48 replies to this topic

[muzzy66]

BMWTurbo, on Apr 22 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

Maybe we shoudl start another argument *cough* thread re music taste/emotion subjectivity v's sound quality?

So here it is!

Many people consider sound quality to be a subjective thing. What sounds good to one person, may not sound good to another and vice versa. That a persons own lisening preference determines whether a system is "good sound quality" or not, and hence that the 'sound quality' of a system cannot be measured or set using electronic measuring devices and aids..

I on the other hand, debate that while "listening preference" is indeed subjective, "sound quality" itself is not. I believe that a systems 'sound quality' is mostly objetive, and can indeed be measured using electornic devices.

That's the topic of discussion for this thread:

"Is there a difference between Listening Preference and Sound Quality, or are they the same?".

Let me know what you think - I've shared my thoughts below.

Edited by muzzy66, 22 April 2009 - 01:56 PM.

[muzzy66]

BMWTurbo, on Apr 22 2009, 01:46 AM, said:

Can you have two sytems of the similar/same quality that invoke different emotions?

Indeed you can.

One system could have a peak in midbass, and another could have a dip in the midbass - both covering exactly the same frequency range, and both at the same level (only one positive dB, one negative dB).

Technically they are both equally flawed, but in different ways - hence you have different sound, but the same sound quality.

Likewise, one system could have some overemphasis in the midbass, and another could have overemphasis in the highs, both of a similar degree. Once again similar sound quality, different style of sound.

To me, musical taste refers to an individuals personal preference in sound - a person may feel that overemphasis in subbass gives them energy, or that some slight softening of treble has a soothing effect, etc. As a result, they may choose to "inject" this sonic signature into their systems.

Sound quality on the other hand, is a different thing to me. To me, the term 'quality' refers to the number of flaws (or lack thereof) in something - or how far something deviates from perfection.

If you discus the 'build quality' of a car for example, you are referring to the number of flaws that exist in the construction of that vehicle - the car that you would consider to have the best "build quality" is the one that has the fewest flaws. If the car has absolutely no flaws in it's construction, you would say it has perfect build quality. Although there is no real unit of measurement for "build quality" in a car, it can still be seen as a fairly objective term, because a person's state of mind doesn't really determine if one car is better built then another.

I'd argue that sound quality, in the same way, is mostly an objective. The 'sound quality' of a stereo to me, can be defined somewhat by the number of flaws in that stereo, or how far ot deviates from theoretical 'perfection'. In theory, the perfect 'sound quality' system will take whatever information is on a source (CD, record, or whatever it may be) and reproduce it with precise accurate, adding nothing and taking nothing away from the original signal. In the real world, this will never happen - anything mechanical or electical will add some form of 'flavour' (distortion, noise, frequency amplitude variation, etc) to the signal before transferring it to the next device in the system, and so we will never have a 'pefect system'. However, I would consider that every form of colouration can be seen as a 'deviation from perfection' and hence technically, a flaw. From here, sound quality can be considered somewhat objerctive. The more a sound system deviates from theoretical perfection (i.e. the more the output signal differs from the input signal) the lower the sound quality.

One thing to consider:
Many people have a different taste in music, yet often two very different sounding systems, can be considered by the same person to have the same (or very similar) degree of 'sound quality'.

On the other hand, there are other times out there where a fairly large group of people (who have an idea about audio) would listen to two different stereo systems, and would unanimously agree that one system then the other (from a sound quality perspective).

If sound quality is truly subjective, then how could this be the case? The person who favours a certain style of sound (emphasised midbass, soft treble, etc) would declare the system that has that type of sound the better system every time, and neither of of the above two situations could ever occur.

Clearly though this isn't the case - despite people's varying personal preferences, they have a tendancy to agree more often then not when one stereo system is clearly a 'better SQ system' then another. When one person has their subbass 10dB too high, 95/100 serious SQ enthusiasts/judges would mark that system down for subbass. Why is that? Clearly, there is some objective part to this whole "sound quality" thing, and clearly a systems ability to sound 'natural' or 'accurate' has some bearing here.

On the other hand, if people listen to two different systems, which are equally flawed, but in different ways (same level of sound quality, different sonic signature) this is where opinion begins to get polarised, and personal subjectiveness starts to become the deciding factor.

I know many people will disagree with me here (as many have in the past) but remember this is simply my point of view on the subject, nothing more. I'd be interested to hear the points of view of others on this subject as well.

Edited by muzzy66, 22 April 2009 - 01:56 PM.

[~Spyne~]

wait, did you just answer your own thread?
why am i not surprised....

[raddeal]

Quote

do you need a thread on a forum to have a conversation with yourself?

Indeed you can.

[muzzy66]

~Spyne~, on Apr 22 2009, 03:46 AM, said:

wait, did you just answer your own thread?
why am i not surprised....

I decided that it will be easier to identify the purpose of the thread if I state it's concept, and my response seperately

[268669♫]

If you can close your eyes and open your ears and hear that you are at a live orchestra or in front of a jazz band then you have sound quality perfection. Everything else is just preference.

Ant

[~thematt~]

lol @ ~spyne~

http://www.zaphaudio...evaluation.html

Quote

A speaker can't be evaluated like a painting. The nature of a painting forces subjectivity while a speaker *can* be objectively tested. Don't forget that a painting is a production conveying the emotions and ideas of the painter, while a speaker is a device for reproduction. There is no room for emotion (or distortion) in a reproduction. A reproduction is judged by one thing: accuracy compared to the original. People shouldn't put on purple sunglasses when going to an art museum.

