Turn down the Volume!

One of my "pet peeves" is when we go to a venue and the sound reinforcement engineers have the volume so high, that the room won't accommodate it.

Me too.

One of my "pet peeves" is when we go to a venue and the sound reinforcement engineers have the volume so high, that the room won't accommodate it.  You see someone singing into a mike, but can't hear them, you see someone playing a horn into a mike, but you can't hear that either, etc.

I must admit, when some of my music buddies come over to audition my audio system, they DO play the music at a volume level a bit higher than I find "comfortable", but not at the level you find at many live performances.

@ozzy62 , Me also. 

@mijostyn Agree about the room. But pics of the system AND room could be helpful. I am having a hard time grasping the concept of listening to "girl with guitar" music at the same level as I would The Screaming Females.

@ozzy62 , I agree in part but the largest variable in effect is impossible to qualify by description and that is the room. Even if you are totally familiar with the equipment used if you have not heard it in that installation you can have no idea what it sounds like. But yes, if the person is using a Bose table radio things do not sound so hot. 

@onlyqualityhifi 

That's all well and nice. But if you make such an assertion as you did, you'll get far more people willing to entertain the idea if they know what equipment you are using for music playback. You might not accept this, but it's true. Everything needs a point of reference.

@ozzy62 I spend most of my time enjoying the music. As you will have noted I don’t post much- anywhere.  Just not enough hours in the day

Suffice to say I have produced mixed and mastered multi million selling records. I also owned multiple high end hifi-home cinema stores. 
 

I spent my life in music and my system has been lauded by many a hifi professional - manufacturers inventors journalists music professors and of course just music lovers. 

I tried explaining RRV buts it’s fallen in deaf ears so quite frankly I’m wasting my precious time trying to convince. 
 

let’s just say IM CONVINCED about RRV and boy have I tried not to believe it so. But it is. So theres. that. 
 

I'm glad this discussion is still going on, I've learned a lot from you all participating, and after viewing this, I think it explains the entire puzzle of why some recordings don't sound right at whatever volume you choose to listen at. Happy viewing, oh for those in a hurry, everything is due to mastering. 

@onlyqualityhifi 

I think most of us would appreciate it if you would create a system profile and post details and pics.

@ghdprentice duly noted. And sorry your 50 years quest has failed. I’m pleased to say mine hasn’t. 
 

enjoy the music. 

@sns  My favorite time to listen is at 1-2am with snow falling and at least 5" on the ground. Ambient noise is very low and everything sounds fantastic!

@onlyqualityhifi 

I have no idea where you come up with your ideas… but in no system that I have owned in the last fifty years has that been true.

I understand your response and I respectfully and entirely DISAGREE. RRV works for every piece of music from the same source.  ‘Softer’ music if you wish to call it that just has more headroom more room to breath.  
 

I play ALL music at the same volume, the RRV, and the magic is always there. 

Thanx @onlyqualityhifi. That might be true for studio monitoring situations. I am no expert in that. But, in home situations that is certainly wrong and it does not matter which source I am using. It is certain that modern recordings are much more consistent than older ones. It is also certain that I listen to much less of the room than is usual. To my ear various recordings sound best at wildly different volume settings especially when jumping genres. If you try to set one volume level, calibrated for each source, some recordings are going to sound dull and others too bright. There are too many variables that play into this for one volume to work, from the mics used to the settings of the recording engineer. Then you are off to the mixing engineer and finally production of the source material, records, CDs and so forth. All involve setting levels.  The quality of the home system including the room also play into this. Systems that tend towards sibilance can be uncomfortable to listen too at higher volumes. 

An interesting aside. In the past I always thought sibilance was just a fact of life and you always had to live with some of it. The instinct is always to turn the volume down. This is not true. Over the years as my system improved sibilance became progressively less of a problem until now when I rarely have an issue with it. My volume levels have also steadily increased. It is not because or presbycusis either although I have a small amount. I certainly hear it in some systems and not others. 

