08-Dec-2019, 12:21
[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.
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.
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
