What is audio sound quality?

My question is: What is audio sound quality?

I went through the definition of wiki which states: "Sound quality is the quality of the audio output from various electronic devices. Sound quality can be defined as the degree of accuracy with which a device records or emits the original sound waves."

I used to follow the above statement. Now I don't.

The word "quality" generally implies that their should be a measuring parameter by which sound is to be measured and rated in terms of quality level.

But after a along discussion in this forum, I found sound quality happens to be how the person perceive & feels in his ears or the pleasure he takes in listening the sound. Nothing else matters. Look below how simply the members define:

ThumperSD said:

You judge by sound quality. Comparing sets of speakers based entirely on freq range is like comparing the which two or more drinks tastes better based entirely on its nutrition label. I dont know why it's so hard for people to grasp on this.

Based on your logic, a Z2300 > BX5a

Click to expand...

Joe Average said:

And once again, it's the ears that matter in the long run - the reviewer's ears, your ears, and you apparently both feel those speakers are the best but you're failing at the point where you HAVE to say "they sound the best to me" and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

caniba said:

IMO, sound is subjective. I agree with your points scientifically, but since is it will be my ears that hear the sound, the rest is irrelevant. What I think sounds great could be pure crap scientifically but does it matter if that is what I prefer.............The market usually go for the crap. The point is, what does it matter if you make the best product in the world if no one buys it.

Click to expand...

But when measuring sound quality happens to be this ultra subjective and since there is no standard means to measure how the person feels after he listens to a set, then how can he say that it has excellent sound quality?

I go through the threads of this forum and I find nine of the ten posts speak: "A has better sound quality than B". What are they trying to imply? That in their ears A sound better than B? But I may like B better than A. Different person have different preferences. Then in reality which is better? How? After all there is no parameter to measure sound quality subjectively.

So, in the end does audio sound quality actually mean anything? Or is it just an indirect means to say "I like this".

It is very difficult to quantify sound quality objectively. You can try to measure the level of imperfection in the reproduction through various parameters like frequency range and response shape, total harmonic destortion, noise, phase destortion etc.

But what is much harder is to quantify how much impact each imperfection has on the sound as heard by the human ear. Further it's not easy to actually make the measurements properly for something like headphones (and I wouldn't trust the manufacturers digures)

So most people resort to judging sound quality by ear which makes it somewhat subjective.

Much the same applies to the quality of most complex items, no one measurement is sufficiant to define quality and opinions on the importance of different measurements varies.

plugwash said:

It is very difficult to quantify sound quality objectively. You can try to measure the level of imperfection in the reproduction through various parameters like frequency range and response shape, total harmonic destortion, noise, phase destortion etc.

But what is much harder is to quantify how much impact each imperfection has on the sound as heard by the human ear. Further it's not easy to actually make the measurements properly for something like headphones (and I wouldn't trust the manufacturers digures)

So most people resort to judging sound quality by ear which makes it somewhat subjective.

Much the same applies to the quality of most complex items, no one measurement is sufficiant to define quality and opinions on the importance of different measurements varies.

Click to expand...

So the question generally arises, should we say: A have better sound quality than B?

After all audio sound quality does not follow any set of standards & every person perceives sound quality from his unique own perspective. And perspectives vary from person to person.

SQ is the ability of a system to reproduce the source material as accurately as possible.

If you know how a particular instrument or band or group sounds like in real life by actually listening and your system can reproduce that sound as closely as possible to live your system has good sound quality.

You can measure the characteristics of each piece of gear in your system and that may or may not get you in the ball park but actual listening with your own ears is essential in determining what provides SQ acceptable to you.

In a store selling say pianos if you listen to a Baldwin, a Yamaha and a Steinway you will hear each instrument has a specific characteristic sound. The goal is to be able to reproduce those differences in your home environment.

Now, you take all that and you have to decide how much of that you want based on how much you care and how much you want to spend or not spend.

That’s the simple explanation.

BillR said:

SQ is the ability of a system to reproduce the source material as accurately as possible.

If you know how a particular instrument or band or group sounds like in real life by actually listening and your system can reproduce that sound as closely as possible to live your system has good sound quality.

You can measure the characteristics of each piece of gear in your system and that may or may not get you in the ball park but actual listening with your own ears is essential in determining what provides SQ acceptable to you.

In a store selling say pianos if you listen to a Baldwin, a Yamaha and a Steinway you will hear each instrument has a specific characteristic sound. The goal is to be able to reproduce those differences in your home environment.

Now, you take all that and you have to decide how much of that you want based on how much you care and how much you want to spend or not spend.

That’s the simple explanation.

Click to expand...

I forgot which review of audioholics, but in one of them the author said; "Let me tell you the biggest truth about audio quality. The system with the best audio quality among a heard of similar audio systems may not sound the best in your ears, but a audio system with a factory preset equalizer setting thus compromising the audio quality, may sound the best."

So is it true that the audio system which may not have the best audio sound quality technically, may sound the best in your ears?

