[smoth]

Current scientific instruments can measure sound waves and electrical signals with far more precision than even the most trained listener, yet, we continue on this often ridiculous quest to achieve higher quality audio. This has lead me to speculate that even though audio technology is very well understood from a scientific/mathematical point of view, that we may never get to the point that video displays have achieved. I have yet to see any debate on the quality of the images produced as the instruments can read colors and refresh rates so many orders of magnitude beyond any practical viewing purpose and people believe them. Most videophiles would not even trust themselves to calibrate their own display trusting that work to a colorimeter. Although the same ability exists in the audio world, the amount of subjective reasoning seems to cloud any attempt for scientific fact to drive the market and the definition of high quality audio.

Any thoughts?

 

[LingLing1337]

Hearing is absolutely as subjective as taste or any other preference. So no.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoth /img/forum/go_quote.gif Current scientific instruments can measure sound waves and electrical signals with far more precision than even the most trained listener, yet, we continue on this often ridiculous quest to achieve higher quality audio. This has lead me to speculate that even though audio technology is very well understood from a scientific/mathematical point of view, that we may never get to the point that video displays have achieved. I have yet to see any debate on the quality of the images produced as the instruments can read colors and refresh rates so many orders of magnitude beyond any practical viewing purpose and people believe them. Most videophiles would not even trust themselves to calibrate their own display trusting that work to a colorimeter. Although the same ability exists in the audio world, the amount of subjective reasoning seems to cloud any attempt for scientific fact to drive the market and the definition of high quality audio. Any thoughts?

Yeah, a few thoughts. First, I never understand why people join a site like this -- which is dedicated to the pursuit of high fidelity sound through headphones, and basically involves a sharing of subjective listening experiences to a significant extent -- and then use phrases like "the ridiculous quest to achieve higher quality audio." It's like going on a site for gourmet cooks and saying the quest is to make food test better is ridiculous.

I understand why the quest might not be something that you or others are interested in (and that's fine), but why do you have to knock (at least implicitly) other people's hobby or pursuit of enjoyment in a particular area?

Second, and most important, music is a subjective experience. Most of us listen to music for enjoyment, and our enjoyment is based on what the music sounds like to our ears, not on what some test data or oscilloscope says it should sound like. I've listened to music and thought, "Ooh, that sounds nice." I've never looked at a frequency response graph and said "Ooh, that sounds nice."

Third, audio technology may be well understood, but there is still some disagreement on what people hear from various components (or what their brains perceive) and how scientific measurements correlate with what people hear (or at least think they hear.)

Fourth, I don't understand the connection between the fact that various types of audio parameters are subject to measurement and whether people should pursue higher quality sound. Are you saying that one can get high quality sound for, say, under $500 (or some other amount that anybody could easily afford), and that any additional expenditures will yield no improvement in fidelity? With all due respect, that's ridiculous.

Fifth, there is a certain amount of disagreement in the video world also. Not everything is settled there. Aren't there different standards adopted by different bodies as to what constitutes correct color? And don't some people in fact prefer color gamuts that are different than what some board decided is the "standard," based on their subjective preferences? (They clearly do.)

Humans are not machines (thank God) so I don't think subjective preferences in the audio arena are going away, or should go away.

 

[AtomikPi]

First, I think that there's inherently more subjectivity in audio - some people prefer more bass, or smooth mids, or detailed treble, etc. and are willing to sacrifice an objectively best FR (flat) to attain that. There are far less people who would want a colored video signal (although I think some still do, which leads to my next point).

There is subjectivity in visual things too. For example, some people want more contrast, some want less so they can see more shadow detail. Some like cooler colors, some like warmer colors. Some want a brighter picture, some want it a bit darker.

And finally, if it sounds good, the science doesn't really matter all that much. Whether the improvement in SQ is "real" or "perceived" doesn't really matter as long as you perceive that increase in SQ. You are here to enjoy your music, right?

I do think that scientific data supports that upgrades in headphones are by far the most important upgrades, and source/amp upgrades reach diminishing returns at a pretty low price point.

 

[Ub3rMario]

In a quantum physics sense, if you discover a revolutionary new way to observe and quantify attributes of sound, it may end up changing the properties/physics of sound altogether. That is, if my brief knowledge from the double slit experiment is accurate. haha.

 

[catachresis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, a few thoughts. First, I never understand why people join a site like this -- which is dedicated to the pursuit of high fidelity sound through headphones, and basically involves a sharing of subjective listening experiences to a significant extent -- and then use phrases like "the ridiculous quest to achieve higher quality audio." It's like going on a site for gourmet cooks and saying the quest is to make food test better is ridiculous. I understand why the quest might not be something that you or others are interested in (and that's fine), but why do you have to knock (at least implicitly) other people's hobby or pursuit of enjoyment in a particular area? Second, and most important, music is a subjective experience. Most of us listen to music for enjoyment, and our enjoyment is based on what the music sounds like to our ears, not on what some test data or oscilloscope says it should sound like. I've listened to music and thought, "Ooh, that sounds nice." I've never looked at a frequency response graph and said "Ooh, that sounds nice." Third, audio technology may be well understood, but there is still some disagreement on what people hear from various components (or what their brains perceive) and how scientific measurements correlate with what people hear (or at least think they hear.) Fourth, I don't understand the connection between the fact that various types of audio parameters are subject to measurement and whether people should pursue higher quality sound. Are you saying that one can get high quality sound for, say, under $500 (or some other amount that anybody could easily afford), and that any additional expenditures will yield no improvement in fidelity? With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Fifth, there is a certain amount of disagreement in the video world also. Not everything is settled there. Aren't there different standards adopted by different bodies as to what constitutes correct color? And don't some people in fact prefer color gamuts that are different than what some board decided is the "standard," based on their subjective preferences? (They clearly do.) Humans are not machines (thank God) so I don't think subjective preferences in the audio arena are going away, or should go away.

