| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile glossary
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. I very much like your descriptions. I think I understand them quite clearly. I do feel compelled to point out the following terms you used are figurative; cleaner, focused, and sparkle. I would not wish to dissuade you from using these figurative terms even though I am confident that sanitation, optics and prismatic reflections and refractions had nothing to do with what you heard. Like I said. I like what you wrote and I think I understood it well. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. I said "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 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? It is a term applied to vision. So is it acceptable at all ever for describing sound or not? If it does then your objections to other figurative terms based on their application to other senses simply does not hold water. By the way. Many people use the term bright when describing what they hear with no accompanying description. Does that make the description meaningless? Does it make it unacceptable? 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. I said Metaphors are inherently imprecise. But once again, someone claims that they are meaningless. That is just nonsense. Tom said As used in audio description they often have little usefulness being too general, often related to a whole whole set of possible causes, but more often than not .....exist only in the imagination of the describee. People can be too general with figurative language or technical terminology. Excessive generalizations are not exclusive to figurative speech. You will not solve this problem by eliminating figurative speech. Also, what one person finds useful another may not. We do get down to what i believe is the root issue with figurative language. I believe the real gripe you and others have is the belief over what is and is not audible. Reviewers in audio magazines who hold different beliefs about what is and is not audible also seem to be more liberal with their figurative descriptions of what they hear. I think it is guilt by association and anything associated with subjective sighted reviews is deemed bad. I said 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 I'm not objecting to the use of metaphor; I just want to add some meaning. Fair enough. It is being discussed on this thread and two glossaries have been cited. Tom said My solution is to drop the word audiophile from my resume. I said I never saw any point in listing my hobbies on my resume. Tom said That was a figurative point. I know. I was making a light joke. Tom said But in this arena you describe yourself as such do you not? Yes. 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. I said 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 I think the shoe fits in your case. An interesting accusation from someone who spends zero time with me in person and has made more posts on audio message boards than I have by an order of magnitude. Tom said Other wise you might be testing some of your beliefs that do not align with what we know about acoustical delivery of modern audio systems. Gosh I thought you said "In today's world an 'audiophile' who spends more time talking about his system than listening to it" in fact I'm sure you did. hence the quotes. what does testing my beliefs have to do with the ratio of time spent listening to time spent talking? You say the shoe fits, you know nothing about how much listening I do since you have never spent any time in my home and you offer irrelevant questions to support an accusation that I fit your original stereotype of an audiophile. Oh, you also said "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." If the shoe fits as you say then please tell us what tweaks that have no acoustic effect do you know I have a spent large amount of time on? And please tell me once you realize you have made an accusation about my habits as an audiophile based purely on your own stereotypical assumptions, why should I take seriously the opinions of someone who purports to be objective and scientific when that same person shows such fatally flawed reasoning in making accusations about my habits as an audiophile? |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:xdywb.223656$275.846553@attbi_s53... A very concise description of the difference in sound between a Steinway (that I played last night) and a Bosendorfer I played today: The Steinway displayed a far more complex series of more prominent overtones than did the Bosendorfer, while the Bosy had a longer and more even decay. This could have been described as a clearer and more fundamental sound in the Bosendorfer, or as a less focused, diffuse and richer sound of the Steinway. The Steinway sounded bigger, while the Bosy posessed more of a sparkle and a cleaner bass. I very much like your descriptions. I think I understand them quite clearly. I do feel compelled to point out the following terms you used are figurative; cleaner, focused, and sparkle. I would not wish to dissuade you from using these figurative terms even though I am confident that sanitation, optics and prismatic reflections and refractions had nothing to do with what you heard. Like I said. I like what you wrote and I think I understood it well. That was exactly my point when I wrote the last paragraph... None of the descriptors I could come up with, however, convey as accurate a sense of the sonic difference as the true description regarding the voicing of overtones. Does everyone know what I would mean in such a "technical" description? Probably not, but they would if I explained it, and I wouldn't have to resort to such terms as previously listed in our glossary. The only true sonic description was the "technical" one dealing with the overtones. All else is vague language with multiple interpretations. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
news:wgxwb.218993$mZ5.1663495@attbi_s54... chung wrote: 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. Sound & Vision and Stereophile do it still. WRT cables? I don't think so. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"Chris Johnson" wrote in message
news:K1ywb.223220$9E1.1220732@attbi_s52... 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. You actually make my point even stronger. If reviewers were to describe the various attributes of the sound of various drum kits on different recordings and compared their presentations as reproduced by two different speakers, we'd have a shot at understanding how the systems really sounded. What we're usually left with is imprecise descriptions centered around terms such as "tight bass", or some equally meaningless fluff. 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. Again, I agree completely. Use real terms to describe the differences. Don't just cop out and call the sound of the cymbal as "bright". |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message news:wgxwb.218993$mZ5.1663495@attbi_s54... chung wrote: 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. Sound & Vision and Stereophile do it still. WRT cables? I don't think so. No , not cables -- but yes, amps/preamps and speakers and digital players. The post I was responding to was about speakers. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
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. You should get out more. I know several. BRBR Oh I get out but I guess I just don't run with the same crowd as you. My point was however that your anecdotes about knowing a few scientists who are objectivist audiophiles doesn't really prove anything. One of my best friends is a molecular genetic biologist who is researching human hearing. He is a subjectivist. Doesn't prove anything though does it? 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? If they made honest attaempts they would no longer be "subjectivists" unless that includes those like Pinkerton and me. BRBR OSAF. Unless you have a valid study supporting this assertion. I thought Stewart considered himself to be a subjectivist. So am I. But I've long ago left the term "audiophile" behind because so many of them are an embarassment to the hobby. BRBR Then how on earth do you get along with your objectivist audiophile friends doing psychoacoustic research? 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? Tell us more. BRBR What do you want to know? 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. Well I've met people who have made this statement before and the one's I know personally have been easy to trick into 'hearing' expected effects that aren't present in the system. Oh I get it. Your anecdote is the truth and mine isn't. I find this highly biased and lacking in objectivity. 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. That would be Bob Kita of Shure Brothers. Shure makes nice cartridges at their respective price points. My friend the molecular genetic biologist has the Shure V15. But we are talking about " a lasting confirmed improvement to audio quality." Personally I take the efforts of the designer of my cartridge, Y Sugano over any efforts from Shure. Again I would like to point out this notion of 'confirmed" is kind of goofy. all you have to do is claim any work to advance the state of the Art in audio that has had a lasting impression isn't "confirmed." Whether you believe it or not, Y Sugano's work has made a lasting improvement to audio quality for some of us. Back in 1985 when I discovered highend vinyl playback his cartridges were widely regarded as the best there is. Almost twenty years later and after his passing the same is still true. But we didn't discuss tables and arms. I would argue that the likes of Andy Payor and Peter Forsell have contributed to a lasting confirmed (as much as any such claim can be confirmed) improvement to audio quality. Their work is state of the art and has been for over a decade. 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. That would be John Eargle of Delos. BRBR I said mastering not recording but I have heard some of Mr. Eargle's work based on your recomendations. IMO the efforts of Doug Sax, Keith Johnson, and Kavi Alexander have him beat. The fact remains that in terms of recording the catalog from Sheffield and Reference Recordings have widely been seen as benchmarks since both those companies started over twenty years ago. Even Stewart cited an old Sheffield recording as a personal reference of his. That would personify an obvious contribution to a lasting "confirmed" improvement to audio quality. I think you claim that no subjectivist has done this falls flat on it's face right here. OTOH we could also talk about speaker designers. Yes, and ......? BRBR The efforts of Martin Logan, Wilson Audio, Infinity (the old one) Vandersteen, Soundlab, Thiel just to name a few have been widely regarded as contributions to improvements in audio quality. Both at price points and in SOTA efforts. Once again, I think your claim just doesn't hold water. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:X2Cwb.225458$275.858586@attbi_s53...
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 Snip Steinway. The Steinway sounded bigger, while the Bosy posessed more of a sparkle and a cleaner bass The only true sonic description was the "technical" one dealing with the overtones. All else is vague language with multiple interpretations. This deserves serious treatment. Most arguments in RAHE, like most arguments anywhere, continue for ever because people use differently the language they appear to have in common. As a semanticist would put it "It depenmds on what you mean by "more complex series of more prominent overtones" You're pleased to call this "technical". I say "Thanks be to Lord it is not. It is vivid and interesting. He may have something there. Let's listen carefully next time and decide if my brain hears what his does." You supply the "only true description" of what *you* hear as difference in the treatment of overtones by the two pianos. An engineer might ask you for confirmatory measurements. I might choose different adjectives. A poet listening to a concert will write something very, very different from both of us. And reading his poem every reader will recreate his metaphors in his own brain to mean something to *him* and him only. And this something is guaranteed to be different for every reader. And it is meant to be. That is what poetry is all about. Say you're reporting on one pianist playing the same Chopin's nocturne on two different pianos. Are you're sure you'll hear the same as you heard when you were playing it yourself and still be able to provide the same "only true description" Let us say we're on the subject of life and procreation. Bacteria, plants, gorillas and humans all live and procreate. We're not talking about what divides a bacterium from a leaf (Mr. Chung please note) We're talking about what is common to them- life and procreation. The subject is discussed heatedly by pro-lifers and "freedom of choice" adherents. It is differently treated by every one of the philosophers writing about it: Plato, Bergson, Nietzsche and so on. I happen to know something about biochemical basis of biology. Does it mean that all those guys would not be entitled to burst out laughing if I insisted that they provide carbon molecule models with their opinions and their philosophy? RAHE has some professional engineer contributors and some simple audio fans. The professionals have a choice: they can confine themselves to reading professional press only and contributing to it- that is, assuming that they have some original research to contribute. They can also try and convey engineering concepts to the generality the way eg. Mr. Putzey or Mr. Chris Johnson does. They contribute little if all they have to say is: "You don't speak my language so all you say is worthless" Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
S888Wheel wrote:
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. You should get out more. I know several. BRBR Oh I get out but I guess I just don't run with the same crowd as you. My point was however that your anecdotes about knowing a few scientists who are objectivist audiophiles doesn't really prove anything. One of my best friends is a molecular genetic biologist who is researching human hearing. He is a subjectivist. Doesn't prove anything though does it? What genes is he studying? Quite possibly knowledge of psychoacoustics is irrelevant to his work. In any case if he's a scientist he will certainly advocate some form of double blind trial for questionable claims of difference. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
news:x9Twb.231224$275.868048@attbi_s53... Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:X2Cwb.225458$275.858586@attbi_s53... 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 Snip Steinway. The Steinway sounded bigger, while the Bosy posessed more of a sparkle and a cleaner bass The only true sonic description was the "technical" one dealing with the overtones. All else is vague language with multiple interpretations. This deserves serious treatment. Most arguments in RAHE, like most arguments anywhere, continue for ever because people use differently the language they appear to have in common. As a semanticist would put it "It depenmds on what you mean by "more complex series of more prominent overtones" You're pleased to call this "technical". I say "Thanks be to Lord it is not. It is vivid and interesting. He may have something there. Let's listen carefully next time and decide if my brain hears what his does." How about if we put a spectrum analyzer on the job and identify the specific differences in the tonality of the 2 pianos? Then we can a meaningful conversation wherein we differ over both substance and semantics. *snip* |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Oh I get out but I guess I just don't run with the same crowd as you. My
