Audiophile Jargon Demonstrated

@cdc - Buzzword bingo is always fun.

Most of the audiophile terms are relative so must be compared to a common point of reference.

The guy that recommended and sold me Mullard tubes for my amplifier had previously owned the amplifier and currently owned one of the same brand, so had a true point of reference for what he felt made significant improvements.  What was equally valuable was his recognition of his strong preference for a very warm sound, so recommend the tubes with that caveat since the description of my preferences were on the clarity end of the spectrum.  As it turned out, the tubes did result in a warmer sound, but the overall improvement in sound quality was so far superior that warmth vs. clarity wasn't a worthwhile factor for comparison.

I do think, however, that some of the terms describe things that should be able to be demonstrated by changing the physical setup.

the Analytical Bloat and Bloom created Brilliance with Clarity not Congestion or Darkness of Depth, Detail and Dynamics .

the Forward, Glassy, Harsh, Imaging gave Low-Level, Lush Microphonics which Muddy the Neutral and Openness of Resolution .

While Reverb with Roll and Sibilant Smooth gave Soundstage Texture and Timbre combining Tonality with Transient Transparent  yet Uncolored Veiled.

of Warm and Width 

You missed Digital Glare. That additional background that adds an unnatural /unpleasant  tonality.  I found it most noticeable with vocals. It's almost as if autotune was on.  

I think I can say that I've heard "grain" as well.  I had a Cambridge Audio 840A integrated amplifier for a few months that just had a digital grunge sound to it and I think I even used the word "pixels" to describe the sound.

I think almost all of the terms are somewhat subjective based on listener preferences as someone that prefers a warmer sound may consider something most people would consider to be neutral as being too detailed or bright.  The terms are most valuable when making comparisons using something or an experience in common as the reference.

Learning many of these terms requires listening, some of them lots of listening. Some are pretty easy… slam, overall tonal balance. But many take time.

I have read constantly during my pursuit of the high end. One term, grain meant little to me. I knew it… I had some idea. Of what it meant, but I had never heard it.

Then I bought a used preamp as an upgrade. I was happy as a clam for a day. I was listening and suddenly I heard grain… my face turned red and suddenly this wonderful preamp went from great to terrible. I felt like a fool. I could not un-hear the grain. I took it back immediately… but of course the used audio guy said no dice to taking it back. But would trad it in (minus $200) for a used Audio Research preamp which cost more as well (1979). I lost a couple hundred on my initial purchase and paid a couple hundred more. He promised the ARC was in a different league and I would never hear any grain. He was right. Now all my equipment is Audio Research… 40 years later.

The most important term for me has been Rythmn and Pace. I am sure it took me over 40 years to finally pin the sonic quality on the terminology. I noticed long ago that some systems made me want to tap my foot and get wrapped up in the music… many did not.

I don’t think you need elaborate descriptions as much as keep reviewing them and listening to systems… one by one you make the connection. Once made, they tend to stick. This is a critical part of becoming a critical listener.

@audition__audio Most of these terms I can identify and cite as observable, repeatable aural phenomena.  I can then use these terms to communicate to another person the inherent aural qualities of a certain thing.  This is useful.

Due to the high number of multiplied variables (be they technological, acoustical, psychoacoustical, emotional, etc.) some of these inherently nebulous terms become next-to-useless as a means of imparting a useful explanation to another person.

These terms only have merit if they are correctly applied and defined. As an example I find Harbeth speakers highly colored and far from neutral but many who own this speaker think they are among the most neutral especially in terms of vocals and midrange. So who is correct and what does "neutral" really mean?

@tylermunns - The discussion that you're referring to is partly why I started this post.  I can tell you that I have experienced PRaT in my system after swapping in a better power cable and interconnects.  I believe that the previous tube rolling set the stage for the cables to shine.  I'd describe it as having some involuntary toe tapping that wasn't there before.  

