We tend to use analogies from the other senses to describe the sound of audio systems. They are imprecise, but are generally more meaningful and useful to me than other approaches I have seen, except for those few reviewers who are able to communicate the overall character of a component, for which they also invoke analogies: red wine vs. white wine, Carnegie Hall, yin and yang. These are the most useful for me. This is a personal thing, however. No one approach will work for everyone.
contradictory communication
some components have been described as warm and transparent. this is not possible. warm means subtractiion in the treble frequency range. transparency implies a balanced frequency response.
it is inconsistent to say warm and transparent.
it is inconsistent to say warm and detailed, because there is some loss of detail in the treble region when a component is described as warm.
i believe that as soon as you describe a component as warm ,there is some loss and one should be careful about any other adjectives used with the word warm.
it is inconsistent to say warm and transparent.
it is inconsistent to say warm and detailed, because there is some loss of detail in the treble region when a component is described as warm.
i believe that as soon as you describe a component as warm ,there is some loss and one should be careful about any other adjectives used with the word warm.