[lelanthran]

> But sound quality in general is absolutely objectively measurable.

Sound quality is not the same as music quality.

To be more specific, Sound Reproduction Fidelity is not the same as Pleasant Music

To be even more specific, Signal Reproduction is not the same as "Pleasant Sounds*

The goal of music is not always high fidelity of reproduction; if it were, over-driven valve amps would never have been a thing.

The only thing objective in this context is signal reproduction, which is not the highest concern for music production.

[Wowfunhappy]

> To be more specific, Sound Reproduction Fidelity is not the same as Pleasant Music

If a speaker reproduces some music with 100% accuracy and the result is unpleasant, doesn’t that just mean the original music—as created by the artist—is unpleasant?

Where possible, I’d prefer a speaker that respects the artist’s decisions instead of inserting itself into the creative process.

[sosborn]

Unless you are listening through the same studio monitors in the same room or headphones as the mixing engineer, it will never be the same.

IMHO, people place too much importance on "accuracy". While accuracy might be objectively measured, it means nothing when it comes to individual taste.

[Yodel0914]

There’s a whole field of research on this (look up Floyd Toole) - while any one individual can have skewed taste, on aggregate people prefer speakers that are as close to neutral as possible.

[jrajav]

Signal reproduction matters quite a bit more for music production than it does for music listening and enjoyment. That's why producers and engineers look for 'monitors', rather than hi-fi speakers.

Hi-fi speakers, tube amps, and other accessories generally "degrade" the sound with added harmonics and natural smile EQs. That's what makes them sound more pleasing.

(I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding more color.)