Sound Pressure Level at Listening Position, K system, gain structure

[Kalpesh]

 

I have spent quite some time assessing PGGB, with success restricted to a tiny subset of early digital recordings. 

I have been happy to be confirmed by most respected people here that I’m not the only one to have my bad days/moments when I can’t enjoy music. I have stressed that our little games of comparing things is a factor that induces me in such bad moments. 

Now it’s time I stay away from AS for a while, things to do... But I wish to extend interrogations I started in my Deaf or Dumb thread about volume/SPL. 
I’ll be happy to read well thought comments. As a starter, I recommend @Confused's, the latest on Deaf or Dumb as I start this thread, with discussion of complex topics in mind rather than anathema or empty contradiction. 

 

Le Phénix des hôtes de ces bois wrote : « What's the goal? If it's accuracy, then we must know the volume the artists were playing at when the recording was made? Plus, if one's hearing isn't perfect, a volume adjustment could bring the level more in line with that live performance. What about Dark Side of the Moon, where there isn't a live performance? How should volume be set? It's a fool's errand and it makes no sense to specify a correct volume for listening.”

 

As of classical music, Bob Katz wrote : “The late Gabe Wiener produced a series of classical recordings noting in the liner notes the SPL of a short (test) passage. He encouraged listeners to adjust their monitor gains to reproduce the “natural” SPL which arrived at the recording microphone. The author used to second-guess Wiener by first adjusting monitor gain by ear, and then measuring the SPL with Wiener’s test passage. Each time, the author’s monitor was within 1 dB of Wiener’s recommendation. Thus demonstrating that for classical music, the natural SPL is desirable for attentive, foreground listeners. »

 

I have to say I’m with Bob Katz and believe I’m quite good at reproducing the natural SPL. Of course I heard the greatest pianist in large venues, not ideal, and it makes sense to have a recording of Richter slightly louder than in the concert hall. 

 

Jazz is tricky, I will call it mix bag for the moment.

 

I certainly would not call Bob Katz a fool and his K system a fool's errand and yet he made efforts to specify a correct volume for listening and published a list of recordings ( https://www.digido.com/honor-roll/ ) mentioning his monitor position with reference to 0, 0 being for 500-2K PN -20 RMS (available on his site) yielding 83 dB/monitor at Listening Position.

 

I own a 8 amplifiers, 1200 W total capable system, yet setting HQP at -3, I have to crank my preamp, at 63, a mere .5 dB from maximum volume and that is with +7 dB gain at the DAC’s entry ! @Miska

 I guess this is optimum gain with lowering in HQP ? or may I set 57 for it feels strange to be at max volume ? I also have the possibility to push entry gain to 20 but 7/8 sounds best. So we need amp power and speakers that might handle it…

 

500-2K PN -20 RMS says Bob Katz, it avoids bass debate but my 8K sure is above Katz’s target and it’s going to matter for pleasure…

It happens that Doug Sax’s mastering of Dark Side of the Moon is part of https://www.digido.com/honor-roll/

 

And it’s 1 point for Chris. I mean I couldn’t listen long at Katz’s suggested volume, even after I created a set of filters rolling-off my treble to be closer to KATZ’s. 98 dB C peak is too much for me!

 

I then played my favorite digital version, 5.1 MCH downmixed 2.0 and enjoyed it much more. It peaked at 94.5, very enjoyable, but I did not feel compelled to raise and up the pre gain to match the 98 reached with Doug Sax’s mastering. I preferred it with no HF roll-off and would have rather turned bass a bit down.

 

However, success playing at Bob’s recommended volumes with Shirley Horn and Rolling Stones though for the Stones I had to use the filters rolling off HF. And certainly others this afternoon

 

So, so far this a reminder that money should go first to basics : power and power handling capabilities. Then, I could agree that whatever pleases someone is the right volume for that someone. But this is also true of the mastering engineer : it sounded right, tonality, image, etc, for him with a certain frequency response and at a given SPL. When mastering has been done at enormous SPL we will have a bass shy reproduction at lower level, etc.

