1  with no loss of frequency representation or sound quality.

2 rovided a quantitative assessment of musical sound quality.

3 sual Analogue Scales (VAS) to assess musical sound quality.

4            Brightness-an aspect of timbre or sound quality-allows us to distinguish different musical

5 MUSHRA performance and self-reported musical sound quality, as assessed by more traditional rating sc

6 did not correlate to measurements of musical sound quality, as assessed by VAS.

7 e of this study was to (a) apply the musical sound quality assessment method, Cochlear Implant-MUltip

8 isfaction, with subjective measures of aided sound quality being the best predictor of performance al

9 y also perceived benefits including improved sound quality, better music enjoyment, and sometimes a p

10  and Anchor (CI-MUSHRA), to quantify musical sound quality deficits in CI (cochlear implant) users wi

11 n a 100-point scale that reflected perceived sound quality difference among the versions.

12  to preserve it and enhance the instrument's sound quality has long been a contentious issue.

13 erent acoustic parameters related to musical sound quality in the future.

14 ual analogue scores used to assess Korotkoff sound quality indicated that systolic blood pressure was

15  contributing to overall CI-mediated musical sound quality limitations.

16 sion gave small but significant benefits for sound quality of a percussion instrument (xylophone).

17 series of studies on the factors influencing sound quality preferences, mostly for jazz and classical

18 hearing participants, the highest ratings of sound quality were obtained when the reproduction bandwi

19 de, through digital electronic means, better sound quality with visual display and the ability to rep