Nicely said. Thanks!

 

[thisbenjamin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Humans are not machines (thank G--) so I don't think subjective preferences in the audio arena are going away, or should go away.

hear-hear!

variety is the spice of life, I hope to g-- changes and improvements continue occur in both music and in music recording / reproduction for as many days as I'm blessed to have.

 

[PhilS]

It occurs to me, after some further thought, that the question is really not best phrased as "will we ever get past 'subjective' audio quality"? That's like asking "will we ever get past 'subjective' taste in food"? Well, maybe, in the year 7510, when we're all just brains in jars like on that Star Trek episode.

Perhaps a more reasonable question would be "will we ever get to the point where we will be able to correlate a series of objective measurements with our level of subjective enjoyment from audio equipment," or something like that. I'm not sure this is along the lines of what the OP is thinking, and I think we're a long ways from that stage in any event, but at least it's a more sensible question, IMO.

 

[Ub3rMario]

That's a good question. I'm sure there will eventually be a way, if not already just from personal conclusions, to find a pretty specific range for each variable/parameter that a certain person will enjoy most. As in, certain values on a frequency response graph give person A the most pleasure as well as other specific values or value ranges in different parameters. However it will most likely not apply to person B.

I guess it'd be similar to a personality analysis but of your sound preferences.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

It will end when machines listen to music for us, and tell us how it sounds.

Until then everyone's hearing varies some, and things like shape of the outer ear, angle of the ear canal, etc., and all this makes for different tastes in music.

 

[SB]

Quote:

When/will we ever get past "subjective" audio quality?

Not for a while since there are a lot of people that view this more as a hobby, plus who would the high end swindle?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not for a while since there are a lot of people that view this more as a hobby, plus who would the high end swindle?

It's not a hobby? What is it then?

And if there was no "swindling" involved, would not the evaluation of how music sounds still be subjective?

Based on your comments elsewhere about AVS Forum and some other comments on this forum, you clearly seem to have some issue with people you enjoy high end audio. I guess I don't understand why you tolerate our company.

That's why we're all here, basically, or at least why a large percentage of the membership is here.

 

[twylight]

I'll feed the troll.

Music is largely affected by mood...can you really enjoy a concert with a woman you hate? Or how about with someone you have the hots for and can't see straight? Why does that change the music and your perception of it?

People mod their cars but never take a driving lesson...why? Cause it makes them feel moar awesome. Audio is gear humping for the most part and everyone does it with something - the guy who thread craps here about how stupid this is just blew 15k on his mustang and drove it 35mph to the grocery store.

Am I really going to enjoy a CD tonight more on my 10k+USD rigs than when I was moaning over some girl in high school listening to Journey - nah...but I do have the type of gear I wanted back then and I like it.

My advice is to buy 3-4 things, decide, and sell them. If you cant tell, then it wont cost you much as you can roll with some crappy gear. The number of shills on the internet is higher than you think, dont believe anything you read - the subjectivity of audio is too high and shilling is too easy. Well except Bose really does suck.

 

[smoth]

This thread was in no way intended to be a debate on diminishing returns in hifi audio, but a discussion on an audiophile's point of reference.

Personally, I have always defined audio quality in terms of a reproductions accuracy in relation to the live performance. It is in that context that I use the video reference.

Music is a form of auditory communication and as with all communication a common vocabulary is critical. For example, lets take two people who speak differnt languages and have them carry on a telephone conversation:

Speaker A can understand a great bit of the emotion going through speaker B's thoughts through tone and inflection; however details as to why are lost as they have no common vocabulary.

I feel that current subjective audio quality does not provide this. For example, lets go back to video:

There is an object that reflects light of 500nm. Two observers view the object and define it as 500nm, but for all we know observer A perceives 500nm as observer B perceives 700nm.

It is not the perception that I am interested in, but the common definition. Different people prefer different color combinations, similarly different people prefer different musical genres, but the common definitions are what make that comparison possible and allow the communication to be effective.

From what I have read on this forum and others, there seems to be a lot of ineffective communication which I can only relate to this uncommon vocabulary.

This is in no way related to subjective taste of food. Food is perfectly accurate, so any prefence would be on the same level as music genre or color combinations.

To put my question simply,: if you were to take a group of people with well trained ears and remove all of their previous experience with stereo equpiment and put them in a room with a bunch of equpiment without price tags or visual embellishments and tell them to rank them how would they do it?

 

[Berlioz]

To me, being an audiophile means just deriving a great deal of happiness from sound.

For most audiophiles, that means finding the most faithful reproduction of music possible, or replicating a live experience. Certainly for myself, such an experience can be extremely pleasurable.

However, it goes much further than that. Some people want equipment that is eye catching and impressive looking. Perhaps not just because they want to show off, but maybe because they feel more confident about the quality of their system if the manufacturer can spend so much time on designing the exterior.

Some people want huge rows of big tubes, others want glowing interconnects, or just tons of audio equipment in the signal chain period.

But also, it can come from adding in colourations to sound. Digital signal processing and equalization fall into this category.

This is why I feel a bit down when I see how some people in the Sound Science forum explode at one another over these issues. I don't walk up to someone and tell them that their iPod and iBuds suck, and start explaining to them how to put together a proper system. They're happy enough with it as it is, otherwise they'd have something else.

Too many people on this forum are too eager to tell people, "No, that's wrong, you need to be doing it this way, look you just wasted a ton of money, that equipment that you've been happy with for years is no good, etc."

As long as the audio output being produced is making the person the happiest, I don't see any problem with them putting whatever they want into their system.