| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile glossary
Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we
should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe 1. Dark 2. Liquid 3. Bloom 4. Fast 5. Slow 6. Relaxed 7. Tight 8. Loose 9. Air 10. Sterile 11. Mechanical 12. Warm 13. Cold 14. Analytical 15. Laid-back 16. Forward 17. Digital grit 18. Involving and uninvolving 19. Clinical 20. Grain 21. Strident 22. Forced Fell free to add more. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"chung" wrote in message
... Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe 1. Dark 2. Liquid 3. Bloom 4. Fast 5. Slow 6. Relaxed 7. Tight 8. Loose 9. Air 10. Sterile 11. Mechanical 12. Warm 13. Cold 14. Analytical 15. Laid-back 16. Forward 17. Digital grit 18. Involving and uninvolving 19. Clinical 20. Grain 21. Strident 22. Forced Fell free to add more. 23. Musical |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
In article , chung
wrote: Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe Are you serious, or simply mocking the tendency to use flowery language? If you are serious I can at least offer MY understanding of what these mean, for good or ill. At least most of them... 1. Dark Lacking in the type of high frequencies thought of as 'bright'; there can also be a correlation between veiling of low level high frequencies, like the inverse of 'parallel compression'. 2. Liquid Okay, this one's tough. Associated with designs that have extremely little crossover distortion (like class A amplification), my 'take' on this one is that it comes from deft handling of extremely low level sound information. There's no specific frequency range associated with 'liquid', but it's more obvious in the midrange where the ear is most sensitive. 3. Bloom Rather the same thing- I'm guessing that this is again due to very low level sonic information, and again is helped by a lack of artifacts like crossover distortion. Important: sounds can be extremely distorted in frequency response terms and still have 'liquidity' and 'bloom', it's nothing to do with accuracy except perhaps the ability to retrieve low level detail smoothly! 'Bloom' can be 'distortion'. 4. Fast Presenting the sensory impression of a musical statement without any lag or bog- or, allowing higher frequency emphasis to exaggerate the crispness of the response. Ideally all audio would at least be capable of being ultimately 'fast' WHEN NEEDED. 5. Slow Obvious impeding of a musical statement. Example: if you put a big felt disc over your woofer, you'll lower its resonant frequency, BUT the material is not anything like rigid and will produce a great deal of lossy damping. Result: more controlled bass, less resonant peak to it, but at the same time it will be VERY 'slow' due to the felt lagging behind the movements of the cone slightly. 6. Relaxed Tough one. An ability to present a musical statement without any perception of limitedness? I would think power supply issues would be central here, but it's pretty ambiguous, worth a whole essay, which would then be hopelessly subjective. 7. Tight Connotations of a more restricted presentation than 'relaxed': like putting out terribly accurate transient peaks but constraining them somehow. You can produce the sensation 'tight' by use of audio compressors on a recording. 8. Loose The opposite- expansive but WRONG. Sloppy. Easily produced through bad bass-reflex designs or bass resonances, not often used in other frequency ranges. I've heard poorly designed experimental planar drivers sound 'loose' in the midrange when they had problematic resonances. 9. Air Midrange and high frequency low-level detail, especially high frequency. This is easily produced through using audio compressors on a recording. By the same token, expanding the dynamics or noise gating low level details can get rid of 'air' very substantially. 'air' in the best sense also requires accurate and distortion-free low level detail, and the term is used of single-ended designs even when there are frequency compromises. 10. Sterile Several classes of problems: low level inharmonic distortion, such as crossover distortion or quantization distortion, plus unnatural things happening in the frequency range like a brickwall filter. Very often this term is used in conjunction with 'thin', 'cardboardy' and so on. You can also hear it quite easily in mp3 lossy-compressed audio, particularly at low bit rates. 11. Mechanical This is just weird. I can only conclude it's about either low frequency or high frequency time modulations causing the subtle timings of the music to be washed out by inconsistent reproduction. Surely this one is mostly trotted out by people trying to find a way to explain how XYZ turntable sounds _better_ than the last one? It makes me suspect that different forms of jitter/flutter, not simply low-frequency wow, are at fault. If you can't lock onto the music's timing beyond a certain point it might seem 'mechanical'. I'm not very impressed by this term. 12. Warm 'I paid 300,000$ for this preamp'  No, seriously- I'm pretty sure this is down to low level detail retrieval, specifically the ability to retrieve that low level detail without hyping it up or adding any distortion artifacts to it. It is absolutely not related to the frequency domain, because you can have serious frequency domain problems and still get 'warm'. However, you don't have to. 13. Cold Problems with the low level detail, combined with frequency response problems. Bad digital is great at 'cold': really cheap inadequate electrolytics in the signal path simultaneously putting extra distortion on the low level detail AND restricting the deepest bass while passing a lot of the obnoxious bad-digital high frequencies gives you lots of 'cold'. Transistors' abilities to pass a lot of high frequencies while also being capable of crossover distortion stuff gave them a reputation for 'cold' too. There needs to be treble boost relative to the bass AND problems with distortion at low levels (not simply high-amplitude clipping) to really give you Cold. 14. Analytical Same deal, but if it's Analytical you can hold the low-level distortions and just expect the treble boost. 15. Laid-back Presentation of musical information so that the harmonic balance resembles what you'd get if the music was at a distance. This primarily means treble attenuation, but not in an exaggerated way: just enough to alter the apparent distance of the music. 16. Forward Ditto, except that the treble is boosted in such a way that the harmonic balance resembles what you'd get if the instruments are all too close, really in your face. These two qualities are easily experimented with using equalization, although it will affect other sonic qualities as well. Try it and see if you can 'place' the music at a specific distance using EQ alone. Distance attenuation is a particular contour, not just arbitrary, so the shelving frequency will have to be appropriate- the effect increases with frequency, you wouldn't be cutting both 3K and 30K by the same amount. 17. Digital grit Heinous levels of inharmonic distortion such as you get from undithered quantization. Also can develop in Digital Audio Workstations from doing extensive and repeated calculations on an audio sample and continually re-quantizing it to the bus wordlength (such as 24 bit, or in a worse case repeatedly requantizing to 16 bit) 18. Involving and uninvolving This one is so completely subjective there's little point talking about it- all the other adjectives sum up to a result state that could be called more or less involving. It's possible to have a totally involving system, but be in an un-receptive frame of mind and completely fail to be 'involved', or be listening to low-fi garbage and be terribly involved for other reasons or associations. 19. Clinical This is akin to Analytical, with a suggestion that it's not so hyped as to be passionate or anything: I would assume small amounts of inharmonic distortion like crossover or quantization distortion, very little harmonic distortion or restriction of frequency range, bass-lean but not in a wildly exaggerated way: what for many people would be 'good enough'. Many budget-oriented parts choices for analog stage electronics can lean in this direction. 20. Grain Most easily explained through listening to an 8 bit PCM linear encoded audio file at reasonably high sampling rate. That slight crunchiness and the particular sonic texture you're getting? That's 'grain'. It can be made smaller and smaller until you get to diminishing returns, and different people have different thresholds for what they expect out of it. The SET guys are by far the most demanding about 'grain', and will make big tradeoffs in overall frequency balance for the sake of absolute minimum inharmonic distortion. 21. Strident Frequency domain: bright. Whether done nicely or nastily this is always going to mean some kind of treble boost. 22. Forced Whoa. Okay, I give up. What is that supposed to mean? Whatever it is, it must be the opposite of 'relaxed', but there's no good definition for that either. It sure isn't attributable to any one frequency or resolution domain issue I'm aware of. I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that this forced/relaxed comes from the handling of hot transient information and whether this is presented in a way that resembles how sound mixes in air. Air isn't linear, and good digital and electronic systems are linear, so there's the capacity for extremely accurate reproduction equipment to present music 'unyieldingly': if you backed off about 20 feet it would sound different and perhaps a lot less 'forced' but in listening position there might be an unnatural quality that can't be attributed to any specific fault. I have heard this from digital mixers, actually, and it's a widely debated topic among pro sound engineers who choose between mixing within a DAW or sending outputs to an analog mixing board and then resampling. Chris Johnson |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
chung wrote:
Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe Since no one seems to want to define these, I'll take a stab. Disclaimer: I have not read that many TAS/Stereophile reviews, but I don't think they are necessarily the undisputed authorities. 1. Dark Opposite of bright (duh)! Not a very good thing. 2. Liquid Tube-like. Significant 2nd harmonic? Very good thing, if you like tubes. 3. Bloom A smearing, meaning harmonics are not maintained in the original ratios. Generally bad. 4. Fast For speakers, very good thing. Means accurate transient response, due to good crossover design. For amplifiers, I have no idea. 5. Slow Opposite of fast  . Bad.6. Relaxed Refers to the reviewer's state of mind. 7. Tight For bass, meaning low distortion and fast. Usually good. 8. Loose Opposite of tight. Bad. 9. Air Modulation, like microphonics. Good thing if you like tubes. 10. Sterile Not tube like, and not euphonic. Derogatory term. 11. Mechanical Same as sterile. 12. Warm Elevated mid-range. Good. 13. Cold Flat frequency response. Bad. 14. Analytical Same as cold, but a little less derogatory. 15. Laid-back Same as relaxed of course! 16. Forward No idea. Played at a slightly higher volume? 17. Digital grit Used to describe any inexpensive CD player. Bad. 18. Involving and uninvolving Refers to state of mind of reviewer. 19. Clinical Same as analytical. 20. Grain Either unevenness in frequency response (speakers) or same as digital grit. Bad. 21. Strident Forced. 22. Forced Strident! Fell free to add more. Should have read "feel free". And finally: 23. Musical: Ultimate trump card of them all. Used to describe stuff I like that is not accurate! Have fun! |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Mkuller wrote:
chung wrote: Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe 1. Dark 2. Liquid 3. Bloom 4. Fast 5. Slow 6. Relaxed 7. Tight 8. Loose 9. Air 10. Sterile 11. Mechanical 12. Warm 13. Cold 14. Analytical 15. Laid-back 16. Forward 17. Digital grit 18. Involving and uninvolving 19. Clinical 20. Grain 21. Strident 22. Forced Fell free to add more. Since these descriptive words are commonly used in high-end audio reviews, most regular readers of them understand what they mean. If you aren't sure what they mean, then perhaps you should read more reviews in TAS and Stereophile and then listen to the components described to hear for yourself. Otherwise it's like trying to describe colors to someone who can't see. So there is no way to explain these commonly used adjectives in technical terms (frequency response, distortion, noise, etc.)? So an engineer skilled in electronics as used in audio reproduction cannot be expected to understand these words, unless he also happens to be a subscriber of TAS/Stereophile? In some past issues of TAS, the editor has written a preface entitled, "How to read The Absolute Sound", where he describes his meaning and use of some of these terms. Regards, Mike |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Mkuller wrote:
chung wrote: Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe 1. Dark 2. Liquid 3. Bloom 4. Fast 5. Slow 6. Relaxed 7. Tight 8. Loose 9. Air 10. Sterile 11. Mechanical 12. Warm 13. Cold 14. Analytical 15. Laid-back 16. Forward 17. Digital grit 18. Involving and uninvolving 19. Clinical 20. Grain 21. Strident 22. Forced Fell free to add more. Since these descriptive words are commonly used in high-end audio reviews, most regular readers of them understand what they mean. If you aren't sure what they mean, then perhaps you should read more reviews in TAS and Stereophile and then listen to the components described to hear for yourself. Otherwise it's like trying to describe colors to someone who can't see. In some past issues of TAS, the editor has written a preface entitled, "How to read The Absolute Sound", where he describes his meaning and use of some of these terms. Regards, Mike OK, you have to be a regular reader of high-end audio reviews in order to understand what these words mean. So the question is: Can one be an audiophile if one does not read a lot of high-end audio reviews? That is, can one be an audiophile without being a subscriber of TAS or Stereophile? Also, can one be an audiophile without knowing what these words mean? Do you think that there is universal understanding on what these words mean among the readers of TAS and Stereophile? Would you and, say Mr Lavo's understanding of the adjective "strident" (just to pick one) be the same? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Chris Johnson wrote:
In article , chung wrote: Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe Are you serious, or simply mocking the tendency to use flowery language? If you are serious I can at least offer MY understanding of what these mean, for good or ill. At least most of them... Of course I am serious, although that does not mean that one cannot have fun with some of these... I am curious if people actually have some common understanding of these terms, and I also want to know what some of these mean. At least you try to explain it in engineering terms, so there is some link to measurements. That is good. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
chung wrote in message ...
Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe 1. Dark 2. Liquid 3. Bloom 4. Fast 5. Slow 6. Relaxed 7. Tight 8. Loose 9. Air 10. Sterile 11. Mechanical 12. Warm 13. Cold 14. Analytical 15. Laid-back 16. Forward 17. Digital grit 18. Involving and uninvolving 19. Clinical 20. Grain 21. Strident 22. Forced Fell free to add more. Dynamics |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
chung wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote: In article , chung wrote: Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe Are you serious, or simply mocking the tendency to use flowery language? If you are serious I can at least offer MY understanding of what these mean, for good or ill. At least most of them... Of course I am serious, although that does not mean that one cannot have fun with some of these... I am curious if people actually have some common understanding of these terms, and I also want to know what some of these mean. At least you try to explain it in engineering terms, so there is some link to measurements. That is good. Harley spends a chapter defining audiophile culture jargon in his Complete Guide to Home Theater. All the usual suspects (e.g. fast bass) are there, but only occasionally are they related in a meaningful way to engineering terms. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
One of my favorites from a brit hifi mag - "chocolate". Because one can
invent them at will, here is mine: my speakers have a very high level of "karmic energy" found lacking in speakers many times their price. I really doubt many of these terms have any universal usage and almost certain that there is no reference by which to know that if one adopts them and even has some agreement among friends what it might be that what is in the hifi rags means the same. There is a testable theory here which is now assumed to be valid, not. One of the EE groups published a glossary of terms to be used in listening evaluations and provided definitions, maybe even examples for reference, somewhere on the net. But, darn if I can find it again. As I recall, the terms refered to properties which have a known physical analog, ie. "bright" is relative meaing that compared to the lower part of the spectrum that there is an higher level in the high part. That kind of glossary might have some real universal application, quite apart from those motivated by being forced by literary repetition and seeking to seperate oneself from among other such "artists" in the rags, to invent neww terms. Without some universal definition of what is meant and clear application to known audio effects, the vocabulary of the rags and those who follow them is meaningless. On the other hand, using them is perfect for relating perceptions based only in human psychology, peer group pressure, marketing practices, and for use when having no phisical electrical/acoustic reality to which to apply them or have their reality jeopardized by controlled testing. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Steven said
Harley spends a chapter defining audiophile culture jargon in his Complete Guide to Home Theater. All the usual suspects (e.g. fast bass) are there, but only occasionally are they related in a meaningful way to engineering terms. Given the fact that more than one such glossary has been published by subjectivists, I would hope that some people would read them before making claims that such jargon is meaningless. While relating such terms to engineering terms may be quite helpful for engineers, most audiophiles are not engineers. Since there is no prerequisite that audiophiles be engineers, I see no reason to require terms describing perception To be correlated with engineering terms to be acceptable for use among audiophiles. I think Chris did an admirable job of defining some jargon. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Scott wrote:
Steven said Harley spends a chapter defining audiophile culture jargon in his Complete Guide to Home Theater. All the usual suspects (e.g. fast bass) are there, but only occasionally are they related in a meaningful way to engineering terms. Given the fact that more than one such glossary has been published by subjectivists, I would hope that some people would read them before making claims that such jargon is meaningless. While relating such terms to engineering terms may be quite helpful for engineers, most audiophiles are not engineers. Since there is no prerequisite that audiophiles be engineers, I see no reason to require terms describing perception To be correlated with engineering terms to be acceptable for use among audiophiles. I think Chris did an admirable job of defining some jargon. It's also fairly certain that with the exception of some engineers and other anti-subjectivie-opinion adherents, most buyers of audio electronics are not going to base their purchase decisions solely on published specifications or variables they might decide to measure themselves. While factors such as human perception and psychological biases are frequently derided by some objectivists, the fact remains that for many, "personal taste", which involves such factors, is an important consideration when making decisions. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
IMO, and I'm just a casual listener, subjective descriptions are appropriate
for loudspeakers and/or DACs...but when reviewers utilize them otherwise there is the risk of wandering from the path and ending ass-deep in the weeds. For example, here are a few descriptors for an IC review: "big, expansive, dynamic, powerful, fast..." Credibility, like virginity, isn't easily restored once it's lost... |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Tom said