Thank you Bob Katz for publishing reference SPL, probably enjoyed by you with monitors set to your target. I certainly would not qualify your tentative a fool’s errand even though I rather let my speakers’ HF FR be rather than make them follow your target and even if I have to sometimes turn down volume, because there are many other factors, damping, reverb time etc that most certainly make my room lesser than yours.

 

So, I respect that enjoyment might be at different volumes but I certainly would not call Bob Katz a fool and his K system a fool's errand.

The 90 dB at forte of most classical music can certainly be reproduced at home and Bob Katz’s suggestion of a Mix/Mastering system allowing clever compression to put pop music’s forte, when and where there isn't a live performance as reference, in the ball park of classical music’s, very welcome.

 

Publishing Frequency Response and SPL at LP should be mandatory when publishing a review

 

[Kalpesh]

Some more from https://www.digido.com/honor-roll/ : Gabriel's Security, Nightfly and Joe Jacson's Body and Soul

 

Though peaking lower, Nightfly is the one for which I opted for rolled HF, all 3 were very enjoyable but so were Security and Body and Soul when I did not use the right PN to calibrate and was 3.5 dB too low.

 

I now measure as I should, with C weighting while calibration with narrow Pink Noise doesn't put C vs A weighting at stake.

 

I wonder how Katz determined the monitor positions he suggests, how he actually determines intrinsic loudness. What I can say is that I checked Jo Jackson's with A weighting and yeah then now it was compatible with 0 dB VU for 86 dB.

 

So, warning, following Katz's indication one gets real loud SPL ; once again the calibration to 83 dB/monitor has to be done with narrow PN

[Kalpesh]

quick update :

 

I'm now using my preamp at full volume, with an entry gain of 7.5 dB and K-20 reference is reached for -4 in HQP

 

I created new sets of correction filters ; Taming my 39 Hz bump is sometimes useful but the in room response I presented, with a bump, is still my default. I'm not convinced by HF roll off, be it to match Katz's (-7 from 1K to 20K) or the shelve that matches my analog rig response (-2.5 @4K HS 6dB slope)

 

so... I rather lower my volume sometimes. In my Deaf & Dumb thread I reported loving some records at described volume while I was 3.5 dB too low due to calibration with wrong PN. And in this thread I mentioned I loved better, with correct calibration, the tracks that were too low with the wrong calibration... well, I guess Bob Katz's volumes allow an assessment of how good your system in your room is. I have to humbly say that though I listened whole tracks with 96 peaks, I'm more comfortable at lower volumes.

 

My room + system as is allows me to be comfortable with peaks up to 92, sometimes it's good enough to play at Katz's recommended volumes, sometimes it overwhelms my room +system+ears since yielding higher SPL

 

No fool errand, but a challenge : I'm 3 to 4 dB from listening to the most demanding, highest SPL recordings, at Katz's indicated volumes : would need better gear and/or room for that but it won't be necessary to my happiness.

 

[Confused]

@kalpesh - do you have a link to where the 500-2K pink noise download is? I have had look at Bob Katz's website but cannot find it.

 

EDIT - I presume it is here (once you have a login)

 

https://www.digido.com/login-for-downloads/?redirect_to=%2Fdownloads%2F

[Kalpesh]

4 hours ago, Confused said:

@kalpesh - do you have a link to where the 500-2K pink noise download is? I have had look at Bob Katz's website but cannot find it.

 

EDIT - I presume it is here (once you have a login)

 

https://www.digido.com/login-for-downloads/?redirect_to=%2Fdownloads%2F

RIGHT ! you need to register to access the goodies

[Kalpesh]

I think I'm good for a while. Listening at calibrated volumes helped me refine things:

my gain structure

my convolution filters. I have 2 bass options, refined vs initial posting, 1 with the L channel matching the R's bump, strictly below 50, another without the bump but slight raises around 28 to match L and R down to 25 which is 1.5 dB below 1K, call it my go to for classical. The bumpy comes with 2 HF options : as is and with a -2.5/2.87 @ 8500 Hz dip, it's then not far from Katz's or some JBL's targets, (both might be in use in quite a few mastering studios) and more satisfying than a shelve or a full Katz's that seriously mess with the speakers. Plus Steve Hoffman regularly complains about 8 K boost by his competition.

 

Just listened to some tracks from DSOTM for the zillion's time and still discovered details and never heard the sax so timbrally rich and right.

 

Attached are logs of SPL I was very comfortable with, with distinct lyrics, and the cumulative spectrum for the 3 last tracks. Maybe we could open another thread : "Show us your DSOTM" BTW, the dip around 500 is an artefact due do the microphone fixed position, above and behind LP, close to back wall

[Kalpesh]

decision making process :

 

should we pick our favorite/flavour of the month filter and then adjust volume to comfort ?

or

Aim for volume and adapt ?

 

I was listening to Barenboim's Mozart quatuors and wondered if prestigious Teldex Studio Berlin engineers were really crushing dynamics since I was a few dB lower than even a K14 (6dB below 0 corresponding to 83/speaker with narrow band PN) or if I shouldn't look for the culprit where I sat. Went from the SDM route to the PCM route of the Holo with Sinc L /LNS15, chose my bump flattening room eQ, inverted the polarity of that DG label recording, and enjoyed at -7dB with the attached SPL for the last movement, seems decent for a no lid piano + 3 string instruments and a probably close miked (live) recording. Could not enjoy as much at -6 and -8 could have been fine too but I believe I was in the right ball park of a correct mastering with realistic SPL.

 

So, I encourage everybody to set for the reference SPL for an album suggested by Bob Katz (other sources welcome) and THEN do the right choices, of filter, cable, DAC, PSU, etc, etc, whatever we like comparing here, in order to match of get closer to the reference SPL

 

The listed ( https://www.digido.com/honor-roll/ )Joe Jackson and Shirley Horn are easy to match. Since most everybody here has the Nightfly, I guess, that could be your pick to

 

@PeterSt seems to be quite comfortable with high SPL ; maybe will he chime in ?

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

@PeterSt seems to be quite comfortable with high SPL ; maybe will he chime in ?

 

Hey Kalpesh - If High means 90dBSPL (say for average regularly recurring peaks at mid frequencies), then Yes.

 

I am such a guy who firmly believes in additional magic when the instruments play at realistic levels. Of course, everyone who attests that this relates to listening distance (in the concert hall) and more of such stuff, is correct to some extent, but not if you envision chamber music, or like I have it around myself, real instruments like a grand.

So I always have that grand as a reference, because it plays at 90dBSPL (nicely measured at 1m distance), hood/cover up.

 

Now since I use a full fletched drumkit for such references as well, I know that when setting the audio at ~ 90dBSPL, the crash cymbal becomes pretty painful. I mean, in reality - it is 110dBSPL. The practice through the audio system "almost still not", because in my system too it is still so that cymbals create massive SPL all right (even a hi-hat does) but it is still not the 110dBSPL when the piano plays (tuned) at 90. Luckily ...

 

I suppose you can imagine that being able to play at the louder levels without pain, 100% depends on the system itself. And I don't mean a system that does not output highs, the contrary (but dim those cymbals a bit please ;-)). It is all about how, yeah, "accurate" the system is capable to render all ?

Please notice that accuracy here is made up by me, because in the end we don't know what causes higher SPL to be bearable, but you can bet it will be about less distortion.

