Annoying Audio Terms

[majorloser]

I'm just being foolish.

Regards

How atypical for you. Must be a full moon.

 

[ironlung]

Orange juice?

I'm going to get hammered you can drink whatever you want!

 

[JohnOAS]

JohnOAS,
I'm in complete agreement with you in regards to those terms. They are meaningless. I've been struggling with those terms since day one here and don't feel I understand them anymore now than I did back at the beginning of the year.

I'm thinking that the only way to actually "learn" what these terms mean is to go with one our fellow audioholics to a listening session where they can actually point out each term in a real-life experience of speakers and receivers.

Until then, I still have no idea what "bright" or "warm" are supposed to sound like.

I'm not convinced that going along with an audioholic would be entirely helpful. At best, you'd learn what that particular peson thinks "warm" sounds like. The more responses I read, the more I believe that there are no universal, or even broadly coherent definitions. Take a different audioholic next time and you'll get a different take. Most people will agree with "poor bass response" or similar, more mundane terms, although there's still the degree of the effect to argue about.

Talking to a fundie might teach you a lot about fundamentalism, but it won't <i>necessarily</i> get you any closer to the truth. Before y'all get your pitchforks out, I wasn't equating audioholics and fundies, it was just a metaphor for my own amusement. Plus, no one's accused me of offending them in the last few minutes.

 

[My Rantz]

So is this a comparitive study between the good folk here at Audioholics and the good folk over at Ecoustics John? Lets us know the winner

 

[JohnOAS]

Most of these terms are fairly well understood by knowledgable audioheads. Others may take some exception, but here are my brief descriptions:

bright - Usually a mid/treble emphasis, with attendant lack of bass fill. Think metal tweeters.

I think it would be more accurate to say well <i>recognised</i> rather than <i>understood</i>. The more responses I get, the more it seems definitions vary significantly from audiohead to audiohead. Notice your own use of "usually" above. There's no real need for "usually" when talking about phrases like "lacking in midrange" or "higher SPL".

The comment about "the lingo" is spot-on. These terms arise from necessity. Describing sound is exceedingly difficult. Having more-or-less commonly understood terms is crucial to communicating about audio, or nearly anything. These terms are a small part of the best efforts of the "audio collective" to relay what they perceive to others.

Unfortunately, I think it is more <i>less</i> than <i>more</i>. I don't think describing sound is <i>that</i> much more difficult than describing other things. Difficulty in articulating an observation, be it auditory, visual or otherwise, is no reason to be support the proliferation of vagueness.

So, mock if you will. I think you'd spend your time better trying to learn what these terms mean by listening to different systems though. You might learn something.

I'm honestly not sure listening to another hundred systems, even assisted by those more knowledgable than myself (of which I admit there are plenty), would get me any closer to firming up any of those definitions. I am learning something though.

I will continue to mock, although not you personally in this instance. You would seem to be a sensible specimen of homo-audioholicus, as opposed to a member of pretensheus maximus. I may also resort to using rational argument and general discussion where there is some hope of it having an effect. The mockery helps bring the subject out in to the open and makes identifying some ridiculous examples a little easier. Besides, it can be fun.

 

[JohnOAS]

Comparitive Studies

So is this a comparitive study between the good folk here at Audioholics and the good folk over at Ecoustics John? Lets us know the winner

It wasn't intended to be so. Originally I posted the topic in audioholics while reading a thread in the Ecoustics forum. Different tabs in Firefox with John not really paying attention to which forum tab was active at the time. You know how these things happen.

It may be interesting however, to accumulate the "in support of" vs "frustrated by" statistics between forums. I'll post them if/when I do so. I might leave it a while seeing as there's still a bit of activity in both threads. Thanks for noticing.

 

[miklorsmith]

JohnOAS - J. Gordon Holt literally wrote the book "The Audio Glossary". If all audioheads read this book, we could all communicate with a consistent lexicon. As it is, we all have different experiences and have to rely on integrating our experiences with what others say to formulate our own definitions.

http://www.hificollective.co.uk/books/bk7001.html

I see it's available on Amazon too.

As for using more precise terminology, it's a noble goal. But, phrases like "lacking bass" or "prominent midrange" might give a general impression of the tonal balance, but many of the dimensions of loudspeaker performance are more complex. Transient ability, soundstage traits, and the character of sound comprise many more elements than even those you listed originally.

Of course, just saying one thought Speaker 1A had good tonal balance but was slightly muddy in the bass gives the reader SOME idea, but really the description has to get more creative and flowery to describe the true essence of the experience.

