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.
mrtennis

Showing 1 response by zargon

In a recent thread "minimze ambiguity when describing audio components" by Mrtennis, he suggested that we should avoid ambiguous terms. One of his suggestions was to "have some definitions of commonly used adjectives, and post them where all can see them ". In that thread, I suggested a Stereophile Glossary at Glossary. He responded "zargon has the right idea". So lets do that.

warm = The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound.

dark = A warm, mellow, excessively rich quality in reproduced sound. The audible effect of a frequency response which is clockwise-tilted across the entire range, so that output diminishes with increasing frequency. Compare "light."

transparency, transparent = 1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.

So, it would seem from these definitions that warm and transparent are used to describe very different qualities of sound reproduction. Are they inconsistent? I leave it to you all to decide.