After all how many of us go to watch live performances every day to note the differences between the sound produced in the concert & that produced in your home.

RishiGuru said:

I forgot which review of audioholics, but in one of them the author said; "Let me tell you the biggest truth about audio quality. The system with the best audio quality among a heard of similar audio systems may not sound the best in your ears, but a audio system with a factory preset equalizer setting thus compromising the audio quality, may sound the best."

So is it true that the audio system which may not have the best audio sound quality may sound the best in your ears?

After all how many of us go to watch live performances every day to note the differences between the sound produced in the concert & that produced in your home.

Click to expand...

An EQ is a product designed to compensate for listening room problems, it was never designed to make a bad speaker or AMP sound good or bad.

You don’t need to listen to live concerts every day, hell, who has the time. But, what we do know is that a Fender Stratocaster sounds nothing like a Les Paul Gold Top yet they are both quality great sounding instruments.

No EQ is going to fix that because it is not a problem.

More important are things like time alignment between the woofer and tweeter in a given speaker are far more important. If all the music doesn’t reach your ears at the same moment that speaker is wrong no matter what it says in the spec sheet.

Sound quality is subjective; there is no blanket definition for sound quality for everyone.

My personal definition matches BillR's definition for live recordings, but for studio recordings, my definition differs in that perfect sound quality is achieved when your equipment perfectly matches the master recording as heard from the room it was mastered in.

Now, perfect sound quality does not truly exist as per the above, but the master recording addition to the definition above makes for an interesting point: I do not always consider perfectly transparent to have the best sound quality.

Tube amplifiers, for instance, may add warmth to recordings, but older recordings may have been mastered using speakers connected to tube amplifiers; thus, the additional warmth, which would be missing from a source-transparent system, is a part of achieving sound quality perfection for these recordings.

As such, for me, I own several setups, and while each of them is of relatively high quality, there is no one setup which has the highest level of sound quality across all of my sources.

Another example of this occurs when I listen to some very full-bodied orchestral pieces. There is no question in my mind that my tube setup provides more detail for string instruments than my Mirage setup, but for some of my more full-bodied recordings, the omnidirectional nature of my Mirage setup lends, in my opinion, to the illusion that I am sitting in a concert hall. In this case, since the recordings were made from a live concert, the Mirage speakers are given the vote for better sound quality over my tube setup even though I, knowingly, lose some resolution on the string instruments which is present in the recordings.

BillR said:

An EQ is a product designed to compensate for listening room problems, it was never designed to make a bad speaker or AMP sound good or bad.

You don’t need to listen to live concerts every day, hell, who has the time. But, what we do know is that a Fender Stratocaster sounds nothing like a Les Paul Gold Top yet they are both quality great sounding instruments.

No EQ is going to fix that because it is not a problem.

More important are things like time alignment between the woofer and tweeter in a given speaker are far more important. If all the music doesn’t reach your ears at the same moment that speaker is wrong no matter what it says in the spec sheet.

Click to expand...

Say a noob, a very non technical person who does no nothing about acoustic technology or how it works buy two set of speakers. He likes one better than the other since he feels it is better sounding in his ears that the other.

Should he say:

"A have better audio sound quality than B"
or
"I like the sound of A better than B"

TESLA said:

Sound quality is subjective; there is no blanket definition for sound quality for everyone.

My personal definition matches BillR's definition for live recordings, but for studio recordings, my definition differs in that perfect sound quality is achieved when your equipment perfectly matches the master recording as heard from the room it was mastered in.

Now, perfect sound quality does not truly exist as per the above, but the master recording addition to the definition above makes for an interesting point: I do not always consider perfectly transparent to have the best sound quality.

Tube amplifiers, for instance, may add warmth to recordings, but older recordings may have been mastered using speakers connected to tube amplifiers; thus, the additional warmth, which would be missing from a source-transparent system, is a part of achieving sound quality perfection for these recordings.

As such, for me, I own several setups, and while each of them is of relatively high quality, there is no one setup which has the highest level of sound quality across all of my sources.

Another example of this occurs when I listen to some very full-bodied orchestral pieces. There is no question in my mind that my tube setup provides more detail for string instruments than my Mirage setup, but for some of my more full-bodied recordings, the omnidirectional nature of my Mirage setup lends, in my opinion, to the illusion that I am sitting in a concert hall. In this case, since the recordings were made from a live concert, the Mirage speakers are given the vote for better sound quality over my tube setup even though I, knowingly, lose some resolution on the string instruments which is present in the recordings.

Click to expand...

A good explanation of *subjective* differences.

If I want to listen to Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon I want dynamics, something I can’t get with Magneplanars and tubes but they are perfect for YoYo Ma on cello and a lot of classical and jazz.

For Floyd I want my big Paradigm Studios and about 500 watts per channel of very high current power.

This isn’t going to help the OP though; I believe as most normal people he needs something in the middle.

RishiGuru said:

Say a noob, a very non technical person who does no nothing about acoustic technology or how it works buy two set of speakers. He likes one better than the other since he feels it is better sounding in his ears that the other.

Should he say:

"A have better audio sound quality than B"
or
"I like the sound of A better than B"

Click to expand...

I’ve been in the business for well over 40 years now and in the end people tend to buy products based on what they like the sound of at the time of purchase despite how anyone might educate them.

Fact> live music from a decent band makes you want to stay and listen. A poor hifi will quickly give you ear fatigue and you will find yourself turning it down because it isn’t pleasing to listen to. Big boomy bass and shrill highs and phase distortions from time alignment problems and or bad cross overs in a speaker will cause you to not enjoy your system.

No written review can substitute long term listening in a store.

TESLA said:

Sound quality is subjective; there is no blanket definition for sound quality for everyone.

My personal definition matches BillR's definition for live recordings, but for studio recordings, my definition differs in that perfect sound quality is achieved when your equipment perfectly matches the master recording as heard from the room it was mastered in.

Now, perfect sound quality does not truly exist as per the above, but the master recording addition to the definition above makes for an interesting point: I do not always consider perfectly transparent to have the best sound quality.

Tube amplifiers, for instance, may add warmth to recordings, but older recordings may have been mastered using speakers connected to tube amplifiers; thus, the additional warmth, which would be missing from a source-transparent system, is a part of achieving sound quality perfection for these recordings.

As such, for me, I own several setups, and while each of them is of relatively high quality, there is no one setup which has the highest level of sound quality across all of my sources.

Another example of this occurs when I listen to some very full-bodied orchestral pieces. There is no question in my mind that my tube setup provides more detail for string instruments than my Mirage setup, but for some of my more full-bodied recordings, the omnidirectional nature of my Mirage setup lends, in my opinion, to the illusion that I am sitting in a concert hall. In this case, since the recordings were made from a live concert, the Mirage speakers are given the vote for better sound quality over my tube setup even though I, knowingly, lose some resolution on the string instruments which is present in the recordings.

Click to expand...

BillR & TESLA, I understand both of you are audiophiles and the right persons to provide the insight on this very delicate matter, but kindly for us Average Joe people you guys have to come down to us in order to solve this problem.

I mean look at all the threads & all the posts, you will find "A has better sound quality than B" & "A blows you B away to heaven". I am tired of this. Do half of these members really understand sound quality? I personally do not understand it now? How am I going to state which is better?

Or simply this is good in my ears means it has excellent sound quality? I want a basis. A basis on which I will decide which is better. Is is going to be my untrained ears or the results of the analytical tests.

RishiGuru said:

BillR & TESLA, I understand both of you are audiophiles and the right persons to provide the insight on this very delicate matter, but kindly for us Average Joe people you guys have to come down to us in order to solve this problem.

I mean look at all the threads & all the posts, you will find "A has better sound quality than B" & "A blows you B away to heaven". I am tired of this. Do half of these members really understand sound quality? I personally do not understand it now? How am I going to state which is better?

Or simply this is good in my ears means it has excellent sound quality? I want a basis. A basis on which I will decide which is better. Is is going to be my untrained ears or the results of the analytical tests.

Click to expand...

Audiophiles? Not even close, in fact that’s probably the most over used term in this and many forums. These days there is so little Audiophile gear floating around it would shock you and what is available is beyond the affordable range of all but the very rich.

We have (had) a forum member here who builds and sells a turntable for 37k with no tone arm or cartridge, that’s Audiophile and no, he can’t build them fast enough. You won’t find much if any Audiophile gear at CES anymore either, those days are long gone.

“Rocky mountain audio fest 2010”, that’s where the audiophiles are these days.

As to “A” blowing away “B”, well, that’s largely opinion based on what the individual either likes, or, it’s a statement defending a purchase.

MP3 has redefined the biggest part of the Audio Industry which is why it’s so damn hard to find a store selling a nice range of products you can go listen to. It’s also why there are so many internet sites selling speakers built in China that you can’t listen to in a store and it’s becoming the same with AMPS etc.

Look around your town or nearby for Mom and Pop stores still selling Denon, Pioneer, Yamaha, Mirage, HK, Boston Acoustics, Difinitive Tech etc. and go do some listening with your own music. You simply can’t pick stuff off the net based on my opinion or anybody else’s and be sure of being happy with your purchase.

These by the way are "Audiophiles" http://vodpod.com/watch/20141-greek-audiophile

Part audio mastering back at the studio, part file format on your CD/DVD/computer/protable media device, part audio transport to DAC choice, part DAC quality, part AMP quality, part cables (for those who believe so, past a certain degree), part speaker/monitor (not the pretty thing with pixels) quality, part enviorment acoutsics.


There, I just gave the most useless response of my life.

For Vynls, or whatever they are called, it's studio masting, vinyl quality, needle choice, and I guess speaker acoustics...

You can objectify it to a certain degree.

For example, Bose systems output much of the lower human voice spectrum over their subwoofer. This is just 'bad' in terms of sound quality.

It's very much like televisions. Someone might look at a television set to vivid, with contrast and brightness both at 100, and thinks it looks fantastic. By no means does it mean the picture is remotely accurate.

