The Words We Use To Describe Audio

[Flint]

I find the words we use to describe audio very confusing.

What is a "dynamic" sounding speaker?

What is it that makes LP records sound more "organic" or "full of soul & alive?"

Or, how can a tube amp sound "warm?"

All of these terms are used incorrectly all the time, but we've come to accept them as the words we use to describe sharp, boomy, and compressed in the case of speakers - cross-talk, phase shifting and distorted, in the case of LPs being organic - and - high even order harmonic distortion and dynamically limiting in the case of tube amps (depending on the design).

What is it about not wanting to hear what is on the source file as accurately as possible that encourages us to put positive terms on distortions to the reproduction we find pleasing?

I've actually heard people refer to a system being "too analytical" - as in, "I can hear all the details, flaws, and foibles the engineers and producers didn't address when recording the music, so I don't like it." Well... art isn't about perfection. Reproduction of art is entirely about perfect copies, right? The artist made the art the way they wanted to make it. We don't go to the museum and wear foggy glasses to make the art more to our pleasing. We don't go to the opera and wear blue lens glasses and put frequency filters in our ears. But we want to alter our reproduction of the art we pay good money for.

 

[CMonster]

I've actually heard people refer to a system being "too analytical"

I actually thought about starting a new thread the other day about this. Heeman and I traded several PMs over the past week about my C1s which made me think harder than I usually do about their sound. It also reminded me of a comment I made in past, maybe even at S&V, about certain speakers sounding "too detailed" (which I believe Flint called me out on for using that term). To me, there are some speakers that present individual sounds instead of a cohesive piece of music. B&W speakers. The Mackies. I just can't escape into the music when listening to those speakers because, to me, they don't present music; they present a bunch of seemingly unrelated distinct sounds. Is my brain just not sophisticated enough to put those sounds together? (Remember, I'm the one who hates Jazz because it seems like each performer in the band is playing a different song at the same time.) Is there a certain characteristic that makes speakers seem "more musical?" Has anyone else experienced what I've described?

 

[Zing]

I've actually heard people refer to a system being "too analytical"

I actually thought about starting a new thread the other day about this.

Good idea.

Done.

 

[Zing]

Has anyone else experienced what I've described?

Yeah, I believe I have.

I came to the (subjective) conclusion long ago that there are speakers for making music and there are speakers for listening to music and that I don't want to use one for the other.

 

[Flint]

Is there a certain characteristic that makes speakers seem "more musical?" Has anyone else experienced what I've described?

This is, again, another strange word I cannot seem to understand how it gets used or what it means. If you go into a room with a small combo bluegrass band performing and sit near them, you will be able to clearly differentiate each musician with ease. The banjo will be distinct from the guitar player who is distinct from the fiddler and so on. Somehow I feel that experience will be very musical. If you go to a club and watch a rock band play, it won't quite as clearly separated, but it will be very clear which instrument is which, how they play, where they are on the stage, and so on. The same goes for an orchestra or a church choir. In real life, watching and listening to real musicians, in most cases you get an obvious sense of separation of the instruments. (large outdoor venues and stadiums are the exception to this)

So, why would be more "musical" to reproduce that same music at home in a way which blends the instruments more together, to blur the separate sounds a little bit, to make it more difficult for your brain to single out one musician from the other?

Of course, nothing I am saying has anything to do with tastes and preferences. At no point am I saying it is wrong to not want this ideal I am preaching about. People should love what they hear and if that means the sound of an LP or less well-defined speakers, that is fine and should be pursued. I just wish we used words to more accurately describe those things. We should call the LP sound a filter which alters the original recording to something many find quite pleasurable. That is fine for them, but it isn't necessary "more accurate" or "more lifelike" or "more musical".

The term "musical", to me, is about capturing and reproducing the performance as it was performed - which means trying to be as accurate as humanly possible. The most musical experience, to me, is being in the room with the performers as they play. I was raised around musicians, lived in a musician filled world, and always desire to capture those amazing experiences the way I remember them. That means putting all my efforts into accuracy of reproduction. The most distinct the sounds, the better, because that is what it is like to be with the musicians as they play.

It isn't necessarily "better", just what I think of when I use the word, "musical."

