Each recording has one right volume level.

what about the idea that audio systems (speakers more so then anything else) seem to have a volume that they like to be played at and sound their best.

so is it the recording or your system?

Live events are almost always louder then what we listen to at home, probably a good thing or we would all be def by now, specially if rock is your music of choice. can't imagine how good  or bad the old rockers hearing is now. 

on that too loud, it bugs me when people say they listen to music at home above 100db nominal, your just killing your hearing.  Honestly I would never take your world for anything about equipment and their sound as I would suspect your hearing ability, lets not even get into people in their late 60's and above that have lost some of their detail retrieval and high frequency's extension. 

At 54, I'm suspect of my hearing ability now on micro detail retrieval and frequency extension. I get my hearing professionally checked every year, not the push the button when you hear a tone test either that's not that accurate (so I've been told by my doctor). I've found I have lost some high frequencies in my left ear mostly  and see the degradation over time of all the rest of the freq ranges in both (almost 20 years I've done this in the military).   We are all different but all of us will have hearing loss as we age some faster then others but it happens to all of us. 

Take care of your hearing once lost its gone for ever. 

ok I side stepped there on a rant sorry for that

Glen 

Most classical / jazz / and similar are not usually played at ear destroying volumes. Same would be true for everything outside of pop / rock / probably dance.

But .. and maybe some of the recording engineers could pop in on this one, we rarely listen to live rock and pop music at home, we listen to studio music and that is not mixed/recorded at front row concert levels but something more akin to what you may listen to at home.
Elizabeth, nope, you are exactly the target audiophile audience. How can we adapt the signal getting to your speakers to maximize the experience ... this holy grail of "flat" may be ideal when comparing speaker to speaker or amp to amp, but not listening experience to listening experience.
In the home theater world, these techniques are already being used to maximize the perceived experience. Why not audiophiles?

I've always said that it would be a simple matter for the record company to include a "calibration track". Using an app, you would play the CT (e.g. a 1000k test tone) and adjust your system volume to match what is specified on the album jacket. I.E., "Increase the volume until your meter reads 80db" etc. That way, you'd have some idea of the intended volume from the mastering session. Some day...

Today you could embed that in metadata or provide an online database where that information is available. I expect mostly it is not.

I think most people here will be familiar with Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves? In summary, how that applies to audio listening, is that the perceived tonal balance is heavily dependent on listening volume.

Right. So right in fact that if you want to take the time to read through my posts you’ll see I’ve mentioned and expounded on this many times. Considering the enormously edifying experience of reading my posts, well worth the time.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes- you are definitely on the right track. There’s even articles written by mastering engineers covering this exact aspect of mastering. Briefly, they know that because perceived frequency response varies with volume that no matter what they do the recording can at best sound good at only one volume level. Played less loud the bass will be lacking. Played louder it will be overwhelming. (I'm mentioning bass but this applies across the band, check it out and see.) They have to strike a balance. The reasoning they use is the people playing at low volume aren’t listening that closely and so won’t mind or maybe even notice things being off. Those playing it louder are more likely to care. So they dial it in to the volume level they think the most discerning listeners will be most likely to be playing it at.

But that’s only the first part of the equation. The second is what happens with the system and room when audiophiles enter the picture. Because the same Fletcher-Munson perception applies as well in your listening room as their recording studio.

This is where too any audiophiles screw up. Using meters, which are not ears and so do not "perceive" let alone experience Fletcher-Munson perceived level that varies with volume, they set things up to be "flat" and not by ear but by meter. They never consider what sounds flat only sounds flat at that one volume level.

So, in other words, not only does each recording have one volume level it has been engineered to sound right at, but so does each system. The only difference is the engineers are aware of this. Audiophiles, not so much.

Basically the volume level of a given CD is a function of its dynamic range. That’s why one is inclined to turn the volume knob higher (or lower) for some CDs relative to the one you just played. The louder the CD sounds at a given volume setting the lower the dynamic range. Example, Mercury Living Presence classical CDs generally have high dynamic range. So when you first play one you’ll notice the volume is rather low for when the volume knob is set at. That is to account for the large dynamic swings that come later, you know, so you won’t blow up your tweeters or woofers.

