Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 2909726" data-attributes="member: 549629">No denying sound preference has its place, and to each individual is very important. Im not gonna build my system to what someone else likes, or to what an RTA likes. But, why in the world does everyone think the discussions here about SQ always boil down to that? As said above, if we use the term subjectively, we really have nothing to discuss with each other. Im glad you like your music a certain way, but honestly, it means little or nothing to my personal preference, or to buffalo&#039;s, or parkave&#039;s.So many times people try to discuss sound quality... accuracy, and yet people want to jump in and insist the topic is subjective. Well okay, lets just never discuss accuracy, tonality or imaging ever again around here.Again, sound quality is not subjective, our means for measuring it is. That is the only reason Wikepedia has 2 definitions. If our ears worked like RTA&#039;s and computers, we&#039;d all know exactly what SQ meant, and we&#039;d all agree. But our ears dont, so people want to start talking about their feelings. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gifIf we cannot understand that sound quality can and is a subjective term, there is no hope for ever being &#039;accurate&#039; with our reproductions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 2909726, member: 549629"] No denying sound preference has its place, and to each individual is very important. Im not gonna build my system to what someone else likes, or to what an RTA likes. But, why in the world does everyone think the discussions here about SQ always boil down to that? As said above, if we use the term subjectively, we really have nothing to discuss with each other. Im glad you like your music a certain way, but honestly, it means little or nothing to my personal preference, or to buffalo's, or parkave's. So many times people try to discuss sound quality... accuracy, and yet people want to jump in and insist the topic is subjective. Well okay, lets just never discuss accuracy, tonality or imaging ever again around here. Again, sound quality is not subjective, our means for measuring it is. That is the only reason Wikepedia has 2 definitions. If our ears worked like RTA's and computers, we'd all know exactly what SQ meant, and we'd all agree. But our ears dont, so people want to start talking about their feelings. [IMG]//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif[/IMG] If we cannot understand that sound quality can and is a subjective term, there is no hope for ever being 'accurate' with our reproductions. [/QUOTE]

Verification