Passed a certain point, it becomes quite subjective. Some people like their sound to be a little colored and exciting. Some people like a very neutral sound. Some people like tight imaging. Others like a big and wide soundstage.

I do agree it is quite subjective though. For example, Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pros are quite loved, but I tried them and thought they sounded awful (worse than my KSC 75s)...so I think you may have a point.

RishiGuru said:

BillR & TESLA, I understand both of you are audiophiles and the right persons to provide the insight on this very delicate matter, but kindly for us Average Joe people you guys have to come down to us in order to solve this problem.

***snip***

Click to expand...

There are so many factors involved, including personal preferences.

Again, it's subjective.

Also, it is important to think of your room as part of your equipment list. A pair of speakers can sound absolutely spectacular in room A, yet sound akin to garbage in room B. (Though this affect can be corrected, to a point, with acoustic panels and other treatments.)

As such, if you really care about "sound quality," here is my advice:

Purchase speakers from sources which allow for some form of a low or no cost in-home trial period. Try the speakers out, with your personal source material, in your own home. Try out more than one pair at a time, even, and if you find yourself happy with a pair, keep them. (Ideally, you want a 60-day minimum in-home trial to allow for break-in.)

Understandably, for something like a HTIaB or a pair of computer speakers, this is more difficult, but even so try to purchase from sources with a solid return policy or, at the very least, a large selection of alternatives and a store credit policy.

Research is very useful for narrowing down the field, as is defining your price range, but your ears should always have the final say, always.

I guess what I missed to comment upon on the first (two) takes is why and how reviews and opinions are useful in narrowing down the field.

First off, and I will use an analogy here, not everyone likes apples and not everyone likes oranges, but you will be hard pressed to find someone that likes rotten fruit, regardless of if its an orange or an apple. In other words, while sound quality is very subjective, there certainly are baseline expectations for quality sound.

Secondly, good, informative (commercial) reviews are actually really, really difficult to find, and are generally of little help unless they are picking out the "rotten fruit."

As for opinions and consumer reviews, these are most helpful when you can compare your preferences with the preferences of the reviewer, on some level. This is best done, in my opinion, by becoming part of, and understanding, a community.

I can tell you that this forum, for instance, seems to have a large following of users seeking transparency and neutrality in sound reproduction. This is not the case on other forums I frequent.

So while sound quality is highly subjective, your initial search can be narrowed down by looking for help from people likely to have tastes similar to your own. (The hard part is when you are starting out, with no personal baseline - in this case I would suggest avoiding the "rotten fruit" and testing the waters as you see fit.)

Nice write up Tesla. Love the rotten fruit analogy.

I really which reviewers would do comparisons more often. Comparisons are far more helpful since I can at least try to compare headphones to others I may have heard.

Duke Ellington : "If it sounds good, it IS good."

If everything is subjective then there is no such thing as sound quality, as it's purely based on the person. And I don't accept that.

There is too much fluffy wishy washy artsy "analysis" of this.... This isn't art, it's engineering. This is the reproduction of soundwaves, given your acoustic environment. And this is measurable.

And I'll not pretend to be an expert on sound as audio engineering is not my chosen profession, and this should apply to a lot of people here; so if my amateur ears think something subjectively sounds better, that's completely irelevant compared to a proper, objective 'expert' analysis of the SQ. If my ears "subjectively" think a crappy 128 mp3 is warm and fuzzy and better sounding than a .flac, but expert "objective" analysis says the .flac is superior, I go with the objective expert analysis.

BillR said:

SQ is the ability of a system to reproduce the source material as accurately as possible.

Click to expand...

+1 and one of the few factual and measurable views of SQ here

"Sound quality" is an objective concept. In other words, it's a concept that can be evaluated objectively. A subjective interpretation of audio is not "sound quality" — it just just a subjective interpretation. Nothing more.

I've always considered sound "quality" to be the ability of a system to reproduce the source material accurately. I think it would be hard to argue otherwise.

However, what "sounds best" is most definitely a subjective thing. I very much like the analogy ex0du5 used. Some people like a less accurate, over-saturated picture, just as some people like over-emphasized bass or other qualities. This is why it's important to listen and decide what sounds best to you.

echn111 said:

If everything is subjective then there is no such thing as sound quality, as it's purely based on the person. And I don't accept that.

There is too much fluffy wishy washy artsy "analysis" of this.... This isn't art, it's engineering. This is the reproduction of soundwaves, given your acoustic environment. And this is measurable.

And I'll not pretend to be an expert on sound as audio engineering is not my chosen profession, and this should apply to a lot of people here; so if my amateur ears think something subjectively sounds better, that's completely irelevant compared to a proper, objective 'expert' analysis of the SQ. If my ears "subjectively" think a crappy 128 mp3 is warm and fuzzy and better sounding than a .flac, but expert "objective" analysis says the .flac is superior, I go with the objective expert analysis.


