2. misc-audio
  3. 1409587455

Terminological Exactitude....

This may be resurrecting an older thread - if so, apologies for beating an old drum...

If all sound, including music, consists of two physical properties, namely amplitude and frequency, then one could argue that much of the audio language we use is vague, and sometimes extremely difficult to understand.
For example, what are we supposed to understand by words like 'analytical' or 'warm'? My supposition is that these terms refer to peaks and valleys in the response curves, either amplitude or frequency based.

But since we apparently have very few absolutes in audio, and since most casual terminology is used within a morass of variables, there seems to be a communication gap. I know of at least one designer (of phono sections) that will design in small frequency anomalies to suit end users: these anomalous frequency curves no doubt are just what some people are seeking, given their already anomalous listening situations...

More of a comment than complaint: but it does render descriptions less than useful in many or most cases. Of course, as some will say, measurements are not everything. Indeed it may seem so - but it's always a question of exactly what is being measured. Maybe one day we'll get better at this, but I have doubts.
Until then we'll have to contend with the pseudo-scientific rather than accuracy of description. I'm thinking of a line I read from Salvatore's website - one I agree with wholeheartedly:

"Music is art; reproduction is science"

Comments?
57s4me
zd542
5,339 posts
 
"So, if I don't understand what your definition of "warm" or "analytical" is then I could off in left field by applying my definition & drawing wrong conclusions & giving bad advice. And, I've found this to be frustrating on several occasions.
So, if everyone was diligent in starting off their verbal descriptions with their definitions then we could cut each other a lot more slack & even be on the same page. But this seldom happens - I've to depend on my knowledge of "warm"/"analytical" & hope that the OP shares the same opinion."

I agree, but in the end, the person asking for the opinion of others needs to use that info responsibly. If they buy just based on opinions, its foolish. If they end up results they are not happy with, its no ones fault their own.
csontos
1,311 posts
 
I remember on a related thread not too long ago a link for a list of standard definitions was given presumably in an attempt to put everyone on the same page only to conclude our personal interpretations pretty well defeat the purpose. But what if along with such a list a companion set of audio examples were given with say a standard set of ear buds linked to a particular internet site? Now, whatever any of us hears for a given definition, is for all intents and purposes, an objective result. No need to try to get into each others' heads.
zd542
5,339 posts
 
"No need to try to get into each others' heads."

Then where are the ear buds supposed to go?
csontos
1,311 posts
 
I mean in terms of interpretation of said definitions. You knew that, right?
zd542
5,339 posts
 
Of course, I was just kidding. But going back to the point you were trying to make in your thread, I just don't think something like that would be very effective. Reviews and comments like this are really not meant to be the only source of info for making a purchase. At some point, someone asking for advice is going to have to listen to components, first hand, if they want to make the right choice. If they decide to bypass vital parts of the process, they have no one to blame but themselves if they are not happy with the results. You can't do the work for someone else, so even if definitions are not very clear, it shouldn't matter because that's why you need to demo equipment in the first place.
More to discover