Terminological Exactitude....

I mean in terms of interpretation of said definitions. You knew that, right?

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.

Sure. I just meant for the sake of discussion. It would be refreshing to experience consensus.

09-07-14: Csontos
Sure. I just meant for the sake of discussion. It would be refreshing to experience consensus.

heck, consensus was furtherest from my mind when I wrote that post, guys. what I was aiming at was that if the OP would first define the audiophile terms he/she is using in his/her post so that he could get the audience calibrated then that would make for a more productive discussion for him/her (the OP). Otherwise, we in the audience would be using our own definitions based on our own experiences & these would most probably be out-of-line with the OP & everyone would be pulling in different directions.....

It would be interesting to try to draw real conclusions regarding terminology. I have my own suspicions and would love to put them to the test.
If the ideal state is a flat frequency response with constant loudness and phase, then departures from this are/should be measurable.
Perhaps 'warmth' would be shown to be a mid-range hump, perhaps with extra second harmonics, and 'analytical' would be shown to be a peakiness above 3kHz?
Both qualities may suit a given listener, and I obviously have no criticism of this - taste is taste, and to each their own.
Ultimately, given the vast range of recording techniques and ears to hear them, a perfectly flat set of responses will enhance certain recordings and not others. I doubt whether any stereo system could 'improve' all imperfect recordings for all listeners. The situation would appear to be very fluid....and without a measurable end.
And we end up with 'warm', 'analytical' etc, used equally as terms of criticism and praise. They certainly mean something, but without the relevant graphs it will always be difficult to know what they mean.

Personally, I have given up trying to communicate what my system's qualities may be: I have a few thousand records and CDs, and some sound much better than others... After changing stereo components for forty years (finally settling on what I have now, and having no intentions of changing anything again) I have come to the conclusion that chasing qualities like 'analytical' is fruitless. There is simply too much variation in the recorded media. My quest for system qualities, and I think that many of us have have taken this journey, was a misguided search for qualities that some recordings have, but not others.

Terminological exactitude exists in the lab; it is a set of measurable attributes. If components are generally getting better, and I believe they are, then I imagine that the differences between 'good' components are getting smaller by the day. What remains is the media, and the variations within. Perhaps when we read of a component having an attribute, this is as much a critique of the recording as anything else?