What the heck do these terms mean?

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.

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....

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

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.

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. 

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

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 :)

I remember, from the mid-80s, "Chocolate Mid-Range and Butterscotch Highs".  It actually made sense, back then.  It's funny, now.

As long as the hi-fi system sounds good to me, I am satisfied. 

Like wine.....

I think those terms are often used to describe differences heard with harmonics. 

ozzy the lack of reviewer consensus is why it's good to find a reviewer you like, and stick with that person. That way you get to know their biases and what they mean when they describe something.

In terms of obscure recordings not sure if you stream but these days I can often find the recording a reviewer is using on Qobuz or Tidal.

I had speakers that were wet in the lower regions once. Some nice adult undergarments did the trick. 

I think you guys have done a great job trying to define these various terms. 
However, sometimes the reviewer may use the same terms to describe something that sounds good and sometimes not so good.
I do wish there was a consensus as to how they use the terms.

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?

ozzy

@geoffkait,

You forgot
... Like fox chasing a hound.

OK, here are a few more terms for you guys to ponder over.

Congealed
Generic
Two dimensional
Boomy
Like papier-mâché
Compressed
Grainy
Entertaining
Convincing
Liquid
Hollow
Strident

I'm still expanding my mind, man....

Frankly, the terminology and descriptions don't put me off all that much.  It may help some when the reviewer refers to a particular artists' recording, perhaps the portion of such that tweaked a comment...

But then, one has to duplicate same if possible to determine WTH they're referring To....

At that point, go listen for yourself with Your selection(s).
That's what you live with.

"This is the best 'X' I've listened to since...."

At home, sounds like 2 cats over a clothesline.
Go figure....

Without good desriptive terms, I guess we're left with ( good, great, bad?) 

Listening to "So".... Tony Levin’s bass lines have always sounded what I refer to as "liquid".

+1 @nonoise

A transistor radio can sound great if the song moves you but it won't inspire you to pen an ode to the sound. Don't be jealous of someone who can put to pen what he feels in his soul. He's just trying to relate, not impress.

All the best,
Nonoise

The solution of to how to best describe sound in writing is simple.
Don't try.

The only way it should be done is via A/B employing your ears.

In other words, do the reviews on Youtube with audio
actually demonstrating the point a reviewer is trying to make.
Now you say the audio quality sucks on a laptop. 
You could still discern differences between wet and dry,
fat and skinny, Polite and forward. 

Using the written form to describe audible differences is 
not going to work. People will simply read the material and
then make an interpretation that seems correct.
Highly inaccurate methodology it seems to me.
 
Admittedly this might abbreviate most written reviews by 80%
but hey it is our time they are wasting.

Ozzy welcome to the world of audiophiles.
Thank you for showing us the Emperors New Clothes! 

Let's hope this economic shakedown brings a sobering reality
long needed back to audio.

Musical is a term I use to describe lower bass registers. They can be sluggish, muddy, slow, too crisp/tight....... To me, the opposite of these terms is musical.

Organic, to me is a great discriptive term in audio. Like when everything is performing as it should, with no hint of over-exaggeration in any part of the frequency range. The music just flows naturally.

"...what makes a Strad a Stratocaster??? "

Pickups and the player....although the traditionalists would have someone drawn and quartered, slowly...:)

Considering the 'range' of music and it's diversity of 'characteristics' (Is that a fair term to apply?) and variety..

Shouldn't equipment, and especially speakers, be able to render nearly anything that the artist and the engineer wrought?

'Fat basslines'....'crisp' drumlines with 'impact'....solo violin, played against a 'velvet' silence....all with 'clarity'.

'Fuzztones' by an guitar intro....echos that remain sharp into silence, or within a mix...

You are what you hear....and how....and where....

Enjoy it, J

Ignore all,this nonsense!
its 10$ words to sound sophisticated, dribble

if you like the sound of your stereo, it’s great!

 These reviewers, are full of BS, AND paid by the companies to make their products sound good w fancy words.

 Air around instruments,  live in my room, celestial sound, do t be a fool bro!

 If you think it sounds great, that’s what matters, don’t believe these dipshi*es!

 Enjoy. The music!

Jody can come over anytime, Talisker or no, she IS poetry

Poetry, perfect. Sometimes you get it and sometimes you don't. I feel that organic thing sometimes. Other times I think it is just way too pedestrian. Crazy thing it is the same recording through the same system. Sometimes my brain is in one frame of reference and sometimes it is in another. I am saying that the physical equipment is not all that goes into making something sound wet or dry or organic or musical or beautiful or cruddy or rich or poor or whatever you want to call it. Equipment and recording quality helps but there have been many times where I fell in love with an LP but came back later to say it is just ok. Nothing changed except for my mindset.

This is like Jodie Foster's character in the movie Contact. When she comes upon a celestial event and tries to describe it, she simply says, 
"They should have sent a poet."

All the best,
Nonoise

1. Treble/ bass is dry- Huh? What does this mean?

Lacking in a natural ambience/reverb

2. Treble/bass is wet.- Huh? Again, what does this mean?

Too much ambience/reverb

3. Organic sounding- Huh, huh?

No unnaturalness such as peaks and dips in the frequency response and not grainy

4. Musical sounding.- What? Compared to non musical sounding?

See organic

ozzy the problem is hearing is really not a relatable sense the way other senses are. Taste most people can taste sweet/bitter/sour/ etc different flavors of food are broadly recognizable. Touch same thing. Sight short of being color blind people see colors the same blue is blue etc. But hearing is both more elusive and more subjective. And there’s some standard terminology but plenty of folks, reviewers mostly, coming up with their own adjectives. In terms of the ones you mention:

Wet/dry- I usually see this in terms of overall sound not treble/bass think of it this way to use a very broad generalization wet is tubes dry is SS. Does that make sense?

Organic sounding- To me this means sounding less like a recording and more like people making music in your room.

Musical- To me this is a synonym for warmth in a system though not always. I think it can be kind of a je ne said quoi thing or like porn you know it when you "hear" it.

Hopefully that makes a bit of sense.

My understanding of these terms:

1. Treble is "dry" - Analogous to being etched - the treble lacks dimensionality and warmth.  Imagine a mallet striking a cymbal - it should have richness, warmth, and a (not unpleasant) sense of reverberation.  If, by contrast, it sounds like you are hitting a steel plate with a nail, that is a dry treble.  However, I am not familiar with bass being "dry"  - maybe something like a paper cone woofer that lacks depth?  I am not sure the analogy quite fits.

2. Bass is "wet" - rich, but also somewhat slow / plodding.  However, the idea of a "wet" treble is for me the inverse of a dry bass - not sure what it means or how the analogy fits.

3. Organic - integrated and of a whole.  Nothing stands out unnaturally.   You don't notice one particular quality over others, they all just fit together.  I.e., in accord with the definition: "denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole."

4. "Musical" - a BS term.  It means nothing.  Basically lazy writers use this to characterize equipment they like (or want readers to believe they like).

@edcyn come over anytime, well not actually... but you get the drift ( most drifts are organic, until they’re not )

God, I hope there is ice, partially melted in a nice slick in the Scotch, a Talisker would be fine....

of course, there are no words available to describe Talisker....

How is it that quality science fiction or historical fiction is able to magically come alive, this despite a more than decent chance the writer wasn't on the scene, vid-cam or notepad in hand to accurately crunch the details?  Why are aesthetics so important to us?  Why do numbers so often fail when trying to accurately document emotional responses?  Sure, getting high is great, but how is it that such an objectively miserable-tasting potion like Scotch can taste so good?


In other words, escape your objective straitjacket and embrace the subjective.  It's what makes art art.  Sure, it takes a lot of science to create quality audio gear, but in the end it's the taste of a component's creator(s) that is the straw that stirs the drink. 

There is of course the myopic, I know it only when I hear it crowd... what a small sample size to live life by....

try this experiment: look at your spice rack ( count unique ) then head out to a foodie place - just do the count.....

tough to try them all....

wonder how we will know.... what’s next ????

They mean nothing.

Cars, wine, violins, cigars, fish, high end audio..... Flyrod.....

define crisp tactile turn in with a whisker of oversteer ?

ya, thought so

riding along ( verbally or otherwise ) will never be the same as driving....

so as humans ( maybe ) we are left with words...

what makes a Strad a Stratocaster???

Here is a few more I just read in Stereophile.

5. Slight dryness- maybe just a little wet?
6. Liquidity- still wet or is this wetter?
7. Color- In the late 60’s I remember some colors while playing music, but not so much these days.

ozzy

Pomade,  Dapper Dan, and Baby oil..., predate them all. LOL

I get it..

Regards

Think of the treble as Brylcreem vs Vitalis

@isochronism Thanks, lol. I don't think the under 60 crown (either of you) will get it.

I find that to be the case with Sarjan but not his staff writers. He can be quite clever with this word smithing and then too clever by half where he then loses me and I find myself rereading what he wrote.

His technical explanations are a joy to read as he explains how and why certain components interact successfully or not but it's when he gets too poetic (very commendable old school techniques) is when my eyes start to glaze. 

All the best,
Nonoise

The biggest culprit is Six Moons reviews. They are always full of lots of words that mean very little to my understanding of how the component sounds or relates to another piece of equipment.

ozzy

Dry, wet, organic, musical - it reminds me color selection in a movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s33ScN4D-HU

Crack me up... I love the describers of things.. Cables descriptions get me rollin' on the floor.  I swear, sounds like someone explaining food, to me... Just yummy.... Or Betty built well's Gams. These long, lean, well structured, cables are magnificent... LOL

Regards

I think it’s hard to convey what you hear, thats why these terms exist.

 Organic to me would be the opposite of digital sounding.  I guess it would be a fuller, richer sound with more underlying tones. Organic would be smoother and less etched or zippy.  Organic to me would be LP’s vs CD’s.  Digital playback has become so good though that the lines get blurred.

Musical to me means more warmth or pleasing colorations.  Musical, to me, would be the opposite of Cold, thin and analytical.  Musical has more “meat on the bones” in my opinion.

I suppose we could better describe what we hear if we used terms like attack, decay, compressed, headroom, noise floor, peaks, nulls, palpable, holographic...terms that are easily defined and understood.

Thank you for help in trying to understand those descriptions. As they all are very subjective to wild interpretations.

When I hear, Musical and Organic terms, to me, they sound like terms trying to describe something for sale or used to impress someone... I mean, who wouldn't want the item to sound "Musical"?  Organic is still a smelly connotation to me.

ozzy

It is not nearly as easy to describe sound as it is to read about it. Also, properly, the description should be of the system, not the individual component. The only exception to that might be after many systems have been used and a pattern emerges in regards to the involvement of the component under assessment, or in direct comparison to another. 

I suspect the person was attempting to use the terms "wet" and "dry" as synonyms for discussion of fullness of the bass, i.e. wet would be a richer, fuller bass, and dry would be thinner, lighter bass. It could also refer to tonal character, as in wet being warmer and dry being cooler.
I would not use those terms in that manner, but that is perhaps where they were headed in use of them.

"organic" and "musical" are wide open terms. I recently discuss in a review how, when a system is improved, even synthesized notes can take on a more organic sound to the ear, more like an acoustic instrument’s note. I typically understand organic as unvarnished and raw, not sounding processed.

"musical" is fairly a throw-away term in description of music. Entirely subjective in definition and application.