@mijostyn 

+1

Sorry I thought I explained it.  Its the very precise setting for the  volume at which a particular source plays in your listening environment. Once its set you NEVER change it for your chosen source.  All play now at the RIGHT ROOM VOLUME. The RRV. 

@onlyqualityhifi , I would like to know what RRV means!

They do @mijostyn as long as you set the RRV correctly. Yes even a string quartet vs a rock concert.  You just get more headroom. Its revealing to hear but most rewarding 

its the best kept least understood audiophile secret. 

@onlyqualityhifi , What do you mean by RR Volume?

All recordings do not sound best at the same volume. Playing a string quartet at the same volume as a live rock concert would be a little silly and quite painful.

Anything to add to the convo @jjss49 

I HAVE the best system ive ever heard and boy have I heard a few. Many are literally reduced to tears when they hear. Oh and its in a small REALLY crap room. So yes. The room affects but not as much as you may think. Well not in my set up.

Im fortunate enough to having experienced audio nirvana and I can assure you it’s awesome. Pure utter joy.

I OWNED an ultra high end dealership I also produced and mixed multi million selling records.

i think kenjit’s uncle has signed in...

@mijostyn Hi, no. Its NOT correct. The RRV when set correctly is right for EVERY recording. Many will disagree. I cant help that. 

Also you cant set RRV accurately with a stepped remote. Its not accurate enough. The RRV needs precision.

I HAVE the best system ive ever heard and boy have I heard a few.  Many are literally reduced to tears when they hear.  Oh and its in a small REALLY crap room. So yes. The room affects but not as much as you may think. Well not in my set up. Certain amps ‘take out’ the room’s affect. 

@onlyqualityhifi , thank you for responding. It always helps to have backup. People in the business never want to upset people as they might lose business. They won't lie, they just won't tell you the truth. This comment does not apply to the snake oil venders. 

As I have state in the past, every recording has a "right" volume. I have always thought that this had to do with the volume it was mixed at as our frequency response changes with volume. Do you think this is correct? 

The first time I heard a seriously well set up system my jaw must have dropped three feet, frisson every minute. It took me 30 years to better that system and I still have a few problems to solve.

Another note. It is not just the equipment but also how the equipment is use and the room it is placed in. 

I agree with @mijostyn I OWNED an ultra high end dealership I also produced and mixed multi million selling records.

VERY VERY FEW SYSTEMS come close to conveying the music even remotely accurately, and playing at low volume will not IMO get you there

The RRV needs to be set correctly, that’s a first, then it’s down to so many other factors starting with the amp, the heart and soul of every system

Im fortunate enough to having experienced audio nirvana and I can assure you it’s awesome. Pure utter joy.

@phusis , that is a very valid question which has a very politically difficult answer. Many people already think I am an arrogant SOB and from their perspective I am and nothing is going to convince them otherwise. So, in short,  Mr Turnbull's system is not even remotely close to accurate. This is not saying that it is not pleasing to listen to. I have spent decades listening to my own pleasingly inaccurate systems. The people who are listening are surprised a small system like that can sound so good, the Bose Effect. When presented with a current SOTA system you get comments like "G-d, it sounds like you are there!" "I have never heard anything like this before." I never knew a system like this existed" and so forth. You get the impression of a true sense of wonder. Does a system have to be really SOTA to generate this sort of reaction? No, but it is a good indicator. 

It all comes down to experience. Most audiophiles have not worked in the business and are busy with their own jobs and life. They have minimal exposure and very few systems are capable of the kind of performance I am talking about which again does not mean other systems are not pleasing to listen to. I worked in an ultra high end store and in my own experience I have only heard three systems that reached this level of performance. 

@mijostyn --

What about the rest? Every little detail is important, some more than others. ...

I didn't address my question about "the rest" to you, but rather aimed it at a general tendency in audiophilia to be less invested in a range of core parameters (i.e.: the rest) like dynamics, scale, size of presentation, ease, etc. 

