[Mag]

I've read it posted on this site before that most recordings have an ideal playback volume.
I happen to share this opinion. However the factors are your speakers, your room, the recording and the spl of the instruments played on the recording. The majority of these instruments range at 92 decibels with a few exceptions.
So that means IMO that music playback if accuracy is your goal, listening should be a minimum 92 decibels. At lower volumes your brain is compensating to some degree on the actual sound of instruments from the playback.

Not everyone has the luxury of playing music at these volumes, but there it is. This does not apply to headphones, that's a different animal that can damage your hearing with speakers so close to your ears.

Comments?

[OzarkTom]

At 92 db, you will lose your hearing over time. A local high school band music director admits he has lost a lot of his. And he was never around any electronic music.

80-85db peaks would be a lot safer. I listen a lot at 70-75 peaks. You only get one set of ears.

The high frequency area of the cochlea is often damaged by loud sound. Sound pressure is measured in decibels (dB). ... With extended exposure, noises that reach a decibel level of 85 can cause permanent damage to the hair cells in the inner ear, leading to hearing loss. Many common sounds may be louder than you think…

[Mag]

At 92 db, you will lose your hearing over time. A local high school band music director admits he has lost a lot of his. And he was never around any electronic music.

80-85db peaks would be a lot safer. I listen a lot at 70-75 peaks. You only get one set of ears.

With all respect I hear this all the time, yes, I may lose my hearing pre-maturely. However I've been listening at high spl for the last 18 years 50+ hours a week and I am not deaf yet . IMO undistorted stereo music is not as harmful to the ears as people are led to believe. Not the same as mechanical sound, or driving with the car window open and getting an ear infection, or having a Harley rip your ears as it revs by. And air brakes always releasing in my ear, my biggest pet peeve.

Of course the experts have to say this because not everyone is prudent in how they listen, lots of factors to consider, especially not having speakers beside your ears.

[OzarkTom]

The high school band teacher was only around live musical instruments, none of the other.

I wish you luck.

[JLM]

The OSHA warning states long term exposure to a constant 85 dB will result in permanent hearing loss and/or pain.  Most music is not presented at a constant sound pressure level (spl).  Note that western life has gotten noisier (hospitals for instance have gotten 5 dB louder every 10 years). 

The ideal spl for hearing preservation is 0 dB (duh).  The ideal spl for high fidelity reproduction IMO is the live performance spl (with the same background noise levels).  Seems to me that there is for each of us a 'threshold of annoyance' which is well below the threshold of pain, normally stated as 130 dB.  For me annoyance starts around 100 dB for good music, down to 30 dB (a barely perceivable level) for music I don't like.  So most listen somewhere between those two ideals.  In my experience most audiophiles do their critical listening at an average of around 85 dB.

As music is a series of peaks, much hand waving (generalizations) are involved in a discussion along these lines.

[JerryM]

[Mag]

The high school band teacher was only around live musical instruments, none of the other.

I wish you luck.

I was at a bar where a DJ had a setup, two large PA speakers. I estimate spl of 95 decibels, louder than I typically listen. But it was the distortion that I found grating to my ears. Yeah I would probably be deaf if I had listen to that for 18 years rather than my home stereo system.

Went to a Chili Peppers concert, took my spl meter. I recall the band played at 95 decibels, the back up band played at something like 112 decibels, which I found uncomfortable. The whole arena crowd cheering registered a whopping 115 decibels.

So the biggest risk to hearing loss is a large crowd. You see it all the time for hockey games, the PA announcer encouraging the crowd to cheer louder. That's just wrong.

[rollo]

  About 70 db for me. One actually discerns more music that way. Too loud just becomes overbearing at times. Even Led Zepplin.

charles

[Elizabeth]

Radio Shack had a nice decibel meter. Most Smart Phones have apps with decibel meters.
Either way I listen around 55dB to 70dB peaks (measurements at listening position 'C' weighted)

Anyone is free to do whatever they want with their own ears..
I am 68 and can still hear OK.
I have never liked amplified concerts anyway, and I no longer go to theaters due to the unbelievably loud audio levels. (use to be one could complain and they actually would turn it down, Now they do not care, so I don't go)

My one vice is Opera. I like to hear Opera singers loud. So I listen at up to 80dB peaks to Opera.