+1 and one of the few factual and measurable views of SQ here

Click to expand...

phide said:

"Sound quality" is an objective concept. In other words, it's a concept that can be evaluated objectively. A subjective interpretation of audio is not "sound quality" — it just just a subjective interpretation. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

That’s pretty much the way it is.

A number of years ago Canada decided they wanted to be a leader in the manufacturing of audio speakers and to that end they spent a fortune on the NRC located in, Canada.

No expense was spared and they developed the largest anechoic chamber in the world and added cost no object testing gear. All this was offered to any Canadian speaker manufacture to perfect their products. Out of all this we got Mirage, Paradigm, PBS as well as a number of others.

When the audio business went south so did a number of the speaker companies but the point is making speakers and the amplifiers that drive them as well as the associated products is entirely objective.

Now there is a subjective part. Some companies wanted to give their speakers a distinctive sound. Some were a bit heavy in the bass, some a bit hot on the high end and some very flat and accurate and naturally some were in between those three parameters but they were typically more alike than different. Each had a certain appeal to a given buyer.

Speaker enclosures are a science on their own. Until China jumped on the scene most people don’t know the Baldwin Piano Company was the largest supplier of speaker enclosures in the world.

One of the reasons I mention Paradigm as much as I do is they were the only company to take those lessons they learned at the NRC and apply the same principals to their own manufacturing and they are one of the only companies that actually make about 90% of what they sell in their own factory. They also own the second largest anechoic chamber where they do all their own in house testing.

Sorry for the long history lesson but objective always comes before subjective.

Not sure about what is the true meaning of SQ but here is my 2 bits of audiophyte opinion.

I think there is a difference between sound quality and sound preference. In a technical sense, all a speaker is supposed to do is reproduce sound that is as close to the sound that exists during the actual recording of the sound. Whether in a studio, concert hall or random location, the point of the speaker is to provide as similar a sound environment as the original location (at least that is what I believe).

If so then the first requirement is to accurately reproduce the sound throughout the entire spectrum of sound in both volume vs frequency and direction vs frequency. Also the signal change has to be similar with no delay in the signal (sound signal vs electrical signal). Another way to say this is since sound is just the movement of air, the speakers must create the same motion of the air in a 360 degree sphere around the speaker for ideal situation and at least the same motion of air at the listeners location if all directions are not possible.

Next, there cannot be any additional signals that may distort the sound, which includes noise, distortions, etc.

The closer the sound is to the original sound, the higher the sound quality. I think its called quality since items like noise and distortion is thought to reduce the quality of any sound so the more accurate the sound and less noise and distortions and such, the higher the quality.

However, this is just talking about the purity of the sound and not what a listener may prefer. The sound is objective but the preference of any specific sound is subjective. Thus I think the data that is taken (if taken with accuracy and high data quality) is something that may differentiate the quality of sound. However, this may not determine whether that sound will be preferred by the listeners.

JMO

BillR said:

SQ is the ability of a system to reproduce the source material as accurately as possible.

Click to expand...

echn111 said:

If everything is subjective then there is no such thing as sound quality, as it's purely based on the person. And I don't accept that.

There is too much fluffy wishy washy artsy "analysis" of this.... This isn't art, it's engineering. This is the reproduction of soundwaves, given your acoustic environment. And this is measurable.

And I'll not pretend to be an expert on sound as audio engineering is not my chosen profession, and this should apply to a lot of people here; so if my amateur ears think something subjectively sounds better, that's completely irelevant compared to a proper, objective 'expert' analysis of the SQ. If my ears "subjectively" think a crappy 128 mp3 is warm and fuzzy and better sounding than a .flac, but expert "objective" analysis says the .flac is superior, I go with the objective expert analysis.

Click to expand...

phide said:

"Sound quality" is an objective concept. In other words, it's a concept that can be evaluated objectively. A subjective interpretation of audio is not "sound quality" — it just just a subjective interpretation. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

Just John said:

I've always considered sound "quality" to be the ability of a system to reproduce the source material accurately. I think it would be hard to argue otherwise.

However, what "sounds best" is most definitely a subjective thing. I very much like the analogy ex0du5 used. Some people like a less accurate, over-saturated picture, just as some people like over-emphasized bass or other qualities. This is why it's important to listen and decide what sounds best to you.

Click to expand...

Zenshi said:

The sound is objective but the preference of any specific sound is subjective. Thus I think the data that is taken (if taken with accuracy and high data quality) is something that may differentiate the quality of sound. However, this may not determine whether that sound will be preferred by the listeners.

Click to expand...

It seems from the responses I received, majority votes for my initial concept regarding "sound quality". That sound quality is the objective analysis of the sound waves as produced by the audio system. It has nothing to do with "just listen to your ears" subjective part.

I have seen in many audio forums bar a few that almost everybody talks about the difference in "sound quality" between two audio systems without having any prior knowledge regarding their audio performance.

Without knowing the needs of what frequency response, noise level, dynamic range, THD, IMD+ noise, SNR, stereo crosstalk really means & what are their implication regarding "sound quality", they just basically hear the two systems, and which ever they feel is better "in their ears", they say it has better "sound quality".

