Literary Transgressions of the Audio Community

[heroesunplugged]

This is one of my favorite reviews of all time. A review of reviews! Very entertaining and insightful. It addresses the subjectivity that goes into an article. I have read reviews that seemed like the writer was having a good time being creative. It is likely becoming more difficult to be on the "cutting edge" of having something new to say that hasn't already been said. Finding a new metaphor to describe sound has to be a difficult dilemma of great dimensions.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

No question about it. My favorite was, is, and shall forever be: Jaw-dropping.

If I had a dime for every time I was exhorted to listen to those, "jaw-dropping mids", I would have, well, a jaw-dropping number of dimes...

I wish I had a nickel for every time I had a jaw-dropping number of dimes.

 

[grimreaper46]

Now here is the problem. How do you evaluate any Audio product? There is no scale for how good an audio product is. So if there is no scale, the difference in Product A over Product B can not be stated.

Never mind putting a monetary value to the difference.

So if a reviewer can't say A is 20 points better or B achieves 70% of that which A achieves how can the reader know how to decide which is best and if that performance improvement is "worth it".

What is needed is a research project to produce an "audio goodness" scale. But who would fund that research? Certainly not the Manufacturers as only one product would be "best" and maybe not theirs. Not the Retailers, as anything other than the best (at whatever price level) would be unsellable. Not the HiFi Press as overnight they would be done out of a job.

Hence the interested party's have to use language to try and express ideas that cannot be described in words.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Now here is the problem. How do you evaluate any Audio product? There is no scale for how good an audio product is. So if there is no scale, the difference in Product A over Product B can not be stated.

Never mind putting a monetary value to the difference.

So if a reviewer can't say A is 20 points better or B achieves 70% of that which A achieves how can the reader know how to decide which is best and if that performance improvement is "worth it".

What is needed is a research project to produce an "audio goodness" scale. But who would fund that research? Certainly not the Manufacturers as only one product would be "best" and maybe not theirs. Not the Retailers, as anything other than the best (at whatever price level) would be unsellable. Not the HiFi Press as overnight they would be done out of a job.

Hence the interested party's have to use language to try and express ideas that cannot be described in words.

Well, a reviewer could start with an assessment of the objective qualities of a component. A "knuckle rap" test of a speaker can be measured. Frequency response can be measured - although such a test should be more comprehensive than the oft-quoted "+/- 3dB 20-20,000Hz". Then there is the quality of the materials used to construct it. Vinyl-wrapped or hardwood veneer? Well-braced MDF or un-braced particle board?

Then, there are the intangibles, such as aesthetics, i.e. does it look nice?

There may be no standardized scale to place a component on, but it can be compared with others in its price range.

 

[shadyJ]

Now here is the problem. How do you evaluate any Audio product? There is no scale for how good an audio product is. So if there is no scale, the difference in Product A over Product B can not be stated.

Never mind putting a monetary value to the difference.

So if a reviewer can't say A is 20 points better or B achieves 70% of that which A achieves how can the reader know how to decide which is best and if that performance improvement is "worth it".

What is needed is a research project to produce an "audio goodness" scale. But who would fund that research? Certainly not the Manufacturers as only one product would be "best" and maybe not theirs. Not the Retailers, as anything other than the best (at whatever price level) would be unsellable. Not the HiFi Press as overnight they would be done out of a job.

Hence the interested party's have to use language to try and express ideas that cannot be described in words.

There are objective measures of loudspeaker performance. As Go-Nad said, base frequency response and off-axis response, among other metrics. These can be aggregated into spatial averages that have been shown to correspond to listener preferences in audio research. Contrary to what many will say, there is actual science in audio reproduction.

 

[User5910]

Nicely done, thank you for the grins! Asking for our favorites drove me to spend an hour searching for this article which has lots of great imagery!:

• Tubes give "more emotional impact and three-dimensional imagery..."
• "'you are there' transparency and dynamics" provided by Zu Unions.
  
• "more pinpoint sound" resulting from Synergistic MIG anti-vibration feet under the amp placed with two domes down, one up.
• "more air and bloom" resulting from above feet placed two domes up, one down.
• Amps with directly-heated tubes sound "faster, more transparent and more dynamic" versus those indirectly heated.
• "improved shimmer on the cymbals" and many other benefits supplied by opening up a Bifrost and painting Anti Vibration Magic liquid on the glass of the fuse and taping ERS Paper, which "eliminates the deleterious effects of RFI and EMI", into the chassis.
• "Even more subtle inner detail emerged with a broader palate of tonal color" after giving a Calyx DAC the same treatment.

Let's not forget "pants-flapping bass". I enjoyed this the first few times I read it but it just isn't special anymore.

This reminds me that after a few seasons of Parts Unknown Anthony Bourdain stopped describing the taste of food because he ended up using the same words over and over again likening it to Penthouse Letters.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

Nicely done, thank you for the grins! Asking for our favorites drove me to spend an hour searching for this article which has lots of great imagery!:

• Tubes give "more emotional impact and three-dimensional imagery..."
• "'you are there' transparency and dynamics" provided by Zu Unions.
  
• "more pinpoint sound" resulting from Synergistic MIG anti-vibration feet under the amp placed with two domes down, one up.
• "more air and bloom" resulting from above feet placed two domes up, one down.
• Amps with directly-heated tubes sound "faster, more transparent and more dynamic" versus those indirectly heated.
• "improved shimmer on the cymbals" and many other benefits supplied by opening up a Bifrost and painting Anti Vibration Magic liquid on the glass of the fuse and taping ERS Paper, which "eliminates the deleterious effects of RFI and EMI", into the chassis.
• "Even more subtle inner detail emerged with a broader palate of tonal color" after giving a Calyx DAC the same treatment.

Let's not forget "pants-flapping bass". I enjoyed this the first few times I read it but it just isn't special anymore.

This reminds me that after a few seasons of Parts Unknown Anthony Bourdain stopped describing the taste of food because he ended up using the same words over and over again likening it to Penthouse Letters.

Great post. I always liked "pants flapping bass" but it always reminded me of "pants flapping farts."

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

Well there is Archaea's sleeping bag flapping bass

 

[desertrider]

Well there is Archaea's sleeping bag flapping bass

 

[lvb1770]

I have been reading those terms in audio journals and magazines for decades and have been glazing-over for that same amount of time. I keep it simple (in my head anyway) with the term "sounds good'. There have been times, though, where I heard a setup at an audio show that "sounds real good". Then I went home and listed to my system and thought this "doesn't sound too good". I then go about getting my system to sound better (to me, because I am all that matters in this case). I understand the use, and the need for the use, of these attempts to describe descriptively, they are to add interest in a world that constantly has to find new ways to be interesting, and sometimes it can be very entertaining. But, when it comes right down to it, you can't beat the good old "sounds good".

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

Your comment; to me, at least; sounds real good.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Auditor55]

Well there is Archaea's sleeping bag flapping bass

What so impressive about that?

 

[Auditor55]

What's wrong with "immersive" ?

 

[lovinthehd]

What so impressive about that?

I dunno, I didn't say it was....just an example of the phrase "pant flapping" with a sleeping bag instead of pants.

 

[Paul Scarpelli]

What's wrong with "immersive" ?

I suppose it's a good term, but it's been flogged to death, and within less than a year. Certain video is immersive. New surround technologies are immersive. I feel like I am immersed in the term immersive, which is actually ironic. Labored...breathing...cannot...get...air...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk