{"id":8476,"date":"2025-04-14T12:25:54","date_gmt":"2025-04-14T10:25:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tonmeister.ca\/wordpress\/?p=8476"},"modified":"2025-04-14T12:25:54","modified_gmt":"2025-04-14T10:25:54","slug":"the-original-loudness-war","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tonmeister.ca\/wordpress\/2025\/04\/14\/the-original-loudness-war\/","title":{"rendered":"The original Loudness War"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The June, 1968 issue of Wireless World magazine<\/a> includes an article by R.T. Lovelock called “Loudness Control for\u00a0a\u00a0Stereo System”. This article partly addresses the issue of resistance behaviour one or more channels of a variable resistor. However, it also includes the following statement:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is well known that the sensitivity of the ear does not vary in a linear manner over the whole of the frequency range. The difference in levels between the threshold of audibility and that of pain is much less at very low and very high frequencies than it\u00a0is in the middle of the audio spectrum. If the frequency response is adjusted to sound correct when the reproduction level is high, it will sound thin and attenuated when the level is turned down to a soft effect. Since some people desire a high level, while others cannot endure it, if the response is maintained constant while the level is altered, the reproduction will be correct at only one of the many preferred levels. If quality is to be maintained at all levels it will be necessary to readjust the tone controls for each setting of the gain control<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article includes a circuit diagram that can be used to introduce a low- and high-frequency boost at lower settings of the volume control, with the following example responses:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

These days, almost all audio devices include some version of this kind of variable magnitude response, dependent on volume. However, in 1968, this was a rather new idea that generated some debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the following month’s issue<\/a> The Letters to the Editor include a rather angry letter from John Crabbe (Editor of Hi-Fi News) where he says <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mr. Lovelock’s article\u00a0in\u00a0your June\u00a0issue raises an old\u00a0bogey\u00a0which\u00a0I\u00a0naively\u00a0thought had been\u00a0buried\u00a0by\u00a0most British engineers many years\u00a0ago.\u00a0I\u00a0refer, not\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0author’s excellent and useful thesis\u00a0on\u00a0achieving\u00a0an accurate\u00a0gain\u00a0control\u00a0law,\u00a0but\u00a0to\u00a0the notion that\u00a0our hearing\u00a0system’s non-linear\u00a0loudness \/ frequency behaviour\u00a0justifies an\u00a0interference with\u00a0response when\u00a0reproducing\u00a0music at various\u00a0levels.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of\u00a0course,\u00a0we\u00a0all\u00a0know\u00a0about Fletcher-Munson and Robinson-Dadson, etc, and it\u00a0is true that\u00a0l.f.\u00a0acuity declines with falling sound pressure\u00a0level;\u00a0though the\u00a0h.f. end\u00a0is different,\u00a0and latest research\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0support a\u00a0general\u00a0rise\u00a0in\u00a0output of\u00a0the sort given\u00a0by Mr. Lovelock’s circuit. However, the point is\u00a0that\u00a0applying the inverse\u00a0of\u00a0these curves to sound\u00a0reproduction\u00a0is\u00a0completely fallacious, because the\u00a0hearing\u00a0mechanism works the way\u00a0it\u00a0does\u00a0in real life,\u00a0with\u00a0music loud or quiet,\u00a0and no one objects.\u00a0If\u00a0`live’\u00a0music\u00a0is heard quietly\u00a0from\u00a0a\u00a0distant\u00a0seat in\u00a0the\u00a0concert hall\u00a0the\u00a0bass\u00a0is\u00a0subjectively\u00a0less\u00a0full\u00a0than if\u00a0heard loudly from the front\u00a0row\u00a0of\u00a0the stalls.