2. misc-audio
  3. 152058-137844

Each recording has one right volume level.

This started from a reply by mijostyn, but I wanted to create a new distinct topic since it is critical, but misunderstood.

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.

At a basic level, if you want to recreate the tonal balance of the original recording, then you need to recreate the volume of the live music, or the volume used in mixing and mastering. If you don’t, then you are not listening as intended.

One way that applies to audiophilia is when we are trying to compare components and any number of "tweaks". It is critical to maintain constant volume when making comparisons or the perceived tonal differences can swamp out any component differences, leaving a proper choice impossible, though you may blame it on a component.

A second way, which mijostyn raised, that applies to audiophilia is perhaps this concept of "flat frequency response" is flawed w.r.t. recreating a musical experience at any given volume. To the post title, "Each recording has one right volume level". What if we are not at that volume level? If we are not, then arguably we should be equalizing such that the perceived tonal balance matches closer to the tonal balance at the intended listening volume.

Enjoy the discussion and keep the mud to a minimum.

mijostyn1,269 posts11-01-2019 2:11pm Without loudness compensation each recording has one right volume level.

atdavid
atdavid OP
736 posts
 
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.


twoleftears's avatar
twoleftears
5,327 posts
 
Sounds like an argument in favor of a return to graphic equalizers.

Either that, or a whole new and radical approach to microphone design.
atdavid OP
736 posts
 
If by graphic you mean finite impulse response filters in DSP with a graphic user interface and song/genre presets .... You may be right :-)
pragmasi
212 posts
 
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.
pragmasi
212 posts
 
@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

More to discover