I think in reading reviews it's important to have some idea of what the reviewer's tendencies are. You might find you agree or not with that reviewer's preferences, or what their hot buttons are. Reviews without context are nearly meaningless.

You seem like a smart guy, and I can use a productive debate now and again.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'm not convinced that going along with an audioholic would be entirely helpful. At best, you'd learn what that particular peson thinks "warm" sounds like. The more responses I read, the more I believe that there are no universal, or even broadly coherent definitions. Take a different audioholic next time and you'll get a different take. Most people will agree with "poor bass response" or similar, more mundane terms, although there's still the degree of the effect to argue about.

Talking to a fundie might teach you a lot about fundamentalism, but it won't <i>necessarily</i> get you any closer to the truth. Before y'all get your pitchforks out, I wasn't equating audioholics and fundies, it was just a metaphor for my own amusement. Plus, no one's accused me of offending them in the last few minutes.

True. Most of these terms are subjective. A person who likes horns won't describe Klipsch speakers as bright or harsh as someone who prefers silk dome tweeters would.

 

[JohnOAS]

Glossaries

JohnOAS - J. Gordon Holt literally wrote the book "The Audio Glossary". If all audioheads read this book, we could all communicate with a consistent lexicon. As it is, we all have different experiences and have to rely on integrating our experiences with what others say to formulate our own definitions.

http://www.hificollective.co.uk/books/bk7001.html

I see it's available on Amazon too.

I'll keep an eye out for it, and add it to my list of books to buy & read. Is this work generally regarded well within the industry? Would you say there's a good correcaltion between the definitions in it and those used by professionals in the industry?

As for using more precise terminology, it's a noble goal. But, phrases like "lacking bass" or "prominent midrange" might give a general impression of the tonal balance, but many of the dimensions of loudspeaker performance are more complex. Transient ability, soundstage traits, and the character of sound comprise many more elements than even those you listed originally

I agree with you that there are more complex issues than simple frequency response related ones. I think the problem is expecting a single word to encompass a plethora of features. The user of the term knows what "musical" means to them, but the problem is, that definition really only applies <i>to them</i>. The same term, unfortunately, means different (perhaps similar) things to different people. I don't see how terms so abused by so many are ever going to do the job adequately. Simpler terminology may be an unattainable goal in pure terms, but I think it's better than supporting terms that definitely aren't up to the task. While it's not as elegant, sometimes we may just have to accept that it's going to take more than a simple phrase to describe an acoustic observation.

You seem like a smart guy, and I can use a productive debate now and again.

Why thank you. I must say it's nice to have a disussion with someone prepared to do more than just assert their case and bluster. I can always visit religious discussion forums if I need some of that

BTW, I found a couple of other glossaries which may be of interest:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/part2/
http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/114726.html

Being of a scientific nature, I am still somewhat surprised to see such a total intermingling of precise and vague terminology. It's simultaneously amusing and scary!

 

[JohnOAS]

True. Most of these terms are subjective. A person who likes horns won't describe Klipsch speakers as bright or harsh as someone who prefers silk dome tweeters would.

True, but shouldn't we aim towards using terms that convey objective information, rather than outright opinion? I understand that total objectivity is impossible. Preference needn't (<i>shouldn't</i>) come into it when comparing component A to component B, unless of couse personal preference was the request.

I'm happy for someone to say, "<i>I prefer A to B because of Y</i>", I just want the <i>Y</i> to be as specific and transparent (there's one of them terms!) as possible. Otherwise all you're really saying is I prefer A to B because it sounds better to me. True perhaps, but not terribly helpful.

 

[Buckle-meister]

I'm happy for someone to say, "<i>I prefer A to B because of Y</i>", I just want the <i>Y</i> to be as specific and transparent (there's one of them terms!) as possible. Otherwise all you're really saying is I prefer A to B because it sounds better to me. True perhaps, but not terribly helpful.

To whom? You? A person may say "I prefer A to B" for whatever reason they like. If they are stating a preference, they cannot be judged, nor should they be.

Regards

 

[JohnOAS]

Preferences

To whom? You? A person may say "I prefer A to B" for whatever reason they like. If they are stating a preference, they cannot be judged, nor should they be.

I wasn't trying to stop people from expressing an opinion. However, if one is trying to provide information to another in order to be helpful, the opinion alone isn't of much value unless the reason is comprehensible.

If I say I prefer A to B because of it's superior "roundness", you have no idea whether or not you may or may not agree with me unless you have some idea of what I mean by "roundness".

