First and foremost, I am not taking sides in the above banter, and as someone who has extremely limited abilities in the area of any language other than a North-Eastern United States variant of what once was English, I can only commend those individuals that are even passingly proficient in more than one dialect, let alone language.
However, this seems like an interesting thread where miscommunication is rampant so I thought I would chime in with a question that has intrigued me for some time. In fact, at the risk of hijacking the thread, I have noticed this issue has popped up several times in this very thread:
Although some words in some languages are readily used in multiple ways, I am wondering if the members of this forum have made a conscious and collective decision to use the term "acoustic" as a noun, rather than as an adjective, and if so, what does it mean? I notice that occasionally this term is used both ways in the same post or paragraph, and this possible misuse is definitely far more widespread than just in this thread or by the current members of this particular discussion.
Over the decades that I have been involved in the pursuit of an enjoyable aural experience, although there certainly may be other places unknown to me where this usage appears, this is the only forum where I have encountered the term "acoustic" being used as a thing, and not as a way of focusing attention on the type of something. e.g. - acoustic performance; acoustic level; acoustic quality; acoustic range, etc. When used as a noun, I am used to seeing the term "acoustics", as in "the room's acoustics" or, to use both variants in one phrase: "The acoustic properties of this material dramatically enhance the acoustics of the space."
Perhaps the distinction I am making may be lost on those who prefer to abbreviate most terms to something quicker to type, such as "ship" (noun? or verb?) used to infer a desire for a particular relationship to evolve into something more. This desire to reduce the number of characters typed also potentially reduces specificity, which would seem to run counter to the trend on this forum to wax eloquent on minutiae in the endless search for a perfect aural presentation in the space available to the writer.
Note that although I no longer possess the ears or the financial wherewithal to as fully enjoy the results of this quest as in past years, I do enjoy and occasionally benefit from the viewpoints and hardware references presented here. I have actually made purchase decisions based on what I have learned while browsing Audiogon threads, and I thank you all for sharing your knowledge, experiences and preferences.
I would be very interested in an explanation, from both the OP and other forum members of their interpretation of the meaning of the word "Acoustic" in the heading of the OP's opening post as I think it is directly related to his overall point that (and I paraphrase and condense to) "this stuff HERE sounds very different to the same stuff if I put it over THERE, which is very much due to the differing acoustic properties of the two spaces."