Even that doesn't work. None of those descriptions have a basis in sound. They all describe some other sense, some physical attribute other than acoustical sound or some psychological human aspect. "Bright" is different in what way? Is "bright" acceptable or unacceptable descriptive language? If it is acceptable then your objection to descriptive words that have no basis in sound simply does not hold water. Tom said There's nothing wrong with metaphor but those terms have no meaning other than to the individual using them because they do not describe any aspects of sound either physically or psychoacoustically. Metaphors are inherently imprecise. But once again, someone claims that they are meaningless. That is just nonsense. There is a lot of room between universal understanding and zero understanding. Metaphors are a common means of communication for many people in audio and beyond audio. Your objections will not change that fact. Criticism of people for using them will more likely lead to alienation rather than better communication. Tom said My solution is to drop the word audiophile from my resume. I never saw any point in listing my hobbies on my resume. Tom said In today's world an "audiophile" who spends more time talking about his system than listening to it and spends large amounts of time on "tweaks" that have no acoustic effect and then a large amount of time convincing himself that they do. Thank goodness your world doesn't include stereotyping. Does this mean I have to listen less and talk more about audio to meet your definition or am I simply not allowed to call myself an audiophile? The only other alternative I see is to claim your painting of audiophiles simply has no global truth to it. Tom said There's no basic understanding at any level. They're just code words for placebo. Yet another claim that metaphors in audio are meaningless. I guess those who think they understand each other when they use figurative speech are just fooling themselves. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
news:%kawb.218627$ao4.778769@attbi_s51... *snip* It's also fairly certain that with the exception of some engineers and other anti-subjectivie-opinion adherents, most buyers of audio electronics are not going to base their purchase decisions solely on published specifications or variables they might decide to measure themselves. While factors such as human perception and psychological biases are frequently derided by some objectivists, the fact remains that for many, "personal taste", which involves such factors, is an important consideration when making decisions. Be that as it may, it's also fairly apparent that the invented lingua franca of audiophilia was created for the express purpose of obfuscation. There is simply no other way to explain how the phrase "liquid midrange" came into being when far more understandable terms that relate to the auditory experience were readily available. If we simply referred to sound in terms of frequency and phase response we would have a much clearer understanding of what things really sound like. If, for example, a pair of speakers were said to sound a bit tipped up in the 10-12kHz region, we would soon come to understand what that sounds like in real terms. The creation of the language of "Audio-obfuscation", however, greatly enabled the sales and marketing departments of manufacturers and publishers to concoct all manner of fanciful stories based on that language. In retrospect, that language may have been Harry Pearson and Gordon Holt's single greatest gift to the high end industry. Just think how many amps would have been described to have sounded the same if the term "liquid midrange" would have never been invented. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Chris Johnson wrote:
In article , chung wrote: Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe Are you serious, or simply mocking the tendency to use flowery language? If you are serious I can at least offer MY understanding of what these mean, for good or ill. At least most of them... All your explanations are tied to frequency response, distortion or noise effects, most easily observed in speaker systems. Would you have been surprised that almost all of these adjectives were used in the review of *interconnects*? 1. Dark Lacking in the type of high frequencies thought of as 'bright'; there can also be a correlation between veiling of low level high frequencies, like the inverse of 'parallel compression'. 2. Liquid Okay, this one's tough. Associated with designs that have extremely little crossover distortion (like class A amplification), my 'take' on this one is that it comes from deft handling of extremely low level sound information. There's no specific frequency range associated with 'liquid', but it's more obvious in the midrange where the ear is most sensitive. 3. Bloom Rather the same thing- I'm guessing that this is again due to very low level sonic information, and again is helped by a lack of artifacts like crossover distortion. Important: sounds can be extremely distorted in frequency response terms and still have 'liquidity' and 'bloom', it's nothing to do with accuracy except perhaps the ability to retrieve low level detail smoothly! 'Bloom' can be 'distortion'. 4. Fast Presenting the sensory impression of a musical statement without any lag or bog- or, allowing higher frequency emphasis to exaggerate the crispness of the response. Ideally all audio would at least be capable of being ultimately 'fast' WHEN NEEDED. 5. Slow Obvious impeding of a musical statement. Example: if you put a big felt disc over your woofer, you'll lower its resonant frequency, BUT the material is not anything like rigid and will produce a great deal of lossy damping. Result: more controlled bass, less resonant peak to it, but at the same time it will be VERY 'slow' due to the felt lagging behind the movements of the cone slightly. 6. Relaxed Tough one. An ability to present a musical statement without any perception of limitedness? I would think power supply issues would be central here, but it's pretty ambiguous, worth a whole essay, which would then be hopelessly subjective. 7. Tight Connotations of a more restricted presentation than 'relaxed': like putting out terribly accurate transient peaks but constraining them somehow. You can produce the sensation 'tight' by use of audio compressors on a recording. 8. Loose The opposite- expansive but WRONG. Sloppy. Easily produced through bad bass-reflex designs or bass resonances, not often used in other frequency ranges. I've heard poorly designed experimental planar drivers sound 'loose' in the midrange when they had problematic resonances. 9. Air Midrange and high frequency low-level detail, especially high frequency. This is easily produced through using audio compressors on a recording. By the same token, expanding the dynamics or noise gating low level details can get rid of 'air' very substantially. 'air' in the best sense also requires accurate and distortion-free low level detail, and the term is used of single-ended designs even when there are frequency compromises. 10. Sterile Several classes of problems: low level inharmonic distortion, such as crossover distortion or quantization distortion, plus unnatural things happening in the frequency range like a brickwall filter. Very often this term is used in conjunction with 'thin', 'cardboardy' and so on. You can also hear it quite easily in mp3 lossy-compressed audio, particularly at low bit rates. 11. Mechanical This is just weird. I can only conclude it's about either low frequency or high frequency time modulations causing the subtle timings of the music to be washed out by inconsistent reproduction. Surely this one is mostly trotted out by people trying to find a way to explain how XYZ turntable sounds _better_ than the last one? It makes me suspect that different forms of jitter/flutter, not simply low-frequency wow, are at fault. If you can't lock onto the music's timing beyond a certain point it might seem 'mechanical'. I'm not very impressed by this term. 12. Warm 'I paid 300,000$ for this preamp' No, seriously- I'm pretty sure this is down to low level detail retrieval, specifically the ability to retrieve that low level detail without hyping it up or adding any distortion artifacts to it. It is absolutely not related to the frequency domain, because you can have serious frequency domain problems and still get 'warm'. However, you don't have to. 13. Cold Problems with the low level detail, combined with frequency response problems. Bad digital is great at 'cold': really cheap inadequate electrolytics in the signal path simultaneously putting extra distortion on the low level detail AND restricting the deepest bass while passing a lot of the obnoxious bad-digital high frequencies gives you lots of 'cold'. Transistors' abilities to pass a lot of high frequencies while also being capable of crossover distortion stuff gave them a reputation for 'cold' too. There needs to be treble boost relative to the bass AND problems with distortion at low levels (not simply high-amplitude clipping) to really give you Cold. 14. Analytical Same deal, but if it's Analytical you can hold the low-level distortions and just expect the treble boost. 15. Laid-back Presentation of musical information so that the harmonic balance resembles what you'd get if the music was at a distance. This primarily means treble attenuation, but not in an exaggerated way: just enough to alter the apparent distance of the music. 16. Forward Ditto, except that the treble is boosted in such a way that the harmonic balance resembles what you'd get if the instruments are all too close, really in your face. These two qualities are easily experimented with using equalization, although it will affect other sonic qualities as well. Try it and see if you can 'place' the music at a specific distance using EQ alone. Distance attenuation is a particular contour, not just arbitrary, so the shelving frequency will have to be appropriate- the effect increases with frequency, you wouldn't be cutting both 3K and 30K by the same amount. 17. Digital grit Heinous levels of inharmonic distortion such as you get from undithered quantization. Also can develop in Digital Audio Workstations from doing extensive and repeated calculations on an audio sample and continually re-quantizing it to the bus wordlength (such as 24 bit, or in a worse case repeatedly requantizing to 16 bit) 18. Involving and uninvolving This one is so completely subjective there's little point talking about it- all the other adjectives sum up to a result state that could be called more or less involving. It's possible to have a totally involving system, but be in an un-receptive frame of mind and completely fail to be 'involved', or be listening to low-fi garbage and be terribly involved for other reasons or associations. 