Can the level of pleasure derived from music be measured?

Do you love your mother and father? Prove it.

To answer the OP-No

It can't be quantified so it can't be measured. That is true of many of the finer things in life.

Not entirely sure what you mean by “a true audiophile hierarchy” and why one would want to establish it. Having said that and since the question deals with audiophiles and “pleasure derived from music”, a simpler and more reliable test would be to put an audiophile in front of two doors each leading to a different room. In one room is a violinist playing Bach (?), or a Blues singer with guitar, or a…..In the other room is a large collection of High End audio gear not even plugged in. Which room does the audiophile go into first and how long does he stay there before going into the other room….if ever?

@frogman 

"...or in the other room is a large collection of High End audio gear not even plugged in."

🤣

"Not even plugged in" says it all !  

I'm not a true audiophile because I don't have probes in my brain. 

Was hoping for a researcher familiar with this kind of study.

Contact-great movie.

Are you folks who say no up on the brain testing going on these days

Always fun to stir up the crowd!

I can imagine having someone hooked up to measure their physical responses, like brainwaves, to see changes in their physiological and mental state with changes in sound quality. I'm not sure what we'd learn from that beyond just having the person tell us how much they are enjoying it. I can tell you that beyond a certain point I enjoy achieving improved sound from my system more than I enjoy actually listening to it. I'm highly capable of adjusting to sound quality if it isn't too far off. 

@bdp24 🤣 +1

I’m sorry, but this is too funny.
Leave it to audiophiles to pose such a question unironically.
I can see the articles in audiophile magazines right now:

“The only way to properly evaluate an audio system is to listen to music while hooked up to an electroencephalography machine, and mapping the resulting data.”

@tylermunns@ I borrowed the idea from a scene between Matthew McConaughey and Jodie Foster in the movie Contact.

My level of pleasure is proportional to how many Belgians🍺 I imbibe. Happy listening 🎶

Not  much for measurements can look good but still sound bad 

look at tube amps they are no where near as clean in measurements but we all know tubes have their own Sonic goodness.

It's Schroedinger's cat hissing at us...

The fact that we are performing measurements affects the subject, and places the subject under stress. The added attention and stress to perform will change the emotional state, greatly skew the results. So, while we will get readings, they will refer to how a person feels under duress, and will provide data that is more useful about the stress tolerance levels of the subject.

We would get inconclusive data, as the state we want to relate is is the state where there is no duress, no stress affecting the "results".

No. #1 you'd need an MRI and #2 there would be no way to distinguish between pleasure derived from the tune vs. the sonic quality of said tune.

"a true audiophile hierarchy can not be claimed"  sure it can. I'm 13th.

I think you would need Woody Allen's Orgasmitron from Sleeper to accurately measure pleasure.

@frogman just love you post! And to the OP, I do under stand the idea of hierarchy which may have many definitions depending on who you ask. I postulate that as a surrogate or proxy to your direct question and I believe to be true for myself, there might be a relationship between the pleasure derived from the listening and and the amount of time spent researching articles, understanding electrical engineering theory, studying schematics, making informed decisions about purchasing gear, building sound spaces etc. and the pleasure one derives form the mind quieting combination of rhythm and melody from perfect phase and time correct audio signals reaching the ear. OP are you a neurologist? I ask because heard an npr story re neurological studies about brain activity when rhythm and melody are heard together. Peace

Sex, yes...tunes, no...sheesh

No, but if you flatter a buyer enough, you can sure put a price tag on it. 😂

Dang, I thought this was a Kenji post,

Actually this has been answered in a different domain with single question surveys such as for job satisfaction.

Psychology research has shown and well established that a single question, how satisfied are you with your job, gives a reliable and valid answer without needing further elaboration. Typically it is measured using a five or seven point Likert scales, with 7 point scales marginally better. 

So, translating this finding to pleasure levels with music, the question might be asked,

Rate (this) music (experience) by answering the following question:

How pleasurable (or pleasing) is (this) music (experience) for you?

1. Very Highly pleasurable

2. Highly pleasurable

3. Moderately pleasurable  

4. Neither pleasurable nor displeasurable

5. Moderately displeasurable 

6. Highly displeasurable

7. Very highly displeasurable

Framing of the question would need to be tested, and adjusted for word choice, settings and so on, as well as choosing asking about liking vs wanting vs pleasure vs preference and so on...

Measuring the brain is unnecessary invasion, and doesn't use probes, but neuro-imaging, for example here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627315001336

And there are other full scales such as Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale, available that are not really justified here.

