Annoying Audio Terms

[JohnOAS]

You're going to use knowingly ambiguous terms just because you can?

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.

I apologise if you think my poorly constructed "sentance" contained some attempt at subterfuge. My suggestion was almost entirely aligned with the meaning you seem to think I was hiding, the only difference was that I wasn't implying any spite. I was posing the question as to whether or not you were exercising your right to free speech by deliberately using ambiguity at times.

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.

OK, I'll admit that was a little provocative in tone. It was however, inspired by my (still present) surprise that it seemed to me that you were genuinely implying that there's some cause for the use of deliberate ambiguity as a means of "expressing yourself".

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

Absolutely true. However, would you not think (hope?) that given an informed choice, people would prefer a term more likely to be interpreted with the intended meaning than not? Are you disagreeing with the premise, or suggesting that because we can never know the choice a given population will make, that we cannot speculate on any choice they might make? Note: I'm not attempting to put words into you mouth here, I've suggested two possibilities, and you are of couse welcome to provide your own interpratation, assuming mine is incorrect.

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

I believe that's somewhat of a "straw-man" defence. I agree that the scope for negative repurcussions is very different between the pharmaceutical and audio components industries. However, the purpose of an example, metaphorical or otherwise, is to illustate the underlying concept, not to posit the specifics of the given example as a true representation of reality.

(To extend your argument somewhat: Buying a car, it could be successfully argued, is also somewhat of a luxury. Most people however, would not be too happy with only being told by the salesperson, that it gets "mellow" fuel economy, and expecting that to be good enough.)

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.

I made no attempt to put words into your mouth. I also did not interpret your classification as in any way derogatory. I was attempting to state that I'm happy to be a part of the "some people" you described as finding such terms ambiguous, hence the sentence "I like that I'm "certain people". I think the misinterpretation here was in the other direction. The literal interpretation of this sentence (as you are, by your own admission, wont to expect) means exactly what I intended it to mean.

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

Your expectation of precision is prefectly reasonable. However, precision as applied to the use of terminology (the primary subject of this thread), is not the same as requiring all examples to be taken as literal. An example/simile/metephor that represents the original argument when taken at 100% of it's literal meaning, is no longer an example/simile/metaphor, but has become, to all intents and purposes, an exact copy of the original argument itself.

This is getting tedious.

Fair enough. I appreciate that I have a tendency to beat an argument to death on occasion.

Thinking about the issue as a whole, I've come to the solution that a more worthwhile enterprise might be to actually establish some repositiry of terminology for the audio (and perhaphs wider) community to contribute to, which could become a reference of some sort over a period of time. I'm thinking of something like a wikipedia reference. I'fe done a superficial search and there doesn't seem to be anything in place at the moment. When I have some more time, I'll start a new thread with this suggestion and take it from there.

Regardless of our disagreements, I've enjoyed the exchange, and assure you I've meant no personal animosity. Most of us (myself included) tend to interpret "attacks" on our opinions as attacks on our persons at times.

 

[majorloser]

Don't you just love it when a couple of engineers go at it?

Precision arguments about nothing..............................

 

[Buckle-meister]

My goodness. Resurrection anyone?

I was posing the question as to whether or not you were exercising your right to free speech by deliberately using ambiguity at times.

There is no 'deliberate'. This implies that I think of the choices and take one path. In practice, I simply speak my mind, and in this context, ambiguous descriptive terms come out.

OK, I'll admit that was a little provocative in tone. It was however, inspired by my (still present) surprise that it seemed to me that you were genuinely implying that there's some cause for the use of deliberate ambiguity as a means of "expressing yourself".

Refer to previous answer. Those who use subjective terms are not making a conscience choice.

...would you not think (hope?) that given an informed choice, people would prefer a term more likely to be interpreted with the intended meaning than not?

This would seem logical. (my way of grudgingly saying yes )

Are you..suggesting that because we can never know the choice a given population will make, that we cannot speculate on any choice they might make?

No, of course not. Statistical methods may never be able to tell us anything with 100% certainty, but they'll still very accurately (sometimes with only a small sample population) predict the answer to questions.

I appreciate that I have a tendency to beat an argument to death on occasion.

And I can be very stubborn. I enjoy debate, but in the past found myself in the middle of arguments. I do not enjoy arguing. For that reason, I am curbing my sometimes very itching fingers to jump into threads in the hope that I do not fall out with anyone, as that has never been my intension.

No hard feelings.

 

[highfihoney]

Does anyone else get annoyed by meaningless touchy feely terms used by sales staff and pretentious audiophiles?

Some of these have semi-intuitive meanings (like accurate), but tend to get used out of, or entirely without, context. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions, definitions and of course, your own favourite annoying terms/definitions.

bright - I know many people accept this as meaning an over-emphasisin the mid to top end, but which is it really?

dark - I might use this to describe a song, and would think that you'd maybe catch my drift, but WTF is a dark amp gonna do for me?

delicate - I know I'm not supposed to poke my speaker cones with a screwdriver, what else is delicate about my speakers?

grainy - I know what a grainy photo is, but how about grainy sound? Something recorded with an 8 bit ADC perhaps?

harsh - Distorted I can understand, harsh seems a little wishy washy to me.

mellow - This is a mood as far as I'm concerned. Or a word used by one tool to help relieve another tool of some extra cash.

punchy - How do I measure this in my scope, is it an impulse response thing?

silky - What does my amp need to do to the waveform to make my favourite Van Halen track more "silky". Seriously, "silky" ? Sheesh.

warm - I particularly hate this one, it's so goddamm new-age. Please educate me if there's a good, usable definition.

zippy - Punchy, but in a more annoying way perhaps?

That'll do for now. Let 'em rip people.

i agree but only to a point,the whole audiophile terminology has been taken way too far,i see review's where these term's are used to describe frikken power cord's.

im a firm believer that there are difference's in sound between component's that are similar in design,speaker's,amp's preamp's & such & i find it very difficult to explain most of the differences that ive heard without using one or two catch word's along the way,i try to avoid using most terms but some must be used in order to convey a difference.

 

[ironlung]

I need help!!!

I need to design a bridge. It has to have beefy supports to hold a bunch of weight. It has to be pretty long too. I needs to have clearance underneath for the pointy boats with the things on top.

 

[Buckle-meister]

I need to design a bridge. It has to have beefy supports to hold a bunch of weight. It has to be pretty long too. I needs to have clearance underneath for the pointy boats with the things on top.

Oh! Oh! I know one! And, he likes to use subjective terms like 'beefy' and 'bunch of weight' too.

Not to hijack the thread, but here's a quote I think fabulously sums up Engineering:

Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, this in such a way that the public and customer has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.

 

[majorloser]

Oh! Oh! I know one! And, he likes to use subjective terms like 'beefy' and 'bunch of weight' too.

Not to hijack the thread, but here's a quote I think fabulously sums up Engineering:

Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, this in such a way that the public and customer has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.

LMAO!!!!

That quote just got forwarded to a bunch of people!