The problem is, what may sound great "in their ears" may not sound the same "in your ears". This kind of approach initially seemed quite puzzling to me.

Example:

Tom: Hey, I have decided to buy "A" or "B". Both cost $150. Which one has better sound quality? Please help me out.

Dick: Go for "A". "B" is crap. Separate tweeter & midrange drivers will produce crisp highs & blow the "B" away.

Harry: Who said "B" is bad. I have auditioned both "A" & "B", and "B" is way better than "A" & have better bass. Go, for "B".

Tom: Which one will I get? "A" or "B".

Dick: Why don't you try "C". Yes I admit they cost $300 but latter you can upgrade.

Harry: Yeah "C" is good but "D" is even better than "C". Bass is even better.

-----------------
From the conversation it seems that Dick like clear highs where as Harry like lows. Anyway until now, no body cared about sound quality.
----------------

Tom: I can spend $150 max.

Dick: I will get "A".

Harry: I will get "B".

--------------------

Tom is yet to get the answer as to buy which one? Nobody was able to provide which one posses better "sound quality". Now he is more puzzled.


Actually I have seen 75% of the members believe what sounds great "in their ears" have superior sound quality. Only 25% members truly understands what "sound quality" really is.

I will not try act as "I know all about sound quality", but given the choice between two audio system, I will give more importance to the objective analysis rather than what sound great "in my ears". Even if I like the sound signature of a particular speaker set "A", while the other one "B" proves to be better in the audio frequency curve, have better THD & SNR values, I will definitely get "B". And I will also suggest that to others.

Many a times I have seen that a person conceives clarity of a system as its "sound quality". But the truth is better clarity does not indicate better "sound quality". This is a wrong perception created in our mind.

Sound quality is the degree of accuracy with which a device records or emits the original sound waves. No added clarity. No added bass. Just the amount of clarity & bass as in the original sound waves.

I am not here to preach sound quality to others. I want everybody to be happy with how they perceives "sound quality".

But I am here in the pursuit of true "sound quality". Not for "what sound great in my ears".

In my opinion, the only thing you need to concern yourself with is satisfying your ears. If you want to satisfy instruments and measurement software (or if you're involved in production), you should strive for sound quality. Otherwise, buy gear you think sounds good.

phide said:

In my opinion, the only thing you need to concern yourself with is satisfying your ears. If you want to satisfy instruments and measurement software (or if you're involved in production), you should strive for sound quality. Otherwise, buy gear you think sounds good.

Click to expand...

.........which again brings us back to the question in my first post -->

Does "sound quality" as used in these forums, is an indirect means to say "I like this" sound & have in reality no resemblance to true sound quality?

The question is unrelated to my suggestion. Call the objective concepts of audio "sound quality" and the subjective concepts of audio "subjective preference". Buy products that satisfy "subjective preference" as opposed to "sound quality" unless production demands necessitate "sound quality".

Well for anything significant I look at buying, like a car, I think it's better to do your research and get objective views first, get the facts, and then you are in a position to make a rational choice based on subjective preferance... But not before.

Why? Because I'm not not an automotive engineer, mechanic or serious enthusiast with extreme levels of understanding of this area... I've got better things to do, and I'm certainly not going to rely primarily on my subjective views here. Sure preference plays a strong part, but only after research and and objective expert reviews. Why would anyone do it the other around?

I suppose I could do like many people and subjectively pick a car that I thought "looked good" and just "felt right" in my gut, and convince myself I have the knowledge to evaluate long term build quality and performance under different environmental conditions. Plenty of people do this which is why so many people buy overpriced poor quality rubbish products and try to convince themselves they did all right... It doesn't make sense but they do it anyway.

echn111 said:

Well for anything significant I look at buying, like a car, I think it's better to do your research and get objective views first, get the facts, and then you are in a position to make a rational choice based on subjective preferance... But not before.

Click to expand...

The problem with audio, however, is that metrics tend to be fairly meaningless. There may be components that you don't want introducing any coloration — in those cases it's prudent to rely on objective measurements, but holding to a firm view that "more accurate/more neutral is better for this particular component" is a bit misguided as well. In most cases, actually, the subtle differences in measured qualities between one component and another can be inaudible. And at the end of the day, the end of the chain is always going to be the ears. Why would you not rely upon them to tell you what sounds good to you?

Now, practically speaking, it's sometimes difficult and/or impossible to do any A/B comparisons between one device and another, but it's always possible to evaluate some device independently of any other on a purely subjective level. If the thing being purchased is intended purely for self-satisfaction, no objective metrics are really required. You might ascertain a car's reliability by looking at reliability data, but you understand what the car offers by driving it. You understand the power of its engine better than any spec sheet could attempt to detail. You'll understand the quality of its construction better when you test how well the glove box is mounted and how smoothly the seats slide back and forward. Same thing applies to audio.

Not all metrics are meaningless but many, way too many are totally misunderstood. People tend to think THD is one of the more important specs when it comes to the electronics. It is important but it has to be understood.

