You Need Loudness Correction

[masterhw]

Perhaps I am preaching to the choir here, but calibrated loudness correction has been one of the easiest and most worthwhile upgrades to my listening setup in years.

It is widely known the human ear is not even close to "flat," but further complicating this is the degree to which it is not flat changes with volume. An implication of this is that all content is mixed for a certain volume level, and listening above or below this level will change the tonality of the content. The low-bass region is the most impacted.

But if we know this, and know how loud our headphones (or speakers) are playing, we can correct for it.

My tools of choice are a UMIK-1 (with miniDSP provided calibration file), REW, and EqualizerAPO.
EqualizerAPO provides "Advanced filter"->"Loudness correction" which relies on leaving the hardware volume knob to a set point and then using the operating system volume control after calibration. During calibration, I used REW's SPL meter and maxed out my Fosi DS2 gain to achieve about 70dBC on the calibration tone.

When active, this is how it looks during typical playback.

If you are already familiar with EQ software like EqualizerAPO, you might already have an EQ profile loaded. I did too, and my immediate reaction was too much bass. I have suspected for some time the subjective preference for a bass boost is to serve as pseudo-loudness correction - thus with actual loudness correction applied, you will likely want to adjust your previous EQ profile. I turned my bass down 3 dB, on a profile I loaded from AutoEQ.

I am not very familiar with other EQ suites and platforms, and how to achieve loudness correction with them. My hope is this thread can become a good resource for knowledge sharing around this.
What is definitely clear is that this is a marked improvement over listening without loudness correction. In a reasonably quiet home environment I had no reason to listen to content at the 80dB or more it is often mixed to, and this allows me to enjoy the intended tonality at a more comfortable and considerate volume.

 

[kemmler3D]

Good stuff, I actually didn't even realize there was a loudness filter in EQAPO. Might have to try this as I often listen at quieter levels.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

My first hifi system included a Fisher mono tuner preamp with variable loudness contour. I used that feature all the time, particularly since it was in my bedroom.

 

[norman bates]

My nakamichi ta2 receivers have variable loudness knobs.
And magenta 1060 (button, not variable).
As does Yamaha as301 / 501 / 701 / 801 / 901 (variable).

 

[dweeeeb2]

Totally agree. I’ve just eq’d by ear (starting from normal calibration) for quiet playback.

 

[Hayabusa]

Indeed! I am using the 'dynamic' EQ on my Marantz

 

[Chrispy]

Well implemented definitely a nice option

 

[bluefuzz]

calibrated loudness correction has been one of the easiest and most worthwhile upgrades to my listening setup in years.

I don't see (or hear) any point in this. Due to the infamous 'circle of confusion' we have no way of knowing how loud any piece of music is 'intended' to be heard, nor do we know the tastes of the producer/mixer with regard to bass/treble level nor a host of other unknown variables. All we have is the recording as distributed on disc or stream.

I listen at more or less the same subjective volume most of the time and adjust my system to sound good to my ear for a wide range of music at that volume. But there will always be specific tracks or albums that have subjectively too much or too little bass/treble regardless of volume. Is it because I'm listening at the 'wrong' volume or was the track mixed with a different intent? I neither know nor care. That's what tone controls are for.

There's no point in making things more complicated than they need be ...

 

[dualazmak]

I essentially agree with OP @masterhw's points.

In my PC-DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier stereo audio setup, my policy and implementation on loudness (or I can say Fq-tonality, or relative gains among the SP drivers) are optimal combination of relative gain control in upstream digital domain and safe and flexible relative gain control in analog domain using analog output gain controller(s) of multichannel DAC and/or preamplifiers and/or integrated amplifiers.

You can find my latest system setup here in my post #931 and #1,009 on my project thread; in my post #931, I wrote as follows under the below spoiler cover.

