loudnes control

inspiredsports

Fongolio wrote: »

I use the loudness control at low volume and I use an ADC Soundshaper 3 Paraequalizer and I love it. Totally enhances MY musical experience and I don't really care if I'm compensating for deficiancies or not an audio "purist". Sounds great to me and anyone who hears my rig.

The SDA effect totally messes with the "pure" music signal and most here will agree that SDA's sound great. So who cares? If it sounds good to you than it's good. Period.

Well, not really.

Your "pure" music signal would technically be the collection of performers playing live music in a room where your head was located.

Normal speakers as point sources reproducing recorded music introduce a non "pure" time delay from left ear to right ear that your head in the live room would not experience.

The SDA circuitry attempts to recreate the "pure" music signal.

you coud search "binaural recording" to get an idea of some of the theories that are out there concerning the space between your ears on your head, headphones and speakers in relation to how live versus reproduced music can be recorded and reproduced.

smglbrth

Loudness can "over-do" music as well, depending on the brand. My B&K PT-3 loudness totally overdoes it (in my opinion). I think it actually boosts 6 decibel jumps for both bass and treble. It does however come in handy for certain types of music, not very often. When I do use it, infrequently, I always need to mess with the tone controls to soften certain aspects depending on the music. The PT-3 loudness does dissolve the louder you have the volume as well.

To me, it all depends on the source, whether it be a CD, record, tape, whatever. Then it depends on how well the music was recorded onto the said source (this probably has more to do with it).

To me, it's a non-issue. Use it or not, the only opinion that matters is the one listening...

heiney9

Fongolio wrote: »

The SDA effect totally messes with the "pure" music signal and most here will agree that SDA's sound great. So who cares? If it sounds good to you than it's good. Period.

No it doesn't. Actually regular stereo is the type of output that messes with the "pure" music signal. Nothing in real life sounds like stereo, but SDA is actually much closer to how we really hear things. Now I'll admit that "stereo" recordings are made to enhance the characteristics of stereo, but stereo is an illusion to try and re-create real sound, and it does it poorly if one is looking for a realistic recreation of sounds in real life.

H9

thesurfer

Wow, you guys are into it, and know your stuff, bravo, But, i must agree, with russman, and smlglbrth, It seems to me, if your bass, treble are flat, it may be the way your told it should be,, but, it depends on the program source, alot of tapes, cd,s were recorded and mixed very differently, so, while it may sound good flat on one cd, it may sound like crap, set the same way, on another,, there was also a report in stereophile, called Down with flat, which goes deep into it,, at the end of the day, its really what you like,, i mean why have every thing set flat,, if it sounds simply dead, to you, because someone else said so??? i think not.

heiney9

But what you don't understand is those deficiencies in the recording can't be corrected with a simple bass/treble and loudness control. In many instances it makes it worse or adds nothing of value. The tone controls are so broad they are useless.

H9

[Deleted User]

I've always maintained the problem was that "loudness" was miss-named, it should have been called "quietness" or "low level playing". Meaning it was to be used when playing your system at background levels. When you call something "loudness" it invites over using. Kind of like calling salt "flavor booster", just put it on anything and it will taste better even if it doesn't need it. That used to be me, I'd reach for the salt automatically, not bothering to taste the food first.

Glowrdr

I know this isn't exactly apples to apples, but I believe I've read that a lot (OK..maybe just a couple) of receivers use something similar to an auto-adjustable-loudness?

I believe that by default, it will enhance certain frequencies at lower volumes unless you opt for the "Pure" mode (or whatever that particular manu calls it) Not sure if the same "loudness" principle is applied, but I do know it's generally a feature on some of the higher end models (AVR's) like the Elite line.

heiney9

I still contend based on my own experience as you move up the line in gear and with certain types of gear the F/M theory is greatly lessened. I had a Yamaha AX-1100U in my office rig and used the variable loudness for late night listening to compensate. I have the exact same rig now except the Yamaha is gone and I use a single ended class A tube amp and do not experience the same low level deficiencies with that piece as I did with the Yamaha.

Same goes from switching the Adcom 545 out for the Pass Labs Aleph 30 in the main rig. It's wonderful even played at very low volumes.