 

[CMonster]

My speaker-listening nirvana was Paul Simon's "Homeless" on Dynaudio C2s. It truly conveyed that "right here in the room with me" experience and I could clearly hear separate, distinct voices, so I think you're correct about questioning the words I'm using. Unfortunately I can't think of a better way to accurately articulate my thoughts. I just know that I've listened to some highly-regarded and/or highly-priced speakers that have failed to allow me to connect emotionally to the music. When this happens, I usually think "sterile" and "overly-detailed." Maybe it's something as simple as exaggerated upper-frequencies that make me feel this way.

 

[Flint]

And I think that falls down to one's preferences. If a rock guitar player asked me for advice on speakers for his home stereo, I would more likely recommend a set of JBL PA speakers than a set of Dynaudio Contours because to a working rock musician the experience of a live performance over a PA is closer to nirvana than an intimate evening at the symphony or a non-amplified performance of a piano jazz trio.

When I was growing up, my greatest musical moments were in or near the performers. And, if the performance was being amplified over a PA, I was usually behind those speakers where you could hear the actual drums, bass amp, guitar amp and so on without the noise and distortion of the PA. So, for me nirvana is analytical in nature.

Most of us have learned that loud = distorted because developed that inherent view of things until we experienced a killer home system which could play loud without distortion. I once had a guy who was a genius live PA sound engineer ask me if it could go any louder while listening to my home rig in NM. I asked him if he was crazy and he said it wasn't anywhere close to the levels he was used to with his PA system. So I turned it up a few dB and he was still disappointed it wasn't louder. So, I pulled out the SPL meter and showed him the levels were well over 110dB SPL average, and he was floored. He said he never runs his PA at readings that high from fear of the OSHA police shutting him down and writing tickets. He has never heard those levels where the sound was so clean, it was just louder, not more distorted or "full and rich," as he called it. So, if one's tastes lean towards that sound, then pursue it.

Ultimately it is about loving the music that drew any of us into this hobby.

 

[heeman]

Back in the early 1990's a bunch of my friends had Klipsch Heresy's. They were the BOMB for us back then. I actually had Yamaha S4-115H PA bins that I used to play my keyboard through in high school and college and they ended up as my Home Stereo Speaker up until 1998 when I bought the Paradigm Studio 60's.

The recent update to the Vera's only because of the deal, the PSA MTM-210's and Now the C1's................they all sound very, very good and were upgrades from each other. The PSA not so much from the Vera's however their presences. There is one of those words. Was much more pronounced.

We all have different listening tastes and then there is the theoretical BEST SOUND. This may be great for Flint, but not Zing or Cmonster..................

This is a Shit Load of Fun, I think and can get very expensive................I have only had the C1's since Thursday, a few days now and at first I thought that maybe I made a mistake, however I have spent many hours with them over the weekend, and they have significant advantages, but is it worth the extra $$$...............for some there are great choices out there, the PSA Product I think is great!...........More comments to come I am sure.....

:twocents-mytwocents: :twocents-mytwocents:

:music-rockout: :music-rockout:

 

[heeman]

^ Our threads crossed...................

 

[heeman]

Van Halens; Fair Warning Album; Opening Song Mean Streets............was INSANELY GREAT on the PSA MTM-210's...............Concert Like!! :music-rockout: :music-rockout: :music-rockout:

Not so much with the C1's, not even close. However....................I may digress.............

This is what we are talking about here.......

Barb asked me "should we have a dedicated room for music listening and a separate Home Theater Room" I said "Now we will go down the rabbit hole and the cost will rise exponential".

HELP!!! HELP!!!! :happy-smileygiantred:

 

[Flint]

But it all gets back to the words we all use and those we see being used that makes this hobby so difficult to talk about.

A word like "musical" doesn't really have a meaning when it comes to audio reproduction. "Musical" could be used to describe how the sound of the train going by and the rhythm of the wheels clanging on the track seem to be "musical". But for a speaker? Or a CD player? What does it mean?

What about "organic" or "realistic" or "natural"? I've already discussed how "dynamic" is used in odd ways. What about "rich" or "full" or "analytical"?

If we go back to the true meaning of a word, then what do we mean by "clean"?