A spec of .0004 THD is bad. There is no way to get THD that low without a huge sacrifice in SQ. To reach ultra-low THD the manufacture must apply tons of what is called “negative feedback” to the component in question. Negative feedback is when you take part of the output signal and pipe it back into the input. This method makes and amp sound dead and lifeless.

Harmonic distortion is actually (in moderation) pleasing to our ears and lowers listening fatigue. Some of the most expensive and best sounding amps are 1% or slightly higher in the THD spec.

TIM or Total Intermodulation Distortion, a number most companies don’t want to mention. It is the offensive distortion. Example, a really good high end piano may have upwards of 8% or more THD as do most instruments. Go listen to an out of tune piano and you are hearing TIM. It just sounds bad. The best explanation of that is the notes don’t blend and create a harsh sound. When someone turns up a Hi FI system and it suddenly becomes annoying and not so musical that’s typically TIM. You don’t want that to exceed .03% if at all possible.

So, some metrics are indeed important.

I find sound to be subjective. That's the beauty of it. It is also terrible since their is no definitive standard. All is subjective & there is nothing as "bad sound" or "good sound". Every person just have his own views and standards.

On the other hand "sound quality" is objective. There is no beauty or creativity in it. But you have definitive standards by which you can measure "sound quality". It has nothing to do with "what feels great in your ears".

Generally in audio forum members talk about "sound" subjectively. Or better put as phide said they talk about their "subjective preference" of one over the other. How much of their "subjective preference" is going to work for you is a different matter.

Their is a high probability that a system with good "sound quality" will sound good in your ears. The same cannot be said about "subjective preference of sound". What sound "great in his ears" may sound just OK "in your ears".

To buy a audio system without knowing anything about its "sound quality" and blindly choosing the one that sounds the "best in your ears" is what I will call an impulsive buy.

So, in the end I think it is better to pick a few from a herd of similar audio systems based on their better "sound quality" over the others, all belonging to a certain price range, and then only perform your "subjective preference of sound" on each of the selected few in order to find out the winner.

Remember though what wins for you may not win for others.

To me, what sets quality components apart from the crowd is the "noise floor". What I like to think of as a super low noise floor is indicative of high-end sound regardless of price, but is definitely more common in more expensive components. It's hard to describe, as there's more to it than what you don't hear, it's a kind of "blackness" between sounds. Pass Labs amps give me the willies in this area, and are the best at this I've personally heard. It's a quality completely absent from most common consumer marketed gear, and you won't "hear" it at Best Buy or in any car. Emotiva amps have a low noise floor to me, and at their price, are a very real purchasing option.
Speakers are much harder to quantify, but a super-dead sealed cabinet is most pleasing to my ears, and I can't stand ports and don't much like passive radiators either, as these usually (to me) lack a low noise floor and the sound isn't as "taut" or precise. A mod I have read about that is supposed to really help in this area is Bybee products, though I haven't heard them and they may be snake oil, but the description of what they are supposed to do is what I'm talking about. Skiing Ninja has also had a lot of good write-ups about his modified components, with the goal seeming to be lower noise floor and better quality (he does speakers as well as electronics like Oppo players and such).
A high end, high quality, un-fatigue-ing sound system can be had without the high price, but a lot of research is necessary. As far as write-ups and reviews, listen to some reviewed products and compare what you hear with what you read to get a good idea of the reviewers you agree with, at least on some points, and this can lead you in the right direction.
Sound quality for a system is only going to be as good as the weakest component in the chain, starting with the source material (garbage in, garbage out), and one wrong thing, even dirty electricity or a bad cable somewhere, can ruin that noise floor and the listening experience.
And just avoid like the plague anyone you know who brags about their bose system. This is not a consumer who has done any research. No bose product has ever gotten a positive review from a credible, non-ad revenue only seeking source, so it would seem that the one thing the audio world agrees on is that bose really, really sucks. True dat.

BillR said:

...This method makes and amp sound dead and lifeless...Go listen to an out of tune piano and you are hearing TIM. It just sounds bad...You don’t want that to exceed .03% if at all possible.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to point out that you've listed what are actually subjective preferences here: it is entirely possible for "dead and lifeless" and the 'bad-soundingness' of inter-modulation distortion to be desirable to some on a subjective level. Some wish to forgo any notion of accuracy with respect to reproduction for sonic qualities that most people would probably find unpalatable. For every 99 people who want faithful and accurate reproduction, there's going to be that one guy who wants what may be the opposite. Maybe he finds what he wants in an old tube-powered radio that's broken or poorly designed in some sort of critical way that reproduces sound in a way that he feels is as close to perfection as possible.

The specs aren't meaningless, and they can be incredibly valuable when a person understands them to the point that they know what objectively-measured qualities will result in the type of sonic qualities they're individually biased toward (on a subjective level), but they aren't particularly helpful for most people. They aren't inherently misleading either, but it's incredibly easy to interpret them in a way that's misleading.