@pennpencil - I'm not frustrated at all, more curious.  I have read and experienced enough to have a basic understanding for most of the terms, but  have not clearly heard them all.

In general terms, I think that not being able to understand the terms is an indication that the system being listened to isn't sufficient to showcase the differences that would be described by these terms.  I've heard some of them in my system, but certainly not all.  My goal isn't dissatisfaction, so I'm steering clear of better systems for now!

The terms can be demonstrated. You'll know it when you hear it.Take PRaT for instance. One system will have you tapping your toes and really feeling the rhythm and another will have all the right notes but lack the livleyness - no PRaT.

@mceljo  I understand the frustration of reading about listening experiences and not being sure you’ve heard them. I’m not sure anyone can do a lot better than the dictionary above to describe the listening experiences. I can say that the better your system is, the more of these terms you’ll hear. Perhaps listen to a setup at a dealers. Go to expos to hear different systems. You’ll notice differences and those terms will describe those differences.

I appreciate this.

On a recent thread here, I inquired as to what people mean when they say, “rhythm and pace, or “pace, rhythm and timing,” (PRaT)

It did not go well.

I appreciate someone making a good faith effort to apply concrete, practical use to these terms.

I think some of it is nonsense that audio media excreted some 45-50 years ago and it just stuck.

The terminology can sometimes come off as affected. The fact is that every profession and hobby has its own set of terms. Why? Because there are details and distinctions that require terms. We’re not doctors or plumbers or train model makers but they all have a set of terms that allow them to do their work. I don’t understand the terms and if I’m in the middle of their conversation, I don’t know what they’re talking about but not because they’re talking nonsense. The terms mean something and maybe we’re the only ones who understand what soundstage means. But we hear it and use the term with others who understand it to have conversations about things that interest us. 

Unfortunately, like many posts, this one has missed the intended mark.

I am curious if any of these terms can be demonstrated.  I'm not intending to be negative about the words at all.

Gray -- restricted in tone color and dynamics. High frequencies rolled off to the point where they might as well not exist. In other words, what you hear from AM radio...minus the static, of course...

How about "Gray"? I've never understood that one. Actually, most of it is just mumbo jumbo, IMO.

Thanks for the list of definitions. It helps to understand what we, us, are describing, even if we need to expand on our definitions. Yes, some of us have been down that road, but it helps to try and stay in the lane so everybody has a reference point.

Actually what you need to know is the sound of the recording before it goes through the monitors. I always am forced to laugh when people claim the best way to hear a recording in your home system is by using the same speakers they used in the studio. 

Many of these definitions apply to music too.  Musicians relate to their instrument's sound in much the same way, whether acoustic or amplified...think about how a guitarist feels about whether to play a Telecaster vs. a Les Paul, what strings to use, what pickup combination, what amp, what foot pedals, etc.  The job of the Hi-Fi is to expose those choices for us to appreciate, not to change them.  As a pianist may prefer one Steinway to another or to a Bechstein or Bosendorfer, and a producer may choose mics and how to place them to capture the performance, all these create the sound we try to reproduce.  The system that "becomes" that captured sound most completely is the truest, highest fidelity, most accurate...not the one that complies with our hoped-for listening experience.  Sometimes they converge, but not by a long shot always.

@tablejockey +1

I agree 😎

Mike

I use this phrase....yeah...it sounds good.

audiophile jargon- words used to make "professional" reviewers appear legit and make enthusiasts come across as an actual musician to non audio, music fans.

The  width definition is ridiculous. How on earth does one know how most recordings sound originally, since they weren't at the studio?

Add “Grainy” - to me it’s like seeing a pointillism picture versus a watercolor. That’s the way I describe it. Maybe someone else can describe it better. I usually hear Grainy with lower quality DAC’s.

Perhaps it’s the same as your description of texture? 

I don't use the official jargon. 

Expectation Bias: that shiny new toy always gives greater joy than the old toy!