The Words We Use To Describe Audio
- Thread starter Flint
- Start date
Chiming in my :twocents-mytwocents: here, I want to make two points. (And stir the pot a little. :icon-twisted: )
What is the "correct" way to use any audio term? Flint, I will offer the personal opinion that you will never find objectivity in descriptions of audio experience. In fact, even to seek such is inherently flawed. Why? Because the experience of audio is subjective. We hear pressure waves that are translated into nervous impulses in our individual brains, processed through our subjective perception, and then we try to convert that into words (two utterly different subsystems in our brains), again using our own internal mental workings. How could this possibly be objective? And, more importantly, why should it be? Ok if an equipment manufacturer is trying to market something based on its "warmth" that's one thing, sure, but to criticize an individual for using such a term is a lost cause. People are not sound measurement devices. Art is not an objective experience. Music is emotional and personal.
When I try to describe what I'm hearing when, for example, doing evaluations of headphone gear, I'm not expecting anyone to believe me. I'm not trying to sell a product. I'm simply trying to put into words the differences I hear, if any, between different bits of electronics. Don't believe what I'm saying? Think I'm imagining things? Fine, whatever. I'm not doing it for you. (General "you" here, not Flint specifically.) I'm doing it for ME, and letting you all come along for the ride if you want, and perhaps giving you ideas on what to listen for in your own evaluations. Nowhere would I ever claim that I am any more or less objective or "right" about it than anyone else.
I find your inclusion of tube amps in the category of "pleasing distortion" to be both amusing and frustrating. Your assertion that solid state is necessarily cleaner (meaning less distortion) in every application and design is... well... arguable. I reject your assertion (or at least implication) that I prefer tube amps for headphones because "I like distortion." But, since this thread is about objectivity, I guess I can't defend my position, since I don't have laboratory measurements to back this up. :eusa-whistle:
Flint said:
What is the "correct" way to use any audio term? Flint, I will offer the personal opinion that you will never find objectivity in descriptions of audio experience. In fact, even to seek such is inherently flawed. Why? Because the experience of audio is subjective. We hear pressure waves that are translated into nervous impulses in our individual brains, processed through our subjective perception, and then we try to convert that into words (two utterly different subsystems in our brains), again using our own internal mental workings. How could this possibly be objective? And, more importantly, why should it be? Ok if an equipment manufacturer is trying to market something based on its "warmth" that's one thing, sure, but to criticize an individual for using such a term is a lost cause. People are not sound measurement devices. Art is not an objective experience. Music is emotional and personal.
When I try to describe what I'm hearing when, for example, doing evaluations of headphone gear, I'm not expecting anyone to believe me. I'm not trying to sell a product. I'm simply trying to put into words the differences I hear, if any, between different bits of electronics. Don't believe what I'm saying? Think I'm imagining things? Fine, whatever. I'm not doing it for you. (General "you" here, not Flint specifically.) I'm doing it for ME, and letting you all come along for the ride if you want, and perhaps giving you ideas on what to listen for in your own evaluations. Nowhere would I ever claim that I am any more or less objective or "right" about it than anyone else.
I find your inclusion of tube amps in the category of "pleasing distortion" to be both amusing and frustrating. Your assertion that solid state is necessarily cleaner (meaning less distortion) in every application and design is... well... arguable. I reject your assertion (or at least implication) that I prefer tube amps for headphones because "I like distortion." But, since this thread is about objectivity, I guess I can't defend my position, since I don't have laboratory measurements to back this up. :eusa-whistle:
I agree here with Flint, that if I hear a favorite song in the store, dentist office, liquor store, etc..........I love it!
It is when I listen to my favorite song on a great system, and it sounds like crap due to the recording, I get disappointed.
This happens often with the genre of music I grew up with and the much less than perfect recordings..........
I find myself enjoying this type of music much more in my truck than my HT.
It is when I listen to my favorite song on a great system, and it sounds like crap due to the recording, I get disappointed.