So, there is a happy medium for CDs with high dynamic range, where you can select the right volume and get the full dynamics of the recording. It’s subjective to some extent, obviously. That’s what the Loudness War is all about - providing high volume level but overly compressed dynamic range. Yuk! So, I’d say the trade-off is not volume for tonality, it’s volume for dynamic range.

"Played less loud the bass will be lacking. Played louder it will be overwhelming."

Millercarbons comment reinforces my belief that a subwoofers  adjustment IS NOT "set and forget" That's if you're in audio geek mode, and not just enjoying the music. I find an acceptable medium, then forget.

A remote, like the REL G series,  to play "mix engineer" makes sense to me. Apologies for hijacking thread.

While I think I know what you are trying to communicate at this point, I am not sure I agree completely. If the recording is "flat" or at least as intended, then the playback should be "flat" as well at least to sound as intended at the volume level intended and you are going to get closer to that with a meter than with your ears. In theory, at least at the recording level, all vagaries of the Fletcher Munson curve have already been taking into account (within the limits of the recording engineers listening equipment).
If you are moving away from the intended playback level, and of course that would vary in level from recording to recording, then no, a flat response would not be ideal if you wish to experience the tonal balance of what the recording engineer/artist intended. The problem is, by ears or by meter, you are always going to be wrong to some level.

millercarbon1,869 posts11-02-2019 1:53am

I think most people here will be familiar with Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves? In summary, how that applies to audio listening, is that the perceived tonal balance is heavily dependent on listening volume.

But that’s only the first part of the equation. The second is what happens with the system and room when audiophiles enter the picture. Because the same Fletcher-Munson perception applies as well in your listening room as their recording studio.

This is where too any audiophiles screw up. Using meters, which are not ears and so do not "perceive" let alone experience Fletcher-Munson perceived level that varies with volume, they set things up to be "flat" and not by ear but by meter. They never consider what sounds flat only sounds flat at that one volume level.

I think your comment, "volume for tonality, it's volume for dynamic range" misses the point of my post. My point is that if you want to hear the recording as intended you either need to listen to it at the volume it was mixed and mastered at, or you need to equalize with the Fletcher Monson curves as your guide between the intended volume and your listening volume. That won't be perfect, but would be "better"
Dynamic compression is a completely different topic. That is a choice made at the mixing/mastering stage, which is still done at a specific volume.

geoffkait17,910 posts11-02-2019 6:14amBasically the volume level of a given CD is a function of its dynamic range. That’s why one is inclined to turn the volume knob higher (or lower) for some CDs relative to the one you just played. The louder the CD sounds at a given volume setting the lower the dynamic range. Example, Mercury Living Presence classical CDs generally have high dynamic range. So when you first play one you’ll notice the volume is rather low for when the volume knob is set at. That is to account for the large dynamic swings that come later, you know, so you won’t blow up your tweeters or woofers.

So, there is a happy medium for CDs with high dynamic range, where you can select the right volume and get the full dynamics of the recording. It’s subjective to some extent, obviously. That’s what the Loudness War is all about - providing high volume level but overly compressed dynamic range. Yuk!

So, I’d say the trade-off is not volume for tonality, it’s volume for dynamic range.

If the recording is "flat" or at least as intended, then the playback should be "flat" as well at least to sound as intended at the volume level intended and you are going to get closer to that with a meter than with your ears.

You're confusing yourself. You're taking two things that seem on the surface very similar if not the same and thinking they are one and the same. They are not. Sometimes people think they understand, then do something that shows they really do not. This is one of those times.

One more time, with a lot more detail. 

The word "flat" has two completely different meanings. "Flat" as measured with a meter is NOT the same as the "flat" that you call it when all the notes sound equally loud to you.

Sound is nothing more than waves of compression and rarefaction- high and low pressure. When that pressure wave moves a microphone membrane the mic puts out a signal. When the signal is equal strength regardless of frequency we say it measures flat.

But this measured flat is completely different than what we hear as flat. The Fletcher-Munson curves are really just a graphic representation of how we hear different frequencies at different volumes. Unlike the mic that "hears" them all the same regardless of volume WE DO NOT! 

Just look at the difference! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
Notice, we begin to hear midrange and treble frequencies at very low levels. Then as they get louder in volume we hear them getting louder in volume, and its almost linear. Except at the extremes. Low bass we don't hear AT ALL until it gets fairly loud. And then, see how the curves are all scrunched together? What this is saying, once we get to a certain volume threshold (which is quite loud!) then suddenly we become very sensitive to bass volume. 

