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
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.
plato
1,543 posts
 
Ah, Mrtennis, I see part of your problem. The term "bright" is rarely used to describe the sonic range between 100Hz and 1000Hz. To me, upper-midrange brightness is between about 2kHz and 3.5kHz; lower treble brightness is between 4kHz and 10kHz, and upper treble refers to sounds over 10kHz. But 100Hz is very definitely a bass frequency...
mrtennis OP
3,295 posts
 
hi plato. the problem is not definition. its perception. how confident can one be of hearing an elevation in spl in the range 1khz to 3khz. without a spectral analyzer, such a statement would be a conjecture.

however describing the "sound" of instruments in concrete, clear and easy to understand terms would eliminate the use of adjectives.

does the cymbal sound (more) like brass or steel ? again, its easy to listen to a cymbal, go to a music store, find a drum stick and strike the cymbal. it should sound like a brass object. one can, to some extent train one's ears to recognize the sound of different metals.
bmr3hc
4 posts
 
It seems Zargons' post and suggestion to use the "glossary"
by Stereophile would be a good start at the very least; until someone comes up with a better idea.
More to discover