point was however that your anecdotes about knowing a few scientists who are objectivist audiophiles doesn't really prove anything. One of my best friends is a molecular genetic biologist who is researching human hearing. He is a subjectivist. Doesn't prove anything though does it? BRBR What genes is he studying? BRBR I don't know. I'll ask him. Quite possibly knowledge of psychoacoustics is irrelevant to his work. BRBR I'm pretty sure it does not involve psychoacoustics. I'm pretty sure it is physiological in nature. I think it involves the expression of genes during the development of certain parts of the inner ear. I will ask though. In any case if he's a scientist he will certainly advocate some form of double blind trial for questionable claims of difference. BRBR He advocates them for scientific research that calls for them. He doesn't seem to think differences he hears in audio equipment are all that "questionable." Perhaps the two of you belong to the same club. His name is Steve. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
|
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
S888Wheel wrote:
Oh I get out but I guess I just don't run with the same crowd as you. My point was however that your anecdotes about knowing a few scientists who are objectivist audiophiles doesn't really prove anything. One of my best friends is a molecular genetic biologist who is researching human hearing. He is a subjectivist. Doesn't prove anything though does it? BRBR What genes is he studying? BRBR I don't know. I'll ask him. Quite possibly knowledge of psychoacoustics is irrelevant to his work. BRBR I'm pretty sure it does not involve psychoacoustics. I'm pretty sure it is physiological in nature. I think it involves the expression of genes during the development of certain parts of the inner ear. I will ask though. In any case if he's a scientist he will certainly advocate some form of double blind trial for questionable claims of difference. BRBR He advocates them for scientific research that calls for them. He doesn't seem to think differences he hears in audio equipment are all that "questionable." Perhaps the two of you belong to the same club. His name is Steve. There are lots of Steves in science. We even have a website where we can affirm our support for teaching evolution in schools. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp If your friend is a scientist, surely he's aware that it's not always enough to claim a difference isn't questionable. He also has to be willing to admit he could be wrong -- that his perception is, in fact, inherently questionable, and that if stronger objective data refute it, then the perception should be considered an error. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
There are lots of Steves in science. We even have a website where we can affirm our support for teaching evolution in schools. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp BRBR Yep. That is what I was referring to. I thought the concept was very funny and made a pretty clear statement on an important issue. If your friend is a scientist, surely he's aware that it's not always enough to claim a difference isn't questionable. He also has to be willing to admit he could be wrong -- that his perception is, in fact, inherently questionable, BRBR I hesitate to speak too much for someone else but we have discussed this. I think it is fair to say we both agree with your statement. and that if stronger objective data refute it, then the perception should be considered an error. BRBR I did show Steve the material Tom sent me on the evidence regarding "the great debate." He did not think any of it would survive peer review. |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
(S888Wheel) wrote:
There are lots of Steves in science. We even have a website where we can affirm our support for teaching evolution in schools. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp Yep. That is what I was referring to. I thought the concept was very funny andmade a pretty clear statement on an important issue. If your friend is a scientist, surely he's aware that it's not always enoughto claim a difference isn't questionable. He also has to be willing toadmit he could be wrong -- that his perception is, in fact, inherentlyquestionable, I hesitate to speak too much for someone else but we have discussed this. Ithink it is fair to say we both agree with your statement. and that if stronger objective data refute it, then theperception should be considered an error. I did show Steve the material Tom sent me on the evidence regarding "the greatdebate." He did not think any of it would survive peer review. OK and what evidence do you have that supports any review? You've in the past allowed that "no evidence" exists "either way." However, when no designer, maker, proponent, enthusiast or merchandiser has ever been able to show real differences in amp/cable sound over 30 years why do we have to "conclude" that these differences have any reasonable chance of existing? Ot that there's NO evidence EITHER way? I think that's just silly. If I told you that I had a new fuel additive that would increase the power of your engine and it's driveability or improve your mileage by X%; and that no body has ever demonstrated in a peer-reviewed journal, that my invention DID NOT make these improvements would you accept it on my say-so? IMO that's what the cable/amp sound proponents are asking. They want us to accept, allow an open-mind for, sonic effects that have never been shown to exist in a fair bias-controlled condition. I've offered this poster and anyone who wants to prove this conditon a chance to make the case (costs split). But no takers. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Mkuller wrote:
chung 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? Unfortunately, the descriptive audio vocabulary words being duscussed here have "general" meanings and then "more specific" ones as used by the specific writer in the specific review. For example, "bright" in general means 'an emphasis in upper frequency content' but could describe a wide variety of phenomena. Brightness could be due to an excess in the upper midrange (usually considered 5000Hz to 10,000Hz or so), Most people would consider 5,000 Hz to 10,000Hz treble, not upper midrange. Consider that 20Hz to 20KHz covers 10 octaves, and 5K to 10K is the second from the highest. Have you checked the definition of midrange in the TAS glossary? the high frequencies (over 10,000Hz) or even a lack of lower frequencies (below 300Hz - lower midrange down) which would appear psychoacoustically to be an upper frequncy emphasis. To understand what the specific reviewer meant using the term 'bright', in the case he didn't provide a more descriptive example using a specific musical passage (which a good reviewer would), you would have to hear the component for yourself to understand. Thanks for confirming that you have to listen to the component in order to understand what the review meant. In other words, the words themselves are rather useless, since they are so ambiguous. And we agree that "bright" is one of the more universally agreed upon ones. And bright is probably the most universally agreed descriptor. Now try "liquid"  .'Liquid' to me means a lack of texture - smooth, flowing, consistent - usually used in describing amplifier sound, not cables. How does a cable manage to sound bright? Good question for the measurers. Compare the sound of a Nordost Red Dawn cable to a Cardas Golden Section to hear for yourself. Actually the measurers have the answer already: it can't, unless the cable is designed to be a tone-control. Think you can tell those cables apart blind? Regards, Mike |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