In other words, very small changes in bass volume matter a lot, but only once we reach a certain volume level. Below that volume level you can play with the bass a lot and hardly notice. This is why the old loudness controls were 20 dB. Think of it! 20 dB! That's huge! But at a very low volume its barely enough. Turned up real loud though, now as little as 1 or 2 dB is very noticeable.

So as you can see its hard enough (read: impossible) to ever get to flat, at least not without defining volume levels. (Equally true, you cannot get to flat without defining location.) These alone are hard enough to understand. But if you want to insist on throwing in "intended" as well, well then I am just gonna have to leave you to geoffkait. And good luck with that.

A lot of suppositions and old wives tales, millercarbon. 

Millercarbon,
I understand, quite well. the Fletcher-Munson curves thank you.

However, there is a difference between understanding them, and applying them correctly. I disagree with how you attempted to apply them w.r.t. my post.

By thinking what I wrote is wrong, you are perhaps illustrating your lack of understanding at a whole, beginning to end, system level, the application of the Fletcher-Munson curvers, not my lack of understanding of Fletcher-Munson curves.

1) When the recording engineer makes the final mix, his impression of the tonal balance, is influenced, as indicated by the Fletcher-Munson curves, by the volume level that he is listening at when he makes the final mix.

(Side note, the engineers playback system is likely close to flat.)

2) IF the listener wants to experience the music, approximately as the recording engineer intended, with the same approximate tonal balance, they must both listen at the same volume AND their system must be METER flat. If you change the volume, or your system is not flat, then the tonal balance will not be the same as what was intended at the time of mixing and mastering (ignoring minor differences between hearing of the recording engineer and listener -- note on that later).

3) If the listener is not listening at the same volume as the engineer, then equalizing the system, using the Fletcher-Munson curves and how they vary between the two volume levels, could restore at some level, the intended tonal balance ... if your goal is to hear what the recording engineer intended.
Euphonically, we all do have different preferences, so you can adjust however, you like, but that is personal preference, not specifically aspects of Fletcher-Munson. If I understood the data correctly, while there are of course variances from listener to listener in their own personal Fletcher-Munson curves (what is published are averages), the differences are not large.

Sounds like an argument in favor of a return to graphic equalizers.

Either that, or a whole new and radical approach to microphone design.

If by graphic you mean finite impulse response filters in DSP with a graphic user interface and song/genre presets .... You may be right :-)

I’ve often wondered whether there’s a market for a pre-amp with a 3 band studio quality parametric eq... only problem is that people would have to learn how to operate them. If you don’t know what you’re doing you’ll probably make the sound worse.

I think the problem with the idea of the perfect listening volume is that it presupposes an ideal volume was set at some point along the way. Unless the material was recorded with only a stereo pair from a comfortable listening position then the original recording levels wouldn’t be right... it’s common to close mic at least a couple of instruments.

In the mixing and mastering environments they’ll be trying to ensure the recording is listenable on a whole range of different systems and not looking for perfection on a perfect system.

I guess that’s why tone controls exist.

@geoffkait  

Basically the volume level of a given CD is a function of its dynamic range. That’s why one is inclined to turn the volume knob higher (or lower) for some CDs relative to the one you just played. The louder the CD sounds at a given volume setting the lower the dynamic range. Example, Mercury Living Presence classical CDs generally have high dynamic range. So when you first play one you’ll notice the volume is rather low for when the volume knob is set at. That is to account for the large dynamic swings that come later, you know, so you won’t blow up your tweeters or woofers.

So, there is a happy medium for CDs with high dynamic range, where you can select the right volume and get the full dynamics of the recording. It’s subjective to some extent, obviously. That’s what the Loudness War is all about - providing high volume level but overly compressed dynamic range. Yuk! So, I’d say the trade-off is not volume for tonality, it’s volume for dynamic range.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but you may well be right

Am using a martinlogan Unison (ARC Genesis) in combination with a Schiit Loki to receive a sound close to what I believe is correct for different volume levels. Often a little lazy so just use the settings for my normal critical listening volume which is about 85-90 db (never listen critically to a speaker without correction - the room interaction is too great for that).