On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 07:04:24 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:



You're on the right track with the above. This is something I have worked
on
for years; how to describe sound with any sense of accuracy.

My lab is my ears. Soft, hard, brighter, cleaner, quieter, more aggressive,
focused. These are some of the term in my very unofficial glossary.

I don't see a term like "bright" being any more or less informative
than "sweet" though.

Al

Well for me, sweet is a taste thing (which I totally don't get because I
don't usually hear with my tongue) and bright sound refers to a lifted area
of high frequencies.

To Wander, there is a human condition in which the senses are cross wired. I
forget the term, but read a great book on it call "The man who tasted
shapes." The condition is called synesthesia. I read the Cytowic book and
found it quite fascinating.

€ Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses - Second Edition by Richard E.
Cytowic
€ Synaesthesia: Classic and Contemporary Readings by John E. Harrison
€ Synaesthesia: The Strangest Thing by John Harrison
€ A Mango-Shaped Space by Wendy Mass
€ The Mind of a Mnemonist: A Little Book About a Vast Memory by Aleksandr
R. Luria
€ Phantoms in the Brain : Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by V. S.
Ramachandran

Anyway, I'm talking about bright from an auditory perspective rather than a
visual/light perspective. I try to use the terms in context with more
specifics, frequency ranges, for example. "A thicker upper bass or lower
midrange" for example. And if they give me the word count, maybe add "brings
out more chest tone."

Choosing the right words is one of the most difficult parts of the review
process.

It's virtually impossible to choose words that every person will
relate to, because different people have different sensual biases.
Some people are visually oriented, some kinesthetically, some by taste
or smell, etc.

Al


Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com