I stated exactly what accurate is and it is a target to shoot at, a reference point. Although our audio memory stinks those of us who frequent live events on a regular basis and are paying attention usually have a good idea what accurate is even though we can not define it. We know when we hear it. 

You somehow got the derogatory idea about Mr. Turnbull's setup, through Mr. DeVore descriptions, that is was merely "enjoyable" sounding to the ears of a novice audience who were easily impressed, and opposed it with the more desirable high-end trait of "accuracy." I just found it a reductive remark and an odd takeaway from the video. Listen to what John has to say from 10:07:

The interesting observation I have made over the years is most people, even those who are not HiFi addicts know when they hear it.

Exactly; why would the ones who heard Mr. Turnbull's setup be less right in this regard?

Great sounding low listening levels are desirable if you want to call your system high-end. I'm going to get pissed if I have to play loud levels just to enjoy my music although some music begs to be played louder. Basically it should do both very well.

Even in my twenties I didn't like to have a stereo be so loud you couldn't hear someone else speak. All those decades later, I can't handle loud volume, period. 

Re this: "To me, one of the most important subjective measure of a system is how it sounds at low volume."

@larryi, how right you are! I've listened to low volume music while working in home office for 25+ years. I've had a number of systems over that time. I found that sealed/acoustic suspension designs + a subwoofer play better at low volume than ported designs. Never heard horns, ribbons, or other high efficiency designs, so can't comment on those.

At least in my home office, I get terrific low volume sound from either the ATC SCM 12 Pros or the vintage KEF 103.2s. And with either pair of speakers, on those occasions when I feel like cranking it, the walls shake.

(RIGHT ROOM) VOLUME (RRV).
 

Get the volume set right THEN NEVER CHANGE IT  Yup you read that right, once it’s set for a particular source you don’t change irrespective of the type of music.  RRV as I call it should become de facto but if isn’t  

As the OP points out this a rarely discussed issue BUT IT IS CRUCIAL to your listening enjoyment. 

I opened a similar discussion on another forum, which claims to know ‘what’s best’. They piled in. Couldn’t handle my reasoned arguments. The forum owner even challenged me to post some decibel readings coz he wouldn’t accept I was doing it right AND playing at decent sound levels, even in a small room. So I took his challenge posted three readings … and the coward backed down and closed the thread.  What a woos!

So yes RRV challenges the norm. But boy does it work.  Dial in your RRV and never touch that volume button again. Just enjoy the music. 

it's simple - the secret is to use BIG speakers, but listen at a low volume (you need a good active preamp) ... get a powerful rich quiet sound ...

small speakers will not give such an effect - they cannot push air - they "pierce" it like a needle

in audio - everything was invented a long time ago))) there is almost nothing new

That’s why they are called loudspeakers!   There are times to listen quietly and times to crank it up!   There you go, 2 sentences. Sorry, three, oops,  now four.  Fuuuuuu#cck!

Since my home is situated on a 1/3 acre property and there are copious amounts of insulation in the walls and ceiling, I am fortunate enough to need not worry about bothering the neighbors with my music. This was, of course, by design.

When I’m busy with other things, background levels are fine, as lower volumes don’t pull my attention away from whatever task is at hand. But when I’m relaxing in my listening chair and focused on my music, I prefer an average SPL in my room that produces a lifelike representation of the recorded instruments and vocals.

The graphic below is a frame grab of a jazz piece played back at my usual "focused" listening level using Z-weighting (essentially unweighted, so a more accurate reflection of the actual overall volume in the room without compensation for the nonlinearities human hearing). A-weighting would have resulted in values about 20 dB lower.

