How Far Up Do You Go ?

[RobbieGong]

How far round on the volume dial do you tend to go during a sesh ?

10 to 12 is usually more than enough for me, even when I'm going for it a bit - I dont like really loud

This is in a room 4.5 mtrs x 3.5 mtrs approx :)

[walpurgis]

8 or 9. Small room, big Tannoys. :D

[Barry]

Assuming the compass of the volume control runs from 8 'o clock to 4 'o clock, I arrange the sensitivity of the input(s) to be such that the volume control is mid-way at 12 'o clock for normal listening. When the programme material needs to be played louder (and I believe there is a correct level for music when it sounds 'right'), then I will turn it up to 2 'o clock.

[paulf-2007]

That means diddly squat, 80db is normal for me, sometimes 90db

[Barry]

That means diddly squat, 80db is normal for me, sometimes 90db

Do you listen with a sound level meter?

[southall-1998]

10-12 for me.

S.

[Ian7633]

I really wish I could say the immortal Spinal Tap line " all the way up to eleven man " but as I live in a flat and my neighbours are generally nice I have to keep the volume to modest levels.......mostly. :eyebrows:

[rubber duck]

That means diddly squat, 80db is normal for me, sometimes 90db

Agreed. Totally meaningless. It's 1am and I'm listening at 12 o'clock. But this is a record that's not cut very loud, through a passive preamp. I'm guessing in the low 70s dB. My normal listening peaks around 78dB. In the daytime I may play this particular record at 1 maybe even 2 o'clock to reach 78dB. On CD I was listening at 10-11 o'clock, again depending on how loud the CD was mastered.

On my active preamp the volume is rarely past 9 o'clock. So it depends on the recording, gain levels, speaker sensitivity, and room size. So yes, an SPL meter (or phone app) is a more useful indicator of loudness.

[Macca]

On my active preamp the volume is rarely past 9 o'clock. So it depends on the recording, gain levels, speaker sensitivity, and room size. So yes, an SPL meter (or phone app) is a more useful indicator of loudness.

The only indicator in fact. Lots of amps are already close to max output with the dial at 12 o'clock, there is no universal standard for spl vs dial position so it is meaningless, whether as a guide to what sound pressure level you are at or the power output of the amp. And that's before you take anything else into account.

But to answer the op, usually around 12 o'clock on the dial. A little higher for 'quiet' cds, a little lower for the highly compressed efforts.

[paulf-2007]

Do you listen with a sound level meter?
I check it occasionally, I have a meter close by.

[Primalsea]

Generally at about 10 o clock is where the speakers imaging locks into place, so I leave it there, unless I just have background music o radio on while I am doing something around the house. Louder than this is a bit excessive for my relatively small room.

[Jimbo]

Anything past 3 o'clock is defeating on the Croft.

[walpurgis]

Anything past 7 is deafening if I use my cheap passive with the Quad 306. It's not the ideal match.

[hifi_dave]

Where the volume control sits playing music is totally irrelevant. This depends on the level cut into the disc, output of the source, the sensitivity of the amp, power output, efficiency of the speakers, size of room and your chosen listening level.

Most amplifiers are far too 'hot', in that you only turn the dial slightly to get a good listening level and a touch more into clipping the input or output. Starting at 6 o/c, many amps are clipping at 12 - 1 o/c. Not sure if it's done so that the owner can say "look how loud it is at 9 o/c, must be extremely powerful", when in fact it will be into clipping halfway up.

[Pigmy Pony]

My cat is a good indicator of volume level. I just increase the volume till she leaves the room.

[Roy S]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180204/8ed63a63338699cc52d47b54c38a0129.jpg

[Marco]

I totally agree that the only measurement that means anything, in terms of ascertaining the volume at which you're listening, is the loudness (db) level, and in that respect I average at around the 75-80db mark.

I hate listening loudly, if I'm on my own [just seems silly, and somewhat 'wrong'], but when Del joins me, or especially some of my friends, and we're playing our favourite tracks, then the levels can get pretty scary, especially heavy rock music, which lends itself to being played loudly! :hairmetal:

However, in keeping with Rob's numerical theme, then (as the volume control on my Croft starts from zero, at around the 6 o'clock position), I can be listening at anything from 7 o'clock (late night/early morning when Del's in bed), to more usually 9-10 o'clock, and if the lads are round for a sesh, then possibly up to 2 o'clock - and trust me, on my system with huge 95db efficient Tannoys, in a relatively small room, *that* is FOOKING LOUD!! :fingers::fingers:

It'll go louder, without any audible clipping, but your ears (and/or the room) will give in! :eyebrows:

Also, unlike in some systems, there isn't a huge discrepancy between the respective playback levels of vinyl and CD/digital, which I hate, so usually no more than one of two clicks on the dial are required to 'even things up' :cool:

Marco.

[walpurgis]

huge 95db efficient Tannoys

Marco.

Mine are a mere 93db and only almost huge.



I listen at three levels.

'Adequate' where the bass impact and texture can be discerned.

'A bit of wellie' when the music is hitting home really firmly, but not uncomfortably.

And

'Ludicrous' on rare occasions. These buggers go LOUD!

[struth]

Mine are more than 96. Plus 2 more on top. Goes pretty loud pretty damned quick. Too much for position they are in really need them going longways

[eisenach]

I believe there is a correct level for music when it sounds 'right'

Totally agree. There seems to be a setting (and it can be quite a small variation on the dial) when the music snaps into place. My preamp is a Primare Pre32 and the speakers ESL63s. When I was using a Quad 606II as the power amp, the required volume indicator on the preamp was around 54 out of 90 to get the right setting ("classical" music). I've recently swapped the Quad for a Primare 30.2 and I now need to turn it up to 64 or 66 /90 to get the same "snap" setting. It's not all to do with real volume, but also how clean it sounds. Less grunge and distortion means you (can) play louder for the same perceived loudness.

Rock / Pop etc. usually needs a lower setting.

[Barry]

To provide a simple answer: for normal listening the volume control is set at 12 'o clock, which is half way around the scale (8 'o clock to 4 'o clock), so it is sufficiently above the background noise level but still allowing sufficient headroom for peaks (i.e. far from clipping).

But since we seem to have become fixated with dBs, when measured with a sound pressure level meter positioned at ear level height (0.75m) at my listening position (4.2m from the speakers - Quad 57s), I find:

Listening to speech: 55 - 60 dBA

Late night listening: 60 - 70 dBA

'Belting it out' (loud): 70 - 80 dBA

'Shaking the floorboards': 85 - 90 dBA

(Maximum SPL achievable 99-100dB).



So typical normal listening levels are ~ 70 - 75dBA.

[Mike Reed]

My cat is a good indicator of volume level. I just increase the volume till she leaves the room.

I've long thought that my cat is Mutt & Jeff ! I know when it's too loud because my wife leaves the room. She hasn't left the house yet, so an element of s.p.l. control seems to exist.

I've found that just about every pre. (or integrated) I've had requires a different vol. control level, and, as far as pre-amplifiers go, it depends, among other things, on the logarithmic scale (is that right?) of the pot. It also depends upon the source I'm listening to, as each has its own output level. I do find, though, that despite my hearing loss, my ESLs tend to be more dynamic at lower volumes than the moving coils I had before. My valved pre. is also more dynamic than the Naim I had before. Lots of variables here; sufficient, methinks, not to be able to come to a meaningful conclusion, unless you have an s.p.l. meter.

[Yomanze]

No more than a quarter up, but this is a relative question because using a passive I could easily pass half way on the pot.

