contradictory communication


some components have been described as warm and transparent. this is not possible. warm means subtractiion in the treble frequency range. transparency implies a balanced frequency response.

it is inconsistent to say warm and transparent.

it is inconsistent to say warm and detailed, because there is some loss of detail in the treble region when a component is described as warm.

i believe that as soon as you describe a component as warm ,there is some loss and one should be careful about any other adjectives used with the word warm.
mrtennis
gunbei you are very perceptive.

i now realize that i have been using terms in the absolute sense, especially philosphical persepctive of knowledge and other terms.

if one uses terms in the relative sense, one still has to be careful.

for example, all decent stereo systems are "somewhat" transparent. the question is how transparent, since none are absolutely transparent as all stereo systems have flaws, small and unintrusive, yet noticable.

it is reasonable to say that stereo system a seems to be more transparent than stereo system b, without specifying how transparent each one is.

another solution is to try to present a sonic picture of the music as heard through speakers without using too many adjectives. it is proabably sufficient to say " there is a lack of bass" or "an excess of treble energy" and communicate clearly.
Mrtennis, I like discussion threads where people compare the sonics of say amp A relative to amp B. Not really judging good or bad, but just how they differ sonically keeping in mind what they were matched with at the time. I think we people that read these discussions keep running tabs of the comparisons and form our opinions over the long term.

It's funny, because after participating in a few threads about the subject of sonic descriptive terms in the last month or so, it seems my definitions and understanding of these terms doesn't seem to jibe with the majority. Yet, I still end up with what I expected. Funny and odd.
My system is "translucent", which under certain conditions is far more appealing, like a beautiful stained glass window! I find translucent glass much more interesting than transparent glass (that is, IF you are interested in the GLASS, per se, as opposed to the object one is looking at THROUGH the glass)...

Likewise, do not the 'colorations' of the components add to the enjoyment? So, why not suggest the following, that the ultimate system is one in which the translucent effects of the components evoke pleasure in the listener as one hears back to the original (or shall we say, the "colored" version of the original?

But, of course, in reality I brought up the term "translucent" to further obfuscate (tee hee hee, get it?) the issue and because I am loquacious. But, then again, aren't we all?