"The point of this thread is that sound quality is determined not by our ears but by our brains. Our ears merely transduce the sound waves. Our brains make value judgements as to what sounds good, or which one between A and B sounds better."
It's not always that simple though, especially with music that is somewhat out of the mainstream. As an example, take a punk rock band like the Ramones (who I'm not all that familiar with btw), who were clearly not proficient at playing their instruments, at least not in any normal sense. Another example might be highly improvised avant garde jazz with all the distortion and bleating, etc. So if you're not familiar with those genres, the first thing that needs to happen is for your ears to absorb as much of the music as they can.
The next step might normally be for your brain to analyze it and determine if it's "good" or not. But before you get to that step, your brain (and emotions) have for first define what constitutes good with respect to this particular music. One might consider the Ramones nonconventional type of music good if it accomplishes what it set out to do even if it might not actually sound good. As far as I understand it, the intent of the Ramones through their playing and lyrics and stage presence was to make a social and political (or maybe it's asocial and apolitical) statement about adolescent life during that time period.
So it's only after you've arrived at a conclusion about what the musicians are trying to do and say that you can then go about assessing whether they accomplished their goal, i.e. was their music good in the context that music isn't just all about the notes and how they're played.
It's late here so I hope that makes some kind of sense.