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 gunbei, i think you're onto something. if you mean that the sound of the wood of the drum stick was more noticeable relative to the cymbal using the audience cable, relative to the acoustic zen, then i believe you have communicated clearly.

would you perhaps also mean that there was a difference in the balance, especially in the lower treble ?

the other comments about ear training are accurate and any anecdotal, subjective statements about the sound of steel vs brass should be taken in the context that a listener probably has not had sufficient training to make a definitive statement.

since most listeners and reviewers have not had rigorous training in the detection of instrumental timbral differences, subjective comments are at best taken lightly, like other subjective opinions.

unfortunately, making decisions based upon such comments can be risky.
mdhoover
695 posts
 
"No audiophile or--more importantly--audio reviewer has ever subjected himself to that level of ear training, which is precisely why subjective reviewing is worthless, no matter how tightly you try to control the language they use. Your holy grail doesn't exist."
-Pabelson
That could well be true. There are at least two "Ear Training" courses available in CD format, by David-Lucas Burge*. I own them both but have been too undisciplined to go all the way thru them (my bad, but at least I'm honest).
The Perfect Pitch ® Ear Training SuperCourse

{{{*FOOTNOTE: No conflict of interest exists--I don't work for him or sell the product or personally know anyone (or even OF anyone) who sells the product.}}}
gunbei
2,327 posts
 
Mrtennis, that's exactly what I was trying to relate. I was pretty shocked that such subtle nuances could be discerned. I noticed this contrast in the midrange as well.

Mdhoover, boy, that disclaimer at the end really is "mouse type", heheh.
mrtennis OP
3,295 posts
 
gunbei, you have good ears and clear prose. i wish all reviewers followed your example of clear and concise expression.
gunbei
2,327 posts
 
Thanks Mrtennis, but in the case of the AZ/Audience comparison I did allow myself 5 months to discern these differences, heheh.
More to discover