2. misc-audio
  3. 1150283549

Your vote: Most Useless Audio Adjective

From what I've seen in online audio discussion forums such as Audiogon, words like warm, taut, wooly, and forward can upset even died in the wool audiophiles. While some may have a hard time getting their arms around them, most of the terms seem quite appropriate to me. You have to develop some list of terms in order to convey a description of a component's sonics, or to delineate it from another component.

However, I have noticed the description "self effacing" creeping into more and more reviews, and it flat out boggles my mind. Initially, it seemed to fit into the context it was being used - affordable or downright cheap gear, that was fun and lively. However, now that I've read the term being used to describe quite a serious piece of high end kit, the time has come to point out how ridiculous things are getting.

I had to laugh out loud thinking of the snootiest, most condescending audio dealer I know who was carrying this brand. Using the term "self effacing" with anything had to do with this guy was akin to describing Phyllis Diller a young, hot sex symbol.

What is your most useless audio adjective???
trelja

Showing 6 responses by mrtennis

mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
most adjectives are ambiguous because they are subjective and have idiosyncratic conotations.

for example, "bright". what does it mean ? i believe, it means a peak in the range 100hz to 3000hz ?

what does it mean to someone else ?

also, how does one translate a qualitative variable into a quantitative one ?

nouns and description are easier to understand.

another problem is that most adjectives are threshold based. this means that it depends upon someone's ability to perceive changes in "sound". if 2 listeners are reporting an experience of auditioning a stereo system, one may say "i hear thinness", while the other may disagree.

there is the issue of aural acuity and what constitutes thinness to each listener.

thus, there are too many variables involved in using an adjective which reduces the clarity of communication.

even a simple description such as " i hear an excess of treble harmonics" and is subjective and not necessarily replicable.

such a statement is preferable to "i hear brightness" .
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
hi trelja, i try to follow the motto "do no harm" .

since most adjectives are ambiguous because the intended meaning may not bge the same as the perceived medium, it may do more harm than good and motivate a decision involving an investment of funds and then disappointment.

referring to your food analogy.

it is sufficient to indicate the cut of meat without any adjectives. i will taste it and form my own opinions.

if there is fat surrounding the steak, say so. anything which is easy to confirm is useful, but often subjective comments could be tricky.

i know, life is dull without adjectives, it's hard not to have an opinion where adjectives are used, however, i guess one accepts opinions with good graces and makes the best of them
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
there have been many adjectives mentioned so far that have been criticized as not useful. can anyone mention an adjective that is useful ?

most adjectives are ambiguous and do not have a predictable denotation. it is preferable to describe in a sentence what you are trying to say rather than using one word.

as an example, instead of using the word "bright", describe what you mean, namely an audible peak in the range 1000 to 3000 hz.

there are many descriptors which are imprecise that audiophiles consider useful, such as deep bass, wide and deep sounstage, richness, warmth, detail, resolution, etc. . while connotations may be perceived, there is much disgreement as to the definition of the aforementioned terms.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
here's another ambiguous adjective, namely, "analog".

since there are so many turntables, arms and cartridges, it is hard to know what "analog" means. perhaps, someone could define the term.
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
adjectives are ambiguous in their denotation. take the adjectives, hot, cold, sweet, sour...... .

they have no precise meaning because they are both qualitative and quantitative. they impede communication.

why use them in an audio discussion when it is possible to be direct when explaining an intention.

for example, instead of saying bright, specify the base and upper frequency and magnitude, if possible.

there are other words which can be translated into a short sentence which is clear to the reader, so that the reader doesn't have to guess, or rely on a connotation which may be unique to him/her.

adjectives may be useful stylistically, but they often impede communication. why is it so difficult to avoid using them, whenever possible ?
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
hi detlpf:

you have factually described your listening experience, assuming that your observed frequences and spl are correct. you have also compared a cd to a recording. you have made no statement about a stereo system.

you have not used the word "bright", nor has it been defined.

as far as the words quantitative, qualitative, ambiguous and stylistically, they have a specific definition.

whereas words like hot, cold, sweet, sour do not have specific definitions.

i may consider hot any temperature exceeding 80 degrees, while you could consider hot as temperatures exceeding 90 degrees. if you use the word hot in a sentence, i am not sure what you mean, unless you posit a threshold temperature.

thus you could say the temerature is 90 degrees. it would not matter uf that was a designation of hot. all i need to know is the temperature.

audio communication could specify frequencies and sound pressure levels, without any adjectives. let the reader decide the significance of the numbers.
More to discover