I have no interest in "judging" anyone. The purpose of this thread was to disuss the meaningfullness of various terms. You can write "XYZ rules" anywhere you like. Pure opinions are not the issue here.

BTW, people can be, and are judged on preference all the time. If I say I prefer cheap pneumatic airline style headphones over those with actual drivers, I'm bound to be judged. Would you value my opinion on speaker reviews after I expressed this preference? That's a somewhat trite, but illustrative example. Try expressing a strong political or religious preference and see how "un-judged" you are.

 

[Buckle-meister]

If I say I prefer A to B because of it's superior "roundness", you have no idea whether or not you may or may not agree with me unless you have some idea of what I mean by "roundness".

True, but that's not a problem. If I am confused, I'll ask. If I'm still confused, I'll take a listen myself and see if I can correlate my thoughts against anothers. And if I'm still confused, I'll say something along the lines of "I don't get it". It's not the end of the world simply because I can't quite see something that someone else can. It happens all the time.

At the end of the day, I would never consider purchasing speakers, amps or any audio equipment based on the subjective preference/description of another. Oh I'd be interested in what others might think, and I may well audition equipment on their recommendation, but when it came to purchasing, my own counsel would form the basis of my decision of whether or not to buy.

I have no interest in "judging" anyone. The purpose of this thread was to disuss the meaningfullness of various terms.

If the meaningfulness or lack thereof of audio terms was this thread's purpose, then titling it as "Annoying Audio Terms" wasn't so clever wouldn't you say?

By all means correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression you do not like the subjective nature of phrases like 'bright' and 'fast', and would not have them used given the choice. Yet many people do not require a more comprehensive description; they already understand what these words mean without having to have it spelled out for them.

...people can be, and are judged on preference all the time. If I say I prefer cheap pneumatic airline style headphones over those with actual drivers, I'm bound to be judged. Would you value my opinion on speaker reviews after I expressed this preference?

Hard though it may be to believe, were you to say you preferred cheap pneumatic airline style headphones over those with actual drivers, the value I would hold of your opinion with regard to speaker reviews would not change because in the former case you are simply stating a preference, whereas in the latter case, you would (I would like to think) be stating facts.

Regards

 

[mulester7]

......Buckle, JohnOAS said you punched him in the nose and took his lunch money....anything to that?......

 

[JohnOAS]

True, but that's not a problem. If I am confused, I'll ask. If I'm still confused, I'll take a listen myself and see if I can correlate my thoughts against anothers. And if I'm still confused, I'll say something along the lines of "I don't get it". It's not the end of the world simply because I can't quite see something that someone else can. It happens all the time.

True, but why continue using terms which can only lead to confusion. Many terms (and this is the crux of why I think they're annoying and un-useful) are so poorly defined or taken to mean a variety of different things, that they can do little else.

At the end of the day, I would never consider purchasing speakers, amps or any audio equipment based on the subjective preference/description of another. Oh I'd be interested in what others might think, and I may well audition equipment on their recommendation, but when it came to purchasing, my own counsel would form the basis of my decision of whether or not to buy.

I'm sure you, and many people on this forum, are quite capable of making informed choices when purchasing. I don't see that as an excuse for the poor understanding and terminology used by many in the industry. Just because doctors may understand the effects of poorly labelled or described pharmaceuticals, I don't think we ought to encourage people go out and buy this brand of drug 'X' because it's more "pharmaceutical" than the other one.

If the meaningfulness or lack thereof of audio terms was this thread's purpose, then titling it as "Annoying Audio Terms" wasn't so clever wouldn't you say?

Their lack of meaningfulness is the primary reason for their being annoying, IMHO, so I have no problem with the title of the thread.

By all means correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression you do not like the subjective nature of phrases like 'bright' and 'fast', and would not have them used given the choice. Yet many people do not require a more comprehensive description; they already understand what these words mean without having to have it spelled out for them.

They have an understanding of what it means <i>to them</i>. There's very little guarantee that the person uttering the phrase to them intended it to have the same meaning. I'm of the opinion that ignorance is <i>not</i> bliss.

Let's say you understand a "coolio" bank note to be one worth $10. My understanding of a "coolio" note, however is a $5. (Let's assume we're both talking about the same country's notes, no need to over-complicate the example) How about we swap 15 of my "coolio's" for 10 of yours. We're all happy with our definitions and don't need them spelled out for us, we both believe we're getting a good deal, what's the problem?