YMMV,

H9

Fongolio

I understand perfectly how SDA works and what it's intentioned purpose was. I was making the point that many people here seem to feel that any altering of the original recorded signal is evil. Even though the SDA effect is designed to make the listener hear the sound as it may be in real life, it is not the the signal the artist and producer had in mind when recording and many here believe this should be left completely unaltered. I don't. Many producers and sound engineers and mastering engineers eq the sound to how they think it sounds best. There is a huge range out there. Why do Steve Hoffman and Bob Ludwig masters generally sound better than others? I compensate for the shortcomings in the recordings AND in my system by using an eq at home. And, as for the SDA effect last night I was listening to Al Di Meola's Splendido Hotel and some of the effects were actually behind me. I would never here that in a live presentation unless he was set up like Roger Water's and playing in 4 channel live. Therefore even though the SDA effect simulates what real hearing is like, it alters the original intended signal and audio "purists" should shudder in horror. I happen to like how it alters it and enjoy it immensely.

thesurfer

Fongolio wrote: »

I understand perfectly how SDA works and what it's intentioned purpose was. I was making the point that many people here seem to feel that any altering of the original recorded signal is evil. Even though the SDA effect is designed to make the listener hear the sound as it may be in real life, it is not the the signal the artist and producer had in mind when recording and many here believe this should be left completely unaltered. I don't. Many producers and sound engineers and mastering engineers eq the sound to how they think it sounds best. There is a huge range out there. Why do Steve Hoffman and Bob Ludwig masters generally sound better than others? I compensate for the shortcomings in the recordings AND in my system by using an eq at home. And, as for the SDA effect last night I was listening to Al Di Meola's Splendido Hotel and some of the effects were actually behind me. I would never here that in a live presentation unless he was set up like Roger Water's and playing in 4 channel live. Therefore even though the SDA effect simulates what real hearing is like, it alters the original intended signal and audio "purists" should shudder in horror. I happen to like how it alters it and enjoy it immensely.

WoW, well put,

inspiredsports

Kenneth Swauger wrote: »

I've always maintained the problem was that "loudness" was miss-named, it should have been called "quietness" or "low level playing". Meaning it was to be used when playing your system at background levels. When you call something "loudness" it invites over using. Kind of like calling salt "flavor booster", just put it on anything and it will taste better even if it doesn't need it. That used to be me, I'd reach for the salt automatically, not bothering to taste the food first.[/QUOTE]


I apologize in advance for being so off topic, but have to share.

I actually made this observation when hiring employees. I would meet them for dinner to discuss the job opening, and one observation I made was whether they salted or tasted first.

Those that automatically reached for the salt seemed to end up being less qualified for what I was looking for.

concealer404

^That brings up all sorts of other different interesting analogies, actually.

I only "salt" things that are low on flavor, bland. Which is somewhat like what "loudness" was invented for.

Fongolio

thesurfer wrote: »

WoW, well put,

Thank you.

inspiredsports

Fongolio wrote: »

I understand perfectly how SDA works and what it's intentioned purpose was. I was making the point that many people here seem to feel that any altering of the original recorded signal is evil. Even though the SDA effect is designed to make the listener hear the sound as it may be in real life, it is not the the signal the artist and producer had in mind when recording and many here believe this should be left completely unaltered. I don't. Many producers and sound engineers and mastering engineers eq the sound to how they think it sounds best. There is a huge range out there. Why do Steve Hoffman and Bob Ludwig masters generally sound better than others? I compensate for the shortcomings in the recordings AND in my system by using an eq at home. And, as for the SDA effect last night I was listening to Al Di Meola's Splendido Hotel and some of the effects were actually behind me. I would never here that in a live presentation unless he was set up like Roger Water's and playing in 4 channel live. Therefore even though the SDA effect simulates what real hearing is like, it alters the original intended signal and audio "purists" should shudder in horror. I happen to like how it alters it and enjoy it immensely.

So all live or recorded music is performed in a room with no back wall reflection that could cause sound to be sensed from behind you ??

DON73

inspiredsports wrote: »

No controls in circuit, except perhaps balance.