For those who can’t decipher the banner text in each quadrant of the image:

• Linst = Instantaneous SPL
• Leq = Average SPL during the measurement run
• Lmin = Minimum SPL during the run
• Lmax = Maximum SPL during the run

The dynamic range is indicated by the difference between the Lmin and Lmax values

Especially at night, I found I often control the volume below 55-60 dbA. With sub turned on, I could even lower the volume down to 50 dbA because the missing low end is mitigated.

@dain +1 on jjss49. I suspect what you heard was superior micro dynamics of horn system at low volumes. Extreme high efficiency of many horns makes them come alive at much lower volumes with extremely low power amps. Amps in sweet zone at amazingly low wattage, and easily moved diaphragms at this same amazingly low wattage in horn drivers are reason for this. My Klipschorns and SET amps excel by leaps and bounds over my acoustic suspension speakers with same amps, in this regard.

I have experienced a horn system that was actually much louder SPL than it 'seemed' - do you measure or go by ear?

for spl’s always measure... the ear can be fooled by small differences

many an a-b comparison is plagued by being sloppy on this front... level matching is essential

@johnk Many with horn systems have said that low volume is still satisfying. I have experienced a horn system that was actually much louder SPL than it 'seemed' - do you measure or go by ear?

My systems can sound articulate and engaging at extremely low levels and can also play at extremely high levels or anywhere in between without strain thermal compression and with very very low distortion because most are all front horn-based.

@phusis, thank you for the psychoanalysis. 

What about the rest? Every little detail is important, some more than others. It is attention to details that moves a system towards state of the art performance, even the minor ones. I stated exactly what accurate is and it is a target to shoot at, a reference point. Although our audio memory stinks those of us who frequent live events on a regular basis and are paying attention usually have a good idea what accurate is even though we can not define it. We know when we hear it. 

Specific about what? People's preferences? What "enjoyable" is varies from person to person and depends on that individual's experience and expectations. Wild presumption? No, fact of life and I could care less who agrees with me. Your paragraph makes no sense by the way. You might want to rephrase it. Let me do it for you. In my own little pathetic world I am an arrogant, HiFi snob and proud of it. I love every inch of the the ride and am more than happy to share and assist others as well a accept advice from those whose opinions I respect. Although accuracy in sound reproduction is a vague topic and difficult to describe, it does exist. The interesting observation I have made over the years is most people, even those who are not HiFi addicts know when they hear it.

@mijostyn --

an actual live acoustical reference certainly is the goal, at least as far as I am concerned. The problem for all of us is that a live acoustical reference is a moving target and ones that are not electrified into oblivion are hard to find.

Sure, I’m aware of that. My main objective here (and at the same time avoiding the reference to live, amplified concerts) was pointing to live acoustics concerts as events that weren’t confined to stale 60-70dB peak outputs, not that such volume levels can’t bring about worthwhile musical experiences in front of one’s home setup.

It’s the divide to the live concerts that not only in this respect is apparent, and where audiophilia, certain in some quarters has grown into a centered-around-itself snob cultivation that would almost want to have you bow at their faux achievements, while resembling anything but the live event in core parameters - at staggering prices, mind you. High-end audio in large part has become about soundstaging only, but what about the rest?

I am not quite sure which lover John is speaking for. The general public is routinely astounded when they hear a big system. As he explains, many of them never knew systems like these existed. When you tell them the price they think you are crazy, probably true. Do they enjoy it? Sure, like any amusement park ride.

Sorry, man, but that’s a borderline arrogant comment that ties nicely into Mr. DeVore’s main contention here: comparing the setup demoed by Mr. Turnbull (i.e.: vintage, large horn-loaded and very high efficiency speakers fed by low-powered tube amps) with an amusement park ride, and effectively robbing it of anything that aspires to High-End. Make it sound big and them novices will be easily impressed, right? Or, maybe it’s what is typically represented by high-end audio and what it lacks: size of representation, unrestrained dynamics, a sense of aliveness, presence, and something that just sounds real.

