2. speakers
  3. 157011-41

What the heck do these terms mean?

I read a lot about audio equipment and some descriptions come up occasionally about the components sound qualities that to me are confusing. Most of the time I regard these descriptions as by someone with little knowledge about audio equipment that are trying to sound impressive.

Most of these terms are used in describing speakers but I have also seen them used on cables, amps , electronics of all sorts etc..
So, can someone help define these common descriptive terms?

1. Treble/ bass is dry- Huh? What does this mean?
2. Treble/bass is wet.- Huh? Again, what does this mean?
3. Organic sounding- Huh, huh?
4. Musical sounding.- What? Compared to non musical sounding?

The last one can be used with just about any description of any component or speaker performance.

There may be more...

ozzy

128x128ozzy
60 responses Add your response
twoleftears's avatar
twoleftears
5,318 posts
 

It's all about timbre and the timbral reproduction offered by the system. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/timbre

Timbre is what enables us to distinguish a violin from a viola, and a Stradivarius from a Guarneri.  Adjectives to describe the particular timbral reproduction of a given component can be hard to come by, beyond the most obvious ones.  Most languages are fairly impoverished, lexically speaking, on their literal level, so we have recourse to figurative descriptors.  This can easily get out of hand (qv. most wine critics).

atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,807 posts
 
While I am on my soapbox, why are so many reviewers using obscure recordings to describe the sound? If I have never heard the recording how can I relate?
Using the same recording over and over can be really boring. That's why there's a lot of music :)  The point here is simply that the writer is using a recording that he thinks he knows well enough, and thinks its recorded well enough, that its worth mentioning how it sounds in the context of the review. The simple answer is 'you can't'. Just roll with it :)
rodman99999
6,156 posts
 
For anyone, genuinely interested in audio terms, commonly used by reviewers, etc, here’s some reading from a few years back: https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html
duckworp's avatar
duckworp
257 posts
 
For anyone, genuinely interested in audio terms, commonly used by reviewers, etc, here’s some reading from a few years back: https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html
Thanks. That’s a really informative link.  Interestingly "organic" was not used back in 1993 though 'naturalness' was, maybe they are similar. 
kennyc
1,483 posts
 
For audio descriptions/terminology, here's a Stereophile Glossary link:
https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

+1 @ millercarbon -  the book "Robert Harley’s The Complete Guide to High End Audio"  is probably the best complete A to Z high-end audio book available written in easy to understand layman's terms.  Robert Harley is Editor-In-Chief of The Absolute Sound  magazine.
If you're an audiophile interested in audio gear, I'm 95%+ confident that you'll like/love this book.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Here are some CD specific terms I oft employ to describe the sound,

wimpy
like papier mache
thin
wiry
aborted
tizzy
edgy
dull
lifeless
treacle
dreck
jpwarren58
671 posts
 
Define your terms.
 I say start with Plato, them shift to Kant, and when your head is ready to say uncle finish with Spinoza.  Art, wine, whiskey, quantum physics...pick your rabbit hole. Words fail. But Lauren Bacall 1946, there you have it. If your music sounds like that....
Post removed 
Post removed 
slaw's avatar
slaw
21,491 posts
 
In the end, this thread seems to be a way to start a discussion. I,'m not aware why, but in the end, what I learned and have known, is to not make reviewer's writings a big deal in your life.
Log in to respond
More to discover
80x80
ATC SCM19A
80x80
Wisdom Audio Sage P-20
80x80
Focal Kanta No. 2