Recognizing reproduced-sound deficiencies is a universal skill independent of taste

Evidence

Add to this the popular notion that we all “hear differently,” that one person’s meat might be another person’s poison, and we have a situation where a universally satisfying solution might not be possible. Fortunately reality is not so complex, and although tastes in music are demonstrably highly personal, enormously variable, we discover that recognizing the most common deficiencies in reproduced sounds is a surprisingly universal skill when listeners are given a chance to reveal their unbiased opinions. More good news is that most people can do it, even those who think they have “tin ears.” Inexperienced listeners take more time, make more mistakes along the way, but in the end, their opinions generally agree with those of the experts. Only those with hearing loss routinely depart from the norm. To a remarkable extent we seem to be able to separate the evaluation of a reproduction technology from that of the program. It is not necessary to be familiar with or to enjoy the music to be able to recognize that it is or is not well reproduced. — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 48

Categorization

• XREF: Counterweights the ‘everyone hears differently’ claim in audio folklore; connects to the ‘unbiased opinions’ theme of blind testing versus sighted reviews. — connects to: Perceptual deficits correlate poorly with audiogram thresholds and vary widely; Cognitive context determines whether a sound feature is good or bad; Sharpness is a stable, subject-independent psychoacoustic quantity (+5 more)

Related

• Mild hearing loss makes trained listeners give inconsistent sound quality judgments (similarity 0.84)
• Musicians do not reliably align with ordinary listeners in judgments (similarity 0.83)
• Listeners judge reproduced sound against accumulated experience of live sound (similarity 0.83)
• Musicians who are not audio enthusiasts judge loudspeakers on different rationales (similarity 0.83)
• Subjective audio opinions can behave like facts when gathered under controlled conditions (similarity 0.83)
• Roughly 75 percent of people have sufficiently normal hearing to make reliable loudspeaker judgments (similarity 0.82)
• Stereo and multichannel listening make listeners more forgiving of loudspeaker flaws (similarity 0.82)
• Sound reproduction’s endpoint is the human listener, not fidelity per se (similarity 0.82)
• Classical and solo music are poor for revealing loudspeaker flaws (similarity 0.82)
• Subjective tests have no right answers because each listener’s perception is unique (similarity 0.82)
• Hi-fi enthusiasts judge sound quality more reliably than untrained musicians do (similarity 0.81)
• Highly trained listeners can repeat subjective judgments with remarkable consistency (similarity 0.81)
• Hearing-impaired listeners give inconsistent sound-quality ratings unlike normal-hearing subjects (similarity 0.81)
• Aesthetic sound-quality reactions depend strongly on sociocultural background (similarity 0.81)
• The ‘we can’t measure what we hear’ myth stems from inadequate measurements (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Cognitive context determines whether a sound feature is good or bad #contradicts (0.82)
• Sharpness is a stable, subject-independent psychoacoustic quantity #corroborates (0.80)
• Visual gesticulation, not sound, dominates judgments of musical performance #contradicts (0.80) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 45
• Perceptual deficits correlate poorly with audiogram thresholds and vary widely #complicates (0.78)
• Visual and contextual cues bias human judgments of sound quality #contradicts (0.78)
• Listeners habituate to reproduced-sound faults without comparison listening #qualifies (0.75) — , Toole, Floyd E - Sound reproduction-…, 158
• Sound quality is judged as deviations from ideal amounts of perceptual dimensions #corroborates (0.75)