What you find to be a weakness with regard to assessing an audio setup’s capabilities from the "general public" I rather see as the un-schooled minds that haven’t been trained to beforementioned centered-around-itself sonic preference by audiophiles, and instead reacts genuinely to something reproduced. They haven’t been preconditioned to being wowed by small 2-way standmounted speakers costing a fortune, because it doesn’t sound real to them, so why bother - not least at a very high price?

They are certainly not making or even thinking about an analysis of the performance for accuracy. There is a scale of accuracy. Some systems (includes the room) are more accurate than others. Accurate and enjoyable are two separate issues. John is talking about enjoyable which more or less comes down to taste. Accurate is that string quartet sounding exactly as it did at the live performance. There are millions of almost accurates , but only one accurate. Some of us prefer a more surrealistic version of reality.

Accurate vs. enjoyable - well, to my mind that’s a severely shortchanging and reductive terminology to describe different setups, at least "the ones" that are being centered here. I would only add: "accurate" in relation to which range of aspects and references?

I will alter the sound somewhat to suit my own taste, to replicate my memory of the live performance at reasonable levels. It always is a matter of memory and we all hear music differently. I have yet to see anyone AB a live performance with a recording of it. We have no trouble remembering what we heard, but we have a real hard time remembering what we heard sounded like. There are so many confounding factors which is why there are so many opinions regarding the quality of music systems.

Absolutely, I fully agree on this.

John thinks if it sounds good, if it is "enjoyable" then it is valid. This approach is fine for most people. IMHO this is an avoidance tactic and certainly a lot less stressful than that search for the one accurate. This has nothing to do with validity. Any old which way you can enjoy music is valid. If you are looking for accurate you are in for a rough ride.

You’re certainly avoiding being more specific, and you cling to the term "enjoyable" (in conjunction with Mr. Turnbull setup, or at least that type of speaker-amp setup which it represents) as if it was the only way to describe and being any actual ’accurate’ and exhaustive correlative to its sound. That’s a wild presumption, I’d say, and one many won’t agree with. I would refer to your paragraph above (that I agree with), a paragraph that to my mind effectively undermines your adherence to accuracy here when the recollection of a reference can be quite obscure.

I downloaded the app for the Spectrum audio analyzer. Works great for very basic measurements. I use it all the time and find that I rarely listen to anything above 85db. As long as the system can handle the peaks, that's plenty for my uses.

I agree - avoid ambient and background noise - but NOT the ambient sound in the recording, which is there for a reason, like a band playing *together* and not each player on their own, the "good ambience" which is often pro-tooled away in modern remasters.

And adjust your speakers (work with this). And some - not too much - treatment of the room. the lower your volume, while still hearing the music clear and good - the better.

Another underestimated factor is the RELATIVE volume, or gain, in your system. If you have two or more gain stages, and can adjust the volume on these, it pays to pay attention to which volume settings that give the best sound. If your system chain is tuned in this way, chances are, you can turn the overall volume down, and still have good sound.

Note that, in my experience, this relative volume tuning varies a lot. Generally if the source is turned too low, the music sounds dull and insipid. If too high it becomes too loud, insistent and harsh. However it also depends on the quality of the gain stages. So for example, for many years, I ran digital music from a pc to active speakers in my home office. I discovered that including a tube headphone amp between the source and the speakers gave better sound. Instead of two gain stages - lowly solid state in the pc, and similar in the active speaker amp, I now had three, a higher quality component in between - and discovered a new rule of thumb - make the best gain stage carry as much of the load as possible.

Higher ambient noise levels mask micro dynamics, hearing the full measure of micro dynamics contained within a recording is what makes the music come alive and creates engagement. 20db differences in ambient noise levels, lets say from daytime to quiet night,  within any particular room will greatly affect satisfactory macro dynamic or volume level of system. If one wants to have satisfactory low volume level listening, lower that ambient noise level!

Certainly, the type of music played also has bearing on this. Classical recordings with their generally higher levels of dynamic expression will be more problematic in the noisy environment, rock far less.

