You may have 10%.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
How do you SUBJECTIVELY quantify improvements in sound
- Thread starter gks333
- Start date
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
Well... you can't? You quantify them objectively and describe the effect they have on you subjectively?
The subjective experience includes things that can't be quantified, like emotions/feelings. It also includes things that are not caused by the sound of the audio playback system, meaning that you'd be chasing your own tail if you try to quantify them.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,108
- Likes
- 14,771
No. You can't quantify the "good" subjectively. You can say it was twice as loud, had xdB better SINAD etc etc. They are objective measurements.
Is the Mona Lisa 50% better than Sunflowers? Ridiculous.
You can say you prefer system X to Y, you can even say why in terms of your experience. But you "like" it twice as much is nonsense.
Edit : I am aware this makes the whole concept of scored and starred reviews of products /music etc a nonsense too, because it largely is. About as meaningful as thumbs up and thumbs down.
Last edited:
OP
gks333
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2021
- Messages
- 44
- Likes
- 40
- Thread Starter
- #46
So then you are saying that quantifying something can only be done objectively. That numbers, percentages can not be used to describe (quantify) what you perceive? That quanifying something can not be used to communicate to others. Well, I guess we can call the doctors and tell them to get rid of the 1 -10 pain scale. Or any other numerical scale in that instance. I think you are thinking that I think subjective truths become objective truths. Not so.
tvrgeek
Major Contributor
I have been at it long enough to pretty much dismiss level and eq mostly. There are specific details that I know bother me I can look past the usual masking and hear.
I will not go into detail with them again because it will attract the "you can't tell because you are not a 100 person blind ABX." bunch who I don't understand why they are here if everything sounds the same. Very briefly, "something" that causes some voices and instruments excessive glare or harshness around 3K, and insufficient dynamic current to amps that makes music less "lively" These effects are so gross to me, I can hear them in a "walk by" I know the cause of the latter and have several ideas on the former with respect to amplifiers. Why I hear the glare in some DACs I can't explain.
I can more accurately describe beer in terms most understand. I have talked to a number of brew masters and have a pretty good understanding how they achieve each flavor. One insight was on why many beers with over about 6% have a horrible after taste to me. Colt Malt Liquor taste. Turns out only a few people have this. It is a bad combination of a couple specific ( common) hops and those of us cursed as hyper-tasters. Most people do not get this bad flavor. Many brew masters don't so they don't know if their high test bothers some. I was lucky enough to meet one who does. Sure enough, his 7% beer did not have that after taste. Did not like it much as it was too light, but no foul flavor.
My choices depend on my mood the meal and weather. Just like music, I listen to almost everything except Rap and C&W. Depends on my mood.
Cold day, a nice porter and some Gouda cheese. Hot day after yard work, a cold Hef' and some fruit. Steak, give me a robust amber ale. I do not like Pilsners or any rice beer. "Bier" is made from barley, water hops, and yeast. Sorry Dog Fish Head, whatever is on the floor at the time shoudl not go into the vat. Been to some wine, beer and scotch tastings. No, we can't agree. One scotch tasted to me like old gym socks in rotten peat moss and another raved about it's complex flavors. The one I found delightful was "reviewed" as common. I don't like IPAs and my view of "light beer" is best described by a joke I can't publish here but it has to do with a couple in a boat. Others it's all they drink.
When judges discuss their impressions, this is a classic case of peer pressure bias. It is invalid in beverages, it is invalid in audio.
I will not go into detail with them again because it will attract the "you can't tell because you are not a 100 person blind ABX." bunch who I don't understand why they are here if everything sounds the same. Very briefly, "something" that causes some voices and instruments excessive glare or harshness around 3K, and insufficient dynamic current to amps that makes music less "lively" These effects are so gross to me, I can hear them in a "walk by" I know the cause of the latter and have several ideas on the former with respect to amplifiers. Why I hear the glare in some DACs I can't explain.
I can more accurately describe beer in terms most understand. I have talked to a number of brew masters and have a pretty good understanding how they achieve each flavor. One insight was on why many beers with over about 6% have a horrible after taste to me. Colt Malt Liquor taste. Turns out only a few people have this. It is a bad combination of a couple specific ( common) hops and those of us cursed as hyper-tasters. Most people do not get this bad flavor. Many brew masters don't so they don't know if their high test bothers some. I was lucky enough to meet one who does. Sure enough, his 7% beer did not have that after taste. Did not like it much as it was too light, but no foul flavor.
My choices depend on my mood the meal and weather. Just like music, I listen to almost everything except Rap and C&W. Depends on my mood.
Cold day, a nice porter and some Gouda cheese. Hot day after yard work, a cold Hef' and some fruit. Steak, give me a robust amber ale. I do not like Pilsners or any rice beer. "Bier" is made from barley, water hops, and yeast. Sorry Dog Fish Head, whatever is on the floor at the time shoudl not go into the vat. Been to some wine, beer and scotch tastings. No, we can't agree. One scotch tasted to me like old gym socks in rotten peat moss and another raved about it's complex flavors. The one I found delightful was "reviewed" as common. I don't like IPAs and my view of "light beer" is best described by a joke I can't publish here but it has to do with a couple in a boat. Others it's all they drink.
