3602
Banned at his own request
- Joined
- May 30, 2009
- Posts
- 3,147
- Likes
- 37
Excellent. How about music produced with softwares, then?
Originally Posted by SDDL-UP /img/forum/go_quote.gif If a source can provide good measurable results on all fronts, then it has "good sound quality" you may not like the way it sounds, but that is besides the point. |
Originally Posted by SDDL-UP /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're talking about the subjective part. I'm talking about the objective part. |
Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no objective part. Sound is all about human perception. When did human perception suddenly become objective |
Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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 |
Originally Posted by SDDL-UP /img/forum/go_quote.gif Guidostrunk, I see what you are saying as well, but does a person's individual taste alone determine quality? I can see somone not liking something that perfectly reproduces sound, they may have personal taste for something that is not like the original sound and that's fine, but does that make the perfectly reproduced sound somehow imperfect? No. it just makes it undesirable to that individual. The quality of the sound may be perfect, but it may not be ideally suited to everyone. As in my comparison above, does my opinion of red make the paint chip more or less red? |
Originally Posted by Guidostrunk /img/forum/go_quote.gif In the terms of perfectly reproduced sound, who would it be perfect to. |