Each recording has one right volume level.

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.