2. misc-audio
  3. 1148020518

minimze ambiguity when describing audio components

i have noticed and i myself am guilty of using adjectives when trying to describe the "sound" of audio components.

the words, warm, bright, dull, dark, to name a few are ambiguous terms for two reasons.

first, we hear differently. when serious listeners are evaluating the sound of audio equipment, several opposing terms may be used to describe the same component. secondly, without a definition of a term, a word may have different meaning when used by serious hobbyists.

there are 2 solutions.

first, lets have some definitions of commonly used adjectives, and post them where all can see them.
this may not be practical, so hear is solution 2:

describe the sound, instead of saying bright, say elevation in sound pressure in the range 1000 hz to 3000 hz. that is clear and specific.

if someone is looking for a cable wwith a particular sound, describe the sound specificalyy instead of using adjectives.

the word "polite" has idiosyncratic conotations. say what you mean by polite instead of saying "polite".

there still is an unavidable problem, namely differences in perception. someone may hear an elevation in spl in the bass (50 to 100 hz), while someone else may disagree, saying there is no increase in spl in that region.

differences in perception are unavoidable., but at least specifics make it easier to confirm or disconfirm a perception or opinion.
mrtennis
mrtennis OP
3,295 posts
 
hi avguygeorge, i agree with you. when two people listen to the same system, there will be 3 opinions.

when the two listeners tell a third person, they may use different adjectives to describe that system, confusing the third person, or they may use the same adjectives differently.

zargon has the right idea. go to the stereophile glossary of terms and hope evryone is on the same page.

instead be direct. describe precisely what you hear.

my favorite is: "the cymbal sounded more like steel than brass" .
plato
1,543 posts
 
Avguygeorge, I used to think that was true, but now I think you've got it backwards. That is to say, a particular cable will have a particular sonic signature. Its physical and electrical properties do not change after break-in. However, the different systems (and different locations within a system) where the particular cable is placed will vary quite a bit. This doesn't change the sound of the cable -- the sound of the system, as a whole, is what varies/changes...
sdcampbell
2,136 posts
 
Whether or not a cable or interconnect has a particular sonic signature, I think MrTennis is suggesting that we adopt a different set of descriptors. I understand his point, but disagree with the idea. It has taken audiophile magazines and hobbyists several decades to try to develop an audio "language" which is -- while still rather imprecise -- largely understood by most of us. My "bright" may not be exactly your "bright", but at least we understand the premise. There is also some merit to having a commonly accepted shorthand for describing audio qualities. So, I for one would rather stick with the language we have already have.
plato
1,543 posts
 
Sd, I think Mrtennis is suggesting that we define the terms we already have -- not change them or make up a new set. Additionally, he would prefer it if we used more specific scientific language instead of the customary audiophile subjective terms, which can vary in their scope of meaning from person to person...

That said, I'd like to be 6'2" instead of 5'9". :)
mrtennis OP
3,295 posts
 
there is a broader problem sdcampbell. it's variation in perception.

if the word bright is used, maybe you hear an elevation in sound pressure between 100 hz and 3000 hz and you use the term bright.

i might not perecive what you perceive when listening to the same stereo system you already heard.

it is better to describe directly what you heard. if you are listening to a recording featuring certain instruments, mention what they are and discuss what you hear using nouns.
of course there still is no guarantee that what you describe i will confirm if i heard it myself, but at least its a step in the direction of better communication. i don't want to have a 2 or 3 page list of terms and definitions in front of me when i try to understand an anecdotal narrative of a listening experience.
More to discover