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
csontos
1,311 posts
 
Sure. I just meant for the sake of discussion. It would be refreshing to experience consensus.
bombaywalla's avatar
bombaywalla
1,958 posts
 
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.....
57s4me OP
30 posts
 
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?
More to discover