| ▲ | kiney a day ago |
| I don't know about Bose.
But sound quality in general is absolutely objectively measurable. |
|
| ▲ | lelanthran a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > But sound quality in general is absolutely objectively measurable. Sound quality is not the same as music quality. To be more specific, Sound Reproduction Fidelity is not the same as Pleasant Music To be even more specific, Signal Reproduction is not the same as "Pleasant Sounds* The goal of music is not always high fidelity of reproduction; if it were, over-driven valve amps would never have been a thing. The only thing objective in this context is signal reproduction, which is not the highest concern for music production. |
| |
| ▲ | Wowfunhappy a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > To be more specific, Sound Reproduction Fidelity is not the same as Pleasant Music If a speaker reproduces some music with 100% accuracy and the result is unpleasant, doesn’t that just mean the original music—as created by the artist—is unpleasant? Where possible, I’d prefer a speaker that respects the artist’s decisions instead of inserting itself into the creative process. | | |
| ▲ | sosborn a day ago | parent [-] | | Unless you are listening through the same studio monitors in the same room or headphones as the mixing engineer, it will never be the same. IMHO, people place too much importance on "accuracy". While accuracy might be objectively measured, it means nothing when it comes to individual taste. | | |
| ▲ | Yodel0914 a day ago | parent [-] | | There’s a whole field of research on this (look up Floyd Toole) - while any one individual can have skewed taste, on aggregate people prefer speakers that are as close to neutral as possible. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jrajav a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Signal reproduction matters quite a bit more for music production than it does for music listening and enjoyment. That's why producers and engineers look for 'monitors', rather than hi-fi speakers. Hi-fi speakers, tube amps, and other accessories generally "degrade" the sound with added harmonics and natural smile EQs. That's what makes them sound more pleasing. (I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding more color.) |
|
|
| ▲ | pete5x5 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can certainly measure it, but the catch is that there is not always a single "correct" value. So just because you can measure what the speakers are outputting and then adjust it, it doesn't mean there is one correct output value. A good example of this is a target curve, often used in room calibration. Dirac has a good explanation: https://www.dirac.com/resources/target-curve (highly recommend Dirac room correction, by the way) |
| |
| ▲ | timc3 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah that was a very interesting thing to learn. When my room was being tuned (after being built to a specification for acoustics) the acoustician then actually tuned in several switchable curves because it was so flat in response he wanted to make it sound more natural to work in. |
|
|
| ▲ | EvanAnderson a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There's arguably a subjective quality to sound enjoyment, though. The fidelity of reproduction can be measured, but I'd argue there's personal preference in the types of artifacts generated by inaccuracies in reproduction. |
| |
| ▲ | bombcar a day ago | parent [-] | | There's really two camps - "I like what I hears" and "this is as close to in-studio monitors as you can get". There's an argument for both, but frankly, if studio monitor setups don't sound "as good" why bother? |
|
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | b00ty4breakfast a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| you can absolutely quantify certain metrics, and you can even generalize what "good" is by surveying listener preference but that isn't the same thing as any one individual's subjective preference. |
