[neekomax]

Two questions, one thread:

1) How loud do you typically listen to music on your main system? Maybe not in terms of DBs, but, for example, is it so loud you couldn't hear your phone ring? Could you have a normal-voiced conversation over it? Does it vary by mood/hour/music style?

2) Do you have a remote control for volume? If not, is it a pot on your preamp, or somewhere else in the signal path? Is there a 'best' place in the path to attenuate volume? Also, what are your thoughts about audiophile acceptance of many products without remotes? (There don't seem to be very many hifi preamps or amps with remote volume control, and that surprises me, because I don't know if I could live without it, personally. And then that limits the products that I'm willing to consider .)

Interested to hear what y'all think/do... Neeko

[Elizabeth]

dB is the real answer. Without some reference, nothing about loudness means much
The classic means to measure dB is the Radio Shack meter.
Available at Radio Shack. I think they are still like $50
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103667

I listen at an average SPL of 68dB "C" weighted measured at my listening position.
That is pretty quiet. I may go as high as 80dB.
My volume is controlled by my left hand reaching over a little to the preamp directly at my left, off my listening position.
It has a remote, but I never need to use it.
Most current preamps have remotes. A lot of used ones that are still good preamps do not have remotes.

[neekomax]

Most current preamps have remotes.

Really? Are they just not shown or discussed in reviews and whatnot?

[I chose my DAC/preamp because 1) good reviews 2) analog (2x) and digital (USB, coax, optical) inputs, and 3) remote control for source switching and volume. (It has a chip amp stage as well, but I don't use it)

I don't usually see these features all united in one device. You get DAC and pre but no remote (Maverick DAC/Pre). Or you get a pre with remote with no DAC (lots, apparently). Or digital only pre with remote (Emotiva  XDA-1). Was just curious to see if audiophiles value the remote as a feature, or if it's not considered necessary.] 

[Mag]

Typically I like my music loud when I'm settled down to listen. 95-100 DB above conversation level, mood/genre/hour can be a factor.

I'm not trying to go deaf, but trying to acheive a room filling ambient sound, by exciting the room. However with my new processor being more transparent, I can acheive that effect at a lower volume.

A remote is a must to adjust volume almost for every song so you don't get blasted out of the chair.

[werd]

Just crank it until it doesn't get any louder then your good.....

[Mag]

Yep, you don't need lots of power if you are not going to use it. 25 watts is enough power for the average listener.

[pansixt]

Was just curious to see if audiophiles value the remote as a feature, or if it's not considered necessary.]

I don't know about audiophiles, but the current stand-in preamp I am using has a remote.
And I am taking advantage of it.

My next preamp has a remote as an additional cost option. One which I will fore-go.
Mainly because I need the exercise.

James

[neekomax]

Yep, you don't need lots of power if you are not going to use it. 25 watts is enough power for the average listener.

I have heard that extra headroom is needed because of transient peaks in music.

[roscoeiii]

I have heard that extra headroom is needed because of transient peaks in music.

That'll probably be pretty speaker dependent. An efficient single driver design requires very little power. Start adding in complex speaker corssovers and other features that make a speaker less efficient, and your power needs begin to increase. Not to mention details such as listening volume, amp clipping characteristics etc.

[roscoeiii]

As for volume control, I always cite "dog-on lap" factor for my desire for a remote control.

I have also reduced the gain in my amp in order to get more fine grained volume from my preamp, rather than just playing in the 7-10 o'clock range (Atma-sphere S-30 can do this through jumpers that replace a pair of 6SN7s). Attention to the system's gain is an important consideration when pairing equipment.

[nomeans]

Loud enough to drown out my drunken neighbors terrible stereo system, then them calling the cops complaining of MY excessive noise, then when the cops show up at my next door neighbors place since the loud music was coming from their place because I have since turned off my music, they decided to mouth off to the officer and they get hauled off to jail for drunk and disorderly. I believe that is "Checkmate." 

[JohnR]

Can't answer the volume question in terms of dB, but ideally I prefer playback levels to be "realistic," within reason. E.g. for acoustic recordings I like something that represents what might be reasonable if I were present with the performers; for rock I don't try to achieve "rock concert levels" for various reason including health, but I do like to turn it up to get some impact and involvement from that aspect of the reproduction.

Wrt remote, my digital path uses remote at the computer. My analog path currently has remote but in the next version probably won't, in the interests of improving the quality (and keeping in budget). It's not like to you can fast forward or rewind with records anyway, so I'm thinking (hoping) I won't miss a remote too much there.

[ctviggen]

A remote is a must to adjust volume almost for every song so you don't get blasted out of the chair.

A remote is absolutely essential, especially in my system where my equipment is several feet behind me.  Also, nothing I listen to the same loudness, so I constantly have to adjust the volume.

[bacobits1]

My dedicated room is 12 X15 not very large. My volume setting is usually 80-87db measured when I had a meter. Loud enough I do not hear the phone or can not carry on a normal conversation. Yes, it does vary with mood and music. I can get carried away easily. Volume is changed from CD to CD and vinyl too.