Sound quality = Not Logitech

It's a bit like trying to explain what tastes "good"...mostly a subjective topic, one that changes who you talk to. Some like spicy food, some like rich food, some like gamey food...

Just like food, your definition of "good sound" changes based on your experience. Someone who has only used the earbuds included with an ipod would think a $50 set of headphones are amazing, while "audiophiles" would regard them as crap. ::shrug:: Like I said, it's subjective.

RishiGuru said:

I find sound to be subjective. That's the beauty of it. It is also terrible since their is no definitive standard. All is subjective & there is nothing as "bad sound" or "good sound". Every person just have his own views and standards.
On the other hand "sound quality" is objective. There is no beauty or creativity in it. But you have definitive standards by which you can measure "sound quality". It has nothing to do with "what feels great in your ears".
Generally in audio forum members talk about "sound" subjectively. Or better put as phide said they talk about their "subjective preference" of one over the other. How much of their "subjective preference" is going to work for you is a different matter.
Their is a high probability that a system with good "sound quality" will sound good in your ears. The same cannot be said about "subjective preference of sound". What sound "great in his ears" may sound just OK "in your ears".
To buy a audio system without knowing anything about its "sound quality" and blindly choosing the one that sounds the "best in your ears" is what I will call an impulsive buy.
So, in the end I think it is better to pick a few from a herd of similar audio systems based on their better "sound quality" over the others, all belonging to a certain price range, and then only perform your "subjective preference of sound" on each of the selected few in order to find out the winner.
Remember though what wins for you may not win for others.

Click to expand...

I agree, and would add the concept of acquired taste, or just taste in general. Giving someone new to audio the advice that they should just get what sounds good to them does them a disservice. How does a neophyte even know what sounds good without a frame of reference from some experience and research? Most of the arguments about "this" sounds better than "that" are still within the confines of those components most agree sound/measure good, and exclude those that most agree don't sound/measure good, and center around the perceived strengths and weaknesses of quality gear. There's also the proper vocabulary to describe what you're hearing (or not hearing etc.) and the necessity of same or similar high-quality source material across comparisons. How wider dynamic range material can stress a component (esp. speakers) vs. more compressed material is also a consideration, as are room interactions/treatments and things like nearfield monitors on a computer desk vs. full-range multichannel home theatre. There is no one size fits all, obviously, with intended use, music preference, room size/layout, budget considerations, interoperability, and the ever ubiquitous "spousal acceptance factor", which I never got (change your spouses mind, not your choice of gear/size/color or whatthefuckever) and honestly believe is a marketing ploy to sell higher priced stuff with less performance (like $2k subs that only go down to 45hz but hey! its only 1 sq. ft. and pink!).
I guess the point is that if someone asks for help or guidance, make sure that doesn't lead them into acquiring a taste for, and getting accustomed to, stuff that most reasonable and experienced people in the audio world agree sucks.

kubla_khan said:

Giving someone new to audio the advice that they should just get what sounds good to them does them a disservice. How does a neophyte even know what sounds good without a frame of reference from some experience and research?

Click to expand...

Define "sounds good".

For agressive beats 12bit kicks the ass of 16 or 24bit...

phide said:

Define "sounds good".

Click to expand...

Well, a $30 panasonic boom box some crackhead stole and swam across the Hudson river with and is now selling it on the corner because he needs some crack and accidentally dropped it in his shit bucket anyway would still sound pretty good to someone who had spent most of their listening time split between an ipood and a bose acoustimass. And if said boom box's actual cd player still kinda worked, it would be like angels singing by comparison.
But lets imagine our neophyte, pocket full 'o money, wandering into the local best buy "listening room", which of course doesn't actually have anything worth owning, and asking for help from the resident "audio guru". He's going to steer the guy towards whatever speaker model he has been instructed to push this month, which will probably have the optimal room and psychological placement vs. the other models and will be hooked up to the best gear they have and played the loudest. Neophyte is convinced these mid-range polks or klipschs are the best speakers on the planet, gets used to the sound, and wonders why anyone would purchase boutique builder speakers he's never heard of for similar or even less money because they must suck or surely best buy would have carried them. Not only is he horribly misinformed, but now he has bad taste, too. And before anyone says taste is subjective also, because technically it is, what "sounds good" in audio is a consensus determined by the majority of people who spend the most time and effort listening and comparing, and the more one does the same, the more one realizes they are right. They might fiercely argue about what gets 4 stars and what gets 5, but they all know the difference between those and a 1 star, and agree. I've seen fights break out over the cable issue, but no one is actually going to use lamp cord. And Shun Mook Mpingo discs might seem like a dream come true to some, while others scream snake oil. But neither camp would put their player on the clothes dryer.
If neophyte had asked for help from a responsible audio hobbyist to begin with, he would never have found himself in best buy in the first place, probably would have saved some money, and would be well on the road towards a fulfilling and rewarding hobby and general betterment of his daily lifestyle. And while some might disagree with the specifics of his taste (in gear, music, whatever), none would say he lacked it or it was bad.