 

To kind of prove that I am not making up things too much, I always mention that each and every day I play at these levels for 3-4 hours in a row, in the living room with the family present. They are not (by me made) deaf - but it just works out with "a best" quality of that rendering. Let me mention explicitly that this works out just the same for 60's/70's music (could be The Beatles or any band with great hits back then).
Btw, I think it was in this thread that I read someone telling about his 3x12" (or was it even less ?) woofers in the open baffle  speaker, but over here this is not sufficient because that won't render the kick drum without distortion *and* with the stomach impact required. Umm, yes, I explicitly make these things working (like building the (commercial) speaker, which in the end is about (cm^2) math and cone surface + displacement needing to equal the kick drum's - that appeared to need 3x15" (Open Baffle wave guide horn)).

That I am crazy helps a lot.

 

It is nothing much to test in a concert hall, but you may recognize that in e.g. a restaurant it is totally easy to converse, although the piano/grand player won't be playing at its loudest (the contrary for obvious reasons). Still you will understand what I mean, and it is exactly this which allows for the louder SPL without (the wife) wanting to turn it down.

 

Here's some fun too : I can find you dozens of emails where the wife of the audio guy suddenly asks to turn UP the volume after receiving some product we're making over here. So this is all about it being "painful" or less or not at all.
Too loud obviously is just that, but over here this is well beyond 100dBSPL. However, I don't play at that levels because it is just not realistic any more. Exceptions exist (also related to mood) .

 

Lastly and most peculiarly (I'm sure), the room does hardly play a role with this. But this is only so when all is good first. For example, for me it is a measure that no standing waves should occur anywhere in whatever corner of the room. People who visited us know about the phenomenon. So try to envision that no matter the loudness, all sounds equally loud everywhere. No buzzing of higher frequency standing waves either.

So as soon as I observe the smallest of that, I know I have done something wrong.

And no room treatment at all (but the room has "audio" dimensions to begin with).

 

Of course anyone can apply his own rules to what sounds best (Bob Katz can do that too), but you can trust me on the possibility of tuning the piano at 90dBSLP, which could be way too much for the piano alone already. So indeed, having all the keys/notes played evenly across the board will a challenge to begin with, and if a few jump out, they may jump at you at 110dBSPL (standing waves stuff, or electrically already wrong (digital filter)), and of course you will turn it down.

And weren't bag pipes mentioned in this thread ? I think so. Maybe it was in another context, but bag pipes are the toughest for even sound across their spectrum. Of course, you'd think it is the player who can't play even, but it really is your system which easily can't.

 

Peter

[Kalpesh]

23 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Hey Kalpesh - If High means 90dBSPL (say for average regularly recurring peaks at mid frequencies), then Yes.

 

I am such a guy who firmly believes in additional magic when the instruments play at realistic levels. Of course, everyone who attests that this relates to listening distance (in the concert hall) and more of such stuff, is correct to some extent, but not if you envision chamber music, or like I have it around myself, real instruments like a grand.

So I always have that grand as a reference, because it plays at 90dBSPL (nicely measured at 1m distance), hood/cover up.

 

Now since I use a full fletched drumkit for such references as well, I know that when setting the audio at ~ 90dBSPL, the crash cymbal becomes pretty painful. I mean, in reality - it is 110dBSPL. The practice through the audio system "almost still not", because in my system too it is still so that cymbals create massive SPL all right (even a hi-hat does) but it is still not the 110dBSPL when the piano plays (tuned) at 90. Luckily ...

 

I suppose you can imagine that being able to play at the louder levels without pain, 100% depends on the system itself. And I don't mean a system that does not output highs, the contrary (but dim those cymbals a bit please ;-)). It is all about how, yeah, "accurate" the system is capable to render all ?

Please notice that accuracy here is made up by me, because in the end we don't know what causes higher SPL to be bearable, but you can bet it will be about less distortion.

 

To kind of prove that I am not making up things too much, I always mention that each and every day I play at these levels for 3-4 hours in a row, in the living room with the family present. They are not (by me made) deaf - but it just works out with "a best" quality of that rendering. Let me mention explicitly that this works out just the same for 60's/70's music (could be The Beatles or any band with great hits back then).
Btw, I think it was in this thread that I read someone telling about his 3x12" (or was it even less ?) woofers in the open baffle  speaker, but over here this is not sufficient because that won't render the kick drum without distortion *and* with the stomach impact required. Umm, yes, I explicitly make these things working (like building the (commercial) speaker, which in the end is about (cm^2) math and cone surface + displacement needing to equal the kick drum's - that appeared to need 3x15" (Open Baffle wave guide horn)).

That I am crazy helps a lot.

 

It is nothing much to test in a concert hall, but you may recognize that in e.g. a restaurant it is totally easy to converse, although the piano/grand player won't be playing at its loudest (the contrary for obvious reasons). Still you will understand what I mean, and it is exactly this which allows for the louder SPL without (the wife) wanting to turn it down.

 

Here's some fun too : I can find you dozens of emails where the wife of the audio guy suddenly asks to turn UP the volume after receiving some product we're making over here. So this is all about it being "painful" or less or not at all.
Too loud obviously is just that, but over here this is well beyond 100dBSPL. However, I don't play at that levels because it is just not realistic any more. Exceptions exist (also related to mood) .

 

Lastly and most peculiarly (I'm sure), the room does hardly play a role with this. But this is only so when all is good first. For example, for me it is a measure that no standing waves should occur anywhere in whatever corner of the room. People who visited us know about the phenomenon. So try to envision that no matter the loudness, all sounds equally loud everywhere. No buzzing of higher frequency standing waves either.

So as soon as I observe the smallest of that, I know I have done something wrong.

And no room treatment at all (but the room has "audio" dimensions to begin with).

 

Of course anyone can apply his own rules to what sounds best (Bob Katz can do that too), but you can trust me on the possibility of tuning the piano at 90dBSLP, which could be way too much for the piano alone already. So indeed, having all the keys/notes played evenly across the board will a challenge to begin with, and if a few jump out, they may jump at you at 110dBSPL (standing waves stuff, or electrically already wrong (digital filter)), and of course you will turn it down.

And weren't bag pipes mentioned in this thread ? I think so. Maybe it was in another context, but bag pipes are the toughest for even sound across their spectrum. Of course, you'd think it is the player who can't play even, but it really is your system which easily can't.

 

Peter

Thank you very much Peter, the wife factor is quite something : when we were married (different room then of course) I always had to turn volume down for ex wife ; now, when she visits, she is very happy with SPLs with peaks in the low 90's ie for stuff like Massive Attack. I think it's BOTH a measure of progress I made in tuning the system and progress we made in having a better tuned relationship.

[Kalpesh]

On 1/20/2022 at 9:06 AM, Kalpesh said:

 

 

So, I encourage everybody to set for the reference SPL for an album suggested by Bob Katz (other sources welcome) and THEN do the right choices, of filter, cable, DAC, PSU, etc, etc, whatever we like comparing here, in order to match of get closer to the reference SPL

 

 

 

In the same line of thought, NS9 helps better than the popular LNS15 in reaching the reference (loud) SPLs with comfort and ease in conjunction with Sinc L. I also tend to use more my convolution filters flattening the #40 Hz bumps (L&R)

[Kalpesh]

On 1/17/2022 at 5:56 PM, Kalpesh said:

quick update :

 

I'm now using my preamp at full volume, with an entry gain of 7.5 dB and K-20 reference is reached for -4 in HQP

 

 

 

And then of course I digitally attenuate in HQP. 

 

@Kal Rubinson I don't even dare thinking I could teach you something but I'm surprised you did not mention that trick in your Topping pre review in Stereophile. 

 

I too need a preamp because of convo (the 20 dB loss you mention sounds a lot, though). 