Spoiler

...., please let me emphasize again about the pros and merits of relative gain (i.e. tone) control not only in digital domain but also in analog domain using pre-amplifiers or integrated-amplifiers (in my setup). I recently wrote again in my post #56 on a remote thread like these;
Yes, as for safe and flexible tone controls (or I can say "relative gain controls among the multiple SP drivers"), my stance (policy) at least, is that we are encouraged to utilize the "best combination" of "DSP configuration in digital domain" and "analog domain tone controls using HiFi-grade preamplifiers and/or integrated amplifiers".

We need to note (and to respect for) that analog domain tone controls (relative gain controls among the multiple SP drivers) give no effect nor influence at all on the upstream DSP configuration (XO/EQ/Gain/Phase/Polarity/Group-Delay). I believe that this is a great merit of flexible tone controls in analog domain. We know well, on the other hand, in case if we would like to do the "tone/gain controls" only within DSP configurations, such DSP gain controls always affect more-or-less on "XO" "EQ" "phase" and "delay" of the DSP settings which will leads you to possible endless DSP tuning spirals every time; within DSP configurations, XO EQ Gain Phase and Delay are always not independent with each other, but they are always interdependent/on-interaction.

Just for your possible reference, my DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier active system has flexible and safe analog level on-the-fly relative gain controls (in addition to upstream on-the-fly DSP gain controls) for L&R subwoofers, woofers, midrange-squawkers, tweeters, and super-tweeters, all independently and remotely. My post here shows you a typical example case for such safe and flexible on-the-fly analog-level tone controls. This my post (as well as this post) would be also of your interest.

Of course, I know well that I (we) can also perform such relative gain control using DAC8PRO’s 8-channel output gain controllers. I do not like, however, to change the DAC8PRO’s output levels frequently on-the-fly (while listening to music) due to safety and inconvenience concerns; I like to keep DAC8PRO’s analog out gain level always at constant -4 dB which should remain to be usually “untouchable” in my case.

One of the very unique aspects/features of my multichannel audio rig is that I fully utilize four HiFi-grade “integrated amplifiers” plus L&R active subwoofers, each of them have its own gain (volume) controller for safe and flexible relative gain (tone) control in analog domain even on-the-fly i.e. while listening to music.

In this perspective, my posts #438 and #643 should also give you better understandings. Furthermore, my posts #317(remote thread), #313(remote thread) would be also of your reference and interest.

 

[Hayabusa]

I don't see (or hear) any point in this. Due to the infamous 'circle of confusion' we have no way of knowing how loud any piece of music is 'intended' to be heard, nor do we know the tastes of the producer/mixer with regard to bass/treble level nor a host of other unknown variables. All we have is the recording as distributed on disc or stream.

I listen at more or less the same subjective volume most of the time and adjust my system to sound good to my ear for a wide range of music at that volume. But there will always be specific tracks or albums that have subjectively too much or too little bass/treble regardless of volume. Is it because I'm listening at the 'wrong' volume or was the track mixed with a different intent? I neither know nor care. That's what tone controls are for.

There's no point in making things more complicated than they need be ...

You are right and wrong.
That we don't know the calibration level for music will make it inaccurate.
But we can do an estimated guess.
Audyssey has 85 dB for its reference value which is correct for movie material.
For music you can adjust this level in steps of 5dB.
Note that these 5dB steps result in much smaller steps in the correction factors.
So it will not be way off if set incorrectly.
My opinion: doing nothing is worse for sure if you do not play at 'reference' level al the time.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

That's what tone controls are for.

IME, variable loudness is essentially a synced B/T control. So, not more complicated, but actually less complicated (depending on implementation).

 

[bluefuzz]

But we can do an estimated guess.

Which to my mind is the same as setting the tonal balance to my subjective preference at my preferred listening level and then adjusting the outliers on an individual basis.

Audyssey has 85 dB for its reference value which is correct for movie material.

It's only potentially 'correct' for a limited number of movies made in the last decade or two and there are still way too many unknown variables for it to make any meaningful difference. And what if I simply prefer less bass than the producer did?

 

[bluefuzz]

IME, variable loudness is essentially a synced B/T control.

Yes, but it's no more 'correct' or accurate than adjusting manually. If 90% of what I listen to sounds fine at the volume I listen then what's the point of the added complication of automatic loudness controls?