[Audio Al]

All the way up until my round things are banging on the back door :lol:

[Marco]

To provide a simple answer: for normal listening the volume control is set at 12 'o clock

Your preamp obviously works differently from mine, or perhaps it's more to do with both your speakers being considerably less efficient and your room bigger? :)

In my system and room, listening at 12 o'clock, even with vinyl (unless it was a piece of music recorded at a very low level), would be too loud for me to enjoy alone for sustained periods, hence why I'm usually hovering at around the 10 o'clock mark, to achieve normal listening levels.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not it the situation, as some are, where a clipped, saturated sound is quickly achieved within the first few turns of the volume control [the Croft, in conjunction with the rest of the equipment and speakers in my system provides a 'comfortable' listening experience from 7 o'clock to 3 o'clock, and further still with vinyl], but I like my normal listening levels to be achieved earlier on the volume control than 12 noon.

It's just a personal taste thing, but I also find that when you tune your system's 'gain structure' to work that way, it gives the sound more 'guts' [and makes for a punchier, more dynamic rendition of music], than when you have to lean harder on the volume control, to achieve normal listening levels, and your preamp sometimes appears as if its 'running out of puff', especially with recordings produced at a low level...

For passive preamps, of course, different rules apply!

Essentially, I like it so that my sources have a healthy (voltage) output, and both my power amp and speakers are nicely sensitive, thus making the job of amplifying the music signal easier, minimizing any 'bottlenecks'/restrictions, and allowing the music to 'breathe'. I then tune the response of my preamp to perform optimally in that context.

In the case of valve power amps like mine, that means reducing feedback as much as possible, to the point that it doesn't adversely affect bass control or vocal definition. Applying more feedback always results in less sensitivity, and usually when combined with the former, results in a sub-optimal sound.

Conversely, because the sound I enjoy now from my system has so much 'presence' and detail, even at low volume levels, you don't need to crank it up too much, in order to make music 'come alive', which is why most of my listening is done at around the 10 o'clock position - and with the majority of recordings needs going no higher, in order for the sound to be satisfactory.

That for me, always produces optimal results. As ever, it's about achieving synergy, by getting the balance right between ALL constituent parts of the system, not just with certain ones :cool:

Marco.

[RothwellAudio]

It's commonly assumed that, for example, a 100W amp with the volume control maxxed-out will put 100W into the speakers. With the control at half way it will put 50W into the speakers, and a tenth of the way round will put 10W into the speakers.
However, it just isn't true.
Neither is it necessarily true that if your music is loud with the volume control only a quarter of the way round you still have 75% of your available power in reserve, though I'm sure some manufacturers would like you to believe that so they make their amps deliberately over-sensitive. Actually, I'm not complaining because I've sold thousands of pairs of attenuators to reduce the sensitivity of such amps :lol:

The truth, as other members have stated, is that the position of the volume control is no indication of how hard you're pushing the amp, or how much power you're using, or how loud the music will be.
Personally, I like the music to be at moderate listening level with the control at 10 o'clock and fairly loud (whatever that means) at 12 o'clock. What really bugs me is when the volume control is too sensitive to set a quiet listening level for late night listening without the channel balance going completely off.

[walpurgis]

What really bugs me is when the volume control is too sensitive to set a quiet listening level for late night listening without the channel balance going completely off.

Yes, that's really annoying. Another argument for dual volume controls, which I don't mind, but many seem to hate.

I have a couple of cheap Chinese pre-amps and the stereo pots in those are spot on, but I've had a fair bit of British gear with pot imbalance. I recently replaced the volume pot in my Moth pre-amp and I had to try four new pots before it was satisfactory, those were Chinese too, so you can never tell.

[Marco]

The answer is to use the best stepped attenuators, instead of pots (even in dual-mono mode), as they're more accurate, and consequently sound better! ;)

Marco [has never heard any pot sound as good as the best steppers, in the right circuit].

[walpurgis]

I like those and sometimes use them Marco, but they are too big to fit inside the Moth pre-amp.

[Marco]

Drill out a bigger hole then, daftee! ;)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

Drill out a bigger hole then, daftee! ;)

Marco.

I'm talking about the room behind the facia inside the case.

http://i64.tinypic.com/nnlbuu.jpg

[Marco]

Ah I see... Still, knowing the potential upgrade in SQ, with a top-notch stepper in situ, I wouldn't let that stop me. Simply house the whole shebang in a bigger box! ;)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

Ah I see... Still, knowing the potential upgrade in SQ, with a top-notch stepper in situ, I wouldn't let that stop me. Simply house the whole shebang in a bigger box! ;)

Marco.

