Good sound , low volume?

[Wesseling Audio Lab]

I recently got a pair of Neuman KH310 monitors and was surprised that they played at low levels much better than my previous (larger) speakers even without any low volume bass EQ compensation. Not really sure why but maybe the flat FR helps. Using monitors for low level listening was mentioned a few posts back and was not something I was expecting but is a pleasant surprize.

looking at the Measurements and Estimated in room response of KH310 and Amir's comments below, I'm not surprised low level listening is well balanced.

I'm glad Amir states "I think" regarding elimination of bass port. - A good vented design sounds equally as clear as sealed. it took me years of designing and experimenting to realize this fact. Long Story! Vented bass is not inherently Bloated

Neuman KH 310A Near-field Speaker Listening Tests
"I could not believe the level of clarity, balance, yet detailed sound with zero harshness or lispiness."

"The bass was absolutely clean. It was a delight to listen to what Neumann calls "DRY BASS." It was a relief to not hear bloated bass that would all of a sudden fall of a cliff when turned up."

"Elimination of bass port (I think) has resulted in very clean low frequency response."

 

[steve59]

my suggestion's likely useless, but my systems haven't had loudness controls for decades so when my system was located where it'd disturb family i'd just pull everything tighter, create a smaller triangle between the speakers and listening chair. Not as good as a loudness button, but the improvement in detail and front to back soundstage made up for it.

 

[LTig]

It also helps if the speaker is easy to drive (no big swings in impendance), because then it is more sensitive to small wattage. A lot of diy'ers who build speakers for low power tube amps use zorbel circuits to flatten the impendance curve of their speakers to make the low wattage amps work well with those speakers.

This is counter productive, because zobel networks reduce the impedance in the highs so they actually increase the load of the amp at those higher frequencies.
The advantage though is that

• flattening the impedance of a driver makes it easier to design a standard crossover
• flattening the impedance of a speaker flattens also the frequency response when driven by power amps with high output impedance

It's also one of the reasons why single driver speakers (headphones or real speakers) are so good sounding on low power, it's a very flat impendance.

A single dynamic driver has no flat impedance curve:

• There is the peak at its resonance frequency in the lows, depending on the housing (volume, sealed or vented).
• At rising frequencies the inductance of the voice coil leads to a rise in impedance. A parallel zobel network can fix this.

 

[mhardy6647]

But you're sure these speakers have significantly different (audible, evven mayvbe measurable) performance just on power applied?

Given their sensitivity -- pretty sure, yes.
The old, high sensitivity woofers were relatively (relatively) immune to power compression within their admittedly rather limited power-handling capabilities. I believe (faith-based, not fact-based!) that this is at least part of the reason that the classic Altec and JBL loudspeakers in particular have an effortless quality across a (still) impressively large SPL range.

 

[LTig]

Nobody mentioned sensitivity. Speaker with high sensitivity ratings are easier to drive at lower power and will reveal more of the frequency range at low power. Look for something with 90 dB and above sensitivity.

If you drive two speakers with identical frequency response but different sensitivity at the same SPL, they will sound identical regarding frequency response. If one speaker sounds fuller it must have other reasons. Maybe higher directivity in the lows due to a wider housing - that however would be independent of SPL.

 

[LTig]

Given their sensitivity -- pretty sure, yes.
The old, high sensitivity woofers were relatively (relatively) immune to power compression within their admittedly rather limited power-handling capabilities. I believe (faith-based, not fact-based!) that this is at least part of the reason that the classic Altec and JBL loudspeakers in particular have an effortless quality across a (still) impressively large SPL range.

But for low SPLs this should not make a difference.

I remember when I heard the classic Avantgarde Trio at a demo. Its micro dynamics (difficult to describe) were astounding. I had MG 1.6 at home at this time. But when I listened the first time to my K&H O300Ds their dynamics were just as astounding (my first thought: "I didn't know the Maggies were that bad"). And in 2018 I listened to Avantgarde speakers (and other horns) at Highend in Munich and none of them sounded astounding regarding dynamics, because I'm used to it.

 

[coonmanx]

Why not? If that sounds good then that's what sounds good.

I have never found a smiley face to sound good. Frankly I think someone just saw someone else doing it so they blindly copied it. I go through each slider one by one and adjust by completely dropping out the frequency and then bringing it back up until it sounds right. Never ended up with a smiley face that way.

 

[Timcognito]

If you drive two speakers with identical frequency response but different sensitivity at the same SPL, they will sound identical regarding frequency response. If one speaker sounds fuller it must have other reasons. Maybe higher directivity in the lows due to a wider housing - that however would be independent of SPL.

With conventional cone drivers, I think that balance between and among drivers is not same under low volume. The LF driver is not putting out its commensurate volume level with a low sensitivity speaker. An easy to drive LF driver will hold its own under lesser input. Not a speaker designer just an ME.

 

[coonmanx]

I have zero use for any loudness control or loudness button. Why? Because I use the EQ to set my custom curve for my listening level and then I repeatedly listen at that same level, usually between 60 and 70 dB. So the sound is baked into the listening level. Not only that there is a button that I can use to switch the EQ out of the loop if I so desire (which I don't).

 

[Doodski]

I have never found a smiley face to sound good. Frankly I think someone just saw someone else doing it so they blindly copied it. I go through each slider one by one and adjust by completely dropping out the frequency and then bringing it back up until it sounds right. Never ended up with a smiley face that way.

That's nice. Now for the hundreds of millions of people that do enjoy that...