19. Clinical This is akin to Analytical, with a suggestion that it's not so hyped as to be passionate or anything: I would assume small amounts of inharmonic distortion like crossover or quantization distortion, very little harmonic distortion or restriction of frequency range, bass-lean but not in a wildly exaggerated way: what for many people would be 'good enough'. Many budget-oriented parts choices for analog stage electronics can lean in this direction. 20. Grain Most easily explained through listening to an 8 bit PCM linear encoded audio file at reasonably high sampling rate. That slight crunchiness and the particular sonic texture you're getting? That's 'grain'. It can be made smaller and smaller until you get to diminishing returns, and different people have different thresholds for what they expect out of it. The SET guys are by far the most demanding about 'grain', and will make big tradeoffs in overall frequency balance for the sake of absolute minimum inharmonic distortion. 21. Strident Frequency domain: bright. Whether done nicely or nastily this is always going to mean some kind of treble boost. 22. Forced Whoa. Okay, I give up. What is that supposed to mean? Whatever it is, it must be the opposite of 'relaxed', but there's no good definition for that either. It sure isn't attributable to any one frequency or resolution domain issue I'm aware of. I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that this forced/relaxed comes from the handling of hot transient information and whether this is presented in a way that resembles how sound mixes in air. Air isn't linear, and good digital and electronic systems are linear, so there's the capacity for extremely accurate reproduction equipment to present music 'unyieldingly': if you backed off about 20 feet it would sound different and perhaps a lot less 'forced' but in listening position there might be an unnatural quality that can't be attributed to any specific fault. I have heard this from digital mixers, actually, and it's a widely debated topic among pro sound engineers who choose between mixing within a DAW or sending outputs to an analog mixing board and then resampling. Chris Johnson |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message news:%kawb.218627$ao4.778769@attbi_s51... *snip* It's also fairly certain that with the exception of some engineers and other anti-subjectivie-opinion adherents, most buyers of audio electronics are not going to base their purchase decisions solely on published specifications or variables they might decide to measure themselves. While factors such as human perception and psychological biases are frequently derided by some objectivists, the fact remains that for many, "personal taste", which involves such factors, is an important consideration when making decisions. Be that as it may, it's also fairly apparent that the invented lingua franca of audiophilia was created for the express purpose of obfuscation. I disagree. Impugning the motives of audio reviewers because of an anti-subjectivist view of audio equipment adn desire to rely solely on measurements just won't fly absent empirical evidence to support accusations of obfuscation. While one can admittedly select partrcular idiosyncratic phrases (e.g. liquid midrange) to try and push a generalized accusation (i.e. obfuscation), I could just as easily advance the argument that the "motives" of the reviewers are to use a vocabulary which they may feel their non-measurement-oriented readers can understand. Granted, there is always room for disagreement in the interpretation of what a particular audio term means whenever *anything* other than a measurement per se is specified. However, this then begs the question of why listen at all if you wish to dismiss and minimize the role of human perceptual differences and preferences? Just purchase whatever product, at whatever price point, fulfills your measurement preferences. No need for reviewing at all in this case, I suppose. There is simply no other way to explain how the phrase "liquid midrange" came into being when far more understandable terms that relate to the auditory experience were readily available. If we simply referred to sound in terms of frequency and phase response we would have a much clearer understanding of what things really sound like. If, for example, a pair of speakers were said to sound a bit tipped up in the 10-12kHz region, we would soon come to understand what that sounds like in real terms. That may be true, and is certainly more prcise than saying "midrange emphasis" , for example, but unfortunately, in the non-measurement-oriented real world in which your average hobbyist may desire to have a personal audition before making a purchase decision, how realistic is it to assume that descriptions in measurement variable terms are meaningful to those that don't routinely measure components and have a frame-of-reference for what "10K-12K peaks" might mean in terms of perceived sound. One way to come closer to resolving this conundrum, IMHO, might be to have some empirical studies done in which components with known, previously measured specifications that deviate from absolute neutrality (as defined by response curves, distortion measurements, etc.) are auditioned and then categorized with descriptive terms. If , for example, your example of an elevation in the 10-12 kHz region is described with a given component as "bright" or "accentuated in the midrange" or "forward" by a significant %age of listeners exposed under identical listening conditions, then perhaps the term would have more meaning. While it is very facile to be dismissive of all subjective audio reviewers because they don't adhere strictly to measurements and nothing else in evaluating products, I think you're overlooking the fact that some magazines, e.g. Stereophile, *do* routinely include response curves and other measurement statistics fot the products they review. Also, it is not uncommon for John Atkinson, in the measurement section of his Stereophile reviews, to try and point out what he sees as correlations between some of the response variations that he has measured and the subjective reviewer's subjective impressions of the same products. (Mr. Atkinson can correct me if I've misinterpreted his intent, but I think I've made a fair description of how the juxtaposition of statistical measurements and subjective review data is generally made in a given product review). The creation of the language of "Audio-obfuscation", however, greatly enabled the sales and marketing departments of manufacturers and publishers to concoct all manner of fanciful stories based on that language. In retrospect, that language may have been Harry Pearson and Gordon Holt's single greatest gift to the high end industry. Just think how many amps would have been described to have sounded the same if the term "liquid midrange" would have never been invented. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
At the risk of actually answering a question asked in this newsgroup,
I'm going to give it a whack. chung wrote: Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe 1. Dark Overemphasis in the lower frequencies 2. Liquid Very like real music in that is easy to focus on the music rather than the sound. The opposite is "discontinuous" where it's much easier to focus on the things reproducing the music rather than the music itself. That is, each element of reproduction instead of forming part of a smoothly flowing liquid "whole" is quite obviously a piece of a patched together quilt. 3. Bloom Real instruments produce sound that isn't just restricted to a point in space. A grand piano, for instance, fills a whole room, a guitar a much smaller envelope. The envelope around the actual instrument is the "bloom". Too MUCH bloom is simply distortion. That is, a guitar is not 10 feet wide. 4. Fast 5. Slow I've never actually heard these effects. Some people claim that some systems react quickly to transients and some slowly, but I've never heard it happen. 6. Relaxed 7. Tight 8. Loose Thes appear to me to be more comments on the overall effect of the system on the reviewer than the system itself. Tight and loose MAY describe a speaker that's over or underdamped, but tight is usually used in a positive sense and loose in a negative. 9. Air Something like "bloom" but it's usually restricted to the higher frequencies. If a boy's choir sounds like a boy's choir you have air. If the higher frequences sound too damped you don't have air. 10. Sterile 11. Mechanical Usually a tipped up frequency balance - too little bass and midrange, too much treble. Lacking bloom :=) 12. Warm A little mid-range emphasis. 13. Cold A little too much mid-range de-emphasis. 14. Analytical A little too much treble. 15. Laid-back A little too little treble and perhaps a bit too mich mid-range. 16. Forward Too much treble. 17. Digital grit 10 bit DAC. In the early days of digital using digital to analog converters of insufficient resolution produced ugly recording. My contention these days is most bad-sounding digital is the fault of poor engineering of the ANALOG output of the circuit. 18. Involving and uninvolving Well balanced and ill balanced, or liquid and discontinuous. 19. Clinical See sterile. 20. Grain Either too much treble or noticeable distortion. 21. Strident Too much treble or noticeable distortion. 22. Forced Too much treble or noticeable distortion. Fell free to add more. No, thanks. -- Bob T. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Bruce said