So, in sum, just ask...How pleasurable (or pleasing) is (this) music (experience) for you?

;-)

@johnread57 ...or flesh out your 1>7 list of experi with:

#1 - Total organic transposition into quantum foam

( Previously noted 1>7 to 2>8....)

#9 - Catatonia...

#10 - Total cellular disruption into reeking mess ("...and who's gonna clean this mess up?! HUH?!"  *dammit*..)

@hifihandyman ..."Tread carefully into the greasy mud, for therein lies the Skid Demon...."  *old bumper sticker seen on old sport cars*....

"Momm....weasels ripped my flesh...."

Here's a band-aid....

"That's not much...."

Not much of an issue, Frank....

(Spouse and self have been semi-binge watching FRINGE, alt-reality parallel universe trope trudge, melting people stuff....'tasty'.....🤢🤮😬😁😏 )

A very silly question but I will respond from my usual from my usual standpoint.

Probes could be entered in the brain that measure the concentration of dopamine being secreted.  The more dopamine, the more pleasure.  I'm sure scientists will have done this previously, possibly on animals.

What ?????.........who cares and what is the purpose of this thread ? 

Early audiophiles measure changes in the pleasure zone.

Spend money.  Sounds better.  Pleasurable.

Spend money.  Doesn't sound better.  Not pleasurable.

As it happens, there is a field of psychology called psychometrics that deals specifically with measuring subjective experience. It turns out that brain waves are rather crude for discerning small changes in one's experience. Better are rating scales targeting specific dimensions of perceptual experience. There are four dimensions: a) Valence (good vs bad), b) Potency (strong vs delicate), c) Arousal (relaxing vs stimulating), and d) Novelty (familiar vs. unfamiliar). All of our perceptions are really just a composite of these four factors much like all perceived colors are just a composite of red, green and blue (with a brightness factor thrown in).

I have used psychometrics professionally to measure all manner of perceptual experience including sound quality. Here it is important to note that there is a difference between the physical qualities of sound and the emotional qualities of sound. I always aim to correlate the two to reveal which physical qualities are most predictive of desired perceptions. Not all physical qualities are equally relevant, perceptually. Knowing the differences is what is important.

When I can close my eyes and the music keeps me enthralled, that’s what it’s all about to me. If something is keeping from that happy place, then the research starts on how to make it better.

By definition, a phenomenon is measured whenever numbers are attached to manifestations of that phenomenon.

Unfortunately, that process is amongst the most intellectually difficult enterprises known to man. The trouble is, everyone thinks he can do it.

Speaking crudely, there are four levels of measurement: nominal (in which different numbers represent different names), ordinal (in which bigger numbers represent relatively bigger effects), interval (in which the ordinal property holds and the difference between 1 and 2 is the same as the difference between 101 and 102), and ratio (in which the interval property holds and zero represents none of the property).

Each level of measurement determines which statistics are appropriate. Again unfortunately, as a former university statistics teacher, I can assure you that this is rarely taught, not even the crude and vastly oversimplified version above. This is a serious problem for society as a whole.

So yes, it can be easily done. Correctly done? Only a few could reasonably attempt it. Hint: if you've never heard of Hoelder's Representation Theorem, please don't bother.

Very difficult, unless you finesse the problem by tying your measurement to a known physical measure such as time.

An anthropologist set up a boom box in a jungle and invited some villagers to come and listen. When he played Mozart, they wept. When he played disposable music, they left.

All he had to do was measure the time it took for individuals to leave, and he would have solved the OP's problem.  

@terry9 cool and encouraging

Thanks @macg19 . Glad it was useful to someone.

@frogman

Not entirely sure what you mean by “a true audiophile hierarchy” and why one would want to establish it. Having said that and since the question deals with audiophiles and “pleasure derived from music”, a simpler and more reliable test would be to put an audiophile in front of two doors each leading to a different room. In one room is a violinist playing Bach (?), or a Blues singer with guitar, or a…..In the other room is a large collection of High End audio gear not even plugged in. Which room does the audiophile go into first and how long does he stay there before going into the other room….if ever?

Not enough information provided in your hypothetical scenario to make a judgement.

If I only have a choice to walk into either room, for that single instance, it would be the live musician. Not even a moments pause to decide.

Not all, or even the majority, of audiophiles fit into the common stereotype, i.e., audiophiles get more enjoyment from the gear, than they do the music.

I am an audiophile. But the music comes first. The gear is only a vehicle for me to enjoy my music.