I tend to agree that high efficiency speakers and tubes perform better at low level volumes. Tubes, especially directly heated triodes I've found to have greater micro dynamic expression at low volume levels vs push pull and SS. High efficiency speakers, especially horns, expose the full potential of tubes in this area.

I suspect that the reason high-efficiency speakers tend to sound more dynamic than low-efficiency speakers has to do with thermal compression.  For any given output level, low-efficiency speakers have to run more power through the drivers, with a larger portion of that power being dissipated as heat vis-a-vis  high efficiency drivers.  That heat actually increases the resistance of the voice coil and this reduces the power that can delivered to the coil, thereby reducing its sound output.  Hence, there is more of this sort of compression of louder signals with low-efficiency speakers.  That is why high efficiency speakers sound more lively at any given sound level.  I think they sound particularly lively at low levels.

@amosm  If you don't want to hear your car rattle, turn up the radio. This is called masking. The same holds true of your highway noise. Play vinyl which has a higher background noise level and turn up the volume till you don't notice the highway.\

Your only other option is to move. I 

I know of no house that is absolutely quiet. Mine certainly is not but, it never bothers me until I am taking measurements then I turn everything in the house off.

Volume is one area which makes people think cd is better than streaming. Most streamers are low on volume and it’s only once you’ve adjusted the fixed volume to higher where things change drastically. 
 

now as much as volume is important, the listening environment is just as important. In a treated room, you’d enjoy your system. Volume is key but the environment is very very important. I can literally hear the sound from the highway as I type this. How do I expect my system to sound good under such conditions

@phusis , an actual live acoustical reference certainly is the goal, at least as far as I am concerned. The problem for all of us is that a live acoustical reference is a moving target and ones that are not electrified into oblivion are hard to find. One of my favorite references is the conservatory string quartet. If I were to record one I would want the reproduction to sound exactly like that, room and all. Jazz in the right venue offers another opportunity for a realistic reference. It is easy for any great system to outperform most rock and pop concerts as they are in most instances distorted mono. I suppose I am looking for a rock concert with the imaging of a live string quartet, but with the bass, power and dynamics of rock. This is the audiophile me talking not the music lover me. The music lover me will gladly listen to a 78 of Enrico Caruso. I am not quite sure which lover John is speaking for. The general public is routinely astounded when they hear a big system. As he explains, many of them never knew systems like these existed. When you tell them the price they think you are crazy, probably true. Do they enjoy it? Sure, like any amusement park ride. They are certainly not making or even thinking about an analysis of the performance for accuracy. There is a scale of accuracy. Some systems (includes the room) are more accurate than others. Accurate and enjoyable are two separate issues. John is talking about enjoyable which more or less comes down to taste. Accurate is that string quartet sounding exactly as it did at the live performance. There are millions of almost accurates , but only one accurate.  Some of us prefer a more surrealistic version of reality. I will alter the sound somewhat to suit my own taste, to replicate my memory of the live performance at reasonable levels. It always is a matter of memory and we all hear music differently. I have yet to see anyone AB a live performance with a recording of it. We have no trouble remembering what we heard, but we have a real hard time remembering what we heard sounded like. There are so many confounding factors which is why there are so many opinions regarding the quality of music systems. John thinks if it sounds good, if it is "enjoyable" then it is valid. This approach is fine for most people. IMHO this is an avoidance tactic and certainly a lot less stressful than that search for the one accurate. This has nothing to do with validity. Any old which way you can enjoy music is valid. If you are looking for accurate you are in for a rough ride.

To all a Happy 4th!