I have to say folks get used to a level of loudness. And lower than that always sounds too quiet. This is a learned thing.
If you want to listen at lower levels, just do it! And after a week or two that lower level WILL sound 'right'

[Wind Chaser]

For me the ideal volume is whatever I choose in the moment. Sometimes depending on the song I’ll turn it up quite loud and I’m okay with that, but on the whole I prefer to keep it below 90 dbs.

[opnly bafld]

Anyone is free to do whatever they want with their own ears..

I have to say folks get used to a level of loudness. And lower than that always sounds too quiet. This is a learned thing.
If you want to listen at lower levels, just do it! And after a week or two that lower level WILL sound 'right'

+1 

[FullRangeMan]

The ideal playback volume in home vary according the room.
In the 90s I attend to a show from a band called Van Halen.
I stay ears ringing for 3 days, the only good song was Jump.

[Roninaudio]

This may help and is relevant in a couple aspects to your question....

https://www.psaudio.com/podcast/are-there-preferred-volume-levels-for-amps/

[FullRangeMan]

This may help and is relevant in a couple aspects to your question....

https://www.psaudio.com/podcast/are-there-preferred-volume-levels-for-amps/

Good podcast, Paul has a nice smooth radio broadcaster voice.
I understand Mag is referring to ''ideal volume'' to a person, what call my attention is how many woman like to listen music is low volume.

[WGH]

.... most recordings have an ideal playback volume.

I have the original vinyl of Stereophile's 1991 recording of Intermezzo: The Santa Barbara Sessions and found John Atkinson's liner notes interesting:

"Regarding the recording's tonal quality, those used to the typically bright sound of "commercial" piano recordings will find its treble to be a little soft. We are happy, however, that this accurately represents the true sound of the instrument in the hall at the microphone position. The complex manner in which notes decay, their harmonics intertwining, should be readily apparent, while the midrange should be evenly balanced, with no notes "jumping" forward at the listener.

"I think the dynamics of the instrument's sound were well captured: in the words of Alfred Brendel, its volume ranges "from a whisper to a roar." Kavi hit the ½" tape hard, reaching 14dB over the 250nWb/m 0VU mark, meaning that tape hiss was nonexistent even without noise reduction. The limiting factor affecting the recording's dynamic range is actually the intrinsic noise of the microphones rather than that of the analog tape; at a realistic playback level, this can be noticed as a soft hiss. But note that I said "realistic" playback level. This should reach, at the most, 96dB at the listening seat for the very loudest passages, such as the opening of the sonata's first movement. Not surprisingly, if you turn up the playback level so that what should be quiet passages become more "impressive"—the wonderful Debussy-esque musing at measure 19 of the sonata's Intermezzo, for example—then the microphone noise will probably be intrusive.

Don't play this recording too loud."

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/iintermezzoi-santa-barbara-sessions-ja-sound#rowKUxDE2RM9hopM.99

[Roninaudio]

I do think that besides room acoutics, it has to do with the correct volume to make the music come alive. A piano or classical guitar at a high volume can sound un-natural to me for example.  A symphony or rock band is different.  Jazz too.  My Pre does not actually even have stops or increments.  It is labeled :

1. Andreas Vollenweider
2. Pure Prairie League
3. New Age
4. Miles Davis
5. Jazz- Other
6. BB King
7. SRV
8. Allman Bros
9. Led Zepplin
10. BTO

[FullRangeMan]

BTO is a great rock band very underrated
much better than Grand Funk or Aerosmith.

[Roninaudio]

BTO is a great rock band very underrated
much better than Grand Funk or Aerosmith.

Agreed...

House of the Rising Sun
Blue Collar
Let it Ride
etc , etc...

[Bobu]

When I go to live classical music concerts then itys easy to listen - no fatigue.
I went to a Jazz performance at the Paris Cat (in Melbourne) and was glad I brought my ear plugs. Seriously, I would have been vomiting because the volume was deafening, literally - never again. Why are most (all?) jazz venues have dreadful acoustics?
Listening to my system there are two issues.
1. To find the best volume where the recording 'sings'.
2. To find the volume that I will not feel "I've had enough and I'll give it a rest tomorrow'.
3. Sometimes a compromise is needed. Every recording is different.