It's actually sounding extremely good now and I don't want to alter the appearance, 'cos I'll probably flog it on some time in the future. Six pre-amps is possibly too many. :)

[Marco]

Yup, fairy muff... If I were building a new preamp from scratch, active or passive, and wanted the best performance, I'd always factor in the use of top-notch stepped attenuators, ideally dual-mono ones too, for best channel separation (thus stereo effect).

After having experimented extensively in that area, I know just how much of a bottleneck some pots can be, simply through strangling the music signal! :)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

Yes. I have a semi-integrated (separate PSU) amp project I need to start and I bought a decent stereo stepped attenuator for this.

[Marco]

No worries. In that respect, I'd recommend those from Khozmo, DACT or Glasshouse Seiden. The best selection are available from HFC: https://www.hificollective.co.uk/components/stepped_attenuators.html

Hope your future project goes well! :)

Marco.

[Gazjam]

No more than about 9 o clock for me.

8 SET watts into efficient speakers, trouser flappingly good and plenty loud.

[hifi_dave]

It's commonly assumed that, for example, a 100W amp with the volume control maxxed-out will put 100W into the speakers. With the control at half way it will put 50W into the speakers, and a tenth of the way round will put 10W into the speakers.
However, it just isn't true.
Neither is it necessarily true that if your music is loud with the volume control only a quarter of the way round you still have 75% of your available power in reserve, though I'm sure some manufacturers would like you to believe that so they make their amps deliberately over-sensitive. Actually, I'm not complaining because I've sold thousands of pairs of attenuators to reduce the sensitivity of such amps :lol:

The truth, as other members have stated, is that the position of the volume control is no indication of how hard you're pushing the amp, or how much power you're using, or how loud the music will be.
Personally, I like the music to be at moderate listening level with the control at 10 o'clock and fairly loud (whatever that means) at 12 o'clock. What really bugs me is when the volume control is too sensitive to set a quiet listening level for late night listening without the channel balance going completely off.

Exactly so and pretty much what I said earlier. The position of the volume control means jack.

[Barry]

But I set up my preamp (and the sources) so that for normal listening (not quiet, but not loud either) the volume control is around 12 'o clock, that is mid way around the range of adjustment. I choose this arrangement - it is not forced upon me.

[Marco]

But I set up my preamp (and the sources) so that for normal listening (not quiet, but not loud either) the volume control is around 12 'o clock, that is mid way around the range of adjustment. I choose this arrangement - it is not forced upon me.

Out of curiosity, why - what was your reasoning behind it, and precisely how did you achieve it [i.e. set up your preamp as mentioned]? :)

Marco.

[jandl100]

I use digital preamps - mine's on -27dB at the moment. But can go up to -15dB.

But it all depends on the gain structure of your system, don't it.

[Barry]

Out of curiosity, why - what was your reasoning behind it, and precisely how did you achieve it [set up your preamp as mentioned]? :)

Marco.

Because I don't want the sensitivity to be so high that a small movement of the volume control causes a large, and difficult to control, change in volume. Nor do I want the sensitivity to be so low that the volume control is near the maximum setting at normal listening levels; thereby curtailing the option to increase the volume. If you like it's a 'Goldilocks' setting.

I can change the sensitivity for most of the inputs of the preamp internally, or by adjusting the output voltage of some sources (phono and CD player). My power amps have level controls as well.

[Marco]

Because I don't want the sensitivity to be so high that a small movement of the volume control causes a large, and difficult to control, change in volume.

Sure I get that, but why not simply use an attenuator with more steps (thus making any increase in volume gentler), rather than having a circuit sitting in the amplifier's signal path, providing adjustment for sensitivity, which will not be best for sound quality, if we agree that the least components sitting in the signal path, the better?

