Listeners need some room sound but its required amount is unknown

Evidence

It should not be concluded that listeners can always adapt to or normalize rooms to the extent shown here. As will be seen, there is always some adaptation, but in Experiment One it was enabled by the experimental method of comparing different loudspeakers within each room. Experiment Two is more closely related to real-life listening, in that the sounds of the room and the loudspeaker are combined. Listeners living in the room may develop enough familiarity with it to be able to discern some characteristics of loudspeakers being listened to, but having multiple comparison loudspeakers available is a very advantageous situation. The tests had the additional advantage of being in mono. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 547 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

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 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Room differences dominate loudspeaker differences when listeners cannot adapt — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 547; Listeners judge reproduced sound against accumulated experience of live sound — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 49

Broader Connections