Be that as it may, it's also fairly apparent that the invented lingua franca of audiophilia was created for the express purpose of obfuscation. There is simply no other way to explain how the phrase "liquid midrange" came into being when far more understandable terms that relate to the auditory experience were readily available. Just because someone is trying to be poetic does not mean they are trying to obfuscate. How can you be sure that anybody who has used the term "liquid midrange" did so for the purpose of obfuscation? I doubt very much that was anybody's intention. You see this kind of broad accusation only acts to broaden the divide between audiophiles. Do you really think that this claim will lead anybody who uses or thinks they understand the use of this phrase to believe they are intentionally obfuscating or do you think it will just cause them to see you as less credible? Bruce said If we simply referred to sound in terms of frequency and phase response we would have a much clearer understanding of what things really sound like. I doubt this very much. Nothing like talking about phase response to perk the interest in potential audiophiles. As I said before, there is no prerequisite for audiophiles to be engineers. No one is stopping you from using technical terms to describe what you hear. If you wish to limit your casual conversations about audio to the technically savvy. This would probably work fine, I guess. Bruce said If, for example, a pair of speakers were said to sound a bit tipped up in the 10-12kHz region, we would soon come to understand what that sounds like in real terms. Talking about such things per se won't help understanding IMO. You need to experience the phenomenon being described as well to gain understanding. But this will work with colorful language as well. Bruce said The creation of the language of "Audio-obfuscation", however, greatly enabled the sales and marketing departments of manufacturers and publishers to concoct all manner of fanciful stories based on that language. Can you actually prove this claim? It seems like highly biased speculation to me. In retrospect, that language may have been Harry Pearson and Gordon Holt's single greatest gift to the high end industry. Just think how many amps would have been described to have sounded the same if the term "liquid midrange" would have never been invented. Yeah that would include all those early SS amps that J Gordon Holt, against popular belief at the time, busted for being the awful sounding amps that they were. He did audiophiles quite a disservice there. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
In article cnfwb.220300$ao4.791136@attbi_s51,
Bruce Abrams wrote: Be that as it may, it's also fairly apparent that the invented lingua franca of audiophilia was created for the express purpose of obfuscation. There is simply no other way to explain how the phrase "liquid midrange" came into being when far more understandable terms that relate to the auditory experience were readily available. If we simply referred to sound in terms of frequency and phase response we would have a much clearer understanding of what things really sound like. If, for example, a pair of speakers were said to sound a bit tipped up in the 10-12kHz region, we would soon come to understand what that sounds like in real terms. I thought I had made it pretty clear that 'liquid', 'bloom' and their ilk are emphatically resolution domain phenomena. You cannot speak sensibly about this in terms of alterations of frequency response. I could very easily make test files which had no alteration of frequency response and deteriorated 'liquidness' severely: just make an 8 bit version, or perhaps 12. This is why terms like that were invented: people weren't talking about the aspects of sound that some listeners cared about. Even the most ill-designed early CD players did very well on frequency response. That's not the whole picture. Chris Johnson |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
This idea is a stereotype. The "objectivists" have conducted ALL the research on psychacoustics and perecption that has ever been done. Really? I thought "objectivists" as used in audio was a subset of audiophiles with a particular philosophy. All scientific psychoacoustic research has been done by this subset of audiophiles? I doubt it. It looks like another attempt to co-opt science to me. Bruce said Be that as it may, it's also fairly apparent that the invented lingua franca of audiophilia was created for the express purpose of obfuscation. There is simply no other way to explain how the phrase "liquid midrange" came into being when far more understandable terms that relate to the auditory experience were readily available. If we simply referred to sound in terms of frequency and phase response we would have a much clearer understanding of what things really sound like. If, for example, a pair of speakers were said to sound a bit tipped up in the 10-12kHz region, we would soon come to understand what that sounds like in real terms. The creation of the language of "Audio-obfuscation", however, greatly enabled the sales and marketing departments of manufacturers and publishers to concoct all manner of fanciful stories based on that language. In retrospect, that language may have been Harry Pearson and Gordon Holt's single greatest gift to the high end industry. Just think how many amps would have been described to have sounded the same if the term "liquid midrange" would have never been invented. Tom said That's an insightful perspective. I agree;and its one of the reasons that these forums discuss non-sonic relevant topics to excess. I agree. Maybe the most constructive thing we could do is cite specific experiences with sound reproduction that others can recreate somehow or another and we can corollate both technical and figurative descriptions to forge more common ground for communication. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
chung wrote in message ...
Of course I am serious, although that does not mean that one cannot have fun with some of these... I am curious if people actually have some common understanding of these terms, and I also want to know what some of these mean. At least you try to explain it in engineering terms, so there is some link to measurements. That is good. Mr.Chung continues targetting the loose language of the reviewers. He prints a glossary of their terms which I understand he finds funny/offensive. I asked before how *he* would describe the differences between sounds coming (reproduced, produced- whatever acceptable to our own local lexicographers) from various makes of amplifiers, cd players etc. In case he did not believe in such differences I quoted the example of pianists, violinists and so on who manifestly do believe that their personal choices sound different. He responded thus: "Once again, Mr Mirabel is confused, and could not separate a musical instrument from a piece of electronic gear". ("WSJT article..." Nov 20) Of course I'm confused. And it is getting worse. If I've been told once I've been told a hundred times by engineer-specialists like yourself that you have a "controlled test" for comparing SOUNDS coming from different electronic components. However and whatever makes those sounds ; a combination of tubes, caps and resistors or a paper cone with a coil or whatever. Sound is sound, right? Now let's be clear. I am not asking for description HOW the pianos or violins or clarinets or amplifiers make their sounds. Fascinating as the physics would be they probably would be over my poor head anyway. I am asking simply 1) whether you agree with the pianists, violinists, clarinetists and percussionists that different makes of their instruments sound differently and 2) -if you do so agree- describe the differences between the SOUNDS produced by say a Bluethner, a Steinway and a Yamaha in a language that you would find acceptable and that we could make head or tail of.. Just write a brief review for us. As you said to Mr. SSWheel: "Can you tell me what they sound like?" (WSJT..., 20th. Nov.) You don't like musical instruments?: then do the same for two different makes of full range speakers- say a Sound Lab ELS and a B&W 804. Or a good moving magnet and a moving coil cartridge. Something that would convey your meaning to a simple audio consumer like myself. Not just measurements. Something beyond "I like this one better". Something that a hi-fi mag. would print and pay you for. You would not want to give the impression that you're using the favourite RAHE debating ploy: grab onto a verbal, hairsplitting, cheese-paring quibble and run with it for dear life. Like musical instruments vs. electronic gear- obviously some similarities and some differences but the differences irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion- in other words just a quibble. Or could it be- perish the thought- that there is something about art discourse that is not in the textbooks? Ludovic Mirabel Chris Johnson wrote: In article , chung wrote: Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe Are you serious, or simply mocking the tendency to use flowery language? If you are serious I can at least offer MY understanding of what these mean, for good or ill. At least most of them... |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
news:n4hwb.215427$mZ5.1634568@attbi_s54... Bruce Abrams wrote: *snip* Be that as it may, it's also fairly apparent that the invented lingua franca of audiophilia was created for the express purpose of obfuscation. I disagree. Impugning the motives of audio reviewers because of an anti-subjectivist view of audio equipment adn desire to rely solely on measurements just won't fly absent empirical evidence to support accusations of obfuscation. Several points here. First of all, I am suggesting neither an anti-subjectivist view nor the notion that we rely solely on measurements. I'm simply suggesting that if the desire of the audio press was to provide truly meaningful reviews, they could have come with a far more precise language to do so. If, for example, such items as the known frequencies of certain sounds were published (such as a kick drum, a crash cymbal, organ pedal notes in opening of the second movement of Saint Saens organ symphony, etc.), reference could be made to the relative levels of those sounds over several systems and over time, a far more accurate vocabularly could be developed. While one can admittedly select partrcular idiosyncratic phrases (e.g. liquid midrange) to try and push a generalized accusation (i.e. obfuscation), I could just as easily advance the argument that the "motives" of the reviewers are to use a vocabulary which they may feel their non-measurement-oriented readers can understand. I dare you to select any of the original vocabularly list and explain which of those phrases are any less idiosyncratic than "liquid midrange." Granted, there is always room for disagreement in the interpretation of what a particular audio term means whenever *anything* other than a measurement per se is specified. However, this then begs the question of why listen at all if you wish to dismiss and minimize the role of human perceptual differences and preferences? This isn't the intent at all. We could disagree all day long over the "grain-free nature of the high frequencies" of a given speaker and have absolutely no idea what we're really arguing over. If, on the other hand, by reference to a known sound I can state that one speaker sounds a bit tipped up over 5kHz and that such peak is manifest by a certain sound when reproducing Ella's voice that isn't present on another speaker, I have now established a point over which we can have meaningful discussion. I'm not interested in dismissing perception, I just want to be certain that I understand what some else's perception is. *snip* There is simply no other