That and volume control are all I'll ever use.

Fongolio

inspiredsports wrote: »

So all live or recorded music is performed in a room with no back wall reflection that could cause sound to be sensed from behind you ??

Not to the degree that my SDA's place instruments around the room. Some reflection of course is always heard (even though in my room I've taken efforts to eliminate most of them). Do you own SDA's or are you just attempting to be argumentative with me because I don't conform to the status quo regarding tone control, loudness and SDA effect? Did I even insinuate that I felt "all" live or recorded music would or wouldn't contain reflection? SDA's when functioning correctly will significantly alter the original intended sound. I feel it's for the good and dramatically increases my listening enjoyment. I really feel you are being argumentative with me just for the sake of arguing. Please clarify the reason for asking these questions. Thank you.

Kelvin

treitz3

thesurfer wrote: »

Local hi fi dealer says you shouldnt use loudnes control, to add db,s what say you folks,, think hes talking recievers,,,

Tone controls and especially the loudness control are knobs of sin. They are just a crutch and the audio Gods may just come down and hit your electrical grid with a bolt of lightning when you are not looking if you use them.

mhardy6647

appropos of almost nothing (other than my being a vintage Yamaha fanboy), here's the loudness contour characteristic of the venerable Yamaha CR-2020 receiver of ca. 1977...



and das Ding an sich:

inspiredsports

edited

inspiredsports

edited

inspiredsports

Fongolio wrote: »

Not to the degree that my SDA's place instruments around the room. Some reflection of course is always heard (even though in my room I've taken efforts to eliminate most of them). Do you own SDA's or are you just attempting to be argumentative with me because I don't conform to the status quo regarding tone control, loudness and SDA effect? Did I even insinuate that I felt "all" live or recorded music would or wouldn't contain reflection? SDA's when functioning correctly will significantly alter the original intended sound. I feel it's for the good and dramatically increases my listening enjoyment. I really feel you are being argumentative with me just for the sake of arguing. Please clarify the reason for asking these questions. Thank you.

Kelvin

SDA SRS 2's, SDA 2B's, SDA 1B's, SDA CRS+, Monitor 5Jr+ (non), Acoustic Research AR-7 (non). You might have missed the last couple of lines in my sig.

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics and I misunderstood your choice of words and quotation marks when you clearly stated "The SDA effect totally messes with the "pure" music signal."

But you are right in that I do believe tone and loudness control circuits alter the original music signal, whereas SDA circuitry restores the pure music signal.

Greg

mhardy6647

Nothing to do with loudnesss, but... I found a pair of AR-7s in my basement Tuesday night! :-O Not entirely sure how they got there.

Fongolio

inspiredsports wrote: »

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics and I misunderstood your choice of words and quotation marks when you clearly stated "The SDA effect totally messes with the "pure" music signal."

It could well be semantics. I really shouldn't have used the term "messes" because what it does, it does for good and not evil. Sorry if my tone was somewhat defensive or combative.

thesurfer

Fongolio wrote: »

It could well be semantics. I really shouldn't have used the term "messes" because what it does, it does for good and not evil. Sorry if my tone was somewhat defensive or combative.

As you stated earlier,, when music is mixed, and recorded, it all comes out different, listen to a original copy of a cassette from the 70,s- 80,s then put that same recording on, in cd format, big differance,, to say one should not use bass, treble or loudness, to make it sound good, is like we all should own bose speakers, cause dr.bose, says he thinks they sound like real music should,,,, I would think the real evil, is the folks at the sound board, mixing this,, and that to there liking, Nothing in a recording studio, is recorded Flat, its all colored by the guy at the mixing board,, thats my take on it,,,So, yes i agree with your take on this Fongolio, jimmy.

cnh

mhardy6647 wrote: »

appropos of almost nothing (other than my being a vintage Yamaha fanboy), here's the loudness contour characteristic of the venerable Yamaha CR-2020 receiver of ca. 1977...



and das Ding an sich:

That's an interesting shot in light of Yamaha's refacing of their latest 'integrated amps' this year? You might say some of the controls and dials of the A-S700 are a bit Retro?

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_022AS700B/Yamaha-A-S700.html?tp=34948

cnh

Tour2ma

inspiredsports wrote: »

I actually made this observation when hiring employees. I would meet them for dinner to discuss the job opening, and one observation I made was whether they salted or tasted first. Those that automatically reached for the salt seemed to end up being less qualified for what I was looking for.

Interesting screening criteria... probably not actionable either…

For me, SDA is not about purifying the stereo experience, it's about delocalizing stereo's twin point sources. And it does this very well...

SDA can enhance the music experience as it does in rock... e.g., who doesn't love clocks chiming all over the front wall in DSOTM's Time or Zep's Whole Lotta Love sliding into the room from down the hall on the left and exiting into the kitchen on the right... I think the bottom line here is that there is no set soundstage to relate to in a studio rock recording. Moreover many of the stereo "gimmicks" engineered into rock are just bigger coming out of SDA's… and in rock bigger was definitely better. My SRS’s remain my favorite Rock speaker.

However, SDA “muttles” the stereo experience for me of many full symphony performances. While I like the 5th row width of the soundstage, some instruments do not end up in the right place in relation to other instruments. I’d guess that this is an artifact of different instrument’s different frequency ranges. Yes, conductors (and composers) do have some discretion in the placement of their players, but by and large their placement has set for a couple centuries. While they may put me back in the 30th row, my original Amazings do full symphony much better than the SRS’s.

Lastly SDA can create a completely unnatural listening experience. No better example of this than the solo piano. I've any number of Horowitz recordings where SDA produces a piano over 12 feet wide... and as good as Vlad was he never tackled an ivory beast that large. My mirrored Dahlquist DQ-10’s remain my piano favs.

EDIT:... and similarly, loudness is not right for all music all the time, but for the right recording at the right time it can add to the enjoyment.... and cutting it in/ out is a lot easier than changing out speakers...

Tour2ma

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Nothing to do with loudnesss, but... I found a pair of AR-7s in my basement Tuesday night! :-O Not entirely sure how they got there.

OMG... a "magic" basement...

TroyD

I don't see that SDA alters the content in any way...at least in the sense of shaping or contouring the signal. It's cross-talk cancellation which is a zebra of a different stripe.

As far as the soundstage inconsistencies, Bruce, I've given that a lot of thought and attribute a large portion to the recording process, especially with multi-microphone recordings. I think how they mix it has a lot to do with it. This is just speculation on my part....but the recordings I find the most accurate in terms of what is where are the ones with minimal microphone setups.

BDT

heiney9

SDA's live and die by the recording engineer and that goes for piano as well. I've heard the knock about piano music and SDA's before and with the exception of a few recordings I don't experience the inconsistencies others do when playing piano music. I don't listen to any classical so the piano artists I'm referring to are more like artists on Windham Hill and in that vein or jazz piano, and finally "popular" music like Elton John, Tori Amos, Charlotte Martin, Regina Spektor, etc.

It seems the funkier the engineer tries to make the mix, as in trying to expand the standard stereo signal, the more exacerbated they seem on SDA's. I have some very simple live recordings done with minimal mixing and a few mics and the SDA's sound absolutely stunning...........breathlessly real. JAZZ AT THE PAWNSHOP sounds phenominal on SDA's. The more tricks, processing, and wizardry they try in the studio the farther the recording is from reality and the SDA's pick that up.

I'll say again SDA's live and die by the recording engineer. I can also say many recordings that sound a little funky on SDA's.............sound funky on standard speakers as well, just to a lesser degree. It's not like these funky recordings sound flawless on standard stereo speakers and then sound like **** on SDA's.

H9

P.s. Put in Madonna's - Ray of Light sometime on SDA's. They used Q-Sound processing to master that cd and it definitely is funky no matter what you play it on.

inspiredsports

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Nothing to do with loudnesss, but... I found a pair of AR-7s in my basement Tuesday night! :-O Not entirely sure how they got there.

I was thinking about selling mine (not thinking to hard mind you), but wanted to see if that was on your mind so we don't step on each others toes in the FM.


As far as SDA and piano, I've not personally run up against that, but I will say that SDA circuits and tone/loudness control circuits are not really apples and oranges.