For me, it's not the most elegant of solutions. I prefer the K.I.S.S approach, and the minimising of any unnecessary 'gubbins'! :)

Marco.

[Barry]

Sure I get that, but why not simply use an attenuator with more steps (thus making any increase in volume gentler), rather than having a circuit sitting in the amplifier's signal path, providing adjustment for sensitivity, which will not be best for sound quality, if we agree that the least components sitting in the signal path, the better?

For me, it's not the most elegant of solutions. I prefer the K.I.S.S approach, and the minimising of any unnecessary 'gubbins' :)

Marco.

I don't understand - there is no additional circuitry involved. The volume control is a Penny and Giles potentiometer, which being a potentiometer is continuous and so has an infinite number of steps. I just don't want the sensitivity to be so high that a 1 or 2 degree change in rotation causes the output level to change by 10 or 15dB; which as I have said makes the volume setting difficult to adjust.

Switched stepped attenuators, being passive and thus having the elegance of simplicity (as well as having better channel tracking), are not without issues. But the arguments for and against passive volume controls (be they resistor or transformer based) are similar to the arguments over head amps vs. SUTs - there are pros and cons for either approach.

[Marco]

I don't understand - there is no additional circuitry involved...

Sorry, my mistake. I thought you said that you adjusted the sensitivity of your inputs independently (perhaps via some form of external switch on the amp), instead of internally, thus 'at source'. The former would've involved the use of some extra switches or circuitry - and as a purist, I dislike unnecessary 'anything' in the signal path!


I just don't want the sensitivity to be so high that a 1 or 2 degree change in rotation causes the output level to change by 10 or 15dB


Ok, I get that :)

Marco.

[RothwellAudio]

I don't understand - there is no additional circuitry involved. The volume control is a Penny and Giles potentiometer, which being a potentiometer is continuous and so has an infinite number of steps. I just don't want the sensitivity to be so high that a 1 or 2 degree change in rotation causes the output level to change by 10 or 15dB; which as I have said makes the volume setting difficult to adjust.
P&G pot? Very impressive :)

Switched stepped attenuators, being passive and thus having the elegance of simplicity (as well as having better channel tracking), are not without issues. But the arguments for and against passive volume controls (be they resistor or transformer based) are similar to the arguments over head amps vs. SUTs - there are pros and cons for either approach.
?? :scratch: Penny & Giles pots are passive too. Pots or stepped attenuators can be used in passive pre-amps. Pots or stepped attenuators can be used in active pre-amps too.
Of course, you're absolutely correct that if a stepped attenuator has large volume jumps between settings the problem becomes worse if you add gain.
BTW, I used to make stepped attenuators with 133 settings and step sizes of less than 1dB. I scoff at 24 steps :lol:

[Barry]

Yes of course, all potentiometers, stepped or continuous are passive. My use of "passive" was in reply to Marco's mention of stepped attenuators (or potentiometers) having a large number of steps.

133 steps? Now that's impressive. Where did you source the switches? The largest number of steps I have seen is 48.

Not sure if the steps need to be less than 1dB, since most listeners are only able to detect a change in volume of 1dB or more. Also at large attenuations (> 20dB) the step size can be greater (say 3 or 4dB).

But even so, your 133 step attenuator sounds interesting. Do you have any photos of it, and what type of resistors did it use?

[RothwellAudio]

But even so, your 133 step attenuator sounds interesting. Do you have any photos of it, and what type of resistors did it use?
I used a bit of lateral thinking to create an attenuator with fine and coarse controls. The coarse attenuator is a fairly conventional arrangement with 12 steps and the fine attenuator puts resistance in series with the coarse attenuator. It's a bit like putting a 10k resistor in series with a 10k pot so the resistor knocks the pot down by 6dB. I arranged it so the coarse control covered about 50dB in 12 steps and the fine control varied the coarse control by about 10dB in 12 steps with the fine steps being just under 1dB. That gives a range of about 60dB plus full mute and the level settable with steps smaller than 1dB.
Here's a picture of a complete preamp showing the fine and coarse controls:
http://hanstedaudio.nl/shop_image/product/9b9f9b52df2fe8fb9a8effbaac860398.jpg

I have some pictures of the actual attenuator but I'm not sure how to post them since they're on my computer, not on the web.
I used Philips 1% metal film resistors. They give an accuracy considerably better than any pot, both in absolute resistance value and in terms of channel balance.
You've probably spotted that the load impedance seen by the source will vary with the fine control setting, but the variation is nowhere near as huge as with stepped attenuators such as the Khozmo that claim "only one resistor in the signal path" which actually is impossible.
Yes, 0.5% or even 0.1% resistors would be a possibility but I didn't think they offered any real advantage and just bumped-up the cost. Then there's a whole range of "audiophile" resistors but personally I think that's straying into snake oil territory.

[Macca]

How come you don't make them anymore, Andrew?

[RothwellAudio]

I first started making passive preamps with fine/coarse stepped attenuators back in 1990 (or was it 1989? :scratch: ) when interest in passive preamps was quite strong and sales were ok - remember CD was relatively new and the magazines were starting to tell people that a full-function active preamp with phonostage wasn't necessary if you were playing mostly CDs. Then interest in passive preamps started to fade away as the notion that "passives can't drive cable" took over. These days most of the people who want a passive preamp either want a transformer-based passive or they're DIYers who will make their own. Eventually sales of my passives dwindled to the point it was no longer worth doing.

By the way, bear in mind that most people don't realise what it costs to make an amp or preamp. Most of the cost of a preamp is in the casework, the front panel, the knobs and the switches (and sockets if they're posh ones), plus the labour to assemble it. In terms of how much it costs to build, an active preamp is hardly any more expensive to make than a passive one. However, the customer's perception is very different. They don't mind paying £1000 for an active preamp but they'll using think you're ripping them off if you ask the same for a passive preamp.

[Macca]

Right. Funny really, I don't see the point of transformer passives at all. Just more expensive for no benefit. I suppose the punter feels they are getting more for their money than they would for just a pot in box.

[walpurgis]

Right. Funny really, I don't see the point of transformer passives at all.

Have you used one? I wouldn't be without mine, sounds very different and superior to any 'normal' passive or active unit I've tried (and that's a lot).

[Macca]

Have you used one? I wouldn't be without mine, sounds very different and superior to any 'normal' passive or active unit I've tried (and that's a lot).

I've tried the most expensive one on the market (Music First) against what I have now and there was no difference I could discern except for the nine grand price differential. Maybe those with ears of less cloth would think otherwise, I don't know. But it would be a waste of money for me.

[montesquieu]

I've tried the most expensive one on the market (Music First) against what I have now and there was no difference I could discern except for the nine grand price differential. Maybe those with ears of less cloth would think otherwise, I don't know. But it would be a waste of money for me.

I had a pretty high end Music First passive as well (I think £5k retail). It worked differently with different sources, which to my mind might explain why some love and some hate them.

Pure and transparent it was, but for me as with all passives I felt it lacked the get up and go of a good active tube preamp - it was just not as musical as a good tube pre.

I did feel the MF offered something vs your standard stepped or film pot (I've tried a few of those too) - maybe a better way with nuance - but for it to be a long-term solution I thing you'd have to choose your sources and probably your power amp extremely carefully. I prefer something with more flexibility, ie with a bit of gain.




But it all depends on the gain structure of your system, don't it.

This is key I think. And probably the relative impedances of different bits of kit as well.

[Macca]

I had a pretty high end Music First passive as well (I think £5k retail). It worked differently with different sources, which to my mind might explain why some love and some hate them.

Pure and transparent it was, but for me as with all passives I felt it lacked the get up and go of a good active tube preamp - it was just not as musical as a good tube pre.

I did feel the MF offered something vs your standard stepped or film pot (I've tried a few of those too) - maybe a better way with nuance - .

It all comes down to how we expect/want a hi-fi to sound I think. The massive variation in what we all use would indicate that is rarely the same for any two people.