Does frequency response of speakers change with volume?

[restorer-john]

If memory serves, Yamaha-style loudness has always been sort of backwards from other common implementations - you'd be leaving the main volume constant, adjusting the loudness knob instead. The upside is that you can easily accommodate differing source levels and speaker sensitivity.

It's one of the absolute best loudness compensation functions out there.

That being said, their earlier 1970s implementations were much better than their current ones. This is an actual AS-300/301 loudness plot, with equal step rotation back from 'flat'. Note vertical in Volts. Disappointing Yamaha.

1970s CR-820 loudness:

 

[xaviescacs]

That being said, their earlier 1970s implementations were much better than their current ones. This is an AS-300/301 loudness plot, with equal step rotation back from 'flat'. Disappointing Yamaha.

There isn't an "Audio historian" badge there for this guy?

 

[restorer-john]

There isn't an "Audio historian" badge there for this guy?

It has been suggested previously, along with 'dinosaur' etc

 

[xaviescacs]

It has been suggested previously, along with 'dinosaur' etc

Such venerable creatures...

 

[Madjalapeno]

It has been suggested previously, along with 'dinosaur' etc

Relic?

: an object esteemed and venerated because of association with a saint or martyr
: a trace of some past or outmoded practice, custom, or belief

 

[raistlin65]

Yamaha offers their variable loudness control. It compensates as the volume level is varied.

Audyssey Dynamic EQ does so as well.

 

[Head_Unit]

[Re "I think what happens is some speakers interact with the room in ways that give more bass in particular,"] How would that happen?

Ah, thinking aloud, one case would be a speaker with extended bass in a room with strong reinforcement (maybe the speaker is in a corner). At a lower volume, the bass level is still fairly strong, you can hear it. Substitute a speaker with less extended bass, the total bass in the room is less. Turn down the volume, now you cannot hear it because you went below the threshold of hearing. Our hearing in the low frequencies is very level sensitive. I hope that makes some sense?

 

[sigbergaudio]

I think this is more myth than fact.

So I finally watched the video, and from my understanding this confirms my point, but perhaps I conveyed it poorly. At 2:42 he says that "you can move away the critical distance by increasing absorbtion in the room" (aka reducing decay time).

This tells us that wherever you sit, you will have a reduction in reflections (and more direct sound, and thus better sound) if you increase absorbtion. Agree so far?

And in my experience, I can generally speaking play louder and still have an enjoyable experience in rooms with low decay time (say 0.2-0.3s) as opposed to rooms with longer decay times (say 0.6-0.7). If you play at moderate levels, it still sounds better with low decay times, but longer decay times isn't fatiguing in the same way.

So playing loud is more problematic in rooms with long decay times, which means it is indeed the reflections that are causing the problem. The reflections themselves isn't worse as such (relatively speaking) at higher volumes, but you react more to them.

 

[abdo123]

So I finally watched the video, and from my understanding this confirms my point, but perhaps I conveyed it poorly. At 2:42 he says that "you can move away the critical distance by increasing absorbtion in the room" (aka reducing decay time).

This tells us that wherever you sit, you will have a reduction in reflections (and more direct sound, and thus better sound) if you increase absorbtion. Agree so far?

And in my experience, I can generally speaking play louder and still have an enjoyable experience in rooms with low decay time (say 0.2-0.3s) as opposed to rooms with longer decay times (say 0.6-0.7). If you play at moderate levels, it still sounds better with low decay times, but longer decay times isn't fatiguing in the same way.

So playing loud is more problematic in rooms with long decay times, which means it is indeed the reflections that are causing the problem. The reflections themselves isn't worse as such (relatively speaking) at higher volumes, but you react more to them.

I think the experience in the room with the long decay times is simply less enjoyable. regardless of the volume.

it's similar to someone 'turning it up' for a song that you don't like. it's not going to make the situation any better.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I think the experience in the room with the long decay times is simply less enjoyable. regardless of the volume.

it's similar to someone 'turning it up' for a song that you don't like. it's not going to make the situation any better.