(S888Wheel) wrote: There are lots of Steves in science. We even have a website where we can affirm our support for teaching evolution in schools. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp Yep. That is what I was referring to. I thought the concept was very funny andmade a pretty clear statement on an important issue. If your friend is a scientist, surely he's aware that it's not always enoughto claim a difference isn't questionable. He also has to be willing toadmit he could be wrong -- that his perception is, in fact, inherentlyquestionable, I hesitate to speak too much for someone else but we have discussed this. Ithink it is fair to say we both agree with your statement. and that if stronger objective data refute it, then theperception should be considered an error. I did show Steve the material Tom sent me on the evidence regarding "the greatdebate." He did not think any of it would survive peer review. OK and what evidence do you have that supports any review? You've in the past allowed that "no evidence" exists "either way." Tom, please stop misrepresenting what I say as well as what I think. It has happened far to many times IMO. i felt compelled to ask you this the last time you totally misrepresented me and you ignored it so I am going to ask you this again. How can you expect me to give you any credibility as someone who claims to be scientific and objective when you so consistently and grossly misrepresent my positions on issues and misrepresent other relevant facts regarding me to support your arguments? For the record I have *never* said "no evidence" exists "either way." The fact that you would use quotation marks makes your misrepresentation all the more severe. I have said there appears to be no scientifically valid empirical evidence either way and qualified what I meant by scientific evidence meaning evidence that has been scrutinized by a scientific peer review. You want to disagree with what I say? Fine. You want to argue with what I say? Fine. But you misrepresent what I say on a regular basis after extensive arguments and multiple clarifications on my part. I have a big problem with that. However, when no designer, maker, proponent, enthusiast or merchandiser has ever been able to show real differences in amp/cable sound over 30 years why do we have to "conclude" that these differences have any reasonable chance of existing? Ot that there's NO evidence EITHER way? You can conclude whatever you want. What makes you think there has to be any consensus on such limited research conducted purely by apparently highly biased researchers outside the scope of legitimate science? At this point some things about your evidence are obvious. It all comes from the same small group of people who advocate a certain conclusion, You are one of those in that small group. You continue to misrepresent me to argue your positions. None of the evidence has been through peer review. One scientist I know who looked at the material you sent me called it junk that would never survive peer review. I think that's just silly. If I told you that I had a new fuel additive that would increase the power of your engine and it's driveability or improve your mileage by X%; and that no body has ever demonstrated in a peer-reviewed journal, that my invention DID NOT make these improvements would you accept it on my say-so? No. That was always my point. IMO that's what the cable/amp sound proponents are asking. They want us to accept, allow an open-mind for, sonic effects that have never been shown to exist in a fair bias-controlled condition. IMO your opinion is profoundly affected by personal bias, So much so that it has caused you to consistently misrepresent me and my views almost every time we argue these issues. I cannot consider someone to be a reliable objective scientific researcher if their biases are so intense that they would consistently misrepresent their opponents and their views in arguments over the very subject they are researching. I've offered this poster and anyone who wants to prove this condition a chance to make the case (costs split). But no takers. BRBR Another fine example of your misrepresentations. I offered to have you come over the next time you were in L.A. and compare my Audio Research D115 Mk II Audio Research SP 10 combo with my old Yamaha receiver. I suggested we not make this about money and you could keep your bounty should I prove to be able to hear a difference. You never responded to that offer. At this point, due to your consistent gross misrepresentations of me, I would be interested in such tests only if they are conducted by someone with a track record of doing such tests for scientific research. JJ is one such person who comes to mind. I would be thrilled to have him over for such a comparison should he ever care to do so. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
chung wrote:
Most people would consider 5,000 Hz to 10,000Hz treble, not upper midrange. Consider that 20Hz to 20KHz covers 10 octaves, and 5K to 10K is the second from the highest. Have you checked the definition of midrange in the TAS glossary? Calling 5-10K 'upper midrange' is pretty misinformed. For example, 5K is higher than the fundamental of the highest c on a modern piano or piccolo. Any definition with the word 'midrange' should mean encompassing the range of the basic fundamental frequencies of instruments and no more. Doing otherwise just introduces needless confusion and misunderstandings which undermines the idea of having a glossary in the first place. If TAS is really saying that 5-10K is upper midrange, it's a sad example of the musical ignorance of the magazine. Stuff like that is one of the reasons I stopped reading it a long time ago. I would call the frquencies from about 2K to 5K 'upper midrange.' Some may differ on the lower limit. It can depend on what instruments the person is thinking of and the music they associate with them. |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
(S888Wheel) wrote:
(S888Wheel) wrote: There are lots of Steves in science. We even have a website where we can affirm our support for teaching evolution in schools. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp Yep. That is what I was referring to. I thought the concept was very funny andmade a pretty clear statement on an important issue. If your friend is a scientist, surely he's aware that it's not always enoughto claim a difference isn't questionable. He also has to be willing toadmit he could be wrong -- that his perception is, in fact, inherentlyquestionable, I hesitate to speak too much for someone else but we have discussed this. Ithink it is fair to say we both agree with your statement. and that if stronger objective data refute it, then theperception should be considered an error. I did show Steve the material Tom sent me on the evidence regarding "the greatdebate." He did not think any of it would survive peer review. OK and what evidence do you have that supports any review? You've in the past allowed that "no evidence" exists "either way." Tom, please stop misrepresenting what I say as well as what I think. It has happened far to many times IMO. OK what peer-reviewed evidence do you have that open evaluation is a valid method for evaluating audibility? Please stop misrepresenting what I'm asking for. i felt compelled to ask you this the last time you totally misrepresented me and you ignored it so I am going to ask you this again. How can you expect me to give you any credibility as someone who claims to be scientific and objective when you so consistently and grossly misrepresent my positions on issues and misrepresent other relevant facts regarding me to support your arguments? For the record I have *never* said "no evidence" exists "either way." The fact that you would use quotation marks makes your misrepresentation all the more severe. You've said that. I have said there appears to be no scientifically valid empirical evidence either way and qualified what I meant by scientific evidence meaning evidence that has been scrutinized by a scientific peer review. This is reduction to the absurd. Of course, no one has published a peer-reviewed paper showing the audibility of wires and amps. There's no good reason to publish a paper that says in effect "looked for aliens but didn't find any." The codec people use double blind tests to confirm audibility. I wonder why that might be? You want to disagree with what I say? Fine. You want to argue with what I say? Fine. But you misrepresent what I say on a regular basis after extensive arguments and multiple clarifications on my part. I have a big problem with that. OK; but I have a big problem with your position that not enough evidence exists for interpretation. There is plenty of evidence; but, like Ludovic you'll just reject or ignore any that doesn't support your prior held conviction. However, when no designer, maker, proponent, enthusiast or merchandiser has ever been able to show real differences in amp/cable sound over 30 years why do we have to "conclude" that these differences have any reasonable chance of existing? Ot that there's NO evidence EITHER way? You can conclude whatever you want. What makes you think there has to be any consensus on such limited research conducted purely by apparently highly biased researchers outside the scope of legitimate science? See ..."highly biased" researchers who use double blind tests to preclude them from influencing the results. At this point some things about your evidence are obvious. It all comes from the same small group of people who advocate a certain conclusion, I'd say that I represent a body of people who are interested in discovering what affects sound quality and sound quality alone. The conclusions are based on the evidence. There was no way I could have precluded any subject from hearing true difference if such WERE present. My conclusions are based on the evidence NOT a preconceived desired result. You are one of those in that small group. You continue to misrepresent me to argue your positions. None of the evidence has been through peer review. One scientist I know who looked at the material you sent me called it junk that would never survive peer review. OK; I've got my scientist friends who think it's perfectly acceptable. Your turn. And, where is you peer reviewed evdidence that non-bias controlled experiments have any usefulness? I think that's just silly. If I told you that I had a new fuel additive that would increase the power of your engine and it's driveability or improve your mileage by X%; and that no body has ever demonstrated in a peer-reviewed journal, that my invention DID NOT make these improvements would you accept it on my say-so? No. That was always my point. OK; than I can't conclude that your reports of amplifier sound have any credibility. IMO that's what the cable/amp sound proponents are asking. They want us to accept, allow an open-mind for, sonic effects that have never been shown to exist in a fair bias-controlled condition. IMO your opinion is profoundly affected by personal bias, So much so that it has caused you to consistently misrepresent me and my views almost every time we argue these issues. I cannot consider someone to be a reliable objective scientific researcher if their biases are so intense that they would consistently misrepresent their opponents and their views in arguments over the very subject they are researching. Misrepresent someone who said there's no evidence either way; and then rejects anything that hasn't been peer-reviewed from the counter side BUT will entertain that open evaluations should be considered. I've offered this poster and anyone who wants to prove this condition a chance to make the case (costs split). But no takers. Another fine example of your misrepresentations. I offered to have you comeover the next time you were in L.A. and compare my Audio Research D115 Mk IIAudio Research SP 10 combo with my old Yamaha receiver. I suggested we not makethis about money and you could keep your bounty should I prove to be able tohear a difference. You never responded to that offer. Actually you didn't respond to me after I suggested splitting costs. But I offer you the chancw to visit me to prove your point OR I'll come there if you'll agree to split costs. After all I have incurred significant travel cost on my own offering people the chance to prove 'your' case before. At this point, due toyour consistent gross misrepresentations of me, I would be interested in suchtests only if they are conducted by someone with a track record of doing suchtests for scientific research. JJ is one such person who comes to mind. I wouldbe thrilled to have him over for such a comparison should he ever care to doso. This sounds like yet another avoidance technique. It happens all the time. I kind of expect it now. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
If TAS is really saying that 5-10K is upper midrange, it's a sad example of the musical ignorance of the magazine. Stuff like that is one of the reasons I stopped reading it a long time ago. I would call the frquencies from about 2K to 5K 'upper midrange.' Some may differ on the lower limit. It can depend on what instruments the person is thinking of and the music they associate with them. BRBR I have it in front of me in their guide to highend components. upper midrange is listed as 2.56-5.12 KHz. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Steven said
There are lots of Steves in science. We even have a website where we can affirm our support for teaching evolution in schools. I said Yep. That is what I was referring to. I thought the concept was very funny and made a pretty clear statement on an important issue. Steven said If your friend is a scientist, surely he's aware that it's not always enoughto claim a difference isn't questionable.Â* He also has to be willing toadmit he could be wrong -- that his perception is, in fact, inherentlyquestionable,Â* I said I hesitate to speak too much for someone else but we have discussed this. Ithink it is fair to say we both agree with your statement. Steven said Â* and that if stronger objective data refute it, then theperception should be considered an error.Â* I said I did show Steve the material Tom sent me on the evidence regarding "the great debate." He did not think any of it would survive peer review. Tom said OK and what evidence do you have that supports any review? You've in the past allowed that "no evidence" exists "either way." I said Tom, please stop misrepresenting what I say as well as what I think. It has happened far to many times IMO. Tom said OK what peer-reviewed evidence do you have that open evaluation is a valid method for evaluating audibility?Â*Â* Please stop misrepresenting what I'm asking for. Here we ago again. Right after I ask you to please stop misrepresenting me you do it on the next post. How can I "stop misrepresenting" what you are asking for when I didn't do so in the first place? One cannot *misrepresent* something without *representing it at all.