way to explain how the phrase "liquid midrange" came into being when far more understandable terms that relate to the auditory experience were readily available. If we simply referred to sound in terms of frequency and phase response we would have a much clearer understanding of what things really sound like. If, for example, a pair of speakers were said to sound a bit tipped up in the 10-12kHz region, we would soon come to understand what that sounds like in real terms. That may be true, and is certainly more prcise than saying "midrange emphasis" , for example, but unfortunately, in the non-measurement-oriented real world in which your average hobbyist may desire to have a personal audition before making a purchase decision, how realistic is it to assume that descriptions in measurement variable terms are meaningful to those that don't routinely measure components and have a frame-of-reference for what "10K-12K peaks" might mean in terms of perceived sound. One way to come closer to resolving this conundrum, IMHO, might be to have some empirical studies done in which components with known, previously measured specifications that deviate from absolute neutrality (as defined by response curves, distortion measurements, etc.) are auditioned and then categorized with descriptive terms. If , for example, your example of an elevation in the 10-12 kHz region is described with a given component as "bright" or "accentuated in the midrange" or "forward" by a significant %age of listeners exposed under identical listening conditions, then perhaps the term would have more meaning. Why not just make the references in reviews to those identified components and eliminate the obfuscating language entirely? While it is very facile to be dismissive of all subjective audio reviewers because they don't adhere strictly to measurements and nothing else in evaluating products, I think you're overlooking the fact that some magazines, e.g. Stereophile, *do* routinely include response curves and other measurement statistics fot the products they review. I hope I've allayed everyone's fears that I'm not interested in adhering strictly to measurements. *snip* |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:3crwb.290586$HS4.2605803@attbi_s01... Bruce said Be that as it may, it's also fairly apparent that the invented lingua franca of audiophilia was created for the express purpose of obfuscation. There is simply no other way to explain how the phrase "liquid midrange" came into being when far more understandable terms that relate to the auditory experience were readily available. Just because someone is trying to be poetic does not mean they are trying to obfuscate. How can you be sure that anybody who has used the term "liquid midrange" did so for the purpose of obfuscation? I never said that anyone USING the term "liquid midrange" was trying to obfuscate. I said that it's quite likely, imo, that those who CREATED such terms did so in an effort to create an industry that was dependent on such confusing language. *snip* Bruce said If we simply referred to sound in terms of frequency and phase response we would have a much clearer understanding of what things really sound like. I doubt this very much. Nothing like talking about phase response to perk the interest in potential audiophiles. As I said before, there is no prerequisite for audiophiles to be engineers. If the originators of these terms would have described sounds with regard to sonic references and perhaps even to have explained those sonic references in everyday language, nobody would have found them overly technical and we would have a much less murky lingua franca in which to hide snake oil products. *snip* Talking about such things per se won't help understanding IMO. You need to experience the phenomenon being described as well to gain understanding. But this will work with colorful language as well. The problem with colorful language is that we might never know what we each mean by liquid midrange. Bruce said The creation of the language of "Audio-obfuscation", however, greatly enabled the sales and marketing departments of manufacturers and publishers to concoct all manner of fanciful stories based on that language. Can you actually prove this claim? It seems like highly biased speculation to me. Really? Let's see. Transparent Cables website talks about "thrilling levels of performance in low level information retrieval". Which sonically meaningful term do you think they're referring to? If the original language would have described and referred to the noise floor, I could try to understand "low level information" in those terms. But of course, that would be measurable and probably, in fact, immeasurable and inaudible. But call it "low level information" and we can discuss it all day even though in the case of a cable, it probably doesn't exist. Wireworld's web site talks about "breathtaking resolution, dynamic contrast and holographic imaging". How would such products would have been marketed absent a largely meaningless sonic vocabulary? They would have been forced to use actual understandable audible sonic references and they couldn't have been sold using such a vocabularly. Want proof? Before the invention of that vocabulary such products weren't sold. Not funky cables, not magic bricks, not magic dots. Those products were brought into existence by the invention of a new language. In retrospect, that language may have been Harry Pearson and Gordon Holt's single greatest gift to the high end industry. Just think how many amps would have been described to have sounded the same if the term "liquid midrange" would have never been invented. Yeah that would include all those early SS amps that J Gordon Holt, against popular belief at the time, busted for being the awful sounding amps that they were. He did audiophiles quite a disservice there. You presuppose that those early SS amps could only have been described as bad sounding using a made up vocabulary. I disagree. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
In article ,
(Nousaine) wrote: (S888Wheel) wrote: "Bright" is different in what way? Is "bright" acceptable or unacceptable descriptive language? If it is acceptable then your objection to descriptive words that have no basis in sound simply does not hold water. It's a visual term applied to acoustics and it doesn't fit without an accompanying description: Does it mean: Excessive shelved upper octaves output? A peak somewhere that exaggerates sibilance or cymbals? A upward tilted bass to treble balance? What? Come on, that's by far the easiest one. It's a synesthetic description, and ANY of your examples could accomplish it, but particularly the first two. If you goose 16K and up and swamp the listener with high frequency information, the effect produced on the ear is strikingly similar to 'glare' on the eyes from intense, bright light. There's a similar fatiguing quality, a similar ability to pick out the tiniest details of information. It's an understandable metaphor because it's backed up by a great deal of common experience. Chris Johnson |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Chris Johnson wrote:
In article , (Nousaine) wrote: (S888Wheel) wrote: "Bright" is different in what way? Is "bright" acceptable or unacceptable descriptive language? If it is acceptable then your objection to descriptive words that have no basis in sound simply does not hold water. It's a visual term applied to acoustics and it doesn't fit without an accompanying description: Does it mean: Excessive shelved upper octaves output? A peak somewhere that exaggerates sibilance or cymbals? A upward tilted bass to treble balance? What? Come on, that's by far the easiest one. It's a synesthetic description, What is a synthetic description? You mean an articifial one? and ANY of your examples could accomplish it, but particularly the first two. If you goose 16K and up and swamp the listener with high frequency information, the effect produced on the ear is strikingly similar to 'glare' on the eyes from intense, bright light. I disagree, because very few recordings have 16K and above information, so goosing just that band by a few dB is not what is commonly meant by bright. There's a similar fatiguing quality, a similar ability to pick out the tiniest details of information. It's an understandable metaphor because it's backed up by a great deal of common experience. The problem is we all have different common experiences. While you think goosing things above 16KHz leads to brightness, I would say that elevated upper midrange (around 2KHz) and treble leads to brightness. The first description given by Tom is what I would accept, since the second one is a peak, and we would need to argue the size and width of the peak. The third description could work also I guess, but it seems too general. In fact, even the first one (excessive shelved upper octaves output) is ambiguous, since what do we mean by upper octaves? And bright is probably the most universally agreed descriptor. Now try "liquid" .How does a cable manage to sound bright? Chris Johnson |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"Chris Johnson" wrote in message
... In article cnfwb.220300$ao4.791136@attbi_s51, Bruce Abrams wrote: Be that as it may, it's also fairly apparent that the invented lingua franca of audiophilia was created for the express purpose of obfuscation. There is simply no other way to explain how the phrase "liquid midrange" came into being when far more understandable terms that relate to the auditory experience were readily available. If we simply referred to sound in terms of frequency and phase response we would have a much clearer understanding of what things really sound like. If, for example, a pair of speakers were said to sound a bit tipped up in the 10-12kHz region, we would soon come to understand what that sounds like in real terms. I thought I had made it pretty clear that 'liquid', 'bloom' and their ilk are emphatically resolution domain phenomena. You cannot speak sensibly about this in terms of alterations of frequency response. I could very easily make test files which had no alteration of frequency response and deteriorated 'liquidness' severely: just make an 8 bit version, or perhaps 12. The point is that we really don't know what these words mean. Your understanding of 'bloom' is actually quite different from the way I've heard it described many times by many different audiophiles. I understood it to mean almost an aura of sound and decay surrounding acoustic instruments. In these terms it is often used to describe the "midrange magic" of tube equipment and is most often the result of second order harmonic distortion. This is why terms like that were invented: people weren't talking about the aspects of sound that some listeners cared about. Even the most ill-designed early CD players did very well on frequency response. That's not the whole picture. Of course it's not, but the job of a well intentioned journalist to make us understand the whole picture without resorting to self-defining, invented terms. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
news:Eqswb.222157$275.840560@attbi_s53... *snip* Now let's be clear. I am not asking for description HOW the pianos or violins or clarinets or amplifiers make their sounds. Fascinating as the physics would be they probably would be over my poor head anyway. I am asking simply 1) whether you agree with the pianists, violinists, clarinetists and percussionists that different makes of their instruments sound differently and 2) -if you do so agree- describe the differences between the SOUNDS produced by say a Bluethner, a Steinway and a Yamaha in a language that you would find acceptable and that we could make head or tail of.. Just write a brief review for us. *snip* A very concise description of the difference in sound between a Steinway (that I played last night) and a Bosendorfer I played today: The Steinway displayed a far more complex series of more prominent overtones than did the Bosendorfer, while the Bosy had a longer and more even decay. This could have been described as a clearer and more fundamental sound in the Bosendorfer, or as a less focused, diffuse and richer sound of the Steinway. The Steinway sounded bigger, while the Bosy posessed more of a sparkle and a cleaner bass. None of the descriptors I could come up with, however, convey as accurate a sense of the sonic difference as the true description regarding the voicing of overtones. Does everyone know what I would mean in such a "technical" description? Probably not, but they would if I explained it, and I wouldn't have to resort to such terms as previously listed in our glossary. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
chung wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote: Come on, that's by far the easiest one. It's a synesthetic description, What is a synthetic description? You mean an articifial one? I guess one typo deserves another . "Artificial" is what I meant. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Bruce Abrams wrote:
I hope I've allayed everyone's fears that I'm not interested in adhering strictly to measurements. *snip* Ideally, I would like to see a reviewer's subjective comments accompanied or backed by measurements. So if he says that speaker A sounds bright compared to B, and the measurements show that there is indeed a higher response from speaker A above, say 1KHz, then there is not much confusion. I think "Audio" used to do that. The problem, of course, is that reviewers use these adjectives without any measurement checks, so you have no process by which you can transfer the descriptions to what you may experience yourself. What is the likelihood that if they say a cable sounds liquid, you would agree that it is indeed liquid? I can also see the position these reviewer are in. They have been describing interconnects using words like "bright". They would look kind of foolish if those reviews were accompanied by measurements that showed all the cables have the same frequency response . |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Tom said
This idea is a stereotype. The "objectivists" have conducted ALL the research on psychacoustics and perception that has ever been done. I said Really? I thought "objectivists" as used in audio was a subset of audiophiles with a particular philosophy. All scientific psychoacoustic research has been done by this subset of audiophiles? I doubt it. It looks like another attempt to co-opt science to me. Tom said That's how you define it. I don't think I am alone in that regard. Tom said I've never met a single "subjectivist" who has worked at Bell Labs or conducted serious research on audibility at any level. I never met one that was an objectivist audiophile. Go figure. Tom said Your point is fair enough if taken at high enough level but even at the hobbyist level subejctivists simply do not conduct even modest bias control techniques. I don't know how you can make such a broad claim as fact. Do you know who every subjectivist in the world is and how they attempt to control biases in their auditions of equipment? I thought Stewart considered himself to be a subjectivist. Modest bias control techniques does not make for valid science. It is simply a different ball game and cannot be put in the same category as the published psychoacoustic research done by scientists. By the way, did I mention that I exercise modest bias controls much of the time when making comparisons? Tom said And they continually ignore non-confirming experience. Who, among us, hasn't ever had an experience where a given effect was "heard" when the switch was in the wrong position. :::Raises hand from the back of the classroom::: Me. I haven't. OTOH there have been a few occasions when an expected difference failed to manifest itself only to find the proverbial switch being in the wrong position. IOW When I have caught this sort of mistake I didn't hear what I expected to hear under the assumption that no such mistake had been made. Tom said No matter how hard it is argued I cannot point to an existing subjectivist that has contributed a lasting confirmed improvement to audio quality. Of course, many of them have contributed to marketing and merchandising of high-end products. You are entitled to your opinions. I can point to several that have clearly contributed to improvements in the sound quality of my playback. I see no point in claiming my experiences are universal. I don't know how one would call a perceived improvement in sound as being "confirmed."But I would challenge you to find any objectivist who has done a better job of designing turntables, arms and cartridges than the best efforts of subjectivists. I would also challenge you to find better mastering efforts from any self-proclaimed objectivist in comparison to that of the top subjectivist mastering engineers. The efforts of such people do profoundly contribute to improvements in audio quality. Tom said The largest example is high-end wire. A small industry developed to sell accessory that has never been shown to actually change, let alone improve, sound quality. OTOH we could also talk about speaker designers. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Bruce said
Be that as it may, it's also fairly apparent that the invented lingua franca of audiophilia was created for the express purpose of obfuscation. There is simply no other way to explain how the phrase "liquid midrange" came into being when far more understandable terms that relate to the auditory experience were readily available. I said Just because someone is trying to be poetic does not mean they are trying to obfuscate. How can you be sure that anybody who has used the term "liquid midrange" did so for the purpose of obfuscation? Bruce said I never said that anyone USING the term "liquid midrange" was trying to obfuscate. I said that it's quite likely, imo, that those who CREATED such terms did so in an effort to create an industry that was dependent on such confusing language. OK so you are limiting your claim to originators of such terms. I stand corrected on who your claim specifically applies to. I still say you have no grounds for the claim unless you can prove intent. Bruce said If we simply referred to sound in terms of frequency and phase response we would have a much clearer understanding of what things really sound like. I said I doubt this very much. Nothing like talking about phase response to perk the interest in potential audiophiles. As I said before, there is no prerequisite for audiophiles to be engineers. Bruce said If the originators of these terms would have described sounds with regard to sonic references and perhaps even to have explained those sonic references in everyday language, nobody would have found them overly technical and we would have a much less murky lingua franca in which to hide snake oil products. Sonic references? You mean like loud and quite and high pitched and low pitched and the like? I don't how you can be sure that would have lead to better understanding for everybody. I don't buy this notion that figurative speech is a vehicle for the promotion of snake oil. It seems to me snake oil is better disguised in technobabble. I said Talking about such things per se won't help understanding IMO. You need to experience the phenomenon being described as well to gain understanding. But this will work with colorful language as well. Bruce said The problem with colorful language is that we might never know what we each mean by liquid midrange. That is a problem with figurative language. It is a problem that artists and enthusiasts have lived with for ages. You do understand the reason why figurative and colorful language is often chosen don't you? Bruce said The creation of the language of "Audio-obfuscation", however, greatly enabled the sales and marketing departments of manufacturers and publishers to concoct all manner of fanciful stories based on that language. I said Can you actually prove this claim? It seems like highly biased speculation to me. Bruce said Really? Let's see. Transparent Cables website talks about "thrilling levels of performance in low level information retrieval". Which sonically meaningful term do you think they're referring to? "Low level information" is not a meaningful sonic term? Isn't that what dithering addressed in digital recording? Thrilling levels is an obvious reference to a predicted reaction. It is not a reference to sound at all. If this same claim were applied to the use of dither would it not make complete sense? Bruce said If the original language would have described and referred to the noise floor, I could try to understand "low level information" in those terms. Hmm. I'm no expert on digital but I was under the impression that dither does not lower the noise floor but it does increase the low level information content.. I think you may be making some narrow presumptions in your critique of the use of language here. Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me that "low level information" is an accepted term that does not explicitly require a reference to the noise floor in all cases to have meaning. Bruce said But of course, that would be measurable and probably, in fact, immeasurable and inaudible. But call it "low level information" and we can discuss it all day even though in the case of a cable, it probably doesn't exist. It seems more and more apparent to me as figurative language is discussed on these threads that perhaps the real issue is claims of audibility of things some people believe are not audible. It looks like figurative language has been a magnet for scorn because it is used more frequently and liberally by those who are perceived to be clearly wrong in their basic beliefs on audio. Bruce said Wireworld's web site talks about "breathtaking resolution, dynamic contrast and holographic imaging". How would such products would have been marketed absent a largely meaningless sonic vocabulary? They would have been forced to use actual understandable audible sonic references and they couldn't have been sold using such a vocabulary. Once again it seems the heart of your objection lies in the implied claim that a product you believe makes no sonic difference makes a sonic improvement. Would you object to a speaker manufacturer making claims of "breathtaking resolution?" Isn't resolution a legitimate term in audio? Is resolution meaningless in audio? Bruce said Want proof? Before the invention of that vocabulary such products weren't sold. Not funky cables, not magic bricks, not magic dots. Those products were brought into existence by the invention of a new language. Yes, I want proof. I don't think a vague inference to some timeline is proof of anything. Audiophilia predates Stereophile. Magic dots came long after Stereophile. If you can't corollate obvious cause and affect with major changes in products on the market with the language of the time you cannot claim proof. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
In article ,
Bruce Abrams wrote: Several points here. First of all, I am suggesting neither an anti-subjectivist view nor the notion that we rely solely on measurements. I'm simply suggesting that if the desire of the audio press was to provide truly meaningful reviews, they could have come with a far more precise language to do so. If, for example, such items as the known frequencies of certain sounds were published (such as a kick drum, a crash cymbal, organ pedal notes in opening of the second movement of Saint Saens organ symphony, etc.), reference could be made to the relative levels of those sounds over several systems and over time, a far more accurate vocabularly could be developed. Are you serious? Let's discuss the mechanical behavior of your very first example, the kick drum. In fact, let's leave aside everything about the size of the shell, the material with which it is constructed, the type of drum head (very significant) and assume a simple single-headed drum varying only the tensioning of the head. If you tension the head rather tight, you get a strong fundamental note and clearly defined resonances in the manner of a vibrating diaphragm, like a duller tympani. ('duller' unless your drum shell is in fact also metal, in which case you might have more pronounced overtones. As you lower the tension and the drum head comes down to the fundamental resonance of the shell, the sound is often described as 'round', which is a matter of resonances reinforcing each other- striking the head produces energy that goes directly into these resonances, where the tighter head excited a broader range of resonances. This difference is NOT simply a matter of turning up, or down, the 'overtones'. The higher tension drum will sustain overtones for longer, relative to the fundamental. Snare heads are sometimes cranked to what's called 'plywood tight', which chokes out the fundamental with sheer tension and leaves mostly overtones to resonate. As you lower your bass drum's tension further, what happens is the overtones are no longer able to sustain at all- when you hit the drum hard, the drumhead snaps forward and almost immediately loses its resonant energy. Instead of sustaining, the overtones are dissipated in a single snap of the drumhead membrane. The term used to describe this effect is 'papery', and it's used by heavy metal drummers to produce a bass drum sound with a powerful high-frequency crack accentuating the attack. The reason it's called 'papery' is because the drumhead, a mylar membrane, begins to sound strikingly like you're hitting the center of a piece of paper rather than a drum. This is professional drum tuning 101 here... That sound only develops at such low tension that the membrane cannot sustain high-frequency vibration. It's a physical alteration of the way the drumhead's decay behaves. You can take a very high tension bassdrum (such as what's called a 'gong drum', designed to mimick a tympani) and a very low tension bass drum, and EQ them to produce precisely the same frequency envelope, and EVEN doctor the sounds digitally to sustain exactly the same amount (perhaps cutting off the sustain of the high tension one and extending the sustain of the low tension one- this can be done) and your two sounds will STILL be as different as chalk and cheese to the most untutored listener. If you're not going to call the tympani-like one 'chimey' or 'ringing' and the loosened one 'papery', how do you propose to describe this extraordinarily obvious difference? And that's only your first example, which happened to be ideally suited for explaining this. With crash cymbals, you'll have a much more interesting time describing the difference between a vintage Zildjian thin crash and a ZBT stamped out of sheet bronze and sold to school kids as a crash, but it will be every bit as obvious. Chris Johnson |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Nousaine wrote:
Robert Trosper wrote: At the risk of actually answering a question asked in this newsgroup, I'm going to give it a whack. It seems to me by comparing Mr Trosper's post and Mr Johnson's post that there is no univeral understanding of any of these audiophile terms. Mr Johnson was "guessing" at some of them and Mr Trosper assigns the same definition to several of them. And each 'tries' to assign an acoustic or other audio cause to the term, which is good, but why not just cut to the chase? Mr. Nousaine's comparison seems to have been pretty superficial. I'm a bit surprised by the differences on "Warm" and "Cold" but there's a lot of overlap on many of the terms, and a good bit of overlap where neither one of us thought they had much utility. That's a far cry from dismissing the whole vocabulary as useless. Consider, for instance, whether it's a more useful review to say "There was an uptilt of 1/2 dB from X to Y frequencies" or to say, "The system sounded a little too bright on all my reference recordings (list attached)". I can, at least, acquire one or more of the recordings and use it for audition material in showrooms. I can't very well run around with a calibrated microphone and a spectrum analyzer and go, "AHA! There's an uptilt of 1/2 a dB from X to Y!" -- Bob T. chung wrote: Here are some words commonly used in high-end reviews, and perhaps we should discuss what they really mean in the context of audio, and put that in some FAQ, somewhe 1. Dark Overemphasis in the lower frequencies Wouldn'y it be easier and more clear to just say "Overemphasis........."? 2. Liquid Very like real music in that is easy to focus on the music rather than the sound. The opposite is "discontinuous" where it's much easier to focus on the things reproducing the music rather than the music itself. That is, each element of reproduction instead of forming part of a smoothly flowing liquid "whole" is quite obviously a piece of a patched together quilt. This is even more vague than "liquid." 3. Bloom Real instruments produce sound that isn't just restricted to a point in space. A grand piano, for instance, fills a whole room, a guitar a much smaller envelope. The envelope around the actual instrument is the "bloom". Too MUCH bloom is simply distortion. That is, a guitar is not 10 feet wide. While well-intentioned just describing the soundstage as applarently having 10-foot acoustci guitars is much more descriptive. 4. Fast 5. Slow I've never actually heard these effects. Some people claim that some systems react quickly to transients and some slowly, but I've never heard it happen. Me either. But, aren't all these terms supposed to be universally understood? 6. Relaxed 7. Tight 8. Loose Thes appear to me to be more comments on the overall effect of the system on the reviewer than the system itself. Tight and loose MAY describe a speaker that's over or underdamped, but tight is usually used in a positive sense and loose in a negative. I agree this term "MAY" mean a lot of things but there's no universal or even common meaning. 9. Air Something like "bloom" but it's usually restricted to the higher frequencies. If a boy's choir sounds like a boy's choir you have air. If the higher frequences sound too damped you don't have air. So "air" is high frequency "bloom"? I also wondering how you "damp" high frequencies? Anyway I'm going to stop commenting here and end by saying that this vocalulary generally has no specific generally understood meaning and each could mean anyn number of things. Therefore when one uses any of these terms they should supply a definition with it. Or just skip the term and give the definition. 10. Sterile 11. Mechanical Usually a tipped up frequency balance - too little bass and midrange, too much treble. Lacking bloom :=) 12. Warm A little mid-range emphasis. 13. Cold A little too much mid-range de-emphasis. 14. Analytical A little too much treble. 15. Laid-back A little too little treble and perhaps a bit too mich mid-range. 16. Forward Too much treble. 17. Digital grit 10 bit DAC. In the early days of digital using digital to analog converters of insufficient resolution produced ugly recording. My contention these days is most bad-sounding digital is the fault of poor engineering of the ANALOG output of the circuit. 18. Involving and uninvolving Well balanced and ill balanced, or liquid and discontinuous. 19. Clinical See sterile. 20. Grain Either too much treble or noticeable distortion. 21. Strident Too much treble or noticeable distortion. 22. Forced Too much treble or noticeable distortion. Fell free to add more. No, thanks. -- Bob T. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| 47 Hi-Res Disc reviews in Audiophile Audition for JULY | General | |||
| June issue of Audiophile Audition online with 57 Hi-Res Reviews | General | |||
| FS: Hundreds of Audiophile Albums | Audio Opinions | |||
| looking for audiophile installers in southern california | Car Audio | |||
| NYC Audiophile Flea Market | General | |||
Linear Mode