I agree, but listening fatigue will hit in faster with both long decay time and high volume, so the two combined is even worse. Sounds like we are in agreement anyway.

 

[Lambda]

Yes Response changes.
Caused by heating of the voice coil and the change of electrical damping.

But mostly Distortion and inter modulation changes a lot!

 

[Ultrasonic]

Ah, thinking aloud, one case would be a speaker with extended bass in a room with strong reinforcement (maybe the speaker is in a corner). At a lower volume, the bass level is still fairly strong, you can hear it. Substitute a speaker with less extended bass, the total bass in the room is less. Turn down the volume, now you cannot hear it because you went below the threshold of hearing. Our hearing in the low frequencies is very level sensitive. I hope that makes some sense?

Edited having checked back - I see where you were coming from with your original post now .

 

[sq225917]

Materials in room aren't equally absorptive or reflective at all amplitudes, walls and floors have there own resonant frequencies and it takes some energy to get them singing along. Think of all the times you've heard the AC ducting and suspended ceilings singing along at hifi shows in hotels, this only happens when you turn the wick up. Our rooms are the same, but probably less so.

 

[thewas]

It's one of the absolute best loudness compensation functions out there.

That being said, their earlier 1970s implementations were much better than their current ones. This is an actual AS-300/301 loudness plot, with equal step rotation back from 'flat'. Note vertical in Volts. Disappointing Yamaha.

View attachment 173146

1970s CR-820 loudness:
View attachment 173148

As much as I like Yamaha (both old and new, audio, music instruments, bikes and engines) the old one was wrong too though as it amplifies the high frequencies similar to the low ones while the equal contour differences show that almost only a bass boost is needed:

Equal-loudness contour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[restorer-john]

As much as I like Yamaha (both old and new, audio, music instruments, bikes and engines) the old one was wrong too though as it amplifies the high frequencies similar to the low ones while the equal contour differences show that almost only a bass boost is needed:

The Yamaha approach doesn't amplify anything. It attenuates only. That's what makes it different, not really intuitive, but arguably a great idea. Sure, your point is well taken about the change in HF in equal loudness contours, but the entire concept is flawed in real terms as it is linked to the listener's subjective preferences in any case.

The old way of a 50% loudness tap on the main pot had merit, but again, the efficiency of the speakers and the level of input made the classic loudness controls hit and miss too.

It's very much luck ofthe draw. Sometime a loudness control actually works really well, but most of the time, it's a mess, best left switched off.

 

[thewas]

The Yamaha approach doesn't amplify anything. It attenuates only. That's what makes it different, not really intuitive, but arguably a great idea.

Yes, I know, I own both an older AX-1050 and a younger A-S700, with amplify I meant relatively to the mids, like you say great idea but don't like the curves they use as they don't match the equal contour differences.

It's very much luck ofthe draw. Sometime a loudness control actually works really well, but most of the time, it's a mess, best left switched off.

My experience too, possibly one reason why many people leave them switched off is also the above stated problem,

 

[sdiver68]

It has been suggested previously, along with 'dinosaur' etc

What I see is nothing has changed in the last 50 (70?) years in regards to understanding home audio.

The only exception since my initial mid-80-s foray into this world is digital. Now 1 could argue that digital changes everything...except physics of course.

As for room correction, are you trying to replicate what an engineer hears in the studio or the sound/feel of live music? If its the latter, room correction is far less important.

 

[Ultrasonic]

What I see is nothing has changed in the last 50 (70?) years in regards to understanding home audio.

Not where that came from. It's really not true.

What is true is that human hearing response hasn't changed though, so it's reasonable for loudness compensation to look similar.

 

[sdiver68]

Not where that came from. It's really not true.

What is true is that human hearing response hasn't changed though, so it's reasonable for loudness compensation to look similar.

Tell me what has changed outside of digital?

It comes from words like dinosaur and relic, just stating that nothing has changed since then in our understanding of speakers and sound.

 

[Ultrasonic]

Tell me what has changed outside of digital?

You could start by reading this: