2. misc-audio
  3. 1148020518

minimze ambiguity when describing audio components

i have noticed and i myself am guilty of using adjectives when trying to describe the "sound" of audio components.

the words, warm, bright, dull, dark, to name a few are ambiguous terms for two reasons.

first, we hear differently. when serious listeners are evaluating the sound of audio equipment, several opposing terms may be used to describe the same component. secondly, without a definition of a term, a word may have different meaning when used by serious hobbyists.

there are 2 solutions.

first, lets have some definitions of commonly used adjectives, and post them where all can see them.
this may not be practical, so hear is solution 2:

describe the sound, instead of saying bright, say elevation in sound pressure in the range 1000 hz to 3000 hz. that is clear and specific.

if someone is looking for a cable wwith a particular sound, describe the sound specificalyy instead of using adjectives.

the word "polite" has idiosyncratic conotations. say what you mean by polite instead of saying "polite".

there still is an unavidable problem, namely differences in perception. someone may hear an elevation in spl in the bass (50 to 100 hz), while someone else may disagree, saying there is no increase in spl in that region.

differences in perception are unavoidable., but at least specifics make it easier to confirm or disconfirm a perception or opinion.
mrtennis

Showing 5 responses by mrtennis

mrtennis OP
3,295 posts
 
hi avguygeorge, i agree with you. when two people listen to the same system, there will be 3 opinions.

when the two listeners tell a third person, they may use different adjectives to describe that system, confusing the third person, or they may use the same adjectives differently.

zargon has the right idea. go to the stereophile glossary of terms and hope evryone is on the same page.

instead be direct. describe precisely what you hear.

my favorite is: "the cymbal sounded more like steel than brass" .
mrtennis OP
3,295 posts
 
there is a broader problem sdcampbell. it's variation in perception.

if the word bright is used, maybe you hear an elevation in sound pressure between 100 hz and 3000 hz and you use the term bright.

i might not perecive what you perceive when listening to the same stereo system you already heard.

it is better to describe directly what you heard. if you are listening to a recording featuring certain instruments, mention what they are and discuss what you hear using nouns.
of course there still is no guarantee that what you describe i will confirm if i heard it myself, but at least its a step in the direction of better communication. i don't want to have a 2 or 3 page list of terms and definitions in front of me when i try to understand an anecdotal narrative of a listening experience.
mrtennis OP
3,295 posts
 
hi plato. the problem is not definition. its perception. how confident can one be of hearing an elevation in spl in the range 1khz to 3khz. without a spectral analyzer, such a statement would be a conjecture.

however describing the "sound" of instruments in concrete, clear and easy to understand terms would eliminate the use of adjectives.

does the cymbal sound (more) like brass or steel ? again, its easy to listen to a cymbal, go to a music store, find a drum stick and strike the cymbal. it should sound like a brass object. one can, to some extent train one's ears to recognize the sound of different metals.
mrtennis OP
3,295 posts
 
hi gunbei, i think you're onto something. if you mean that the sound of the wood of the drum stick was more noticeable relative to the cymbal using the audience cable, relative to the acoustic zen, then i believe you have communicated clearly.

would you perhaps also mean that there was a difference in the balance, especially in the lower treble ?

the other comments about ear training are accurate and any anecdotal, subjective statements about the sound of steel vs brass should be taken in the context that a listener probably has not had sufficient training to make a definitive statement.

since most listeners and reviewers have not had rigorous training in the detection of instrumental timbral differences, subjective comments are at best taken lightly, like other subjective opinions.

unfortunately, making decisions based upon such comments can be risky.
mrtennis OP
3,295 posts
 
gunbei, you have good ears and clear prose. i wish all reviewers followed your example of clear and concise expression.
More to discover