Define the terms.
Cite the studies.
How do you calibrate your subwoofers to the satellites?
It's in the article I linked to, but maybe you disregarded it because it is associated with Harman, even though it's written by Sean Olive who you have twice quoted here. But just to summarize:
full vs. thin describes the relative level of low frequencies (bass and low mids) with "full" describing excess and "thin" describing deficiency.
bright vs. dull describe the relative level of treble with "bright" describing excess and "dull" describing deficiency.
I will note that these attributes most accurately apply to particular notes or particular sound effects. In a presentation, it's entirely possible to have thinness with some notes and fullness with others.
As for my sub calibration, the answer requires a bit of detailed discussion.
Basically, I calibrate so that the impulse response for each input channel (except LFE) measured with a -20 dBFS sine sweep and analyzed with a 1/3rd octave frequency dependent window (FDW) in REW is 80 dB SPL. Acttualy, I bend this rule very slightly at the top end, the bottom end, and at the sub/mains XO. At the top and bottom end, the effective LPF and HPF introduce phase shift that delays the first arrival enough that it slips past the FDW. A similar issues happens around the sub/mains XO. For these, I consider the response with up to 1/6th octave FDW, but note that if I use 1/6th octave FDW or higher universally I end up with subjectively imbalanced mid-range due to a very early reflection from the ceiling that my brain apparently ignores when assessing the tonal balance of the source.
After the calibration, I apply additional adjustments that are needed for typical content. Pretty much everything I play gets a filter on ultra high frequencies that is consistent with the effect of in-air absorption and primarily diminishes the response at the very very top. Almost all professional monitors have such an adjustment built-in, particularly those meant for near-field use. The second filter is the bass boost I describe here: 3-5 dB somewhere between 100 and 500 Hz or so, again depending on content. These two filters are sufficient to optimize the presentation of most music I own. For movies, I also have an adjustable X-curve like roll-off of up to -3 dB/octave starting at 2 kHz. I also occasionally use a high shelf at 2 kHz of -1 to -3 dB, which is similar to the "high trim" switch available on many monitors and is helpful at with times with both music and movies. In the case of movies, the need for this upper mid shelf may arise due to some upper mid range energy accumulating and inflating the RTA measurements in the particular dub stage used. With music, it may arise due to the use of the "high trim" switch during the mix or it may arise due intentional EQ of the monitoring system by the mix engineer. Apparently many professionals believe that the response above 1 kHz should diminish by -1 dB/octave regardless of room effects and whatnot. Needless to say, some stuff is just too thin and bright without the upper-mid shelf. Lastly, there are occasions in which I disable the bass boost, most likely because the mixer used an in-room measurement for calibration here as well instead of relying on the informal reference of "anechoic flat speaker placed in-room at least 5 feet form adjacent walls".
Because cinema mixes are done in dub stages that are calibrated using in-room measurements, the bass boost may be inappropriate here as well, but it really depends. I believe most of movie soundtrack production is done using anechoic flat monitors that may not be configured using any additional EQ. Only the dub stage is actually calibrated to the X curve, and given growing awareness of the flaws of the X curve calibration, re-recording mixers are probably a lot less likely to make EQ adjustments once the mix gets to the dub stage. Home mixes are also likely done in an environment without X curve calibration and may sound very good on a system that is optimized for 2 channel music playback if done correctly. Hence, the bass boost is still often appropriate. Since the floor bounce arrives relatively late and is somewhat diminished under near-field monitoring conditions, I tend to set the boost at around +3 or +4 dB at 100 Hz for most movies. With most recent releases, this approach works very well, but there are still exceptions.
The end result of this calibration process is left and right mains that measure about 85 dBC using the -20 dBFS pink noise that's band-limited to 500-2000 Hz. So these days, my master volume "0" is essentially compatible with the cinema reference standard. Based on my own "first arrival" hypothesis for EQ and SPL calibration, I should be playing at MV "-4" to achieve equivalent loudness to a cinema. And in fact, this is the level that I prefer on average after correcting for tonal balance issues with most recent film soundtracks. Older tracks are more likely to come in at around "-6", presumably because of the early confusion about the SPL calibration standard concerning the proper meters to use and the fact that Dolby's pink noise test signal was actually -18 dBFS instead of -20 dBFS.
The pink noise test signal for my sub (-20 dBFS and band-limited to 40-80 Hz, IIRC) yields 85 dBC only if I have about +4.5 dB of bass boost active over my baseline calibration. My result is probably not typical and arises because of my use of near-field MBMs. The directivity of the MBMs in the 50-100 Hz range is effectively a lot higher than for my mains in the 500-2000 Hz region. Below 50 Hz, directivity is fairly high too because the room response is dominated by modal behavior where global de-reverberation via EQ becomes possible. So ironically, "boosting" by 3-5 dB gives me a sub response that's balanced and correct according to cinema standards but oftentimes sounds too hot. I can't emphasize enough the fact that cinema calibration standards are completely broken.
My opinion is that every recording should come with a FR taken at the mix desk with mix level noted.
This information is mostly useless unless the full impulse response measurement data is included. I've said many times and will say again that 1/6th octave smoothed frequency response magnitude is most useless for characterizing how a system sounds. If the full impulse response is provided, then there is an opportunity to run the kind of analysis that's actually needed.
As far as what that analysis should be, I'm still working on that problem and will be probably for a long while. The 1/3rd octave FDW worked extremely well for me in my room, but I know it is will need refinement to deal with crossover delays and what not at the very least. It's still an open question in my mind just how much first arrival dominates perception vs. contributions from early reflections. With good speakers like I have, flat first arrival at the MLP tends to provide very smooth response of the reflected sound as well, so I can't rule out that the reflected sound isn't at least partly important. And this will be important for achieving accurate calibration of systems whose speakers have less-than ideal off-axis response.
There's also some question as to how perception works in the bass region where room effects, particularly floor bounce in quality mastering studios but also other boundaries in typical home environments where speaker placements are more subject to compromise. I've seen Harman suggest that below 300 Hz or so, perceived tonal balance is dominated by power response rather than the anechoic response of the speaker as is the case above 300 Hz. My guess is that this is not correct, but rather appears to be true because of characteristic of the particular speaker and room used for testing. Most speakers lose their baffle step directivity at roughly that frequency, and the wavelengths there become long enough that some early reflections (particularly the floor) become indistinguishable. So under typical conditions, 300 Hz may be the approximate frequency where subjective tonal balance perception is no longer dominated by anechoic response, but that may be due to the particulars of speaker and room rather than any perceptual tendency. What happens if one is using a floor-to-ceiling I.B. array speaker in which all room reflections arrive late enough to be completely distinguishable from the direct sound? My guess is that "anechoic response" would still dominate then, even though such a system would need a 3-5 dB bass boost to sound good with most content mastered on typical floor-stander or near-field monitor speakers.