 

[Buckle-meister]

...why continue using terms which can only lead to confusion.

Freedom of speech?

Many terms (and this is the crux of why I think they're annoying and un-useful) are so poorly defined or taken to mean a variety of different things, that they can do little else.

Is this thread only meant to apply to dealers, or the general public too? Because I'm afraid you are in for a shock if you think you are going to change the general public's use of seemingly ambiguous terms.

I'm sure you, and many people on this forum, are quite capable of making informed choices when purchasing. I don't see that as an excuse for the poor understanding and terminology used by many in the industry.

I agree. In an ideal world everything would be rosy. But as I said before, it's a little naive to expect dealers to do otherwise, and as you may have gathered, I see nothing wrong with individuals expressing themselves with whatever terminology suits them. Don't hold your breath waiting for either situation to change anytime soon.

Just because doctors may understand the effects of poorly labelled or described pharmaceuticals, I don't think we ought to encourage people go out and buy this brand of drug 'X' because it's more "pharmaceutical" than the other one.

I can't imagine that pharmaceutical labelling says things like "hands will feel fleshy" and "legs will feel sandy". I don't know about you, but any drugs I've ever been prescribed have typically been called some long lettered complicated sounding name and have given instructions like "take twice daily". There certainly hasn't been any ambiguity.

Their lack of meaningfulness is the primary reason for their being annoying, IMHO, so I have no problem with the title of the thread.

Of course not; you wrote it! We appear to be going round in circles. At the end of the day, there will always be certain people like you who will find such terms ambiguous, and others like me who don't mind them at all.

They have an understanding of what it means <i>to them</i>. There's very little guarantee that the person uttering the phrase to them intended it to have the same meaning.

This passage could be applicable to speech in general!

I'm of the opinion that ignorance is <i>not</i> bliss.

Then we will have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I believe that ignorance can be bliss.

Let's say you understand a "coolio" bank note to be one worth $10. My understanding of a "coolio" note, however is a $5. (Let's assume we're both talking about the same country's notes, no need to over-complicate the example) How about we swap 15 of my "coolio's" for 10 of yours. We're all happy with our definitions and don't need them spelled out for us, we both believe we're getting a good deal, what's the problem?

When I travel abroad, it doesn't matter what I think a currency is worth, I go to the bank and buy a certain amount of my currency in another currency. The bank will then apply the exchange rate. Simple.

......Buckle, JohnOAS said you punched him in the nose and took his lunch money....anything to that?......

He started it! (did too, did not, did too, did not)

Regards

 

[ironlung]

Wtf

I thought this thread was about use of profane language in forum posts!

My speakers sound purple. You should buy some!

 

[JohnOAS]

It's, like, a metaphor.

Freedom of speech?

Are you serious? You're going to use knowingly ambiguous terms <i>just because you can</i>? You realise that freedom of speech also allows you to say something which isn't ambiguous, or are you only interested in exercising rights that inconvenience others? I don't think people should be stopped from using the terms at all, but I would much rather they became a little more informed, in which case most people would probably choose the less ambiguouis term.

Is this thread only meant to apply to dealers, or the general public too? Because I'm afraid you are in for a shock if you think you are going to change the general public's use of seemingly ambiguous terms.

The thread is for anyone interested. I would think that changing dealers awareness would be more likely to be effective due to trickle-down, but it's not the only solution. Does the fact that I can't convince everyone mean that I shouldn't try with anyone? As a philosophy, that's very defeatist.

But as I said before, it's a little naive to expect dealers to do otherwise, and as you may have gathered, I see nothing wrong with individuals expressing themselves with whatever terminology suits them. Don't hold your breath waiting for either situation to change anytime soon.

Again, I know you can't change everyone's mind, but it doesn't hurt to try. I don't imagine your approach to audio is "It will never sound perfect, so I won't bother trying". You have prompted me to think of a more pro-active course of action though. I'm seriously snowed under both at work and home at the moment, but I think there are things that could be done that would help a lot.

I can't imagine that pharmaceutical labelling says things like "hands will feel fleshy" and "legs will feel sandy". I don't know about you, but any drugs I've ever been prescribed have typically been called some long lettered complicated sounding name and have given instructions like "take twice daily". There certainly hasn't been any ambiguity.

I think you missed the point. It was an <i>example</i> meant to illustrate a point, namely what would happen <i>if</i> audio-grade terminology was used in in pharmaceutical labelling. The pharmaceuticals industry is somewhat regulated to protect us from this sort of nonsense, and the real risks it would result in.