* I made no representation of your question. I took issue with you making a false quotation which misrepresented my claims in the past. I did not address your question in any way. I have no such evidence. I would not consider open ended open ended review to be scientifically valid. The magazines that conduct open ended reviews are not peer reviewed scientific journal. they are meant for hobbyists. I would not consider any food review to be scientifically valid either. I don't expect every opinion when presented as opinion to be supported by peer reviewed scientific studies. It is a ridiculous standard for opinions in hobbies IMO. I would expect any scientifically valid tests of audibility to meet higher standards than any open ended review process as I would expect it to meet higher standards than any of the tests you offered as evidence for your beliefs. I said Â* i felt compelled to ask you this the last time you totally misrepresented me and you ignored it so I am going to ask you this again. How can you expect me to give you any credibility as someone who claims to be scientific and objective when you so consistently and grossly misrepresent my positions on issues and misrepresent other relevant facts regarding me to support your arguments? For the record I have *never* said "no evidence" exists "either way." The fact that you would use quotation marks makes your misrepresentation all the more severe. Tom said You've said that. Baloney. The fact that you would stand by your misrepresentation of my views only gives me more reason to doubt your objectivity in these matters. I said Â* I have said there appears to be no scientifically valid empirical evidence either way and qualified what I meant by scientific evidence meaning evidence that has been scrutinized by a scientific peer review. Tom said This is reduction to the absurd. Of course, no one has published a peer-reviewed paper showing the audibility of wires and amps. There's no good reason to publish a paper that says in effect "looked for aliens but didn't find any." The codec people use double blind tests to confirm audibility. I wonder why that might be? I said You want to disagree with what I say? Fine. You want to argue with what I say? Fine. But you misrepresent what I say on a regular basis after extensive arguments and multiple clarifications on my part. I have a big problem with that. Tom said OK; but I have a big problem with your position that not enough evidence exists for interpretation. There is plenty of evidence; but, like Ludovic you'll just reject or ignore any that doesn't support your prior held conviction. Like I said, I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with my opinions. You are free to interpret what evidence there is any way you wish. I think you pick and choose your evidence and you fail to see the shortcomings of the evidence you choose. I think the level of certainty you proclaim for your beliefs based on the evidence you cite falls way short of an objective and scientifi position. Tom said However, when no designer, maker, proponent, enthusiast or merchandiser has ever been able to show real differences in amp/cable sound over 30 years why do we have to "conclude" that these differences have any reasonable chance of existing?Â* Ot that there's NO evidence EITHER way? I said You can conclude whatever you want. What makes you think there has to be any consensus on such limited research conducted purely by apparently highly biased researchers outside the scope of legitimate science? Tom said See ..."highly biased" researchers who use double blind tests to preclude them from influencing the results. I don't even understand this response. Are you asking me to look at something? I said At this point some things about your evidence are obvious. It all comes from the same small group of people who advocate a certain conclusion, Tom said I'd say that I represent a body of people who are interested in discovering what affects sound quality and sound quality alone. The conclusions are based on the evidence. I would say it's a very small "body" and I would say the tests you have cited and the misrepresentations you have made of me and my views and my arguments strongly suggest you and perhaps this "body" of people have let their biases get the better of their research. Tom said There was no way I could have precluded any subject from hearing true difference if such WERE present. How would you know? None of the tests you have cited were ever teste objectively for sensitivity. Tom said My conclusions are based on the evidence NOT a preconceivedÂ* desired result. I believe you believe that. I believe you have not succeeded in proving it scientifically. I said You are one of those in that small group. You continue to misrepresent me to argue your positions. None of the evidence has been through peer review. One scientist I know who looked at the material you sent me called it junk that would never survive peer review. Tom said OK; I've got my scientist friends who think it's perfectly acceptable. Your turn. Not so fast. What scientist has told you that any of the tests you sent me would survive scientific peer review? Tom said And, where is you peer reviewed evidence that non-bias controlled experiments? have any usefulness?Â* The question is absurd. "Any usefulness" is not something that science would address. Would you say that food and movie reviews don't have "any usefulness" because there is no peer reviewed evidence that supports the assertion that such reviews may be useful for some people? Reviewers that conduct open evaluations are not claiming that their opinions are supported by science. You are claiming that. Tom said I think that's just silly. If I told you that I had a new fuel additive that would increase the power of your engine and it's driveability or improve your mileage by X%; and that no body has ever demonstrated in a peer-reviewer journal, that my invention DID NOT make these improvements would you accept it on my say-so? I said No. That was always my point. Tom said OK; than I can't conclude that your reports of amplifier sound have an credibility.Â* You can conclude that they don't have any *scientific merit* but there is a range *credability* between opinions that have no credibility and honest carefully formulated opinions that are not supported by scientific evidence. Tom said IMO that's what the cable/amp sound proponents are asking. They want us to accept, allow an open-mind for, sonic effects that have never been shown to exist in a fair bias-controlled condition. I said IMO your opinion is profoundly affected by personal bias, So much so that it has caused you to consistently misrepresent me and my views almost every time we argue these issues. I cannot consider someone to be a reliable objective scientific researcher if their biases are so intense that they would consistently misrepresent their opponents and their views in arguments over the very subject they are researching. Tom said Misrepresent someone who said there's no evidence either way; and then rejects anything that hasn't been peer-reviewed from the counter side BUT will entertain that open evaluations should be considered. There you go again. Misrepresenting me to try to discredit my position. Tom said I've offered this poster and anyone who wants to prove this conditionÂ* a chance to make the case (costs split). But no takers.Â* I said Another fine example of your misrepresentations. I offered to have you comeover the next time you were in L.A. and compare my Audio Research D115 Mk IIAudio Research SP 10 combo with my old Yamaha receiver. I suggested we no makethis about money and you could keep your bounty should I prove to be able tohear a difference. You never responded to that offer. Tom said Actually you didn't respond to me after I suggested splitting costs I responded to your offer with the above counter offer. I saw no such response to my counter offer as you contend you made. I may have missed it but there is no question that I responded to your offer. Hence your misrepresentation. Tom said Â* But I offer you the chancw to visit me to prove your point OR I'll come there i you'll agree to split costs. What part of the next time you happen to be in L.A. did you not understand? Don't you get that I am trying to avoid any cost to both of us? It would not be practical for me to visit you the next time I am in your neck of the woods since I do not travel with my system in my suitcase. Tom said After all I have incurred significant travel cost on my own offering people the chance to prove 'your' case before. I said Â* At this point, du to your consistent gross misrepresentations of me, I would be interested in such tests only if they are conducted by someone with a track record of doing such tests for scientific research. JJ is one such person who comes to mind. I would be thrilled to have him over for such a comparison should he ever car to do so. Tom said This sounds like yet another avoidance technique. It happens all the time. I kind of expect it now.Â* Your interpretation is clearly biased. Do you think JJ is incapable or unwilling to conduct such tests? Like I said, if he happens to be in L.A. and is willing to conduct any such tests I would be thrilled to have him over. His history as a real scientific researcher gives him credibility. I think the level of distrust would make any tests conducted by people I believe to have an agenda would make such tests pointless. I have little faith in one's ability to conduct objective tests when one fails to refrain from gross misrepresentations of my views to support their arguments. |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
