audio term that's parallel to "vivid" for video

[[email protected]]

I've been searching for a low-tech but accurate word for clean and clear audio. Comprehensible and intelligible seem to be the most common choices. But they are related to cognition more so than fidelity to me. After a few days and being disappointed with what I have come up with, I am soliciting suggestions. When describing video, "vivid" is a great word - it's simple and well-known. There should be a perfectly parallel word for audio, but it's eluding me. Thanks in advance for your verbal contributions!

- DK

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 07:19:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>I've been searching for a low-tech but accurate word for clean and clear audio. Comprehensible and intelligible seem to be the most common choices. But they are related to cognition more so than fidelity to me. After a few days and being disappointed with what I have come up with, I am soliciting suggestions. When describing video, "vivid" is a great word - it's simple and well-known. There should be a perfectly parallel word for audio, but it's eluding me. Thanks in advance for your verbal contributions!
>
>- DK

Why do you need a word. Audio fidelity is a combination of several
factors - distortion, frequency response etc, and any attempt to
combine those into a single figure of merit is pretty much doomed - it
certainly hasn't been done yet.

Just get the data, then listen, then take a view. Remember the
listening environment is one of the biggest factors in play.

d

[[email protected]]

wrote: "I've been searching for a low-tech but accurate
word for clean and clear audio"

Uhm, that word, as pertaining to both
audio & video, is right in the middle of
your first sentence.

"Vivid" brings to my mind the factory
picture setting on most consumer
TVs: everything cranked. Sure way
to guarantee buying a replacement
TV every few years affer it
burns out. Also known as 'Dynamic'.

[[email protected]]

I'm working with clients who have no familiarity with our jargon. I said "dynamics" once and they asked me what I was talking about. So yeah, we're trying to communicate regarding the quality of the audio WITHOUT using terms like "dynamics", "frequency range", "noise floor", etc. Figured somebody on here would have been in the same situation before. Maybe there is no great word for it specific to audio.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 08:44:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>I'm working with clients who have no familiarity with our jargon. I said "dynamics" once and they asked me what I was talking about. So yeah, we're trying to communicate regarding the quality of the audio WITHOUT using terms like "dynamics", "frequency range", "noise floor", etc. Figured somebody on here would have been in the same situation before. Maybe there is no great word for it specific to audio.

I'm not talking about jargon, I'm talking about the actual words that
describe the actual phenomena. Jargon is the attempt to obfuscate by
misusing words - typified by vacuous pursuits like fashion and wine.
Wine has a smell - the wine buff will call it the nose. That is jargon
- a desperate attempt to sound "in".

If you want to describe audio, use the right words for the right
things. This will simultaneously educate your customer to the point
where he is able to understand and appreciate the facts, not the
********.

If the customer doesn't understand a word like dynamics, explain it.
It isn't that hard to understand. There is no point a customer
pretending he understands when he doesn't.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>I'm working with clients who have no familiarity with our jargon. I said "d=
>ynamics" once and they asked me what I was talking about. So yeah, we're tr=
>ying to communicate regarding the quality of the audio WITHOUT using terms =
>like "dynamics", "frequency range", "noise floor", etc. Figured somebody on=
> here would have been in the same situation before. Maybe there is no great=
> word for it specific to audio.

When I think of a "vivid" image, I think of something that looks like a
postcard with the contrast and saturation severely exaggerated.

This would seem to be the visual equivalent of the "hi-fi" sound, with the
bass and treble pumped up and all the instruments in your face.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Price[_5_]]

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 9:19:26 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I've been searching for a low-tech but accurate word for clean and clear audio.

There's Hi-definition.

[John Williamson]

On 06/08/2018 16:44, wrote:
> I'm working with clients who have no familiarity with our jargon. I said "dynamics" once and they asked me what I was talking about. So yeah, we're trying to communicate regarding the quality of the audio WITHOUT using terms like "dynamics", "frequency range", "noise floor", etc. Figured somebody on here would have been in the same situation before. Maybe there is no great word for it specific to audio.
>
In video, "vivid" to me says "colour gain set high for saturated colours
with contrast and edge enhancement (HF gain on analogue video) turned
way up". Frequent cuts from scene to scene help especially with bright
clashing colours.

The closest I'd come up with for audio would be to compress the dynamics
and put a boost in the "air" range until it was getting painful. A bit
like wotzisname and his 3kHz boost that was all that was needed to
"improve" a perfectly mastered track. That gives what the uninitiated
would call a "bright" track, which is as fatiguing to listen to as a
"vivid" video track is to watch.

In both cases, returning to a linear response greatly improves things.
"Vivid" or, in audio terms "bright" is not necessarily a Good Thing,
unless there is an artistic need for it.

In my opinion, others are no doubt available, possibly for a fee.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 7/08/2018 2:19 AM, wrote:
> I've been searching for a low-tech but accurate word for clean and clear audio. Comprehensible and intelligible seem to be the most common choices. But they are related to cognition more so than fidelity to me. After a few days and being disappointed with what I have come up with, I am soliciting suggestions. When describing video, "vivid" is a great word - it's simple and well-known. There should be a perfectly parallel word for audio, but it's eluding me. Thanks in advance for your verbal contributions!
>
> - DK
>

'Glaring' maybe ? I take it by 'vivid' you are referring to the likes
of near-flourescent grass, etc ?

geoff

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

wrote:
>
>
> I've been searching for a low-tech but accurate word for clean and clear audio. Comprehensible and intelligible seem to be the most common choices. But they are related to cognition more so than fidelity to me. After a few days and being disappointed with what I have come up with, I am soliciting suggestions. When describing video, "vivid" is a great word - it's simple and well-known. There should be a perfectly parallel word for audio, but it's eluding me.


** " Transparent " might be your best single word for describing hi-fi sound.


..... Phil

[Trevor]

On 7/08/2018 1:44 AM, wrote:
> I'm working with clients who have no familiarity with our jargon. I said "dynamics" once and they asked me what I was talking about. So yeah, we're trying to communicate regarding the quality of the audio WITHOUT using terms like "dynamics", "frequency range", "noise floor", etc. Figured somebody on here would have been in the same situation before. Maybe there is no great word for it specific to audio.
>

Surely fidelity covers it. Most people have some concept of high
fidelity Vs say an AM radio's low fidelity.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 16:21:36 +1000, Trevor > wrote:

>On 7/08/2018 1:44 AM, wrote:
>> I'm working with clients who have no familiarity with our jargon. I said "dynamics" once and they asked me what I was talking about. So yeah, we're trying to communicate regarding the quality of the audio WITHOUT using terms like "dynamics", "frequency range", "noise floor", etc. Figured somebody on here would have been in the same situation before. Maybe there is no great word for it specific to audio.
>>
>
>Surely fidelity covers it. Most people have some concept of high
>fidelity Vs say an AM radio's low fidelity.

No, they really don't.

d