Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What is "sound quality"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is "sound quality"? - Page 2

post #16 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by IPodPJ View Post
Detail is not subjective. It is either there in minimal form, medium form, or maximum form and any variances in between. If it's on the recording and not fully being revealed in your system, the sound quality is below optimal. Whether or not one can actually discern it with their own ears is another issue.
But the issue IS whether or not one can actually discern it with their own ears. That's because the issue is SOUND quality.

se
post #17 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi View Post
But the issue IS whether or not one can actually discern it with their own ears. That's because the issue is SOUND quality.

se
No, it's not. The sound coming out of the speakers still contains detail that can be measured whether or not someone's ears can pick up on it. That is not subjective. If a microphone can measure it and it compares very close to the original waveform of the master, it's there.
post #18 of 65
It depend what context you are discussing Sound Quality.

e.g.
The sound quality of that auditorium was good.
The sound quality of that recording is bad.
The sound quality of that D/A converter is good.

The meaning of sound quality in each is slightly different. Room effects causing resonances etc, engineering/musicianship of band giving enjoyment of music, electronic components/reproduction of sound
post #19 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by IPodPJ View Post
No, it's not. The sound coming out of the speakers still contains detail that can be measured whether or not someone's ears can pick up on it. That is not subjective. If a microphone can measure it and it compares very close to the original waveform of the master, it's there.
You're not gettin' it.

SOUND in this instance is about HUMAN perception. Which again makes SOUND QUALITY decidedly SUBJECTIVE.

From my trusty Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition Unabridged:

sound n. 1. The sensation of hearing; that which is heard; specif.: a Psychophysics. Sensation due to stimulation of the auditory nerves and auditory centers of the brain, usually by vibrations transmitted in a material medium, commonly air, affecting the organ of hearing. b Physics. That form of vibrational energy which occasions the above sensation.

Get it?

se
post #20 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark_Jump View Post
It depend what context you are discussing Sound Quality.

e.g.
The sound quality of that auditorium was good.
The sound quality of that recording is bad.
The sound quality of that D/A converter is good.

The meaning of sound quality in each is slightly different.
But in each case, it is a SUBJECTIVE assessment.

se
post #21 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi View Post
To me, "sound" is all about human perception. Therefore "sound quality" is the ascribed quality of sound as perceived by humans thus making it a decidedly subjective evaluation, and one for which there can be no judging beyond that of a given individual.

se
x2
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark_Jump View Post
It depend what context you are discussing Sound Quality.

e.g.
The sound quality of that auditorium was good.
The sound quality of that recording is bad.
The sound quality of that D/A converter is good.

The meaning of sound quality in each is slightly different. Room effects causing resonances etc, engineering/musicianship of band giving enjoyment of music, electronic components/reproduction of sound
Your perception might differ from another though.You and a friend could be sitting next to each other and hear it differently.Same reason why one persons taste in a certain headphone doesn't mean everyone will like that same phone.
post #23 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post
For me, sound quality is how something compares to live music. The closer, the better.

There will be variations based on where the music is recorded (e.g. a "live" concert hall or a "dead" recording studio), but reproduction should be as close to the real thing as possible.

There's a wide gray area here, but you should be conscious of deliberately colored headphones and speakers. Some add things that were never there to begin with.
X 2!
post #24 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post
For me, sound quality is how something compares to live music. The closer, the better.

There will be variations based on where the music is recorded (e.g. a "live" concert hall or a "dead" recording studio), but reproduction should be as close to the real thing as possible.

There's a wide gray area here, but you should be xonscious of deliberately colored headphones and speakers. Some add things that were never there to begin with.
Ditto!
As close to the live performance as possible.
post #25 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post
For me, sound quality is how something compares to live music. The closer, the better.

There will be variations based on where the music is recorded (e.g. a "live" concert hall or a "dead" recording studio), but reproduction should be as close to the real thing as possible.

There's a wide gray area here, but you should be xonscious of deliberately colored headphones and speakers. Some add things that were never there to begin with.
I thought sound quality started with the very source itself? If there's a problem with the sound quality at the source, then perfect reproduction of that problematic sound quality, will not be changed.

So, IMO, sound quality is wholly subjective.

From where I'm sitting, sound reproduction is a different issue that becomes pointless if you're don't have sound quality at the source.
post #26 of 65
Clearly you guys are discussing two different things. I'm as Kantian as the next guy (who pointed out all experience is constructed by the mind) but that doesn't turn the physical or mathematical sciences into subjective goo. As far as the sound waves that move the tympanic membrane, those are physical changes can be almost fully characterized. And so can the difference of air pressures at a tympanic/microphone membrane made across time in a live and reproduced performance (what goes on in auditory cortex is another matter entirely). Greater minds than ours have already described the degradation of such a signal. So I'll just quote Norbert Wiener and say that sound quality is the degree that the squared error (e^2) of a reproduced signal approaches zero:
post #27 of 65
Sound quality is a marketing word used to rape us of our money, just like carpe diem poems are used to pop a girl's cherry.
post #28 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by eucariote View Post
As far as the sound waves that move the tympanic membrane, those are physical changes can be almost fully characterized. And so can the difference of air pressures at a tympanic/microphone membrane made across time in a live and reproduced performance (what goes on in auditory cortex is another matter entirely).
Certainly you can characterize sound WAVES. But those sound WAVES are not, in themselves, SOUND. They don't become SOUND until they're perceived someone's ear/brain system, which again places the assessment of SOUND quality decidedly in the subjective realm.

se
post #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi View Post
Certainly you can characterize sound WAVES. But those sound WAVES are not, in themselves, SOUND. They don't become SOUND until they're perceived someone's ear/brain system, which again places the assessment of SOUND quality decidedly in the subjective realm.

se
Amen!!
post #30 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post
For me, sound quality is how something compares to live music. The closer, the better.

There will be variations based on where the music is recorded (e.g. a "live" concert hall or a "dead" recording studio), but reproduction should be as close to the real thing as possible.

There's a wide gray area here, but you should be xonscious of deliberately colored headphones and speakers. Some add things that were never there to begin with.
Well said Uncle Erik.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › What is "sound quality"?