What do you mean by "Sound Quality"?

[thumb5]

[Warning: this could get rambling, hypothetical and a bit distant from day-to-day listening.  If you don't find it interesting, there's no need to comment.]

Sound Quality is talked about very often in this forum and others, but do we all have a common understanding of what we mean when we use the term?  Without that it is easy to get into debates that go nowhere because we're talking at cross purposes.  I thought it would be interesting to get some insight into how everyone understands and uses "Sound Quality".

Keeping it simple for the sake of the poll, there are three options called, for the sake of easy reference, the "objective", "subjective accuracy" and "subjective aesthetic" definitions.

The objective definition is along the lines that sound is something that exists in a tangible form such as the air pressure, voltage, etc. which could in principle be measured by a microphone, oscilloscope, audio analyser, etc.  Quality then has to do with how accurately the sound compares with some reference (sound); the more closely the sound matches the reference, the higher its quality.  In this case sound quality is something that is -- at least in principle, if not always in practice -- quantifiable, repeatable, and independent of the measurer.

The subjective definitions would say that sound is what a person experiences when those fluctuations in air pressure reach their ears and (crucially) are interpreted by their brains.  In that case sound quality could still be based on how closely the perceived sound matches a reference sound; in practice that has to rely on our memory of how we perceived at least one of the sounds.  That's what I'd call the "subjective accuracy" definition.

Another way to define subjective sound quality is simply to say that the quality of a sound is defined by how much we enjoy listening to it, simple as that.  In that case it doesn't depend on memory or comparison with a reference.  That's what I'd call the "subjective aesthetic" definition.

Both the subjective definitions are personal in the sense that they are valid for the listener and can't be contradicted, but don't have to apply to anyone else.  Several listeners to the same sound may disagree in their assessment of sound quality, and it's pointless to argue about whether anybody is "right" or "wrong" (spoiler: everybody is right).

What do you mean when you talk about Sound Quality?  It would be good to have some comments to explain how you arrived at your poll result.

To get the ball rolling, I now normally tend towards the "subjective aesthetic" definition, and interpret SQ to mean that unless someone specifically says they're talking about something else.  I used to be more in favour the "subjective accuracy" definition, but concluded I was kidding myself that I could do the mental comparison properly.  Also, for a lot of music I listen to the "subjective accuracy" definition is useless because I don't have a meaningful reference.

[David A]

I voted for subjective accuracy, basically does what I'm listening to sound the way real instruments and voices sound to me? The closer what I'm hearing gets to that, the better the sound quality is for me. If a recording of well played good music can sound bad and a recording of bad music can sound like a high quality recording, then sound quality has to be independent of enjoyment. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy good sound quality. Enjoyment is about positive appreciation and I appreciate things that are done well such as a well written piece of music, good playing and singing, and also the sound of a recording that captures the character of the instruments and voices making the music, even when at times I don't enjoy the music itself.

[Antoine]

I always try to add the usual caveats: YMMV, in my system, to my ears when I describe something -I- hear yet both the 2nd and 3rd option apply to come to a personal opinion whether or not I try to put it into words.

[musialsuspect]

I voted for subjective accuracy,  basically does what I'm listening to sound the way real instruments and voices sound to me? The closer what I'm hearing gets to that, the better the sound quality is for me. If a recording of well played good music can sound bad and a recording of bad music can sound like a high quality recording, then sound quality has to be independent of enjoyment. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy good sound quality. Enjoyment is about positive appreciation and I appreciate things that are done well such as a well written piece of music, good playing and singing, and also the sound of a recording that captures the character of the instruments and voices making the music, even when at times I don't enjoy the music itself.

David, your choice is what I thought I was going to vote for.

Then I reflected that since I've refined my system with the addition of my Devialet (and other items), I sometimes hear recordings where the instruments sound realistic, but there's something about the recording that's 'off.' Several cases where the recording is excellent, but an instrument is flat. I realized that having the opportunity to 'realize' that adds an additional dimension to my listening experience. So I decided to vote for the objective option.

I'm happier with 'subjective accuracy,' but I prefer slightly to work with 'objective,' for better or for worse.

[BoyScout]

Succinct, straightforward, with absolutely representative options.
Good job.

[Pim]

I voted for 'Objective: in the air, universal, repeatable' because if it's not repeatable it's probably in my head and not worth the trouble. Below is what I wrote on Stereonet Australia when the Curious USB Evolved was discussed and someone mentioned double blind test. I don't need a DBT to decide a piece of equipment is worth buying but what I describe below is certainly a test that says 'yes, there's an improvement and it's repeatable.


From Stereonet:

OK. This really sucks. I just wrote this really long story here, got a phone call in between, wrote some more and when I hit send it turned out I wasn't connected to the internet through my phone anymore. Lost the lot. So here's my second go...

I have a Devialet Original d' Atelier. It's a dual mono setup so it's got two USB inputs. Last week I took some time to make up a configuration with just the two USB inputs working. I named them the same in Roon. For those who don't know, the Devialet remote only has one button for source choice so you have to toggle through the available inputs. In this case just two times USB.

I played the same play list through both inputs and spent a bit in getting them to sync by pausing one of them a bit to let the other catch up. So then I could switch between inputs with no idea which was which. All I had to do is switch a bunch of times really fast to lose track of which input I was listening to. The only way to identify them was by looking at the screen on the amps but that requires getting up out of my chair and walking over to the amps (the screen sits on top)

I used an original Curious USB 0.8m long and an MIT SL Matrix 2.0m long for the test. The only other variable was the inputs and outputs to which I connected the cables. I did change them a few times too after the blind test. This I had to do sighted because there were two variables in place but it confirmed I wasn't hearing differences in inputs or outputs.

A bit about my ears.
My left ear has a drop around the 4kHz region and my right ear is fine. That means that when I listen to something bright, I get the perception of a balance to the right.

These are my findings.

There was what I thought was a perceived difference in volume between the two. I used a 1kHz test tone and my iPhone to confirm there was actually a volume difference of 3dB. So I adjusted the volume on the louder cable by 3dB in Roon and now I was comparing apples with apples. I just didn't know which apple was which yet.

Now I was listening at the same volume it was clear that one of the cables was just a bit less bright than the other. That meant to my ears that the balance on the brighter cables leaned somewhat to the right and through the other cable it was centred. A very easy thing to identify. Not once did I feel I had to guess.

I've always found that you hear deeper into the music when you get rid of a bit of glare/brightness so my preference was for the less bright cable. As it turns out the less bright cable was also the one with the drop in volume. It was the MIT SL Matrix.

I spoke with Geoff Blundell, importer of MIT and audio dealer in Tweed Heads about this drop in volume (Disclaimer. I do a bit of work once in a while for Geoff) There are boxes on either side of the cable which I thought were ferrite rings. But Geoff is not so sure. MIT are a bit hush hush about what's in their boxes so there could be a filter in there. That filter could get rid of the glare plus be responsible for the volume drop.

One thing is now clear to me. It's possible to make USB cables sound different. It might just be that it requires a filter but the difference is definitely there.

That finding sucks because now I'm going to spend more money again; I ordered an MIT cable in the length I need. And I don't even know how much it costs! Oops!

[thumb5]

Thanks for your votes and comments, everyone. Interesting reading and (for me at least) a reminder not to take their meaning for granted when someone talks about sound quality.

[Jean-Marie]

I voted objective as my goal and intent, but I’m under no illusion: every time I’m not using measurements nor properly ABX, I’m probably falling in the category subjective based on enjoyment.

Jean-Marie