And to the OP’s question. I would bet at this point in neuroscience, a Functional MRI could get a pretty good idea about the level of activity in the pleasure center, while people listen to music.

And it looks like the NIH has something to say about it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58814/

If you stick enough electrodes on me in just the right places....could be!  

BTW I harge a hefty guinea pig fee per hour but its all good and for the advancement of science.  Advancements in audiophilia do NOT come cheap!

@terry9 

Very difficult, unless you finesse the problem by tying your measurement to a known physical measure such as time.

An anthropologist set up a boom box in a jungle and invited some villagers to come and listen. When he played Mozart, they wept. When he played disposable music, they left.

All he had to do was measure the time it took for individuals to leave, and he would have solved the OP's problem.  

I've heard this story quite a few times, but I've done some pretty extensive searches, I have yet to find the source for this.

Do you have more information on the source for this?

I just get the idea, that this story might be apocryphal. 

@simonmoon Sorry, it was told to me by an anthropologist when I was a grad student, IIRC. So no reference.

@terry9

Far enough. I guess that may give it a bit of credibility. 😀👍

If you trust my memory!!

Simonmoon,  I could simply say “lighten up”, as my comment was made partly in jest,  Now, 

**** Not all, or even the majority, of audiophiles fit into the common stereotype, i.e., audiophiles get more enjoyment from the gear, than they do the music. ****

I agree and never said otherwise.   Moreover, this supports MY contention; if the humor is to warrant this much analysis.  Built into my COMPLETE methodology (☺️) is consideration of the fact that there are many different levels of what we are trying to ascertain.  Congratulations!  You are in the top…..…gotta be at least top 20% (?).

someone is very very bored today

Some really funny answers here! I put the question in the same category as my sunset rating system:

Last night was pretty good at an 8.75 but the night before came in at 9.138.no contest!

terry9 wrote:

"Unfortunately, that process is amongst the most intellectually difficult enterprises known to man. The trouble is, everyone thinks he can do it.

Speaking crudely, there are four levels of measurement: nominal (in which different numbers represent different names), ordinal (in which bigger numbers represent relatively bigger effects), interval (in which the ordinal property holds and the difference between 1 and 2 is the same as the difference between 101 and 102), and ratio (in which the interval property holds and zero represents none of the property)."

My Reply:

I didn't want to burden the conversation with too much technical detail, but the psychometric techniques I mention above are based upon Semantic Differentials. As you may well know, Semantic Differential rating scales are bipolar and have an inherent "zero point" in the middle. With properly chosen verbal anchors for the rating points (as per Charles Osgood and his colleague) Semantic Differentials provide ratio level measurement. I typically use Factor Analysis to analyze such data to provide a subset of psychological dependent measures. When correlated with acoustic metrics using Multiple Regression all of this provides a predictive model indicating which acoustic metrics are most strongly associated with each psychological metric. You can literally choose a desired level of perceptual experience and determine what physical metrics are associated with it.

I will often begin a research study by asking participants to imagine their "ideal" experience and rate it using the rating scales. This assumes that participants have some sense of what "ideal" is, which is not usually a problem with experienced participants. With such data you have an "ideal" target against which to compare actual listening data. It should be noted that listeners' "ideal" might not sound realistic. 

I would encourge folks here to set aside those intangible metrices and focus / appreciate those valueable measurements what have already existed. Prior to Erin introducing Klippel’s Near-Field Scanner to this community, direct measures for soundstage were almost non-existant based on my limited knowledge (correct me if I am wrong pls). But looking at the plots he provides on horizontal and vertical polar SPL, we immediately see how wide and how tall the soundstage a particular speaker / driver could actually provide. The lateral and vertical dispersion (aka waterfall) plots might serve similar purpose but I got to admit that I was not able to comprehend and relate those to soundstage as easily as these global polar plots. Let us treasure what we have and worry less about those intangible ones.  I will also be highly interested in how one could capitalize these to come up with a measure for the soundstage depth.

Like this:

https://youtu.be/MmPh8TJu2IY

 I need to add/change the question a bit.

Assuming subject A's pleasure reaction to music can be quantified 

on a 1-100 scale. Call it a "P" rating.

Could subject A's rating have any relativity to Subject Bs rating?

In other words could it be accurately said the A enjoys music 

more than B???

The Semantic concept of Valence measures the positive versus negative connotation of a perceptual experience. Assuming a valid and reliable measurement tool for that concept, you can measure separately for two or more different people experiencing the same music and see if the scores differ. But, the question is, how large would the difference have to be to make a difference? There's always a margin of error involved.