Judging Sound Quality: Preference or Skill?

[Logon]

We cannot know if "red" looks identical to everyone, but most can agree when they see "red" color.

This is just my point.
It seems there is a common perceptual basis that unless one is out for any reason we all recognize.

Just as an example, that same common basis immediately brings each of us back to how the color of red apple is structured, but also their scent and flavor.
Apples could even be unripe, having different flavor and smell, but this difference also would remind us of a common perceptual memory of unripe apples.

If someone asked us to separate the unripe apples from the ripe ones by their smell, we would be able to do it and we could very well share our experience with other people who would unequivocally understand what we are talking about.
Is there an absolute olfactory line of demarcation between the smell of unripe apples and ripe ones?
No, I don't think it's an absolute line.
And yet the difference exists and is humanly usable and shareable, with other people.

The same is true with sounds.
The natural sound of a violin is recognizable by everyone unless they are out for some reason.
If that violin sound comes out of a system in a strident, scratchy and hissing way, everyone who is not out for some reason should easily notice it and therefore would have every right to share their experiences just because it is possible to do so.

And we haven't even touched on the subject of personal tastes yet.

 

[classicalfan]

It sounds good, it sound better: is it always personal preference or even ability of your hearing?

I think that someone in good health when listening to music from a system should have two judgments about the related SQ, one related to an impartial evaluation and another one related to a personal preference.

impartial evaluation = It sounds good, but I don't like it.

Personal preference = It sounds bad, but I like it.

Just like when you taste food.


Please note that I would like it if we could demonstrate for once that we can approach the subject in a rational, but not Manichean, way.

I do not want to discuss about alleged absolute truths in Audio, but to possibly recognize a different way of approaching and sharing experiences related to listening to recorded music reproduced through an audio system.

There is no such thing as "an impartial evaluation". And that's particularly true with something as subjective to begin with as sound quality.

The idea that someone would say "It sounds good, or it tastes good, but I don't like it" makes no sense. Likewise, to say something sounds or tastes bad and still claim to like it doesn't happen either.

 

[classicalfan]

Let me refine that last post before someone jumps all over it. Yes, you can have an impartial evaluation on such things as a set of facts, such as a legal case or a specific scientific result.

But you can't really have it for something that is by its nature subjective. And that is exactly what "sound quality" is. It is not a set of facts, and you can't measure it. It's impossible to have an impartial evaluation of something that is totally subjective to begin with. You can certainly have opinions, but not impartial evaluations.

 

[abstract]

There is no such thing as "an impartial evaluation". And that's particularly true with something as subjective to begin with as sound quality.

The idea that someone would say "It sounds good, or it tastes good, but I don't like it" makes no sense. Likewise, to say something sounds or tastes bad and still claim to like it doesn't happen either.

Are you sure? I can think of a few cases of "it tastes bitter, but that means it must be good for me, and I train myself to like things that I know must be good for me."

Or: its supreme accuracy makes it very revealing and downright unpleasant to listen to, which is entirely the fault of poor recording quality upstream, not the system itself.

 

[U102324]

I am sorry for butting in, but perception is not from one sensory experience, it is from a combination. If you where completely blindfolded and you hear someone lets off a terrible loud fart, are you immediately disgusted and wait in anticipation but you smell nothing. Are you amazed by the your perception of absolute fidelity of the sound. When the blindfold is removed you see a glaring @sshole in your face, now was it real or a just an illusion.

 

[Logon]

I am sorry for butting in, but perception is not from one sensory experience, it is from a combination. If you where completely blindfolded and you hear someone lets off a terrible loud fart, are you immediately disgusted and wait in anticipation but you smell nothing. Are you amazed by the your perception of absolute fidelity of the sound. When the blindfold is removed you see a glaring @sshole in your face, now was it real or a just an illusion.

I think that, apart from the gratuitous vulgarity that I frankly don't expect from a competent person like you and no one expects from anyone else on a forum like this, you use the word "perception" as if it were a kind of taboo, an illusion, almost as a thing too complicated to realize.

And in fact everything that we don't know and that escapes our logic is, or at least seems.

Just as you have studied all the things that you will surely have studied because it is clear that you are a more than educated person, you could try to deepen (I didn't say to graduate in them, but at least to have a smattering of knowledge) for example the Physiology of Hearing or the Psychology of Perception after which, perhaps, you would also change your current point of view.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[U102324]

I tried to make a point. Perception is in the mind of the observer. It is not something inbred. My cat does not perceive a dog as a different type of cat, it sees it as trouble. We can recognise things that we know, like is it a tuba playing, or a triangle being struck. But if you have never heard the real thing perception is irrelevant. If a lion is breathing down your neck you don't ask where have I ever heard that sound before, you simply turn around and make friends with it.

And no I have not studied psychoacoustics or anything of that nature, I have done science where perception does not count for much.

Lets make it three cents worth.

Since losing my legs, I don't perceive the world a different place, all I know is that I have to approach things that I want to do in a different but still practical manner. You perceive everybody is feeling bad for you, but they do not, nobody really cares how you perceive anything, they will perceive it different, different cultures, different circumstance, different language. Perception is a nebulous concept.

 

[Pilover2000]

We cannot know if "red" looks identical to everyone, but most can agree when they see "red" color.

We know that we don't all see colors the same or hear sounds the same. My wife and I had a couch I saw as dark blue. She saw it as black. Having reference points lets us know how other people see things.

There has to be a good vocabulary as well. Describe a pain to a doctor. It hurts ! Is it a sharp pain or a throbbing pain? There is a huge difference between a big, high efficiency system and bookshelf speakers in sound. I don't think most people can look at documentation/ reviews about systems and appreciate how different the sound is.

I don't discount tests either because they tell me a lot about my own hearing and what I prefer my system to sound like.

 

[Logon]

There is no such thing as "an impartial evaluation".

Untrue.

First of all, please note that in this thread we are not talking about measurements at all, thank you.

Then, please think about sworn medical reports in court when a fact escapes instrumental laboratory analysis and an expert must be appointed who puts his experience in place of laboratory analysis and signs an assessment of the facts from the height of his experience.

There are people with high-sounding names and with proportionate salaries thanks to their specific experiences, not only in the medical field.

What is not translate in numbers does not mean it does not exist, as long as it is "numberable" with one of one's senses by an expert person capable of evaluating impartially and according to science and conscience what he sees, or what he hears, or what he tastes, or what he touches, or what he smells.

How do you think the degree of softness of the best cashmere wool or best silk is evaluated if not by touch?

Grades of Silk

And note that those evaluations have a commercial value, that's them values a lot of money, and are shared and sharable.
Made by very expert and honest professionals.
They are worth a lot of money and make a values for a lot of money in their market.

And we haven't even talked about sommeliers (who was the first to mention them @ItsAllInMyHead) or master perfumers or starred chefs...

It is called experience, and it is worth as much as something numbered by an instrument, if you have no alternatives.

And here on this point we still have no alternatives.

And all of the above is true even if you don't believe it or don't want to believe it, it exists regardless of your beliefs or your little familiarity of a specific topic that I have already mentioned extensively.


Edit to fix-up the quoting and some typos.

 

[U102324]

I believe in measurement, that is finite and you can predict what will happen with certainty. Those who hear things and try to relate it to something they perceive is well ignorant of the facts. A little distortion to make it sound "better" is rubbish. How would you like your voltmeter to read a little incorrectly. How would you like your water a little bit dirty. Even harmonics sound nicer than odd order harmonics, why be satisfied with generating harmonics, what is the point of fidelity? Those who can does, those who can't teaches.

 

[Logon]

And no I have not studied psychoacoustics or anything of that nature, I have done science where perception does not count for much.

I don't see any problem with this, in fact I think the ideal would be to merge both worlds.

A little distortion to make it sound "better" is rubbish.

I think exactly the same way, but there are people who seem to appreciate it instead.
Which is okay the same of course.
I am trying to reach a different value here.
A value, not a contrast.

There are things that can be "numbered" only by the senses.
And this fact, in my opinion, should be exalted and highlighted, not discarded a priori.
Valued, instead.
If possible.

 

[U102324]

Please don't take me attacking you, I just wanted to add another perspective of who and what we are. Complex beings, not really we eats live see hear some better than others if you know what others are. As you mention, a sharp pain to you may be a dull one to me, doctors never get it right because they perceive what you say in their own minds, unlike my leg is broken, you can see that, it is fact. I don't want to start on hypochondriacs that is another kettle of fish.
So let us begin with defining to the best of our ability, how to listen to music. Not equipment, we leave that for later, we shall get there.

 

[U102324]

I must admit, I have only been to one live concert in my life of Neil Diamond and it was when I was young. I don't know if it made any difference to me now. But what I do know, if I design an amplifier with little or no artifacts added or taken away, it must be the same as if I was at the recording session with all the mixing and mastering of the work, so it must be believable, whether I like it or not, I can only hope that it is the same. So my design goal is not to make it nice, it is making it accurate, like a calculator, what you put in with no processing other than gain (a number) it must be right. Lets begin here would you agree with the statement don't expand yet about speakers, turntables and whot not. Lets say the amp perfectly reproduce what it is given. Can we remove this from the equation?

 

[U102324]

Let us go one step further. The speaker. This is probably one of the most variable items that exists in audio reproduction. There is no possibility to make a speaker reproducing what is put into it electrically. It is in fact a transformer - transforms electrical stimulus into an acoustic stimulus by means of mechanical transformation. That is one aspect that can never be accurate. The same goes for a stylus in a groove, transforming a mechanical stimulus to an electrical signal. Every time you transform you get artefacts of some kind. Artefact are introduced as soon as you go from one medium to another to me at this stage it is inevitable. You always lose or add something.

