Listeners judge reproduced sound against accumulated experience of live sound

Evidence

How do listeners approach the problem of judging sound quality? Most likely the dimensions and criteria of subjective evaluation are traceable to a lifetime accumulation of experiences with live sound, even simple conversation. If we hear things in reproduced sound that do not occur in nature, or that defy some kind of perceptual logic, we seem to be able to identify it. By that standard, the best sounding audio product is the one that exhibits the fewest audible flaws. Perhaps this is how we are able to make such insightful comments about sound quality based on recordings that either had no existence as a “live” performance, or that we have no personal experience with. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 49

Categorization

• XREF: Resonates with the negative-definition approach (absence of flaws = quality) that echoes ‘the most valued sound is the silence preceding a sound’ from other reading. — connects to: Listeners adapt to flawed speakers yet recognize superior ones; Musicians who are not audio enthusiasts judge loudspeakers on different rationales; Listeners need some room sound but its required amount is unknown (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Recorded room ambience may distract listeners from evaluating raw loudspeaker quality #exemplifies (0.82)
• Room acoustics and presentation method alter how listeners perceive sounds #expands (0.80)
• Sound reproduction’s endpoint is the human listener, not fidelity per se #expands (0.75)
• Listening actively shapes the sound it perceives rather than merely registering it #expands (0.70) — Pauline Oliveros, Deep Listening, 346