This happens often with the genre of music I grew up with and the much less than perfect recordings..........
I find myself enjoying this type of music much more in my truck than my HT.
PaulyT said:
When I say terms are used incorrectly, I mean the literal meanings of the words do not translate perfectly to what the speaker/author is trying to convey. The terms I've pointed out are examples of that confused language. I wish there were better words we could use, but so far I have not seen them used much. THis is why I was a huge fan of the old-school reveiwers in Audio and Stereo Review magazine. They stuck to facts and specific "perceptions" clearly stated as perceptions.
As for the tube statement - I put in the clause about the design playing a role as I know that tube amps can be designs to be just as clean and any solid state amp. I just see a huge push for the designs which are clearly intended to add even-order distortion, like low power single-ended triode designs, being pitched to the world as being "clearer" and "more natural" than transistor designs. That is what I mean by the use of distortion to generate a new sound which many find pleasurable.
Stop, wait a minute
Fill my cup, put some liquor in it...
would this also apply to the way we describe food?
sour?
sweet?
spicy?
tangy?
how can we justify calling it when the consensus of people generally assume sweet is sweet, or sour is sour?
what about smell?
sour?
sweet?
stinky tofu anyone?
Fill my cup, put some liquor in it...
would this also apply to the way we describe food?
sour?
sweet?
spicy?
tangy?
how can we justify calling it when the consensus of people generally assume sweet is sweet, or sour is sour?
what about smell?
sour?
sweet?
stinky tofu anyone?
heeman said:
I keep falling back on the analogy to visual art... If I look at the faded sketches by DaVinci on the internet or in a magazine, I am impressed and find a certain level of joy in viewing them. However, if I can go see them in person at a gallery, I am even more thrilled as I am able to see exactly what it is, without the changes caused by printing, image capture, or filters. The sketches are still faded and hard to make out, but they closer I get the what they really look like, the more immersive they are.
I see music the same way. Am I a little disappointed that the great music by the Replacements sounds like shit on everything you play it on? Sure I am. But, I learned to love that music regardless of the quality of the recordings, and hearing those recordings on the best sound system in the world only ensures I hear everything I can given the quality of the source. I don't skip over listening to them just because they are not very good sounding compared to other recordings I have. However, I would never call them reference recordings.
What Flint said sort of encapsulates why Im not all that interested in going to the N'th degree searching for audio perfection. If music I enjoy makes me happy (even over misplaced monitors which have no business playing music instead of making music) and I restrict my listening to music I like ... Then I don't need to drive myself crazy on my setup.
Don't get me wrong. I'd gladly trade my music making speakers for high-end music listening speakers. The pursuit is noble and I wish that I had the intelligence to understand all of the subtleties.
Don't get me wrong. I'd gladly trade my music making speakers for high-end music listening speakers. The pursuit is noble and I wish that I had the intelligence to understand all of the subtleties.
bscene-buttred:
yromj
Well-Known Member
This thread takes me back to the "Good Ol' Days" of the forum. Great discussion with multiple points of view.
Directly on topic of the title of the thread: I think that some terms actually have definitions and may be used incorrectly. However, over time the colloquial meaning tends to drift away from the actual meaning. For example, dynamics is essentially the ability of the speaker to convey intensity changes in the material. This is something that is defined and can be measured. Also, when describing speakers, the word bright is supposed to mean that the higher frequencies are accentuated.
Now for some general responses to things I've read earlier in this thread.
I found CMonster's discussions very interesting. He owns the speakers I would put in my theater tomorrow if I could. At first he was discussing why he didn't like the Mackies and I was thinking that love the C1s because they do some of the same things the Mackies do, only better. They provide detail without being harsh, bright, or sibilant, for example. He went on to say that perhaps he didn't care for some speakers because of the accentuation of the upper frequencies. (I was thinking exactly this when reading his post.) The next thing I thought of was that we know the Mackies have a flat response, even in a room. So, that might not be why he experiences things that way.
I do find it interesting, though, that he enjoys the C1s so much. Those speakers present such detail that you can easily hear separate instruments, even in complex arrangements. (By the way, you can tell from what Chuck's writing he's trying to understand some of these same things. This is one of the reasons he's so cool to talk with at GTGs.)
Well, I'll wrap this post up and post more in a bit.
Thanks for this discussion. It brings back some great memories!
John
Directly on topic of the title of the thread: I think that some terms actually have definitions and may be used incorrectly. However, over time the colloquial meaning tends to drift away from the actual meaning. For example, dynamics is essentially the ability of the speaker to convey intensity changes in the material. This is something that is defined and can be measured. Also, when describing speakers, the word bright is supposed to mean that the higher frequencies are accentuated.
Now for some general responses to things I've read earlier in this thread.
I found CMonster's discussions very interesting. He owns the speakers I would put in my theater tomorrow if I could. At first he was discussing why he didn't like the Mackies and I was thinking that love the C1s because they do some of the same things the Mackies do, only better. They provide detail without being harsh, bright, or sibilant, for example. He went on to say that perhaps he didn't care for some speakers because of the accentuation of the upper frequencies. (I was thinking exactly this when reading his post.) The next thing I thought of was that we know the Mackies have a flat response, even in a room. So, that might not be why he experiences things that way.
I do find it interesting, though, that he enjoys the C1s so much. Those speakers present such detail that you can easily hear separate instruments, even in complex arrangements. (By the way, you can tell from what Chuck's writing he's trying to understand some of these same things. This is one of the reasons he's so cool to talk with at GTGs.)
Well, I'll wrap this post up and post more in a bit.
Thanks for this discussion. It brings back some great memories!
John
yromj
Well-Known Member
heeman said:
I don't really think you need a separate room for music and another for HT. Set the room up for stereo music first, and let the theater fall into place after that. Place the seating, speakers, treatments, etc. for the 2 channel listening and everything will work out. The biggest obstacle to overcome is typically the screen. That can be handled in a few different ways by finding ways to place temporary treatments in front of the screen.
As far as the equipment goes, I don't buy into the theory that some speakers are good for music and others are good for movies. I will say that I think it's easier for speakers to sound good with movies than it is with music. Moreover, a speaker that can handle the subtleties of music can easily reproduce the sounds of a movie.
If you were going to build a room for stereo listening only, what would you do differently? Why can't you do that in the room you have now? How does having a screen and the surround speakers detract from that?
Just some thoughts.
John
TitaniumTroy
Well-Known Member
I'm going to agree with Flint, some of the undefined words that is used in the audio press and forum's leaves, me wondering what the person is really trying to say. I'm going to use the audio press as an example.
PRAT is a good one, it is usually used in reviewing speakers. It means Pace, Rhythm and Timing, which I can't relate to or understand.
I think Flint is trying to say if we used more commonly understood language, we could learn more from what the other person is saying. If I write a review of some speaker, some of it is for me, but a majority is for the reader. As I want that person to know what I heard from said loudspeaker. In order to get their feedback/opinion. Perhaps they were at the same audio show and felt the same way or they heard something different all together, and why they had a differing opinion.
I do miss the old forums dictionary of audio terms, for words I was unsure of their meaning. Of course you can just google or use wikipedia also.
PRAT is a good one, it is usually used in reviewing speakers. It means Pace, Rhythm and Timing, which I can't relate to or understand.
I think Flint is trying to say if we used more commonly understood language, we could learn more from what the other person is saying. If I write a review of some speaker, some of it is for me, but a majority is for the reader. As I want that person to know what I heard from said loudspeaker. In order to get their feedback/opinion. Perhaps they were at the same audio show and felt the same way or they heard something different all together, and why they had a differing opinion.
I do miss the old forums dictionary of audio terms, for words I was unsure of their meaning. Of course you can just google or use wikipedia also.