@dain , It is not that complicated. If the mixing engineer is mastering at a higher volume he is going to keep the bass and treble a little lower to get a balanced sound. When you listen to it at a low level it sounds dull and bass-less. But, if you turn it up to the volume the mastering engineer was mixing at, it sound fine. Again, all this is based on the Fletcher-Munson effect. Every recording has a "right" volume level based on the type of music and the way it was mastered. The way around this is called dynamic loudness compensation. TacT Audio is the only company to have done this. In the old days just used tone controls. Now, some of us have digital EQ. Me, I just turn up the volume till it sounds right:-)

@bkeske --

For me, it’s simple. I raise the volume to the point of the music, whatever it may be, sounds realistic and actually scales per the performance. 

If it is louder, it seems artificial and too large, too quiet, the opposite.

Exactly. With some setups and speaker/acoustics combos the music "comes alive" at a relatively low volume level, but the scaling and overall presence would likely be off and need some more volume to fall into place. Low level listening and a sense of aliveness here is a great boon with late evening/night listening so not to disturb potential neighbors and/or sleeping family members, but for the music to more properly fill out the listening space - again, depending on personal preference, the material and recording nature - higher SPL's are necessitated. 

More importantly however, IMHO, a speaker's advantageous abilities into low-level detail retrieval and sense of aliveness here isn't so much about being a benefit to low-level listening as it is to the way it affects average and higher volume levels and where it matters mostly - certainly insofar anything approaching a fuller experience matters; whatever accounts for this ability at lower SPL's isn't confined to this range alone, but brings with it a sense of "ignition" and live feel at higher volume levels as well. 

I would say for most all, it is between 75-85 db. If louder, it typically means that it is still a realistic ‘size’ in my room.

That's about the average SPL range here as well, if occasionally a bit lower with music, and with movies somewhat higher in peak levels (but of course averaging lower). 

What strikes me as a bit posh is the notion, if such is actually presented, that low-level listening is somehow a finer arts and cultivation to strive for with music reproduction in one's home. I'm all for preserving our hearing in these endeavors and not bombarding them with unnecessarily high average SPL's over longer durations, but fullness, proper dynamics, physicality and presence in reproduction has become curiously unfashionable starting decades ago, making you wonder if a live acoustical reference is really the overall goal in audiophilia. 

John DeVore hits the nail on its head wonderfully precise here in his latest video blog:

 

@mijostyn  that’s fascinating. And f-m curves make sense. Much of this is in our brains rather than our ears. I’m not sure about ‘ level it was mastered at’  that would mean what? I’m thinking of if you hear music playing from afar, you can usually tell if it’s a live band or a recording. So it’s really about peak volumes very apart from average. Genre dependent for sure. I’m interested in streaming, since they have rules or algorithms to keep one song from out powering another. But it still leaves us to decide where the knob goes. If hitting 95 peaks for hours as you say it would seem risky, if it’s highly compressed (made constantly loud) it would be ‘fatiguing’, but that’s why I wonder why it isn’t mentioned more often. 

@dain You are right when you mention different systems have different loudness levels at any given dB reading. The Loudness Wars are all about dynamic compression. Soft passages sound almost as loud as the loud ones. It is pretty strange when a single violin sounds as loud as the entire orchestra. People seem to think this sounds better in their cars. 

We perceive other issues as "volume" like distortion and sibilance, both want to make us turn it down.

If you do not know about Fletcher-Munson curves read up on it. You can make a system sound louder by modifying it's frequency response to match that of our hearing at any given level, the old Loudness switch. 

Next is the volume the recording was mastered at. Recordings mastered at high volumes will sound dull and bass-less  at low volumes. Recordings mastered at low levels will sound bright and bassy at loud levels, see Fletcher Munson.

Finally, there is the overall quality of the system. Powerful, low distortion systems ( I include the room as part of the system) with reasonably flat response curves never seem to be playing as loud as they actually are. 95 dB can be very comfortable and satisfying for no longer than an hour or two or you risk damaging your hearing. Volumes above 100 dB should be avoided. But, in order to handle peaks well a system should be able to push out 105 dB without noticeable distress.

@bkeske has it right. Every recording has a "right" volume level again depending on how it was mixed and the type or genre of the music.