 

[Logon]

Lets say the amp perfectly reproduce what it is given. Can we remove this from the equation?

That's the point: it's not like an equation.
It's more.

I would really like to follow your reasoning that I can already partly predict because I'm sure I've done it myself, but the fact is that I'm a particular perceiver, very acute even of smells.
And I don't believe that an amplifier can be a wire with gain, even if I have and love my not cheap Class D.

In other words, please note that I don't pretend with my little thread to open a new path or convince the most ardent materialists, or discover the philosopher's stone that magically provides us with an infallible tool that everyone agrees on.

I'm just saying that if you and I are sufficiently healthy, even if different, and we listen to your amplifier, even if inserted in a system, we will hear the same things.
And personal preferences have nothing to do with it.

I'm just and simply saying that if you make me hear something I can then describe it to you in words.
If the thing you make me hear has scratchy, sibilant, dry and dry highs I will notice it and I will describe them to you as above.
And if you listen to it you cannot hear silky, refined, soft and pleasant highs in their place, because they are not like that.
And you cannot invent them.


(Please note that I'm a bit tired now (so I won't reread what I wrote), but the discussion is enjoyable...)

 

[U102324]

I do not want you to agree or disagree, this is a discussion, at the end we need to learn something from one another.

 

[Logon]

@Nico Ras

Hey, you're a machine!
I can't keep up with you and now I have to go.
But I won't leave anything unfinished! 😉

 

[Logon]

I do not want you to agree or disagree

Me neither.

I believe my past here is my best witness! 😍

 

[tmuikku]

Hi,

yeah, measurements are good way to evaluate things but those do not include last link in audio chain that leads to perception, the auditory system.

As disclaimer for the following text I'm no professional on brain / auditory systems, and the following is mostly self fabricate philosophy based on few papers (Griesinger) read about the subject:

I think that a lot of people are fooled by not realizing there is processor inside their head, between the eardrum and conscious mind that is the perception. While I have about no knowledge on auditory system, or psychology of hearing, it's quite logical to me that perception is a conscious phenomenon while rest of the auditory system works unconsciously, like most of our bodily functions. I think it would be foolish to think perception of sound was directly the sound that hits the eardrum when there is quite a complex mechanism in between. Signal from ear goes to brain and unconscious parts of brain processes the data before it is in our perception. I like to think that this unconscious process provides sound to our perception, affected by who knows what things like sight and other senses, memory, state of mind, how much rest we've had and so on. I imagine that the unconscious brain thinks for us and determines what we need to perceive in order to highlight important information to our attention and suppress unimportant stuff from it so the conscious mind is always onto the important things not wasting energy to unimportant stuff. As if the conscious mind, the part of use we think and observe the world from, lived a top of a robot basically, and the robot determines for us what and how we perceive things. This is how all kinds of illusions happen, the processor in our head is easily manipulated through any other senses.

So, in order to perceptually evaluate any sound sources one would need to be aware of this internal processor and it's state, in other words how it affects perception at any given moment. Basically, what one needs to do is learn to listen the auditory system! For very least understand what one perceives is not what enters ear canal but what comes out of the sound processor we cannot control directly, we have no access to raw data that enters the ear. Better yet try to take account what effects it might have going on in order to evaluate what in the perception might be due to auditory system and what from the actual playback system one is trying to evaluate to understand how reliable perception is, what is known and what is not. If auditory system state is fully unknown, how reliable evaluating perception is when one doesn't know what is due to the playback system and what is due to the brain? It's no good, right? In other words, if one wants to evaluate a playback system, one should try and make the brain align with the task, to provide max resources analyzing the data from ears to our perception to give maximum attention to the task, right? For this, one could affect the auditory system indirectly, like take a good rest and do the listening tests before subjecting yourself to external world, so first thing in the morning. Didn't rest well and feel tired? Better not make the listening test, try again tomorrow.

To really get grip on it, how about a listening test where one would reliably know something about auditory system state, AB test the brain?🙂 How about something that evolution has included to all of our auditory systems so we all could perceive exactly same thing, regardless of our playback systems and rooms, and relate and understand each other descriptions of sound better, if referred to auditory system against which we all could conduct the exact same test?🙂

 

[U102324]

Let us look at it slightly differently. An amplifier can be a wire with gain but even a wire is not absolutely fidelity, the reason for our preference lies elsewhere. If you shine a laser perpendicular to the surface of water (change medium) it will remain perpendicular, but if you change the angle just slightly the beam bends. We are at the beam bending stage. Every time we go from mechanical to electrical to light or whatever, we introduce an artefact, these artefacts may or may not be intrusive but it is there it is distortion. How much of this artefact remains unnoticeable depends on our observation of it. And here comes perception into the mix, your point of observation. If you turn your head while listening to something everything changes and you perceive differently than a moment prior. We are going down the rabbit hole I guess, analysing everything is probably not the greatest idea.