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.
Many unless terms ...I think involving takes the Cake as you can't argue it. On the other hand I think a great way to explain a great system is one word....surprising! Cheers
I rarely see "veils lifted" anymore. I suppose the phrase has been laughed out of audiophiledom and yet, I kind of miss it. Always made me laugh.
I despise "full loom". Makes me cringe every time I read it.
I will admit to using liquid, organic, and fatiguing. Each makes sense to me. For example, many moons ago I had a cheap Pioneer receiver and crap CDP which I tired of listening to after about 20 minutes. That's when I learned about the irritating/fatiguing nature of jitter. Now I have a lovely system with a nice liquid midrange .. very organic ;-)
"Surgically romantic" - Harry Pearson's description of the GAS Ampzilla in a TAS review published in 1976! This one mystifies me! Wish I had an Ampzilla! Still have two Son's and a Grandson!
Did anyone mention "inner detail" yet? As opposed to "outer detail"? Guys, it's "low-level detail" O.K.? Another is saying your collection of interconnects and speaker wire is a "loom" (gags). A "loom" is something to make cloth. Now a "harness" is used to focus power into something useful.
For an antithetical response, I think the term 'Je ne sais quoi' would be the bee's knees in describing a system's pleasing sound. A term I find useless is 'at a fraction of the cost'. OF COURSE it's at a fraction of the cost. Unless you're selling it at your exact purchase price, it's at a fraction of the cost. So, knock it off....!
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.
"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."
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!
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 )
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.
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. (:
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 ?
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!
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......:-)
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.