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

@Kal Rubinson I don't even dare thinking I could teach you something but I'm surprised you did not mention that trick in your Topping pre review in Stereophile. 

I am always happy to learn something new but I do not understand what your "trick" is and how it is relevant to what is in my review.  Please explain.  Thanks.

[Kalpesh]

3 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I am always happy to learn something new but I do not understand what your "trick" is and how it is relevant to what is in my review.  Please explain.  Thanks.

in a nutshell : optimum S/N for a preamp is obtained at full volume (NO attenuation). So I keep my preamp, for its gain I need cause of convolution filters plus I use its volume knob when I listen via my vinyl rig, but when listening through my DAC, I turn the knob to its max, 63.5 in my case : NO attenuation for however it works (ie more and more resistance applied), it's the may cause of sound degradation. And I control volume in HQP

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Kalpesh said:

in a nutshell : optimum S/N for a preamp is obtained at full volume (NO attenuation). So I keep my preamp, for its gain I need cause of convolution filters plus I use its volume knob when I listen via my vinyl rig, but when listening through my DAC, I turn the knob to its max, 63.5 in my case : NO attenuation for however it works (ie more and more resistance applied), it's the may cause of sound degradation. And I control volume in HQP

Ah.  But of course, I do use them at 0dB gain with digital volume control upstream.   If I run them at higher than 0dB, there is some added noise audible on with my ear to the speaker drivers.  On the occasions when I need more gain, it is more than acceptable.

 

For the review, I also evaluated them at lower and higher gains.  

 

I do not know what 63.5 means.  (FWIW, the Pass XP-32 is 0dB gain at a setting of 179 with a maximum of 199.)

[Kalpesh]

15 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Ah.  But of course, I do use them at 0dB gain with digital volume control upstream.   If I run them at higher than 0dB, there is some added noise audible on with my ear to the speaker drivers.  On the occasions when I need more gain, it is more than acceptable.

 

For the review, I also evaluated them at lower and higher gains.  

 

I do not know what 63.5 means.  (FWIW, the Pass XP-32 is 0dB gain at a setting of 179 with a maximum of 199.)

ok then we were/are two to not know what the other means. Seems I have not understood at all what you tried to do/explain : I understood you needed a pre for you have to compensate for a 20 dB loss because of Dirac, which would imply going over unity gain to compensate. Do you mean that the Pass is at unity gain at 179 and that you can go 20 over unity ? I own a Jeff Rowland and when I'm talking gain I mean the value set at entry, +7,5 in my case. I mentioned 63.5 as the maximum reading when turning the volume knob, doesn't mean anything else ; display reads from 0 to 63.5, I turn all the way up when listening through the DAC. Ayre seems to work as the Jeff : gain settings per entry.

 

So, when you write "I quickly confirmed the essential transparency of the Topping Pre90 across a wide range of attenuation and gain settings" I was surprised for in JRDG and Ayre's worlds, or so is my understanding, best transparency is obtained with NO attenuation. And your colleagues at Stereophile suggested 8 to 12 gain as best for my pre

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Kalpesh said:

I understood you needed a pre for you have to compensate for a 20 dB loss because of Dirac, which would imply going over unity gain to compensate.

Yes, there is a ~20dB loss but I do not need all of it back.  Also, at the moment, I am not using Dirac.

1 hour ago, Kalpesh said:

Do you mean that the Pass is at unity gain at 179 and that you can go 20 over unity ?

I can go 20 steps over 179.  However, that is only about 10dB (XLR in/out).

1 hour ago, Kalpesh said:

I own a Jeff Rowland and when I'm talking gain I mean the value set at entry, +7,5 in my case.

I still do not know what that means in terms of +/-xxdB of gain.

1 hour ago, Kalpesh said:

I mentioned 63.5 as the maximum reading when turning the volume knob, doesn't mean anything else ; display reads from 0 to 63.5

OK.  So, unless you have the specs and/or measurements of the Rowland pre, none of these number have any meaning to me.

