"Headroom" - what does it sound like to you?

[steamer]

I think the descriptions above in the thread sound about right. More about what one doesn't hear.

One thing though, I'm among those odd folks who think SET sounds really good. There's not any headroom to speak of there. In fact, the very fact that some folks enjoy SET actually enrages some PP fans. Perhaps it is because someone else enjoys something that you think can't be good.

Anyway, one thing I've noticed after listening to Dynaco Mark III's for a while. There is something there in bass dynamics that is not in SET bass. I'm not a tech type, so don't really know if that is just the difference in sonic signature and character of the Mark III, or is the result of 60 wpc and lots of headroom compared to the SET amps.

Just my $.02

I have a uniqe setup where I use Decware SET monos(4watts per) to power an Altaec 511/902 combo in a 2way La Scala configuration.

Before I added the Altec and went 2way I ran the Decware monos fullrange to power my La Scala's and WOW they did a very good job of it...but if you stood on the system they ran out of steam and it took alot of volume to get there!!!!

I now have the monos connected directly to the Altec horns using an outboard xover and there is alot more headroom.

The bass is covered by SS amps with plenty of power for headroom.

I can now say I have all the headroom I need!!!!

I agree with the comments on headroom previosly mentioned and WOW this rig I have put together really seems to fit that mold!!! of course freeing the SET amps from the bass freq.'s does alot in that regaurd.

Greg

[MrMcGoo]

Ben,

You just do not want to get it. The added dynamic range was put there to be USED on DVDs. That requires more headroom. I like to be able to hear ALL of the movie including the softer parts. That means that when sound designers use that dynamic range, the system gets extremely loud. That takes headroom and a big subwoofer.

Bill

PS: So 0dBfs means zero decibels below 144 decibels on a DVD. That is 48 decibels higher than a CD. You do the math, if you can. B

[DrWho]

So 0dBfs means zero decibels below 144 decibels on a DVD. That is 48 decibels higher than a CD. You do the math, if you can. B

Actually, 0dBfs is the loudest any digital source material can get....if your numbers are correct, then on a DVD -144dBfs is the quietest, or on a CD -96dBfs is the quietest. The dBfs is an inverted scale which makes life much easier for everyone involved. (and it's cool because all digital formats regardless of their quality will have the same max voltage output from the device).

[MrMcGoo]

DrWho,

The relevant dynamic range is still 144 decibels wide on a DVD, whether you use an inverted scale for convenience or not. If only 10 decibels of the additional 48 are actually used in a DVD, you need ten times as much power to accomodate the added dynamic range used. When the additional dynamic range is used in a movie, it is frequently in the bass frequencies to add insult on top of injury.

Bill

[3dzapper]

I just had a chuckle.

Here we are on the Klipsch forum debating whether in my case 8 watts is sufficient, in Leo's 3.5 and Steamer's 4. Imagine if we were the Martin Logan or JM Focal labs forum......... The debate would be is 300 Watts enough or does 1,000Watts give us sufficient headroom?[]

Rick

[Duke Spinner]

don't laugh, Rick ...there are times with my 4430's that the K-2 I.O.C. light has come on ....

it's not a clip lite, but it tells you that there is some distortion becoming present

and, i wondered about 1KW .......[*-)]

[Jeff Matthews]

don't laugh, Rick ...there are times with my 4430's that the K-2 I.O.C. light has come on ....

it's not a clip lite, but it tells you that there is some distortion becoming present

and, i wondered about 1KW .......[*-)]

Duke, you have lights? Oooooooh!

[DrWho]

The relevant dynamic range is still 144 decibels wide on a DVD...

And Ben was pointing out that 0dBfs is the loudest any digital medium will get....so why not calibrate the system to not clip or distort with that level? And then you'll never have "headroom problems"

(btw, most all digital mediums are normalized to -1dBfs - so the loudest point in every piece of music will be the same volume)

It is interesting to note though that the digital mediums have way way more dynamic range than any LP....and many of the low power amp users are listening to LPs.

