The audiophile vernacular

DaveyF · Apr 16, 2011

I just read the latest issue of Abbo Sound and in particular the review by HP of the new Maggie 3.7's. What struck me after reading the article was the change in how HP described some of the "supposed" many positive attributes of this speaker. Over the years, HP has coined ( for want of a better term

) many of the descriptions that we now use to describe what we hear.
What struck me this time was how very difficult it is to describe the various incarnations and differences in sound that a speaker and/or system can produce.
The usual terms...imaging, stage width, depth, etc are beginning to be a little ill defined and in some ways insufficient IMO. Perhaps we need a more specific definition of the areas of sound reproduction that we are trying to describe, along with perhaps a scale of discrepancy in order to really comprehend the more and more minute differences in sound that accrue as we go up the audiophile ladder.
HP's rant on the Maggies has made me believe, that he for one, is perhaps in need of a more definite descriptive vernacular; so that when the next speaker that is far superior to these Maggies arrives , he won't look like he has egg on his face

, just IMHO

Question is, where do we begin and what suggestions for the descriptive terms

mep · Apr 16, 2011

Because we can't seem to agree on anything except for wanting to disagree, this will probably turn into a food-fight. If you can get people to agree on a particular word that should be in our descriptive audiophile vocabulary, try getting people to agree on the definition of the word. Good luck with that Davey.

As far as HP goes, reviewers don't seem to have a problem declaring something *the best* only to declare something else *the best* the following month. The improvements in audiophile gear are fast and furious you know-just ask JV.

amirm · Apr 16, 2011

Maybe we should attack this in layers. What are less controversial terms to use? Some that come to mind are distortion, less or more bright (too little or too much highs), off-axis sound, size of the image created, etc.

Phelonious Ponk · Apr 16, 2011

Frequency response, imaging, dynamic range, transient response, noise floor, harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, channel separation (vs crosstalk), headroom, current, watts, off-axis FR (Vertical, lateral and how much)...

There are lots of audio terms that have meaning. If we would take time to understand them and audio journalists would invest in the analysis required to use them, we could communicate meaningfully, with a common language. But as long as we insist on using fuzzy words like "sound stage" to represent some undefined combination of imaging, on and off axis response and dynamic range, we'll never quite understand one another and reviews will be pretty meaningless. "Depth of sound stage" is a function of how well the recording engineer captured detail, how well the mixing engineer layered the volume levels of the instruments and voices to create the illusion of depth, how well the mastering engineer fine tuned it for production, and how well your system manages not to screw it all up (which is a function of low noise and distortion, accurate frequency response on and off axis, excellent channel separation and enough headroom to bring the peaks up out of the quiet places without clipping or compressing...).

It's harder to write about equipment this way than it is to say it is musical. It's harder to read and understand it as well. And it's not perfect, but it's better, because it is specific, repeatable and measurable. But we don't want our sacred cows to look flawed, and sometimes they just are, no matter how much we love them. Tubes distort. Vinyl is a sea of problems massively expensive electro-mechanical systems wrestle with. Judge them by the only measurable, repeatable standards that we have, talk about them in the language of the science of sound and they don't sound so good. So what? Choose to prefer them anyway. Have the confidence to love them any way. The truth will set you free.

Tim

mep · Apr 16, 2011

Phelonious Ponk said:
Frequency response, imaging, dynamic range, transient response, noise floor, harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, channel separation (vs crosstalk), headroom, current, watts, off-axis FR (Vertical, lateral and how much)...

There are lots of audio terms that have meaning. If we would take time to understand them and audio journalists would invest in the analysis required to use them, we could communicate meaningfully, with a common language. But as long as we insist on using fuzzy words like "sound stage" to represent some undefined combination of imaging, on and off axis response and dynamic range, we'll never quite understand one another and reviews will be pretty meaningless. "Depth of sound stage" is a function of how well the recording engineer captured detail, how well the mixing engineer layered the volume levels of the instruments and voices to create the illusion of depth, how well the mastering engineer fine tuned it for production, and how well your system manages not to screw it all up (which is a function of low noise and distortion, accurate frequency response on and off axis, excellent channel separation and enough headroom to bring the peaks up out of the quiet places without clipping or compressing...).

It's harder to write about equipment this way than it is to say it is musical. It's harder to read and understand it as well. And it's not perfect, but it's better, because it is specific, repeatable and measurable. But we don't want our sacred cows to look flawed, and sometimes they just are, no matter how much we love them. Tubes distort. Vinyl is a sea of problems massively expensive electro-mechanical systems wrestle with. Judge them by the only measurable, repeatable standards that we have, talk about them in the language of the science of sound and they don't sound so good. So what? Choose to prefer them anyway. Have the confidence to love them any way. The truth will set you free.

Tim

Tim-what do you mean when you say tubes distort? Transistors don’t? As for vinyl, we will never settle that debate. You could probably write a book the size of War and Peace with all of its problems that have to be surmounted, but it’s hard to listen to a top-notch LP playback system and say it doesn’t sound great. There are plenty of people that have the means to have both top-notch digital sources and vinyl. The fact that they have both speaks volumes. If the digital killed the sound quality of the analog source, who wouldn’t sell off the analog junk?

Phelonious Ponk · Apr 16, 2011

You could probably write a book the size of War and Peace with all of its problems that have to be surmounted, but it’s hard to listen to a top-notch LP playback system and say it doesn’t sound great.

Precisely my point, Mark. Listen to it. Love it. Admit its flaws openly. Embrace them as virtues. Hiding them in bad poetry will erode our ability to speak clearly to each other, but it will never turn colorations into accuracy. But defining them clearly and precisely and loving them anyway will make them irrelevant.

Tim

mep · Apr 16, 2011

Tim-I'm so past analog vs. digital food-fights. I enjoy them both on their own terms and neither one is perfect. And I hope you don't think that digital has no colorations and is perfect because it's not true. If digital was perfect, there would be no need for improved DACs that suddenly sound better than the old DACs. Digital has an exciting future IF the consumers will benefit from what is happening in the recording studios with the ultra-high sampling rates and increased bit rates. When I read the things that Bruce writes about, it is clear that good things are already here; they just haven't trickeled down to the consumer yet. And I hope they will.

You have to keep in mind that your perspective on audio reproduction at home is more limited than lots of other people. You only have a digital system to listen to. Your system is confined to the top of a desk and you must listen in the near-field when you listen to speakers at all. I don't know what percentage of listening time is spent listening to cans vice speakers at your house, but I suspect the cans win out-not that it matters. You HAVE to love digital because that is all you have to listen to. I'm happy for you that you enjoy it as much as you do and you think it's superior to all other sources. I don't want to be confined to one source because I think they all bring something to the table and I enjoy all of them. It's nice to be able to switch...

amirm · Apr 16, 2011

Caution to members to stay on the topic of audiophile terminology that this thread is about.

mep · Apr 16, 2011

I said this was going to be hard Amir. Now you see why.

microstrip · Apr 16, 2011

DaveyF,

May be this is what you are looking.

In his book "High Performance Audio Power Amplifiers for music performance and reproduction" Ben Duncan includes a section "Adjectives that describe sound". He explains 96 terms that can be used for audio performance description. They are presented in a systematic way - tonal qualities, tonal descrpitors, dynamics, space, even "abomination" related terms are fully covered. I will just quote some short random examples:

+ Chesty : Excess in the 200 to 400Hz area, particularly with pure male vocals".

+ Analytical : When sound equipment seems to reveal too much of the stitchwork
in music. Sometimes used when a system has distortions that unduly
emphasise detail or ‘edges’.

+ Glare : Distorted mid treble. Also tonal imbalance or forwardness.

+ Slam : Convincing, correctly synchronised attack for a fundamental in
the 125Hz area.

Still 92 descriptors to go ...

Phelonious Ponk · Apr 16, 2011

mep said:
Tim-I'm so past analog vs. digital food-fights. I enjoy them both on their own terms and neither one is perfect. And I hope you don't think that digital has no colorations and is perfect because it's not true. If digital was perfect, there would be no need for improved DACs that suddenly sound better than the old DACs. Digital has an exciting future IF the consumers will benefit from what is happening in the recording studios with the ultra-high sampling rates and increased bit rates. When I read the things that Bruce writes about, it is clear that good things are already here; they just haven't trickeled down to the consumer yet. And I hope they will.