... If TAS is really saying that 5-10K is upper midrange, it's a sad example of the musical ignorance of the magazine. Stuff like that is one of the reasons I stopped reading it a long time ago. I would call the frquencies from about 2K to 5K 'upper midrange.' Some may differ on the lower limit. It can depend on what instruments the person is thinking of and the music they associate with them. BRBR I have it in front of me in their guide to highend components. upper midrange is listed as 2.56-5.12 KHz. It would be nice if this bit of TAS-bashing was put to rest with this kind of factual information, but I doubt it will happen. Harry Pearson not only published frequency response ranges from 30hz to 20khz tied (accurately) to descriptive terms, he also published (several times) glossaries of terminology used in the magazine, in order to foster broad-understanding of those terms. He also, I know for a fact, issued preliminary versions of this glossary very early on to his reviewers and advised them *not* to use the terms with alternative meanings. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
S888Wheel wrote:
If TAS is really saying that 5-10K is upper midrange, it's a sad example of the musical ignorance of the magazine. Stuff like that is one of the reasons I stopped reading it a long time ago. I would call the frquencies from about 2K to 5K 'upper midrange.' Some may differ on the lower limit. It can depend on what instruments the person is thinking of and the music they associate with them. BRBR I have it in front of me in their guide to highend components. upper midrange is listed as 2.56-5.12 KHz. Those are odd numbers, (pun intended) but thank you, they are at least in the ballpark of reasonableness. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
S888Wheel wrote: If TAS is really saying that 5-10K is upper midrange, it's a sad example of the musical ignorance of the magazine. Stuff like that is one of the reasons I stopped reading it a long time ago. I would call the frquencies from about 2K to 5K 'upper midrange.' Some may differ on the lower limit. It can depend on what instruments the person is thinking of and the music they associate with them. I have it in front of me in their guide to highend components. upper midrange is listed as 2.56-5.12 KHz. Those are odd numbers, (pun intended) but thank you, they are at least in the ballpark of reasonableness. Odd? I thought they were fairly obvious. Start at the lowest audible frequency and go up by octaves. 20-40 40-80 80-160 160-320 320-640 640-1280 1280-2560 2560-5120 BRBR |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
S888Wheel wrote:
Odd? I thought they were fairly obvious. Start at the lowest audible frequency and go up by octaves. 20-40 40-80 80-160 160-320 320-640 640-1280 1280-2560 2560-5120 Okay, I'm just used to rounding them off for audio purposes. (i.e. typical test tones, etc) And being an instrument builder/musician, I tend to think of music pitch standards as references for the multiples. I'm not a number theorist. By nature, these definitions are not exact, hence the difficulty of compiling a glossary. Avoiding vague terms would therefore seem like a goal. If exact definitions are used for adjectives, they are not like adjectives anymore and lose their conceptually global character. That doesn't seem helpful either. Just my opinion. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Harry Lavo wrote:
It would be nice if this bit of TAS-bashing was put to rest with this kind of factual information, but I doubt it will happen. Harry Pearson not only published frequency response ranges from 30hz to 20khz tied (accurately) to descriptive terms, he also published (several times) glossaries of terminology used in the magazine, in order to foster broad-understanding of those terms. He also, I know for a fact, issued preliminary versions of this glossary very early on to his reviewers and advised them *not* to use the terms with alternative meanings. If he really knew what he was doing, he would correlate the results of listening tests with measurments. That he choses to play pope is transparent. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Odd? I thought they were fairly obvious. Start at the lowest audible frequency and go up by octaves. 20-40 40-80 80-160 160-320 320-640 640-1280 1280-2560 2560-5120 Okay, I'm just used to rounding them off for audio purposes. (i.e. typical test tones, etc) And being an instrument builder/musician, I tend to think of music pitch standards as references for the multiples. I'm not a number theorist. By nature, these definitions are not exact, hence the difficulty of compiling a glossary. Avoiding vague terms would therefore seem like a goal. If exact definitions are used for adjectives, they are not like adjectives anymore and lose their conceptually global character. That doesn't seem helpful either. Just my opinion. BRBR If we are going to divide the audio spectrum and give each division a title there will always be something forced about doing so. I didn't mean to imply that dividing by octaves was a superior means of determining such divisions I was simply pointing out that it was one obvious choice amoung obvious choices. IOW it didn't seem odd to me. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Harry Lavo wrote:
It would be nice if this bit of TAS-bashing was put to rest with this kind of factual information, but I doubt it will happen. Harry Pearson not only published frequency response ranges from 30hz to 20khz tied (accurately) to descriptive terms, he also published (several times) glossaries of terminology used in the magazine, in order to foster broad-understanding of those terms. He also, I know for a fact, issued preliminary versions of this glossary very early on to his reviewers and advised them *not* to use the terms with alternative meanings. wrote: If he really knew what he was doing, he would correlate the results of listening tests with measurments. That he choses to play pope is transparent. Correlating observational listening results with measurements is certainly a noble goal - John Atkinson has been trying for years in Stereophile - but that you chose to see Harry Pearson as a cult religious figure says more about your perspective and biases than anything else. Regards, Mike |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
wrote:
By nature, these definitions are not exact, hence the difficulty of compiling a glossary. Avoiding vague terms would therefore seem like a goal. If exact definitions are used for adjectives, they are not like adjectives anymore and lose their conceptually global character. That doesn't seem helpful either. First, sorry for my miscalculation in calling the upper midrange 5-10kHz. Had I had "How to Read The Absolute Sound" handy, I could have represented what TAS refers to as the 'upper midrange' specifically instead of my poor estimation. Now to your comment above - In any hobby or specialized area, getting a handle on the 'lingo' is what separates the experts from the wannabes - at least superficially. Take the prose used descriptively in wine tasting, for example. Or in surfing, or model construction, or automotive racing, etc. As far as adjectives having 'specific' meanings, please define hot, wet, big or a few for me. Their meanings are not specific, but all depend on the context - just like the adjectives used in audio component reviews. Regards, Mike |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Mkuller wrote:
