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.
I think "mid-fi" is mostly a marketing term (as opposed to a sonic descriptive), usually understood to mean a brand (as opposed to a piece of gear) that is intended to bridge the presumed gap in sound, design, appearance and price between mass-market gear and hi-end audiophile gear. As a marketing, pricing, engineering and styling approach, mid-fi has been typified by brands such as NAD, Rotel, Adcom and Parasound. Whether this hierarchy of brand and price actually correlates directly with sound quality -- especially at the lower and higher ends of the mid-fi price scale, where there can be considerable overlap with the higher and lower ends of the mass-market and high-end price scales, respectively -- is another question, one for which the answer is probably often taken for granted. Although I've used the term mid-fi myself in these forums, one problem I can see with it is that it could be taken to imply that hi-end necessarily equals hi-fi (high fidelity) and mass-market necessarily equals lo-fi, both very questionable assumptions.
I have never liked the word 'fatiguing' to describe the glare and shrill qualities of an overly bright system. I don't get fatigued by it, it just sounds like crap.
Easy..."minty" I will not purchase anything described as "minty" on general principle. It sounds like a word an interior designer would use to describe the Mojito he just shared with his fashionista hair designer at the latest popular gay bar! Not something even remotely related to anything audio. Just stop using it idiots! Please!!
Didn't read through this whole thread, but my least favorite term in the audiophile world is "neutral." Speaking as a professional musician, I certainly wouldn't ever want that term applied to a performance, either of live or recorded music. Yes, I do understand why reviewers use it, I just think it is silly, as live music is most certainly not neutral, and one would never want it to be.
Dracule1, I have never heard a musician use the term "tonal color." We all use the term "tone color," and this term always refers to timbre, not pitch.
Fatiguing, jaw dropping, and neutral are all in the spirit of things!
Though fatiguing has become more than ubiquitous, it's true, a shrill or bright system doesn't leave anyone I know fatigued. Annoyed, irritated, or wincing, yes. Fatiguied, no.
Grant, you really hit the nail on the head. I've heard a lot of systems like so many of us. Never has my jaw ever dropped. I've been suprised or impressed, and sometimes, incredibly so, but never to the point where I was 1% close to jaw dropping. I find tracking those who tend to use it to demonstrate over time why I need to take their opinion with a grain of sale. My favorite is when someone makes what many would deem a small change, and then uses the term jaw dropping. Reviewers are probably more guilty of this than anyone, which is why reviews have become so utterly worthless. This phrase should hereby be outlawed, and I say we get involved whenever we see someone use it here.
Neutral, should be relegated to a term like accurate; something I always feel the need to challenge. I have no idea how accurate or inaccurate a component is, and I've never met anyone who had any competence in doing so, despite their confidence in being able to. Likewise, the more I think about it, as much as the term neutral is used, the less I feel any component could be described as neutral. Even the so called straight wire with gain component to impart some identifiable sonic signature. Well, perhaps a passive preamplifier comes closest to being deserving...
Chashmal said: "I have never liked the word 'fatiguing' to describe the glare and shrill qualities of an overly bright system. I don't get fatigued by it, it just sounds like crap."
Well, you've probably got the good sense to stop listening as soon as you hear the glare; however, if you didn't, then you'd be fatigued. ;-)
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.
Most useless adjective: Palpable (I second Montytx, who named this one earlier.)
Most useless noun: Continuousness (I've seen this in reviews in Stereophile several times and I have no freaking idea what the hell they're talking about). Anyway, it is not even a word.
I've been trying to get my mind around that term for some time. Does it mean extended bandwidth? Does it mean greater resolution or transparency of the high frequency information? Does it mean increased high frequency response, as in 'bright'? Is it a coded message that the sound will seem 'bright' to many users and need some sort of compensation from other components in the system?
When I see this term used I see it more as a red flag than a positive. Go figure......:-)
Extended highs works for weather and pot though. I agree that it's difficult to find an adequate vocabulary to describe sound or the character of sound or the reproduction of sound. But as imprecise as most of these terms prove to be what choice do we have if we want to communicate with each other about the subject? Obviously agreement on the meanings of terms would be a good beginning but as imperfect as our language might be, it's all we've got!
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 ?
Tvad, LOL. Now not to impede communication, let me describe the following episode, for which I'll never use the term "bright" again, thanks to our learned friend: Just listened to a solo violin recital on CD with the g-sting (sic) at 1875 hz , the tremolo first starting at 57.5db with its crescendo after 75msecs at exactly 87db,where sudden peaks occured at 7325 hz oscillating between 59 and 67.5db. Listening to the same Partita on LP no such peaks were observed. (:
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.
Guys and or ladys, In the absence of sound, words or gestures are all we have. I guess we should just refrain from using any additional words and simply say SURE SOUNDS GOOD !!! Yeh, lets make that the apex benchmark for future. Or perhaps there are other injustices to rail against.. Just a thought, ( using words of course )
Until today I don't get it when people say "DARK-sounding amps". What does that mean anyway? Does "dark" amps sound any different from "warm" amps? Is there any correlation between dark, warm and shut-in? These adjectives can sometimes be so confusing!
The adjectives have pretty well been covered, but I'm very partial to phrases such as this one from reviewers: "No bass to speak of, shallow soundstage,closed-in,rolled-off in t he highs, not the last word in resolution, but you owe it to yourself to put this speaker on your short list." Damning with faint praise indeed.--Mrmitch
"Until today I don't get it when people say "DARK-sounding amps". What does that mean anyway? Does "dark" amps sound any different from "warm" amps? Is there any correlation between dark, warm and shut-in? These adjectives can sometimes be so confusing!"
Go to Stereophile.com and type "glossary" in the search box to bring up J. Gordon Holt's interesting glossary.
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."
Thanks for the information Nyctc7. I can still associate "warm" with sound as with mellow but cannot really relate "dark" with sound. Dark relates more to sight with the absence of light but anyway now I know the word has the same meaning as warm and mellow. I guess the word "dark" has come up since the antonym is "bright", and bright is the opposite of dark. That makes sense.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