When judges discuss their impressions, this is a classic case of peer pressure bias. It is invalid in beverages, it is invalid in audio.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,108
- Likes
- 14,771
Do you think doctors place much stock on a numerical pain scale? Other than it giving the patient a shorthand? 8 is considerably more painful than 5. And? Is a 10 to me the same as to you?
You can say audio system A is twice as good as B, but nobody else will have a clue what that means to them, other than that you think it was a lot better.
Flowery descriptions of your perception of the sound is better to convey to third parties not present than some arbitrary numbers you'd give it. Ratings have slightly more meaning when a group listen to the same systems and rate them, as a preference. But it still only has a meaning within that group /experiment.
Has anyone yet given an answer that accords with your thinking?
Robin L
Master Contributor
Short answer: you can't get there from here.
Robin L
Master Contributor
Yup. Enumeration means a data point. Data points are inherently objective. Squishy feelings are subjective and usually private. Data points can be compared and shared, they would be less subjective.
That would be unquantifiable BS.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,747
- Likes
- 37,548
Haven't read the rest of the thread. Anyone mention MUSHRA?
The detailed explanation of the standard is here:
It is considered adequate for intermediate quality audio. You do need some formality in how the listening panel works and you need references to judge against. There are other similar methods.
Your listening panel uses a reference and say calls it 100. Then judges other parts of the sound against that. Often broken down into several categories it isn't just a blanket number for overall sound. The method has been tested and has some effectiveness at levels less discriminating than a full on blind abx style test.
The detailed explanation of the standard is here:
It is considered adequate for intermediate quality audio. You do need some formality in how the listening panel works and you need references to judge against. There are other similar methods.
Your listening panel uses a reference and say calls it 100. Then judges other parts of the sound against that. Often broken down into several categories it isn't just a blanket number for overall sound. The method has been tested and has some effectiveness at levels less discriminating than a full on blind abx style test.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,747
- Likes
- 37,548
My own purely subjective evaluation done two decades ago indicated to me that basic sound quality followed a 4th power function in regards to price. Now many areas other than transducers are above reproach at low prices so that doesn't apply anymore. And it was my own considered estimation not a rigorous pursuit. Basically you had to pay 16 times as much for twice the subjective sound quality. For speakers I'd say 3rd power function might be about right now.
I know the question of this thread is "How do you SUBJECTIVELY quantify improvements in sound" but isn't a related question even more interesting: "How do you subjectively quantify improvements in your SYSTEM"? I was convinced for many years that sound quality is the central goal to which everything, really everything, must be subordinated without compromise. Even aesthetics. Even functionality. An ideal system has optimal sound, optimal aesthetics and optimal functionality. (All subjective factors). In reality, such a system will not exist. So where do you make trade-offs? Let's first assume: in aesthetics (which sounds easier than it is, especially if you don't live alone). Then, in a second step, you can make compromises in functionality, if the sound is optimal. And this is where the problem starts for me. For a long time, I had been looking for systems where the sound was the best for me (subjectively) - and then I was always annoyed about a lack of functionality. An example: the Topping A90 is for my subjective feeling the best sounding headphone amplifier that I know. But it has no remote control, no separate volumes for the headphone and pre-out outputs, no auto-off. That annoyed me every time I used it, almost every day, no matter how good the sound was. For a long time I was looking for a device that sounds just as good, but has this functionality I wanted. Unfortunately, I didn't find one (especially not for the price, the DX7pro wasn't an alternative, for example, even though it can do all that). So I ended up buying one that may not sound quite as great. But maybe just different. That's subjective. But it has this features that I'm happy about every day and that make my life easier. All in all, it's a definite improvement in the quality of my system.
Maybe even ten percent. ;-)
Maybe even ten percent. ;-)
OP
gks333
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2021
- Messages
- 44
- Likes
- 40
- Thread Starter
- #55
Well, regardless, when I replaced my rcvr with separate's I felt my system improved by about 7%. I then just recently replaced my speakers including 3 of the 4 subs and the improvement was a perceived 5%. I then used REW and now my system has been improved by approx. 10% in my honest subjectively perceived opinion (current day). Whats the total subjectively/perceived improvement of my system from before I replaced my rcvr to current day? LOL ;?)
JayGilb
Major Contributor
Purchase the largest thesaurus you can find and start brushing up on vague adjectives that only have context to you.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,108
- Likes
- 14,771
This post is 72.4% better than the one above it.
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
"That system was twice as good as the other system I just heard" would be a preposterous claim.
"Under these circumstances, that system feels twice as good to me as the other system I just heard" would make more sense.
And don't think the subjective "twice as good to me" means anything to anyone else about how they might perceive the two systems.