I like having the remote, and this is the first time I have had a piece with a remote.
Is it an absolute prerequisite for purchase? No.
Going from digital to analog there is a volume change, so it is nice having the remote just for the mute too.

D

[JLM]

If the phone rings or someone knocks I use the transport's remote to pause (I rarely need to adjust the sound pressure level (spl) while listening to a particular album (they’re all recorded at different spls) and since I still spin CD's, I'm off my lazy butt already.  Certainly the spl I listen to is factored by musical genre, time of day, mood, etc.

Public Service Announcement:  Extended exposure to more than 85 dB will cause permanent hearing loss and possible lifetime pain.  “Realistic” spls is a purist goal, but should definitely not become a way of life.

There are several technologies available for volume control.  The digital volume controls offered in many CD players and the like are notorious for clipping high volume signals, so check those out before using them.  The “opto-light” method is the latest and well regarded (but has a finite life span).  Passive pre-amps, being so pure in design/sound, highlight transformer, stepped, and other control types (of these stepped provides the purist, most direct signal pathway with the least colorations IME).  With the relatively high outputs of most source components there is little need for active gain stages in the pre-amp, at least from a numbers perspective.  But we don’t listen to numbers and so most complain that passives lack dynamics (and a chance to “enhance” the sound). 

The best reason to have an active pre-amp is to provide impedance matching between source, amplifier, and cabling.  Without this buffering, proper component/cable matching to retain dynamics/high frequencies is essential to good sound.  Currently I’m running stepped attenuators (“naked” volume controls with RCA connections on each end) that plug directly into the back of my monoblocks, which is the best place to locate a volume control (especially a passive) in the signal path.  Note that many integrated amps don’t have an active pre-amp stage.

Roscoeiii makes a valid point too, that there is an output “sweet spot” where a pre-amp (and a power amp) works best.  With two sets of volume controls in your system you’re free to optimize both.  Note that buffer stages provide the impedance matching without a gain stage.  Note that Eastern Electric offers a “BBA” (tube based buffer with two sets of volume controls) in one component.

Elizabeth is right, pick up a RS spl meter.  I did back when I was trying to get into SET amps with their low wattage and the need for high efficiency speakers.  What I found is that most way over estimate how loud they listen (I'm very close to her spls).  And most audiofests aren't that much higher (in part out of courtesy to other presenters).  I also recommend downloading some frequency sweep test tones or buying a CD of them to find out how flat your system is in room and how low/high your system reaches.  Again most over estimate both these factors.

Your query regarding how much headroom has been much debated.  The conventional thinking is that classical and jazz have peaks of 105 dB and rock has 110 dB peaks, but that classical is the most demanding due to its dynamic and deep bass characteristics.  In a “normal” sized room (roughly 2,000 cu. ft. – 8 ft x 13 ft x 22 ft) with two channels you will get the rated efficiency of the speaker (room gain plus doubling the signal, minus the distance from the speakers).  In other words if your speakers are rated at 90 dB/w/m, you’ll get about 90 dB from one watt/channel.  Keep in mind that watts versus dB is a logarithmic relationship, so it takes 10 times the power to add 10 dB (which doubles the perceived loudness).  Therefore in this case it would take 100 watts per channel to reach 110 dB.  But if you had 100 dB/w/m speakers it’d only take 10 watts per channel.

In sizing amplifiers it’s always best to overshoot in terms of power because a speaker can more easily handle a “too big” clean (undistorted) signal than a smaller distorted (clipped) one where the amp has overloaded.

[JohnR]

Public Service Announcement:  Extended exposure to more than 85 dB will cause permanent hearing loss and possible lifetime pain.  “Realistic” spls is a purist goal, but should definitely not become a way of life.

Thanks for the condescending reminder. "Realistic" does not mean "loud all day long" - it means "realistic."

[neekomax]

I'd also like to thank JLM, non sardonically, for a very comprehensive and informative reply.

[neekomax]

Wrt remote, my digital path uses remote at the computer. My analog path currently has remote but in the next version probably won't, in the interests of improving the quality (and keeping in budget). It's not like to you can fast forward or rewind with records anyway, so I'm thinking (hoping) I won't miss a remote too much there.

Remote at the computer? For volume? Isn't that a no-no ?

So it is true that many manufacturers skip the remote control when designing quality components?

[neekomax]

Roscoeiii makes a valid point too, that there is an output “sweet spot” where a pre-amp (and a power amp) works best.  With two sets of volume controls in your system you’re free to optimize both.  Note that buffer stages provide the impedance matching without a gain stage.  Note that Eastern Electric offers a “BBA” (tube based buffer with two sets of volume controls) in one component.

When you say 'sweet spot', are you speaking in terms of SQ, or volume fine tuning, or both?

(I have a passive preamp in my integrated that I leave at 10:00-11:00, and I adjust the volume on my active preamp by remote, 9:00 to 12:00. I wonder if changing those settings would improve sound at all? Should it matter?) 

[JohnR]

Remote at the computer? For volume? Isn't that a no-no ?

According to who?

The players are a lot more sophisticated than they used to be.

So it is true that many manufacturers skip the remote control when designing quality components?

Dunno. There's no reason to, other than cost.