2. speakers
  3. 1172846736

Hi-Fi Lingo and What we should be listening for

I'm writing this because I think that it would be beneficial to have a consensus on what various terms used to describe a systems sound mean. I get the impression that there is confusion, or at least that people use the same term to describe more than one quality.

For example i've seen some components described as "overly detailed", this also seems to have connotations in a lot of people minds of brightness or tilted up trebel. I really think the two are completely separate, and that in fact if your goal is to get the most realistic portrayal of the recorded event it is impossible to have an overly detailed component/presentation. You can only have as much detail as was recorded, if you want to recreate it in a manner that is as close to reality as possible (assuming the recording comes close to the semblance of the actual instrument), then almost by definition you want all the detail that is on the recording. Detail is what it is, it does not imply brightness...although tilted -up trebel often gives the impression of detail careful listening will separate one from the other.

The other term that seems full of connotaion and ambiguity is "musical"...this has got to be the most overused desriptor in our hobby. It has connotations of emotional involvment but strangly also of warmth....again i think this needs clarification...I would think and feel personally that the most musical presentation would be one that sounds the closest to the actual event hence warmth would be a detractor and less musical than nutrality...if it is music we are listening for then how can something other than faithful recreation of the musical event be more musical.

If a recordng is warm then the warmth will show up on a neautral system just as a brightly recorded album will sound bright...as it should...

Im not trying to stir anything up just putting this out there to generate a dialogue.

Why dont audiophiles almost by definition like neutral components...assuming the goal of out hobby is the accurate recreation of the recorded musical event.

Thanks
mbacinello

Showing 1 response by hahnzie

hahnzie
19 posts
 
I agree this is a great thread. I have become a little disinheartened lately with everyone who just seems to copy what they say in the audio rags. It seems that when stereophile states a system shouldn't "image" becuase it is an artifact of the recording not of live sound then everyone just agrees. I think that is the worst load of Sh*t I have heard. If you can't hear what direction someone is speaking from then you have no business in this hobby. The reason this relates to this thread is that lately I have noticed people saying things like it has a "Hi-Fi" sound not a musical sound. What the hell is that supposed to mean? "Hi-Fi" the last I looked stood for high fidelity, or highly faithful to the original.

I suspect the confusion of the terminology stems form the same audio rags. If you notice, Stereophile hardly ever gives a bad review. When they do they mascarade it with terms like, it sounded very forward. Well that isn't necesarilly a bad thing could be a forward presentation as in the sound stage was in front of the speakers or some use it to mean it was bright.
More to discover