\u00a0All a\u00a0`loudness\u00a0control’\u00a0does\u00a0is\u00a0to\u00a0offer the possibility\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0distant\u00a0loudness coupled with\u00a0a\u00a0close\u00a0tonal balance;\u00a0no\u00a0doubt\u00a0an\u00a0interesting experiment\u00a0in psycho-acoustics,\u00a0but nothing\u00a0to\u00a0do\u00a0with realistic reproduction.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0my\u00a0experience the\u00a0reaction of\u00a0most serious music\u00a0listeners\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0unnaturally thick-textured\u00a0sound (for its loudness) offered at low levels\u00a0by\u00a0an amplifier fitted with\u00a0one of\u00a0these\u00a0abominations\u00a0is\u00a0to switch\u00a0it\u00a0out of circuit.\u00a0No\u00a0doubt\u00a0we\u00a0must\u00a0manufacture things\u00a0to\u00a0cater\u00a0for the American\u00a0market, but for goodness\u00a0sake\u00a0don’t\u00a0let\u00a0readers\u00a0of\u00a0Wireless World\u00a0think\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Editor\u00a0endorses the total fallacy\u00a0on\u00a0which they are\u00a0based.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

with Lovelock replying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mr.\u00a0Crabbe\u00a0raises\u00a0a\u00a0point\u00a0of\u00a0perennial controversy\u00a0in the\u00a0matter of variation of amplifier response with volume. It\u00a0was because\u00a0I\u00a0was\u00a0aware\u00a0of the difference\u00a0in opinion\u00a0on\u00a0this\u00a0matter that\u00a0a\u00a0switch\u00a0was fitted which\u00a0allowed\u00a0a\u00a0variation of\u00a0volume without adjustment\u00a0of\u00a0frequency characteristic.\u00a0By\u00a0a\u00a0touch\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0finger\u00a0the user\u00a0may select\u00a0that\u00a0condition\u00a0which\u00a0he finds\u00a0most pleasing, and\u00a0I\u00a0still\u00a0think that\u00a0the question should\u00a0be\u00a0settled\u00a0by\u00a0subjective pleasure rather\u00a0than\u00a0by\u00a0pure\u00a0theory.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mr. Crabbe himself admits\u00a0that\u00a0when\u00a0no compensation\u00a0is\u00a0coupled\u00a0to\u00a0the control, it\u00a0is in\u00a0effect\u00a0a\u00a0‘distance’ control.\u00a0If\u00a0the listener wishes to\u00a0transpose himself from\u00a0the\u00a0expensive\u00a0orchestra\u00a0stalls\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0much cheaper gallery,\u00a0he is,\u00a0of course,\u00a0at\u00a0liberty\u00a0to\u00a0do\u00a0so. The\u00a0difference\u00a0in\u00a0price should\u00a0indicate\u00a0which is\u00a0the\u00a0preferred\u00a0choice however.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the August edition, Crabbe replies, and an R.E. Pickvance joins the debate with a wise observation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0his\u00a0article\u00a0on\u00a0loudness controls in your June\u00a0issue\u00a0Mr. Lovelock mentions the problem\u00a0of\u00a0matching the\u00a0loudness compensation to\u00a0the actual sound\u00a0levels\u00a0generated. Unfortunately the situation\u00a0is\u00a0more complex than\u00a0he suggests.\u00a0Take, for\u00a0example,\u00a0a\u00a0sound reproduction\u00a0system\u00a0with\u00a0a\u00a0record\u00a0player as\u00a0the\u00a0signal source:\u00a0if\u00a0the compensation is\u00a0correct for\u00a0one\u00a0record,\u00a0another record with a\u00a0different\u00a0value\u00a0of modulation\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0same sound\u00a0level\u00a0in the studio\u00a0will\u00a0require\u00a0a different setting of the loudness control\u00a0in order\u00a0to\u00a0recreate\u00a0that\u00a0sound\u00a0level\u00a0in\u00a0the listening\u00a0room.\u00a0For this reason the tonal balance\u00a0will\u00a0vary\u00a0from\u00a0one disc to\u00a0another. Changing the loudspeakers\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0system\u00a0for others with different\u00a0efficiencies will\u00a0have the same effect.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, B.S. Methven also joins in to debate the circuit design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The debate finally peters out in the September issue<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apart from the fun that I have reading this debate, there are two things that stick out for me that are worth highlighting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n