1 hour ago, Kalpesh said:

I was surprised for in JRDG and Ayre's worlds, or so is my understanding, best transparency is obtained with NO attenuation.  And your colleagues at Stereophile suggested 8 to 12 gain as best for my pre

You may have read that and perhaps it is so but can you hear it? 

 

So, no attenuation does not mean 0dB gain.  It depends on the specific device.  

[Kalpesh]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Yes, there is a ~20dB loss but I do not need all of it back.  Also, at the moment, I am not using Dirac.

I can go 20 steps over 179.  However, that is only about 10dB (XLR in/out).

I still do not know what that means in terms of +/-xxdB of gain.

OK.  So, unless you have the specs and/or measurements of the Rowland pre, none of these number have any meaning to me.

You may have read that and perhaps it is so but can you hear it? 

 

So, no attenuation does not mean 0dB gain.  It depends on the specific device.  

Yes, there is a ~20dB loss but I do not need all of it back.  Also, at the moment, I am not using Dirac.

 that was your narrative and rational to justify a pre

 

I can go 20 steps over 179.  However, that is only about 10dB (XLR in/out).

?

I still do not know what that means in terms of +/-xxdB of gain.

OK.  So, unless you have the specs and/or measurements of the Rowland pre, none of these number have any meaning to me.

sure you know 0 is less than 63.5, and that 63.5 is not -63.5 : thought you could figure that as an illustration of maximum volume beyond the figure

 

You may have read that and perhaps it is so but can you hear it? 

Sure I can hear it, I saw it written in Stereophile

 

So, no attenuation does not mean 0dB gain.  It depends on the specific device.  

Either I'm as dumb as you try to play me or you totally failed in exposing a solution reaching the goal of your narrative (of course since "there is a ~20dB loss but I do not need all of it back.  Also, at the moment, I am not using Dirac."...) : that was, to my understanding : best way to use a preamp to restore gain when necessary (lost to convolution in your narrative) while keeping as much as possible the benefits of no preamp. I suppose bashing expensive pre was more exciting and more the point. Those interested in optimising volume control when gain must be added via a preamp should then consider watching : 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

47 minutes ago, Kalpesh said:

Either I'm as dumb as you try to play me or you totally failed in exposing a solution reaching the goal of your narrative (of course since "there is a ~20dB loss but I do not need all of it back.  Also, at the moment, I am not using Dirac."...) :

OK.  Dirac costs me about 20dB in gain but I still had some headroom.  So, I needed only the difference between the headroom and 20dB. Net, I needed only about 10dB and, of course, only when Dirac is in use.  If Dirac is not in use, the preamp runs at 0dB just fine.

51 minutes ago, Kalpesh said:

that was, to my understanding : best way to use a preamp to restore gain when necessary (lost to convolution in your narrative) while keeping as much as possible the benefits of no preamp.

Understandable but, in practice, the use of either the Topping or the Pass was an improvement over "no preamp," as I stated. 

53 minutes ago, Kalpesh said:

I suppose bashing expensive pre was more exciting and more the point.

You cannot accuse me of that.  I really liked both preamps and said so.

[Kalpesh]

7 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

OK.  Dirac costs me about 20dB in gain but I still had some headroom.  So, I needed only the difference between the headroom and 20dB. Net, I needed only about 10dB and, of course, only when Dirac is in use.  If Dirac is not in use, the preamp runs at 0dB just fine.

Understandable but, in practice, the use of either the Topping or the Pass was an improvement over "no preamp," as I stated. 

You cannot accuse me of that.  I really liked both preamps and said so.

So, equating a $599 and a 17200 preamplifiers is not bashing the expensive one ? I won't doubt your sincerity and that's good news for all of us : let's all save money and buy cheapos after Audio Science Reviews 

 

Can you equate the definition of running at 0dB for the 2 preamps ? Is it fine in a review not to discuss topology and the rationals of volume control optimisation via attenuation and gain settings ? If you listen to Ayre's presentation, it's not a simple matter of commodity and they affect sound differently 

 

 

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I was not following this thread until you invited me here.  However, it has become clear that you have an agenda in which I do not wish to participate.   