Of course not; you wrote it! We appear to be going round in circles.

You think I don't have a problem with the title just because I wrote it? I think you've got the causality somewhat confused. You may not agree with my opinion, but my opinion and thread title were aligned in meaning quite well, certainly less ambiguously than the terms we've been discussing.

At the end of the day, there will always be certain people like you who will find such terms ambiguous, and others like me who don't mind them at all.

I like that I'm "certain people". Am I to assume that you don't find them ambiguous, or, that you simply dont mind ambiguity? If it's the latter, does that make you "ambiguous people" ?

This passage could be applicable to speech in general!

Of course there's always <i>some</i> room for misinterpretation, but I think you're drawing a pretty long bow. "It sounds like there's a serious hole below 500 Hz", and "It's a lovely, mellow sound" are poles apart in terms of ambiguity, don't you think?

Then we will have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I believe that ignorance can be bliss.

I can live with that. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Ignorance is occasionally convenient, but as a philosophy applied to an area of knowledge I'm interested in, like audio, I'd rather be informed than not. In a subject I'm less interested in, like say, basket weaving, I'd be less concerned with my level of ignorance. If this was a basket weaving forum however, I may be chided for this approach, and deservedly so.

When I travel abroad, it doesn't matter what I think a currency is worth, I go to the bank and buy a certain amount of my currency in another currency. The bank will then apply the exchange rate. Simple.

Of course you do! Again, it was an <i>example</i> intended to show that ambiguity isn't necessarily a good thing. Why is it that you take my examples literally, but like your audio terms subjective? The point is, there often is no "exchange rate" governing audio terms.

He started it! (did too, did not, did too, did not)

I'm guilty on that one I guess.

 

[miklorsmith]

John, please spend less of your considerable intellectual resources trying to change the audio-planet's lexicon and more listening to different systems.

Every commentator is coming from a different place. Consider the source. If you find a writer that connects with you, pay much attention to what they say. Assign value based on prior, common experience. What people write can be very useful and other times not at all.

Many consider Srajan Ebaen's writings over-flowered and lacking in content. I feel completely the opposite - his writing of components I have heard matches my observations closely.

There is no training regimen for audioheads, no curriculum for writing about it, and no standards I know of other than Holt's book. If someone just says their sound is mellow, they aren't saying much. You'd probably get more out of that term in the context of a full review however.

I repeat: There is NO substitute for personal experience. How do you describe colors to a blind man? Drunkenness to a teetotaler? (sounds fun) The voice of experience is filtered, quieted or silenced to the inexperienced ear.

In other words, don't assume the static you're hearing is coming from the sending end.

 

[Buckle-meister]

You're going to use knowingly ambiguous terms <i>just because you can</i>?

Yes, it is called expressing myself. Your sentance is poorly constructed; it is a question which places the suggestion that I use ambiguous terms simply for spite in the mind.

Nice try.

You realise that freedom of speech also allows you to say something which isn't ambiguous, or are you only interested in exercising rights that inconvenience others?

Again, please don't try to put words in my mouth.

I don't think people should be stopped from using the terms at all, but I would much rather they became a little more informed, in which case most people would probably choose the less ambiguouis term.

You have no way of knowing what term the majority of people whould choose to use.

I think you missed the point. It was an <i>example</i> meant to illustrate a point, namely what would happen <i>if</i> audio-grade terminology was used in in pharmaceutical labelling.

It was a poor example. Buying audio equipment is, no matter how we may feel about it, a luxury. Medicine is not.

You may not agree with my opinion, but...

I have no issue with your opinion whatsoever.

I like that I'm "certain people". Am I to assume that you don't find them ambiguous, or, that you simply dont mind ambiguity? If it's the latter, does that make you "ambiguous people"?

And again you attempt to put words into my mouth. I did not infer that you were some derogatory 'type' of person. You simply misinterpreted.

"It sounds like there's a serious hole below 500 Hz", and "It's a lovely, mellow sound" are poles apart in terms of ambiguity, don't you think?

Yes.

Again, it was an <i>example</i> intended to show that ambiguity isn't necessarily a good thing. Why is it that you take my examples literally, but like your audio terms subjective? The point is, there often is no "exchange rate" governing audio terms.

Why do I take your examples literally? Perhaps because I'd expect a person arguing for precision to be precise.

I am not, and have not written at any time that ambiguity is always a good thing. What I am saying (again and again and...) is that I see nothing wrong with people using ambiguous terms if that is how they wish to, or simply naturally express themselves.

This is getting tedious.

Regards