 

[mhardy6647]

But for low SPLs this should not make a difference.

True per se, but the performance of, e.g., a JBL D130 or Altec 515B speaks (heh-heh-heh), I think, to the linearity of response as a function of input electrical power.

 

[coonmanx]

That's nice. Now for the hundreds of millions of people that do enjoy that...

Well, obviously they are better than me. LOL.

Do you hate personal choice? All good button pushing monkeys should just push a button and be happy with it...

 

[Clmrt]

Means to an end. All roads lead to Rome.

 

[mhardy6647]

 

[Ste_S]

I live in a UK end-of-terrace, and I know my neighbour can hear my music if I have it much above 70db. My wife normally goes to bed before I do too, and that's usually the time I listen to music. Loudness, or EQ, helps but it's not the same as playing at higher volumes. So a nice pair of open backed headphones is the way to go - I know the OP said they're claustrophobic with headphones, but I'd really recommend demo'ing different headphones, or IEMs, to see if there's any that work for you.

Otherwise, as others have suggested, get a near-field listening setup, or try and get a dedicated space away from shared walls. I'm lucky enough to have a shed at the bottom of the garden, which has now been done out with a wood burner and Sonos system, and I'm very happy.

 

[Soandso]

In praise of EQ "smiley face/smilies". I ended up configuring somewhat of a smiley face on my 60 band (30 bands/channel) graphic equalizer. The reason is because 2 professional audiograms from 2 different audilogists over the recent years revealed that at 1,000 Hz both my ears hear better than most of the other frequencies they test for. With my left ear actually from 500 to 1,000 Hz the same strength and yet with my right ear from 1,000 to 2,000Hz the same strength. And specific additional left to right variation for hearing loss in the other frequencies they test for up o 8,000Hz.

Thus, compared to 1,000Hz my right ear hearing level of 250Hz is 25dB less while hearing in my right ear 250Hz is 10dB less. While for both ears compared to 1,000Hz my hearing level at 4,000 to 6,000hz is 30dB less for both the left and right. Yet as reach 8,000 Hz my left ear hearing level is about 10dB worse than my right ear hearing level - with both ears having lower hearing levels at 8,000 Hz than at 6,000Hz.

I have a 30 frequency band equalizer each for separate left and right channel. So I drop the 1,000 Hz sliders and those of some adjacent bandwidth avoiding unwanted interactions between close filters. From there I array the individual left and right frequencies to address my specifically known hearing loss. Anyway, I end up with a sort of "smile" EQ slider array, but with a distinct "smile" for the 2 channels (ears).

 

[Doodski]

In praise of EQ "smiley face/smilies". I ended up configuring somewhat of a smiley face on my 60 band (30 bands/channel) graphic equalizer. The reason is because 2 professional audiograms from 2 different audilogists over the recent years revealed that at 1,000 Hz both my ears hear better than the other frequencies they test for. With my left ear actually from 500 to 1,000 Hz the same strength and yet with my right ear from 1,000 to 2,000Hz the same strength. And specific additional left to right variation for hearing loss in the other frequencies they test for up o 8,000Hz.

Thus, compared to 1,000Hz my right ear hearing level of 250Hz is 25dB less while hearing in my right ear 250Hz is 10dB less. While for both ears compared to 1,000Hz my hearing level at 4,000 to 6,000hz is 30dB less for both the left and right. Yet as reach 8,000 Hz my left ear hearing level is about 10dB worse than my right ear hearing level - with both ears having lower hearing levels at 8,000 Hz than at 6,000Hz. Anyway I've ended up with 2 distinct "smiley faces" on my equalizer.

I have a 30 frequency band equalizer each for separate left and right channel. So I drop the 1,000 Hz sliders and those of some adjacent bandwidth avoiding unwanted interactions between close filters. From there I array the individual left and right frequencies to address my specifically known hearing loss. Anyway, I end up with a sort of "smile" EQ slider array, but with a distinct "smile" for the 2 channels (ears).

The smile does solve issues in the audio gear for many people. The lows sometimes roll off or a person simply wants more of that and the highs through transducers oftentimes is reduced by poor driver response. So by adding more highs that solves the transducer response issue and a hearing loss issue and the lows for lower volume levels is like adding loudness control effect. I'm all for people dialing in the EQ/PEQ to whatever sounds the best to them at whatever volume level no matter the resulting shape of the EQ contouring etc.

 

[thewas]

The smile does solve issues in the audio gear for many people. The lows sometimes roll off or a person simply wants more of that and the highs through transducers oftentimes is reduced by poor driver response. So by adding more highs that solves the transducer response issue and a hearing loss issue and the lows for lower volume levels is like adding loudness control effect. I'm all for people dialing in the EQ/PEQ to whatever sounds the best to them at whatever volume level no matter the resulting shape of the EQ contouring etc.

Also most home systems without subwoofers suffer from often unfortunately not narrow SBIR bass dips where adding some bass (although the dips cannot be perfectly filled) can restore somehow the intended tonal balance of the recordings.

 

[JohnnyAudio]

How about a set of open baffles with a SET amp?

 

[ears-of-steel]

60-65 dbA listener (and mixer) here, at least most of the time, day in, day out, for ages, either with any of my xy IEMs or my iLoud Micro monitors these days, no EQ here, just some good old brain-burn in after a couple moments.
BTW, can't repeat this often enough but the sonic differences among my favorite jazz recordings from the 60s and 70s are significantly larger than the differences among my favorite audio chains, no need to worry about the last dB of SINAD, etc... YMMV.