[Kalpesh]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I was not following this thread until you invited me here.  However, it has become clear that you have an agenda in which I do not wish to participate.   

Agenda ? I'm not aware of it myself.. O Yeah, sorry, I forgot : I want to inject to everyone, babies included, graphene vectored bio toxics in order to exterminate half of planet earth's population ; what else ?

[GregWormald]

On 2/1/2022 at 4:31 AM, Kalpesh said:

 

in a nutshell : optimum S/N for a preamp is obtained at full volume (NO attenuation).

 

Full volume may not be the best sound though, depending upon the volume control. Many controls actually sound best around 50% of their maximum. Full volume of course may also be considerable gain, again depending upon implementation.

[Kalpesh]

31 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

Full volume may not be the best sound though, depending upon the volume control. Many controls actually sound best around 50% of their maximum. Full volume of course may also be considerable gain, again depending upon implementation.

Right, implementation matters very much. I like what I understand of Ayre presentation.

 

Don't know if the product exists : what we might need to face @Kal Rubinson's narrative situation of compensating for 20 dB lost to room eQ, or even just 12 dB, could be a fixed gain stage, in exemple of 12 dB (my preamp has a + 20 dB gain option to ago above full volume). Why not a bigger amplifier ? I have 1200 Watts of amplification ; so replacing 12 dB of gain in my preamp (I rarely need that much, but 7 on a day to day basis) by more amp power would mean, if I'm not mistaken, 4800 Watts !!

 

Now I have an agenda ! offer the market a preamp with no volume control....

[Kalpesh]

1 hour ago, Kalpesh said:

Right, implementation matters very much. I like what I understand of Ayre presentation.

 

Don't know if the product exists : what we might need to face @Kal Rubinson's narrative situation of compensating for 20 dB lost to room eQ, or even just 12 dB, could be a fixed gain stage, in exemple of 12 dB (my preamp has a + 20 dB gain option to ago above full volume). Why not a bigger amplifier ? I have 1200 Watts of amplification ; so replacing 12 dB of gain in my preamp (I rarely need that much, but 7 on a day to day basis) by more amp power would mean, if I'm not mistaken, 4800 Watts !!

 

Now I have an agenda ! offer the market a preamp with no volume control....

@Ryan Berry would such a product (a preamplifier reduced to a fixed gain stage + maybe the possibility to toggle between a few entries but saving all the volume control issues and cost ; volume changes happening in software in digital domain) make any sense and cut seriously cost ?

[GregWormald]

1 hour ago, Kalpesh said:

Right, implementation matters very much. I like what I understand of Ayre presentation.

 

Don't know if the product exists : what we might need to face @Kal Rubinson's narrative situation of compensating for 20 dB lost to room eQ, or even just 12 dB, could be a fixed gain stage, in exemple of 12 dB (my preamp has a + 20 dB gain option to ago above full volume). Why not a bigger amplifier ? I have 1200 Watts of amplification ; so replacing 12 dB of gain in my preamp (I rarely need that much, but 7 on a day to day basis) by more amp power would mean, if I'm not mistaken, 4800 Watts !!

 

Now I have an agenda ! offer the market a preamp with no volume control....

Of course you could offer a pre-amp with no gain control, it would be easy. That would only require the volume control to be elsewhere. You might get away with that by putting it in your DAC or digital player, but for non-digital sources the best place would probably be to put the control in the main amplifier. Would this make it an integrated amp? I think there are already some of those out there.

 

As far as a good implementation of pre-amp volume control goes, the SimAudio MOON 740P does a superb job with consistent quality at each of its 540 levels—but it's not cheap.