Quote

The right measurements do exist and it's time for people to get with the program. The field of audio is very well known and has been for 50 years. My advice to those who say the right measurements don't exist: Get a decent measurement package, start measuring some drivers, and then start listening to them, in different applications and without filters, alone and in systems with other drivers, just so you can hear exactly what you see. In time, understanding will come

Quote

All the answers are in the measurements. And I mean ALL the answers. Some people don't know how to interpet the measurements. Some don't want to know all the answers.

After all, music is an artform. Reproduction is a science.

[phunkdust]

Absolutely, you can have something that is "perfect" as far as an RTA is concerned, but each person will have a slightly different preference 1. because of differences in the shape of the ear, and 2. personal preference

Me? I like a nice punchy front loaded subwoofer handmade in Britain.

[Westy87]

I don't know much about propper SQ, but I would say that sound quality is the ability of a system to accuratly reproduce the recorded sound just the way it came out of the instruments. However people may not necessarily like it that way, so they will build/tune their systems to suit their own desires.

There you go, problem solved

[data_mine]

I agree that SQ can be objectively measured. RTA is a good tool to start with. However as we know, what an RTA likes, is one far from what people like, and two far from what people deem to be SQ. Until there's a "head on a stick" that can be placed in the drivers seat, and takes into account human definition of SQ (as you say muzzy, it seems to be fairly common) including out very non-linear,a nd atmospheric dependant response curves, we'll have to keep using carbon-based judges.

I've been lucky in that, my 'taste' for reproduction, is rather close to what people deem SQ to be*. Difference between my SQ and daily tunes is merely a tweak on the sub control. Most people are the same. I've also a RTA flat tune, and wazzab4 put it so succinctly it is 'lifeless'. I use it simply as a baseline from where something that sounds great comes from.



* Has I been far from the point, my first comp back in 2007, would've been the last. With the attitude, hey I like it, who cares what these judges think - ala my opinion of Summernats SQ judging.

[ar3nbe]

This was raised a while ago, and ill post the same thing now as I did then.

For the most part, all we are doing in Audio in general is reproducing a inferior signal. Before we start to go into why CD are flawed, we must remember what we are listening to is not the real instruments, voices, but rather the engineers interpretation of them.

If you ever go to the opera house, even with its bad acoustics, the instruments, and voices invoke so much more crispness, than any system, and any recording I have ever heard, period.

Dont forget how limited CDs are in their ability to record the whole range.

[ktime70]

was there ever a doubt there completely different?

this was refreshed to me on the drive home from work this arvo. after going from 4 inch coax's mounted at chest level in the landcruiser, through all the improvements my system (now in the rx 7) has, i threw in an old favorite punk album that i hadn't listened to since the landcruiser days (actually found it last weekend when i was ripping the speakers out of it for the mrs's car, but i digress).

i'm not claiming my system is "perfect SQ" system, but it does reproduce more faithfully than the old one. and there in lay my disapointment with my long lost album... the "evolved" system made it obvious that the album had been recorded in a converted garage somewhere on less than professional equipment.

[HISPL]

~thematt~, on Apr 22 2009, 05:48 AM, said:

lol @ ~spyne~

http://www.zaphaudio...evaluation.html



After all, music is an artform. Reproduction is a science.

I like that, can I quote it in my sig?

I think Matt sums it up best in that one comment.

[Cyberpunky]

Its definatly not a perfect system but hopefully if you jump in a winning car and listen, hopefully you too will think that car sounds good. If most ppl think something sounds great including ppl who know their stuff, then it probably does.

If we got every (str8)guy on the planet to vote for the top ten hottest women, then even if we didnt agree which individual one was actually the hottest, if any (single?) guy had the chance with one of the top ten, he would go there. She is going to be beautiful, if all guys agree, even if not the most beautiful in that guys eyes...well maybe she will be after a few beers lol

Anyway I tend to think most ppl know good sound when the hear it(like every one I demo'ed the Sonus Fabre Grand Amartis too), but experience can make you a little bit fussy/critical of lesser systems.

peace
Cyberpunky

Edited by Cyberpunky, 23 April 2009 - 12:23 AM.

[icacha]

muzzy66, on Apr 22 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

So here it is!

Many people consider sound quality to be a subjective thing. What sounds good to one person, may not sound good to another and vice versa. That a persons own lisening preference determines whether a system is "good sound quality" or not, and hence that the 'sound quality' of a system cannot be measured or set using electronic measuring devices and aids..

I on the other hand, debate that while "listening preference" is indeed subjective, "sound quality" itself is not. I believe that a systems 'sound quality' is mostly objetive, and can indeed be measured using electornic devices.

That's the topic of discussion for this thread:

"Is there a difference between Listening Preference and Sound Quality, or are they the same?".

Let me know what you think - I've shared my thoughts below.

SQ or "music" (as everyone keeps forgetting, its ultimately about the music) whether in the car, home or live performance, it's all about emotion. If it gets you wet behind the ears (was going to say somewhere else, but some might get offended) then what you're hearing must be doing its job. There is plenty of music (and I do mean music, not the rubbish kids today are use to) out there to buy (not download) I found when played back through a correctly setup system which sounds that amazing it will bring a tear i.e. get me emotional (remember keyword "emotion" before?) from the performance, thats tear in a happy sense, bit like watching "old yeller"

Then there are the systems which make you cringe and you ask yourself why...

Is that what you were looking for Pete?

Edited by icacha, 23 April 2009 - 12:39 AM.