 

[Hayabusa]

Which to my mind is the same as setting the tonal balance to my subjective preference at my preferred listening level and then adjusting the outliers on an individual basis.



It's only potentially 'correct' for a limited number of movies made in the last decade or two and there are still way too many unknown variables for it to make any meaningful difference. And what if I simply prefer less bass than the producer did?

Did you listen to such setup to form an opinion?
But if you are happy with doing it manually who am I to tell you to do differently.

 

[bluefuzz]

Did you listen to such setup to form an opinion?

Yes I fiddled with it a bit years ago and concluded it wasn't worth the effort.

 

[Hayabusa]

Yes I fiddled with it a bit years ago and concluded it wasn't worth the effort.

But with Audyssey the effort is really minimal., the Marantz remembers the offset per channel.
0dB for movie material and -15dB for music, set once never touched it again

 

[respice finem]

...My opinion: doing nothing is worse for sure if you do not play at 'reference' level al the time.

This, and, it doesn't have to be always on. If it doesn't fit a track, I simply turn it off. But most of the time I use loudness. Paired with mostly using crossfeed when using headphones. Sometimes, bass / treble shelf filters are also useful IMHO.

 

[bluefuzz]

But with Audyssey the effort is really minimal

I use Dirac.

the Marantz remembers the offset per channel.
0dB for movie material and -15dB for music

Why would I want music and movies to be different? My ears are the same whatever I'm listening to ...

 

[kemmler3D]

If 90% of what I listen to sounds fine at the volume I listen then what's the point of the added complication of automatic loudness controls?

So you can listen at different volume levels with the same effective tonal balance... I don't really get the confusion here. It's more correct than manual if you're not manually adjusting according to equal loudness contours.

 

[Snarfie]

Perhaps I am preaching to the choir here, but calibrated loudness correction has been one of the easiest and most worthwhile upgrades to my listening setup in years.

It is widely known the human ear is not even close to "flat," but further complicating this is the degree to which it is not flat changes with volume. An implication of this is that all content is mixed for a certain volume level, and listening above or below this level will change the tonality of the content. The low-bass region is the most impacted.
View attachment 461213
But if we know this, and know how loud our headphones (or speakers) are playing, we can correct for it.

My tools of choice are a UMIK-1 (with miniDSP provided calibration file), REW, and EqualizerAPO.
EqualizerAPO provides "Advanced filter"->"Loudness correction" which relies on leaving the hardware volume knob to a set point and then using the operating system volume control after calibration. During calibration, I used REW's SPL meter and maxed out my Fosi DS2 gain to achieve about 70dBC on the calibration tone.

When active, this is how it looks during typical playback.
View attachment 461214

If you are already familiar with EQ software like EqualizerAPO, you might already have an EQ profile loaded. I did too, and my immediate reaction was too much bass. I have suspected for some time the subjective preference for a bass boost is to serve as pseudo-loudness correction - thus with actual loudness correction applied, you will likely want to adjust your previous EQ profile. I turned my bass down 3 dB, on a profile I loaded from AutoEQ.

I am not very familiar with other EQ suites and platforms, and how to achieve loudness correction with them. My hope is this thread can become a good resource for knowledge sharing around this.
What is definitely clear is that this is a marked improvement over listening without loudness correction. In a reasonably quiet home environment I had no reason to listen to content at the 80dB or more it is often mixed to, and this allows me to enjoy the intended tonality at a more comfortable and considerate volume.

I did a measurment with my Bose Wave music system III for what it's worth. I was curious how the 2 settings (normal = Loudness - Reduce = Neutral) would measure because the result in my horrible highly reflective living room was hugh for the better when the Bose (Normal/loudness) was on. However the increased an decreased db's (2 a 3 db) looks small between the 2 settings. Explanation has to be found in the relative logarithmic scale (impact) i guess.

Show Us Your In-Room Speaker Response

Never Mind - this topic has already been covered in another thread. :confused:

www.audiosciencereview.com