I stand corrected (if it's a proper English phrase).
By SQ I meant Sound Quality.
Indeed, various terms, referring to various phenomena. Sound quality, 'musicality', 'euphonic' and 'sense of realism' are different phenomena.
Possibly, depends on how that 'signal quality' is being evaluated, or measured.
You said there were two major camps. I just think that my third camp is probably more major than either of yours!
Indeed, fidelity begins at the recording process.
You said there were two major camps. I just think that my third camp is probably more major than either of yours!
Surely. We know it is all placebo - it is why audiophiles queue to buy amplifiers using blue LEDs to create the blue glowing.
Bias exists in every sighted report. We should know how to read between the lines and analyze these subjective reports using our own experience and knowledgeif you want to extract something useful for us. It is why it is important to list the recordings, write details and readers should know the poster system, preferences and previous history.
It is ironic but in the context of speakers/room acoustics were preference enters the equation without dispute, it is the test signals that are more revealing than music. Pink noise for example may reveal differences that are audible at far lower levels. Here is a sampling of many examples in Dr. Toole's book:
I don't know that I fit any of these camps. The camp I am in is that any difference we perceive, we need to hypothesize as to their reason and work to demonstrate their effect. I am actually OK if these differences are small: let's quantify them and then judge them. What I don't subscribe to is putting aside all science and engineering, and going by highly unreliable hearing system when it comes to small differences. The odds of being right in my opinion when differences shrink is very low. We would not bet in Las Vegas with our own money with such odds. But we do it when purchasing equipment. The only way to improve the odds is to see if science can be on your side. Then at least the wind is behind you
.At personal level, that is true. As a matter of science and engineer, that is not so. It says that a lot, but not maybe all that we worry about in these esoteric differences may be invalid. I am not a fan of pushing this point to extreme where ever small difference is considered inconsequential. That may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. But once we eliminate that domain -- the ones that we can measure and show lack of transparency at fundamental level -- then we enter the world of improbable from science and engineering point of view.
I have changed my views about this topic over the 40 years I have been in it both as a listener and audiophile and an engineer helping design some of it. I don't know how anyone would not want to learn more and with it, change their opinion. Should I have stuck to my views when test after test I thought identical differences were the same? Should I not have changed my view where in double blind tests found differences down to milliseconds that nobody else heard but objectively where there and later fixed? Should I not have changed my views where I learned the psychoacoustics of how we hear? Should I not have changed my views where I sat in a double blind speaker test and the technology that I thought was great, sounded literally "broken" when I could not see its magnificent look? Should I not have changed my views about room acoustics when I read listening test after listening tests that showed what we intuit as bad, like room reflections, can actually be beneficial?
. I learned that my pure engineering 101 studies were wrong. I also learned that trusting my ears was wrong. I learned these things by experimentation and by really learning how the equipment worked. Once there, I tend to find myself disagreeing with extreme views in both camps.
Hey Steve:
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |
