvements) the sound quality improvement is revealed as much or more in soft passages than loud - small details of attacks and decays seem to be more noticeable and contribute mightily to the realism. At least it seems to me."

Your not daft, it's real.
d.b.

 

[STRONGBADF1]

Hi Rip,

Interesting question. I think listening more intently is most of it. In my limited expereance when I've made an improvment it has been across the board better. I'm planing on new speakers soon. Then after I get them in the room where I want them I will start on room treatments.(livingroom) Nothing to fancy just the "textile / bookshelf thing". I will have to see what happens!

It's the 'at all volumes' that I again must respectfully disagree with. As volume is increased further and further, there must come a point when room treatment can no longer absorb. It must have become 'saturated with sound' as it were. What this volume is I don't know, but would hazard a guess that it would depend upon the music content; bassy music causing saturation of treatment at a lower level than music with less bass content.



But Rip Van Woofer's question was not about listening at low volumes. It was about listening to quiet passages.

Hi Robbie,

I'm stepping out of my leauge here but here gos...How would it become saturated? The sound waves are not coming any faster and should not change in freqs. (meaning more/different) correct??? Is it that there is more energy to disapate?(sp?) Would it take longer to disapate more energy

Sorry Rip not trying to steer everyone away from your question...just trying to learn

Thanks, SBF1 "Doug".

 

[Buckle-meister]

I'm stepping out of my league here...

Me too.

How would it become saturated?...Is it [1] that there is more energy to dissapate? [] [2] Would it take longer to dissapate more energy?

Bear in mind that I don't know for certain that panels can become saturated (or that if they can, that this could occur under typical volume levels). It just seems logical to me that there must be a limit.

1. Assuming they could become saturated then yes, I am guessing that it would be due solely to an excess of energy over and above that which the panels could absorb (panels absorb by changing sound into heat through friction between the panel material's fibres as they vibrate in sympathy with the energy in the air). Think of a sponge. You can soak it with water, but once it's saturated, it doesn't matter how much more water you pour on it, the volume of water held by the sponge stays the same.
2. Again, assuming that panels could become saturated, it's not so much that excess energy would take longer to absorb as that it simply wouldn't absorb at all. Take our poor sponge again. Once it's saturated, any additional water doesn't get absorbed at some later point in time; it simply doesn't get absorbed at all. Meanwhile, back with absorbers, this would be the equivalent of excess sound being free to bounce around the room causing damage elsewhere. To this excess sound, it would be as if the panels never existed.

At least, that's my reasoning. I feel confident someone will shoot it down if it's all a lot of rubbish...

 

[Khorn]

For recording and mastering "near field monitoring" is used to prevent unwanted sonic introduction from room interactions. Also why LEDE setups are used.

The space a system is loaded into can cause unwanted echo and reflection that can increase with reproduced volume. This can in turn "muddy" or "smear" the sound specially at and above the "overload point" of that particular space.

 

[WmAx]

[*]Assuming they could become saturated then yes, I am guessing that it would be due solely to an excess of energy over and above that which the panels could absorb

The absorbtion is a linear process for all practical intents and purposes. The more energy you introduce to the material, the higher amplitude the material vibrates, vice versa. It's not going to have different absorbtion levels at different SPLs. So far as the saturation idea: it seems to me that it can not saturate 'like a sponge' in any realistic scenario. The thermal reaction is a result of micro movement/vibration of the material(s). Sure, at some point, there may be mechanical limitation of amplitude, but this would come at far higher levels than any speaker should possibly be able to produce. Imagine the material fibers moving enough in response to visibly move in response to broadband signal absorbtion. This would require so much SPL that I suspect it would be at lethal SPL.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

The space a system is loaded into can cause unwanted echo and reflection that can increase with reproduced volume. This can in turn "muddy" or "smear" the sound specially at and above the "overload point" of that particular space.

The echo and reflection is at a constant level in reference to the stimulus signal. The perception of this may change due to the variable sensitivity of human ears at differents SPLs or due to simple increase in SPL allowing a longer decay time to be detected. If the noisefloor of room X is 45 dB, and the SPL stimulus signal is 100dB, and this signal in the reverberant field has a fixed decay at a fixed time vs. decay ratio, then if you increase the same stimulus signal to 110dB, the end of the decay will be slightly increased in audiblity becuse it will exist above the noisefloor for a longer period.

-Chris

 

[Buckle-meister]

...at some point, there may be mechanical limitation of amplitude, but this would come at far higher levels than any speaker should possibly be able to produce...

Glad I put my 'get out clause' in my previous post.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...with each genuine upgrade I've made (i.e., better speakers or even rudimentary room improvements) the sound quality improvement is revealed as much or more in soft passages than loud - small details of attacks and decays seem to be more noticeable and contribute mightily to the realism. At least it seems to me.

I've had a think about the above but think there maybe a flaw.

Even if the upgrades you made were heard in the same room (thereby negating the varying influence of differently sized/furnished rooms on sound), unless the speakers and listening position also were the same in each instance, wouldn't any differences heard strictly be incompatible? I know for a fact that drawing my couch further away from the back wall has an enormous effect on what I hear (which may readily be proved from a frequency response plot).

 

[mulester7]

I've had a think about the above but think there maybe a flaw.

Even if the upgrades you made were heard in the same room (thereby negating the varying influence of differently sized/furnished rooms on sound), unless the speakers and listening position also were the same in each instance, wouldn't any differences heard strictly be incompatible? I know for a fact that drawing my couch further away from the back wall has an enormous effect on what I hear (which may readily be proved from a frequency response plot).

.....Buckle, I see your angle, but I agree totally with what RipVanWoofer said....I've been there for awhile now....I've experienced my system get better and better at pleasing me with lower levels, and noticing new things in old CD's and DVD's every day at background levels of volume....to me, it's become a benchmark for a sound-system to sound very good to me at moderate levels......

 

[Buckle-meister]

...I've experienced my system get better and better at pleasing me with lower levels, and noticing new things in old CD's and DVD's every day at background levels of volume...

Oh I agree. My room treatment upgrade has allowed me to hear instruments and sounds that even now are barely discernable and which I previously couldn't hear at all. Then again, I was listening to Outkast's 'Hey Ya' tonight and near the end of the song heard sounds crystal clear that I'd never heard prior to treating my room.

 

[mulester7]

Oh I agree. My room treatment upgrade has allowed me to hear instruments and sounds that even now are barely discernable and which I previously couldn't hear at all. Then again, I was listening to Outkast's 'Hey Ya' tonight and near the end of the song heard sounds crystal clear that I'd never heard prior to treating my room.

.....quality equipment and room conditioning are where it's at, Buckle, no doubt.....