[Duke Spinner]

It is interesting to note though that the digital mediums have way way more dynamic range than any LP....and many of the low power amp users are listening to LPs.

very interesting, isn't it Who .....[]

[mobile homeless]

It is interesting to note though that the digital mediums have way way more dynamic range than any LP....and many of the low power amp users are listening to LPs.

Good lord.... more wrong connections, assumptions, associations via the Klipsch 2 Channel Forum. Why would we have it any other way; its this place's specialty and is more pervasive than comfort food at a Golden Corral...

kh

[maxg]

"It is interesting to note though that the digital mediums have way way more dynamic range than any LP....and many of the low power amp users are listening to LPs. "

I am not normally one to follow on the heels of Kelly but the most important single word in the above, totally true, statement is......drumroll please........mediums (media?), which, sadly for all concerned, has little or nothing to do with the crap they record (and compress) on them.

A CD may theoretically have greater POTENTIAL dynamic range but in practice it almost never does (than vinyl). Real world listening tests seem to show that despite the promise - CD delivers less dynamics than vinyl and even lofty SACD and DVDa often perform poorly.

Nothing to do with the medium - everything to do with the recording philosophy.

[pauln]

Max is right!

Don't confuse the preference for low power with a preference for vinyl.

The potential dynamic range of digital is often lost on the cutting room floor. Late posts about the insane boosting of average CD loudness up to within -3dB of the top by the engineers makes me think that old records may actually provide more dynamic range at normal listening levels. Further, the extreme listening levels at which many here operate their systems takes much of the remaining dynamic range and compresses it (amps, speakers, and ears) to where I think maybe folks no longer really know what dynamic range means - it does not mean loud - it means the capacity to play a wide range from soft to loud. For those of us who listen to music at human levels not exceeding 90dB the additional potential spec for the digital dynamic range is of no value. If you come from 90dB down to an indoor noise floor of 50dB, what good does the additional 100dB do for you? I think the answer is that it makes you need to turn up the volume real high to hear the majority of the quieter music passages, then turn it down for the real loud parts (that is what you folks with remotes are doing, aren't you?). But this is just a new kind of compression - incidental and non-linear at that.

It is no wonder to me why records are still the main source for many here.

[3dzapper]

Back in my days in radio, on the AM side we ran the VU meters up to +3-4 DBs. This allowed us to overmodulate the amplitude envolope producing a clearer, longer traveling signal that stayed out of the noise floor of our listener's recievers. Everybody did it. On the FM side, overmodulation produced distortion so we inserted compression at the transmitter. For the normal all day automated "beautiful music" we ran the Schaeffer Automotion to the same VU levels as the AM side along an equalized phone line to the transmitter. The overdrive there would keep the line signal higher above the noise floor. The transmitter would cut the peaks to 100% modulation There was maybe a15 Db dynamic range.

On the nights that I broadcast classical music on the FM station, I would run the console to never break 0VU on the meter, usually -3VU on peaks. This would effectively add another few Dbs of dynamic range.

When a CD is recorded at 0 Db, if this reference is 1111 1111 on a 16 bit sampler any musical peaks are gone. What's left is distortion, clipping the waveform. Even on a 24 bit recording the 1111 1111 1111 is the same level as the 16. Early producers, I believe, thought like an old radio engineer or tape jockey, running their VUs into the postitve range causing all that harshness us old folk associate with CDs. Even recorded at a b down level, it only allows peaks of 3 Db before saturation. I will admit that some, but not all, of the newer CDs are more judiciously recorded.

On the SACD front, what is the use of SACD when the producers just use the same digital data that they used for the Redbook? Such an example is Nora Jones' last album.

Anybody here ever produce virgin LPs?

Rick

[Rivendell61]

Re Paulin's post above: hearing the quiet bits may or may not be important to someone but there is not a 'noise floor' at 50 dB in a home. Most homes are much quieter. And you can hear information right through the 'floor'. Most listeners can hear down to c. 4 dB SPl in a home.

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea of CD's not containing large dynamic ranges (although there may be some that do not due to the program material). Other threads on 'compression' are talking about something else: peak meter levels. Even those crappy peak limited CDs will still have a large dynamic ranges and use lots of bits.

LPs can have a fairly low noise floor too--maybe -80 or -90 dB, in theory. A dithered CD is about -120 dB.

Mark

[MrMcGoo]

The relevant dynamic range is still 144 decibels wide on a DVD...

And Ben was pointing out that 0dBfs is the loudest any digital medium will get....so why not calibrate the system to not clip or distort with that level? And then you'll never have "headroom problems"

(btw, most all digital mediums are normalized to -1dBfs - so the loudest point in every piece of music will be the same volume)

It is interesting to note though that the digital mediums have way way more dynamic range than any LP....and many of the low power amp users are listening to LPs.

Good Doctor,

Home theaters made up from consumer gear lack some of the controls that you would need to be able to play 0dBfs safely. For example, consumer amps usually lack level controls that pro amps always seem to have. There is a defacto industry standard method for calibrating all consumer home theaters, thanks to George Lucas and THX. We are not calibrating a commercial dubbing stage.

Home theaters should be calibrated with full range pink noise at 75 db on each channel when the processor's main volume is set at -10db. Hence zero on the processor should be 85 db of pink noise which is commercial theater reference level. DVDs are usually engineered to be run off systems calibrated in this industry standard manner. The processor allows +/- 10 or 12 decibels of adjustment for each channel. After that, you have the gain control on your sub and processor to turn up or down to taste.

Then along comes ben who implies we should all throw out the industry standardized method of home theater calibration, because he has children at home. Good luck!!!

Then along comes Master and Commander in DTS that is mixed way hot with the extra dynamic range available on the DVD medium. THX Ultra2 processors with Ultra2 subs are designed to NOT limit peaks under the theory that the DVD is properly engineered and the sub can handle the required level of play. Ouch!!! There will never be any substitute for discretion on the use of the volume control, just like the fact is that discretion is needed to drive a car.

Bill

[ben.]

Bill, it seems your cockiness is inversely proportional to your grasp of the topic. Your rebutalls have precious little to do with the subject at hand. I appreciate the effort at inviting me to do math (if I can), but it helps to know the problem before boasting that you have the answer.

Sooo... you want to use all 144 of those dBs, eh? What's the noise floor in your room?

[Rivendell61]

Ben,

See my post above: there really is no 'noise floor' in a room.

Mark

[MrMcGoo]

Bill, it seems your cockiness is inversely proportional to your grasp of the topic. Your rebutalls have precious little to do with the subject at hand. I appreciate the effort at inviting me to do math (if I can), but it helps to know the problem before boasting that you have the answer.

Sooo... you want to use all 144 of those dBs, eh? What's the noise floor in your room?

The noise floor in my home is much lower than the noise floor in any commercial theater with an audience. Movies are mixed with that venue in mind. DVDs are a direct knock off of the theatrical release on the Dolby Digital version. The DTS version is frequently mixed hot and may have audible artifacts.

If you do not like the math comments, do not make them yourself. In every committee at work the decision science faculty ***** about math skills. It gets old fast.

Bill

[ben.]

Ben,

See my post above: there really is no 'noise floor' in a room.

Mark

Well, then it must be so. Thanks for setting me straight.

[ben.]

The noise floor in my home is much lower than the noise floor in any commercial theater with an audience. Movies are mixed with that venue in mind. DVDs are a direct knock off of the theatrical release on the Dolby Digital version. The DTS version is frequently mixes hot and may have audible artifacts.

If you do not like the math comments, do not make them yourself. In every committee at work the decision science faculty ***** about math skills. It gets old fast.

Bil;l

Actually (as I said), I quite liked the math comments.

Look, some of you guys are framing this issue with a narrow view of both the concept as a whole and the specific terminology being used. It doesn't matter a bit what your HT reciever manual says, there's very general concepts of gain structure and system set up at play here that you clearly don't want to think about. DrWho & I disgareed until we realized that we were saying pretty much the same thing. I guess if you actually read carefully and make the effort to see things from another's perspective, that type of thing can happen.