 

[CMonster]

Here's another tidbit. I know Flint has mentioned that when a song he loves is playing, it doesn't matter how good it sounds - he loves the song, the artistry involved, and is able to block out the fact that it might be an inferior reproduction. For me, if one of my favorite songs comes on the wife's satellite radio, I cringe and want to change the station because I can't stand hearing something I love with obvious compression artifacts.

 

[Flint]

Van Halens; Fair Warning Album; Opening Song Mean Streets............was INSANELY GREAT on the PSA MTM-210's...............Concert Like!! :music-rockout: :music-rockout: :music-rockout:

Not so much with the C1's, not even close. However....................I may digress.............

This is what we are talking about here.......

Barb asked me "should we have a dedicated room for music listening and a separate Home Theater Room" I said "Now we will go down the rabbit hole and the cost will rise exponential".

HELP!!! HELP!!!! :happy-smileygiantred:

Create a preset on your receiver/processor with an EQ boosting the treble and the upper bass a little bit. That should do it.

 

[Flint]

Here's another tidbit. I know Flint has mentioned that when a song he loves is playing, it doesn't matter how good it sounds - he loves the song and is able to block out the fact that it might be an inferior reproduction. For me, if one of my favorite songs comes on the wife's satellite radio, I cringe and want to change the station because I can't stand hearing something I love with obvious compression artifacts.

That is an obvious difference between us. For me it is always the music, even shitty sound cannot hinder my enjoyment of great art. Of course I prefer perfect playback situations, but I can love a song anytime I hear it. I often get lost in a song while out to dinner for work or with others and end up not paying any attention to the conversation. It is a bad thing for my relationships, but it is good for my soul.

 

[heeman]

Here's another tidbit. I know Flint has mentioned that when a song he loves is playing, it doesn't matter how good it sounds - he loves the song and is able to block out the fact that it might be an inferior reproduction. For me, if one of my favorite songs comes on the wife's satellite radio, I cringe and want to change the station because I can't stand hearing something I love with obvious compression artifacts.

Chuck, I spend at least 1 hour a day listening to tunes on my Trucks very cheap audio system going back and forth to work and there are days I say that I am going to get home go right into the theater and listen, only to be disappointed.................. Damn, this is difficult....................

There is material that is meant to sound great on High End System............................ :angry-tappingfoot: :angry-tappingfoot: :angry-tappingfoot: And other just will not!!! :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

 

[CMonster]

(By the way, I delayed starting a movie and have now had it paused part way through for almost an hour to participate in this thread. I'm really intrigued by this and wish others would join in. Hell, I just realized I left my phone in the HT and it's been a busy texting day given my wife is out of town and Batman is watching cheesy shark movies on SyFy...)

 

[heeman]

I am actually heading into the HT...................see you crazy people later...................... bscene-birdiedoublered: bscene-birdiedoublered:

 

[Batman]

^ I'm busy starting a thread titled "Words we use to describe the awesome movies on SyFy." "Cheesy" wasn't at the top of my list... bscene-buttred:

 

[Flint]

But if the art is great, why would it not be great on a killer system just because it sounds crappy at the source?

Would a Monet painting be better if it were reproduced into a photographic quality print and all the dots and brushstrokes were filtered out? NO! It is the lack of detail and how our brains put in what is missing that makes Monet's work so amazing! Would it be better if a symphony violin section were replaced with one player and a microphone/pa? NO! The blending of 15 to 20 violins in an symphony orchestra makes a meshed sound that composers used to their advantage. Sure, one player would be more detailed and crisp, but a section of 15 is so full and rich and lovely!!!

Maybe I don't get it. I do this for the music, regardless of what that music is. I don't want a modern band recording the original art with more detail and better techniques, I want the music I love to be presented to me so I can enjoy it with the least amount of distortion caused be me. If a painting of cloudy blurry "swishing" of wind and water requires my imagination to appreciate and enjoy, why can't a good piece of music be the same?

 

[Zing]

For me it is always the music, even shitty sound cannot hinder my enjoyment of great art.

I'm with you on this one. If I like a song, I'm happy to hear it playing from a single ceiling speaker in the grocery store.

And I think we'd all use the same word to describe the sound: shitty.