I have recently sold some of my old gear in order to purchase a new tv, receiver and speakers. One of my old pieces of gear that I sold was my old 1050 which I loved but that was lacking some features that I was looking for such as dplIIx Component inputs and a 7th channel. I had been so very anxious for the 1070 to come out but when it did at 899 It really was in a tough price range with some stiff competetion such as the hk 635, Denon 3805 Nad 753. The thing that was really disturbing to me were the post about the need to crank the volume to near its upper limits to get reasonable sound. One of the things I loved about my old 1050 was the fact that I never had to crank it past 45-50(out of 80) to get high levels of sound. Now I understand the whole - to + dbls range and that is to help calibrate to reference level but it seems crazy to have a volume control from range from -70 to + 10 and not get any sound until about the -20's. Why cant they make a volume range from 1-80 where 20 is a fourth of the total volume. I was just wondering if I was alone I this or if anybody else looked at this the same way I do.

There are a couple different ways to approach the design of a volume control. One is to use the decibel as your basis of measure and carry it from some negative value (such as -60dB) up to 0dB (generally considered "reference level" and the point typically used for calibration) and even a bit higher. This method may not be as intuitive initially (partially because you spend most of your time counting down as you turn it up), but it is often preferred by audiophiles and enthusiasts because it provides a clear baseline between different products (calibrate both to 75dB at 0dB volume with a test disc and you can get the same output when both are set to a volume of -15dB). A second approach to a volume scale is to start and zero and count up using arbitrary increments to a maximum limit (0 to 80 on the Model 1050, for example). This approach can appear more logical, but it lacks the "standard" baseline for comparison.

If you calibrate a receiver or processor at 0dB (as could be done with the 1070 using the internal test tones and a Radio Shack sound meter) and your amp can handle the speakers (a 65W receiver like the 1050 or 1070 can handle a lot, but some really inefficient speakers will demand more power), then -20dB should be pretty comparable to perhaps 40 or so on your 1050's dial (if my memory of my old 1050 is at all accurate).

Actually, I think the max. volume setting on the 1050 is 70(0-70). I usually top out at 55 for movies, as this is where the "Ref." level with test tones is and is plenty loud. For LOTR movies, I have to lower the volume to 40!

I do understand the basis of the calibration to 75db at 0 on the volume. I think that I am just looking at it and seeing that turning the volume up 60 units on its scale of mesurement yields very little as far as change in the volume that you hear. While calibrating two different receivers to the same reference point using test tones does give you a baseline for comparsions I personally would rather have a unit of measurement of the volume that is indicative of where you are on that units total scale of volume. I guess maybe this is just me being weird. What I really want to know I guess is do the folks that have a 1070 feel that it is underpowered and what are some of the typical listening levels that they use for movie listening.

the 1050's volume goes from 0-80 as gonk stated.being as i've got trim controls on my b&k amp,often when listening to sirius(dish) i will have it at 'max'(80)

Hmmmmm....now I gotta go home and check the volume scale to verify that....thanks a lot

Hey rdperry,

I hear you! I'm from the school where 9 o'clock on the volume knob is loud; 12 o'clock is the maximum you should use and 1 o'clock is...well, at a good party...where your turn the volume to at 1AM

I really don't like digital volume readouts ( I don't like digital spedometers either ). There's something "right" about analog dials.

Having said that, the past few receivers I've owned all exibit different behaviour as far as the volume scale goes. I've owned a 50wx5(T742) NAD and an 80wx5(T752) NAD. The volume went from -69 to +13. For the T742 anything below -30 was just about useless, -20 was loud, -10 was very loud, -5 was painful. I had to set the T742 to about +5 for 75dB calibration, even though I have relatively efficient speakers, and it hissed like mad! The T752 calibrated around 0 I believe and I could turn it up to about 0 before hitting my pain threshold. I now have a Cambridge Audio 540R, it's loud at -50, the 75dB calibrated at -15 and the pain threshold is around -10.

I haven't heard the 1070 (although I'm working may way there ) but if you find yourself typically listening to movies/music at or above the 0dB setting, I would guess you need a bit more power. I wouldn't worry too much about the volume setting for 75dB calibration itself, unless you're at +10 and still not reaching 75dB. Reference levels are "very very loud" and typically a good 10dB above what I would guess most people who want to preserve their hearing listen at.

I think it would do the Outlaw's some good to post dynamic power ratings (ala NAD) or maybe some current specifications (ala HK) for the 1070.

John thanks for the support. I too have an Nad 752 and it is loud at around -20to-25 with the three front channels trimmed to +8. In the past couple of years I have had an hk 525, the Nad 752 the pioneer 1014 the sony 2000 es and they all had different levels of volumes with my same speakers(polk Lti 100's). Due to my paranioa about volume levels I went with a Denon 3805 recently and really like it but I am now thinking that maybe I should have given the 1070 a shot.I just wanted so input from some owners on the 1070 volume levels to see if maybe I should return the 3805 an give the 1070 a try,

Okay....okay....I must've had one of those brain freeze moments!! I never go past the 60's with the 1050, even for music, so I guess I forgot I could go to 80 if I wanted :rolleyes: