[gregorio]

isnt this the main difference between empirical science like psychology and hard science like physics?

Yes, exactly but if we’re talking about audibility, then we’re talking about both. We have the hard physics of the device we’re measuring, plus many decades and in some cases over a century of controlled tests regarding what is audible. So, we have a wealth of reliable and accurate data, although in the case of controlled audibility tests, not necessarily precise data, a “range” rather than a precise number. We typically deal with potential outliers to this range with test signals that isolate and exacerbate the phenomena being tested and therefore, the lowest threshold of audibility is commonly well below the level that anyone could detect when listening to music.

to create a device that measures what a human would perceive, the device would need to have a human neuronal circuit included, which is kinda absurd. but without this i dont see this discussion ever coming to an end.

Isn’t the discussion rationally ended by accepting that an objective audio measurement of a device (say a DAC or amp) is just an objective audio measurement of the device, not a measurement of human perception? Even if we add certain aspects of human perception to the equation, say “audibility”, commonly the discussion is already ended rationally because the differences are commonly magnitudes below what is audible even with test signals.

G

 

[Slaphead]

It is the "myth" the objectivist have been fighting here for years: that subjective listening can not hear things that cannot be scientifically analysed. It was always phrased as cannot be measured because EVERYONE commonly thinks of that as SINAD, Intermodulation, FFT etc measurement, except you. You decided to define a recording as a measurement. So we rephrase, to avoid, well, whatever.

So now, here it is. One of the key objectivists, agreeing that listening can reveal what analysis cannot (yet), after all these years of confronting those who suggested anything like it.

I kind of expected music, trumpets, fireworks.

A window opens:
"Sound Science Forum Level 2:
pedants corner"


castleofargh Can we pin this as a sticky?

I hate to break it to you, but your ears are simply a measuring device, and a pretty crappy one by today's technological standards.

A thin piece of skin connected to a couple of bones which then excite a fluid in the inner ear where the frequencies are picked up by a bunch of hairs of varying length (a good proportion of the short ones which you've lost by the time you're 40) which resonate at particular frequencies according to their length

Basically your hearing is a bad mechanical FFT where your brain effectively acts as an interpolator and upscaler to fill in the gaps.

Your hearing is crap, as is everybody else's, in comparison to even audio measuring technology from the 60's.

 

[bigshot]

Fidelity might be a better term for it than quality.

 

[james444]

Fidelity might be a better term for it than quality.

Or euphony.

I had a pair of IEMs that used to give me goosebumps galore, particularly with opera arias. Highly enthusiastic, I sent them to an objectivist friend and it turned out they measured pretty badly. Here's what he wrote:

Unfortunately, ... is not even close to hi-fidelity. Then again, once funkiness goes extreme, the basic principle of electroacoustic engineering diminishes, and the judgement of good/bad sound turns into the matter of personal preference, as ... users find such distortion to be euphonic.

I think he hit the nail on the head. It's neither fidelity nor quality. Euphony, on the other hand, is an entirely subjective experience.

 

[bigshot]

I was suggesting fidelity as a term that is objective and measurable, as opposed to quality, which has subjective contexts. Euphonic is even worse in that regard.

Odds are, your goosebumps were coming from the opera aria, and had nothing to do with the sound equipment you were playing it on. I can play a Caruso record from 1909 and get goosebumps, but no matter how good the equipment, lousy music won’t. Subjectivity is more a function of the music than the sound.

 

[james444]

Odds are, your goosebumps were coming from the opera aria, and had nothing to do with the sound equipment you were playing it on.

Nope, as I could listen to the same arias with other (objectively better) IEMs and not get those intense goosebumps. I think these particular IEMs just manipulated sound reproduction in a way that made it subjectively feel more dramatic and involving. Much like one might manipulate colors and contrast of a photo to make it "pop".

 

[bigshot]

Then it’s probably expectation bias.

 

[Dogmatrix]

There is a tendency to react strongly to ideas like ”we can’t measure everything” even though it’s just a fact, because we overwhelmingly read it from people who wish to discredit and disregard objective approaches, and doing so, remove accountability when they make empty claims.
If we’re discussing quantum physics and particles, nobody knowing anything would oppose the claim that we can’t measure everything.
For all the wrong reasons, context matters.

Because I’m slightly sadistic, I propose another direction:
Audibility is defined by controlled listening, not measurement. But isn’t a controlled test a measurement?

"The Ear As A Measuring Instrument HARVEY FLETCHER Provo, Utah Brigham Young University, he ear as used here means all the hearing mechanism --including the nerves and the brain--of a living person. It is usually thought that to make accurate measurements of any sound, one must have some sort of meter which he can read.
Author: Harvey Fletcher
Publish Year: 1969"

AES library $33 for non members

 

[odarg64]

Your hearing is crap, as is everybody else's, in comparison to even audio measuring technology from the 60's.

Accepting this would save some folks a lot of time and money.

 

[gregorio]

I think he hit the nail on the head. It's neither fidelity nor quality. Euphony, on the other hand, is an entirely subjective experience.

Yes, he did hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately though, your extrapolation from it doesn’t, it’s not logical:

Presumably you must agree with the basic facts that there must be a difference between the objective reality (the actual sound pressure waves) and a subjective experience (in this case, your perception of Euphony), otherwise you wouldn’t have stated it’s “an entirely subjective experience”? So, what you are judging is not the actual sound but the difference between the actual sound and your perception, which therefore must be some sort of “Perception Quality” as opposed to “Sound Quality”.

Furthermore, you stated “it’s neither fidelity nor quality.” - So, if it’s not sound (but the difference between sound and perception) and it’s not “quality”, how can it possibly be described as “Sound Quality” when it’s neither sound nor quality?

G

 

[Dogmatrix]

This is quite a long read and mostly about instruments but it is well written and properly referenced
I think it is very appropriate for the current state of play here

https://euphonics.org/6-1-its-science-but-not-as-we-know-it/

 

[james444]

Presumably you must agree with the basic facts that there must be a difference between the objective reality (the actual sound pressure waves) and a subjective experience (in this case, your perception of Euphony), otherwise you wouldn’t have stated it’s “an entirely subjective experience”?

Sure!

So, what you are judging is not the actual sound but the difference between the actual sound and your perception, which therefore must be some sort of “Perception Quality” as opposed to “Sound Quality”.

I think I wasn't actually *judging* anything. Just making an empirical observation that this particular earphone gave me more goosebumps than others with the same music.

Furthermore, you stated “it’s neither fidelity nor quality.” - So, if it’s not sound (but the difference between sound and perception) and it’s not “quality”, how can it possibly be described as “Sound Quality” when it’s neither sound nor quality?

Afair, I never described it as "sound quality". Maybe you misunderstood my remarks. I was actually referring to these posts:

One set of new headphones gives me goosebumps when I listen to certain tracks, the other does not. Both of my previous sets of headphones were capable of giving me goosebumps.

I don't care how well they measure, or how they are made. I now know that sound quality is measured by pleasure.

Fidelity might be a better term for it than quality.

My point being, that neither sound quality nor fidelity are measurable by pleasure, since both belong to realm of objectivity, whereas pleasure is a subjective experience. The only audio term I'd see fit to being measured by pleasure is "euphony".

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Sound preference can certainly be "measured by pleasure", but sound quality connotes a more objective set of measurable targets.

Or said another way, preference is variable by the individual listener, quality is a static target across all listeners

SQ, to me, is measured by realism, does the kick drum sound like a kick drum and clarity, can you hear the kick drum? Sound preference is whether you like to have lots of bass, such as kick drum in your music.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I was suggesting fidelity as a term that is objective and measurable, as opposed to quality, which has subjective contexts. Euphonic is even worse in that regard.

Odds are, your goosebumps were coming from the opera aria, and had nothing to do with the sound equipment you were playing it on. I can play a Caruso record from 1909 and get goosebumps, but no matter how good the equipment, lousy music won’t. Subjectivity is more a function of the music than the sound.

I find goosebumps are dependent on the hifi, and also the circumstances. I can listen to a track on the radio at work and get nothing and then listen to same track at home on my hifi and get goosebumps. When I changed my source from a Yamaha cassette deck to my first CD player, a Sony, I was gutted to find that tracks that gave me goosebumps now sounded flat and I got nothing. I experienced the same when my K702s were replaced with DT990Pros.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

...
My point being, that neither sound quality nor fidelity are measurable by pleasure, since both belong to realm of objectivity, whereas pleasure is a subjective experience. The only audio term I'd see fit to being measured by pleasure is "euphony".

Euphony is a good term. I derive a certain amount of pleasure from sound quality, in that I love a well recorded track played on great hifi. I think many people are the same, but they never listen to decent hifi, and when they do, they are surprised at how good the sound is. To get goosebumps, I need a decent hifi, but even then it is not guaranteed.