Now to your comment above - In any hobby or specialized area, getting a handle on the 'lingo' is what separates the experts from the wannabes - at least superficially. If I was interested in superficial meanings I wouldn't posting here about them at all. Oh well. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news  Bfzb.402037$HS4.3250560@attbi_s01...*snip* First, sorry for my miscalculation in calling the upper midrange 5-10kHz. Had I had "How to Read The Absolute Sound" handy, I could have represented what TAS refers to as the 'upper midrange' specifically instead of my poor estimation. Now to your comment above - In any hobby or specialized area, getting a handle on the 'lingo' is what separates the experts from the wannabes - at least superficially. Take the prose used descriptively in wine tasting, for example. Or in surfing, or model construction, or automotive racing, etc. As far as adjectives having 'specific' meanings, please define hot, wet, big or a few for me. Their meanings are not specific, but all depend on the context - just like the adjectives used in audio component reviews. In wine tasting, the adjectives used only seem vague to the non-expert. Those wishing to become expert can purchase a wine tasting training kit that contains a large number of aroma and flavor extracts that can teach you what is specifically meant by a "long vanilla finish". It seems to me that Stereophile could produce at any time, a CD containing variously processed musical segments that very specifically and unambiguously illustrate the "standard audiophile lingo". Have a section of music recorded unprocessed, then process it to sound "hard", "strident" etc. I suspect that the only reason that this hasn't been done is that no one truly agrees on what makes something sound "strident". Reviewers will simply claim that they know it when they hear it. Thus we come full circle to the fact that the terms, by virtue of have no aggreed upon definitions, are inherently (and, IMO, intentionally) vague. |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Mkuller wrote:
First, sorry for my miscalculation in calling the upper midrange 5-10kHz. Had I had "How to Read The Absolute Sound" handy, I could have represented what TAS refers to as the 'upper midrange' specifically instead of my poor estimation. Mike If Mike, a long time avid reader and stout suppoprter of TAS and Stereohpihle, needs the handy "How to Read the Absolute Sound" to decode the lingo, amateur hobbyists don't stand a chance of relating to those words used in reviews. So Mike, how well do you think you know what the reviewers are saying? Do you always had that guide next to you when you read a review? |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"Mkuller" wrote:
Their meanings are not specific, but all depend on the context - just like the adjectives used in audio component reviews. Bruce Abrams wrote: In wine tasting, the adjectives used only seem vague to the non-expert. Those wishing to become expert can purchase a wine tasting training kit that contains a large number of aroma and flavor extracts that can teach you what is specifically meant by a "long vanilla finish". It seems to me that Stereophile could produce at any time, a CD containing variously processed musical segments that very specifically and unambiguously illustrate the "standard audiophile lingo". Have a section of music recorded unprocessed, then process it to sound "hard", "strident" etc. I suspect that the only reason that this hasn't been done is that no one truly agrees on what makes something sound "strident". Reviewers will simply claim that they know it when they hear it. Thus we come full circle to the fact that the terms, by virtue of have no aggreed upon definitions, are inherently (and, IMO, intentionally) vague. I suspect the only people who have difficulty with the descriptive words we are talking about - are engineers who are trying unsuccessfully to correlate the adjectives to specific measurements. Regular readers of the reviews in these publications most likely have a good idea of their meaning. So if you and enough of your colleagues write in and request a CD (or whatever) from Stereophile, I'm sure they would comply to satisfy the demand. Regards, Mike |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
|
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
"Mkuller" wrote in message
... "Mkuller" wrote: Their meanings are not specific, but all depend on the context - just like the adjectives used in audio component reviews. Bruce Abrams wrote: In wine tasting, the adjectives used only seem vague to the non-expert. Those wishing to become expert can purchase a wine tasting training kit that contains a large number of aroma and flavor extracts that can teach you what is specifically meant by a "long vanilla finish". It seems to me that Stereophile could produce at any time, a CD containing variously processed musical segments that very specifically and unambiguously illustrate the "standard audiophile lingo". Have a section of music recorded unprocessed, then process it to sound "hard", "strident" etc. I suspect that the only reason that this hasn't been done is that no one truly agrees on what makes something sound "strident". Reviewers will simply claim that they know it when they hear it. Thus we come full circle to the fact that the terms, by virtue of have no aggreed upon definitions, are inherently (and, IMO, intentionally) vague. I suspect the only people who have difficulty with the descriptive words we are talking about - are engineers who are trying unsuccessfully to correlate the adjectives to specific measurements. Regular readers of the reviews in these publications most likely have a good idea of their meaning. So if you and enough of your colleagues write in and request a CD (or whatever) from Stereophile, I'm sure they would comply to satisfy the demand. We've already had differences of opinion among the regular readership on RAHE as to what the definition of "bloom" and "bright" were. What makes you think only "engineers who are trying unsuccessfully to correlate the adjectives to specific measurements" are having difficulty. If you can't effectively describe it so that everyone understands it, and you can't produce the effect for demonstration purposes, who's kidding whom? Take a look again at Chung's original list and find 5 people who will agree on the definition of any of those terms. I doubt you can. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
Mkuller wrote:
wrote: Harry Pearson of TAS If he really knew what he was doing, he would correlate the results of listening tests with measurments. I went back into my audio publication archives last night and found some copies of "High Performance/Review", an interesting audio equipment review magazine that was published from 1981 to about 1985. In it, the writers attempted to closely correlate the sound of the equipment they listened to with technical measurements, such as harmonic distrotion, etc. (Larry Greenhill, of the infamous published cable dbt was a reviewer for this mag before he joined Stereophile.) I suspect the magazine failed because there are not enough readers who care about the correlation of measurements to observational listening results. While there may be a few people on RAHE wanting to see these kind of correlations, I'm not sure this is represenative of the audiophile readership universe. Indeed. This observation only serves to illustrate the parlous intellectual state of audiophilia. Thank you. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audiophile glossary
|
| 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