You have to keep in mind that your perspective on audio reproduction at home is more limited than lots of other people. You only have a digital system to listen to. Your system is confined to the top of a desk and you must listen in the near-field when you listen to speakers at all. I don't know what percentage of listening time is spent listening to cans vice speakers at your house, but I suspect the cans win out-not that it matters. You HAVE to love digital because that is all you have to listen to. I'm happy for you that you enjoy it as much as you do and you think it's superior to all other sources. I don't want to be confined to one source because I think they all bring something to the table and I enjoy all of them. It's nice to be able to switch...

I'm not trying to start a food fight or another analog vs. digital debate, Mark, but I am trying to point out that there is a pretty good set of meaningful terms to define audio performance. Why don't we use them? Why do so many of us refuse to accept them? Let's leave analog and tubes out of it for a moment; I'm sorry I mentioned them. Why did some lover of solid state precision invent the term PRaT? Is it because transient response, damping and other more meaningful terms were inadequate to describe speed and control? Did he really believe that his amplifier could audibly affect the Pace, Rhythm and Timing of the recorded performance? Really? Seriously? Or did he either not understand the existing language or have some reason to avoid using it?

A legitimate question, I think. It's one that certainly haunts me as a wade through the semantic goo of sound stage and musicality and warmth and PRaT wondering what it might mean to whoever just uttered it. And it's one that is certainly relevant to the topic.

Tim

Phelonious Ponk · Apr 16, 2011

microstrip said:
DaveyF,

May be this is what you are looking.

In his book "High Performance Audio Power Amplifiers for music performance and reproduction" Ben Duncan includes a section "Adjectives that describe sound". He explains 96 terms that can be used for audio performance description. They are presented in a systematic way - tonal qualities, tonal descrpitors, dynamics, space, even "abomination" related terms are fully covered. I will just quote some short random examples:

+ Chesty : Excess in the 200 to 400Hz area, particularly with pure male vocals".

+ Analytical : When sound equipment seems to reveal too much of the stitchwork
in music. Sometimes used when a system has distortions that unduly
emphasise detail or ‘edges’.

+ Glare : Distorted mid treble. Also tonal imbalance or forwardness.

+ Slam : Convincing, correctly synchronised attack for a fundamental in
the 125Hz area.

Still 92 descriptors to go ...

Now this is starting to get somewhere. I think every descriptor should be accompanied by a meaningful reference to the cause, to ground this stuff in reality. It isn't easy, though, and I already see one problem:

+ Analytical : When sound equipment seems to reveal too much of the stitchwork
in music. Sometimes used when a system has distortions that unduly
emphasise detail or ‘edges’

It can't be both revealing and distorted. I know exactly what edgy SS or digital audio sounds like, and while it may create some short-term illusions, it actually masks detail.. And 92 to go...

Tim

DaveyF · Apr 17, 2011

microstrip said:
DaveyF,

May be this is what you are looking.

In his book "High Performance Audio Power Amplifiers for music performance and reproduction" Ben Duncan includes a section "Adjectives that describe sound". He explains 96 terms that can be used for audio performance description. They are presented in a systematic way - tonal qualities, tonal descrpitors, dynamics, space, even "abomination" related terms are fully covered. I will just quote some short random examples:

+ Chesty : Excess in the 200 to 400Hz area, particularly with pure male vocals".

+ Analytical : When sound equipment seems to reveal too much of the stitchwork
in music. Sometimes used when a system has distortions that unduly
emphasise detail or ‘edges’.

+ Glare : Distorted mid treble. Also tonal imbalance or forwardness.

+ Slam : Convincing, correctly synchronised attack for a fundamental in
the 125Hz area.

Still 92 descriptors to go ...

Micro, that's very interesting...however, I wander how many of the adjectives that are utilized in the book or in general reviewing are truly descriptive of a system's ability to sound like what is on the source.

What I would like to see is some descriptive language that essentially can delineate the differences between how the piece under review performs versus the sound of the 'live' instrument or voice or other sound that the speaker/system is attempting to recreate.
In another thread, I used the term..'bloom' as one example. This term most likely could be interpreted in different ways and although I think most of us could understand and relate to my inference, I think that we most likely need a more definitive descriptor that is less subject to interpretation.
Therefore, I wander if some of the more 'standard' descriptors can be and should be expanded....Not an easy task by any means, but IMHO, becoming more and more necessary as we progress down the road to a closer( but no too close

) reproduction of the ultimate goal. ( ok, I know that is subject to interpretation as well), BUT I think all of us have an idea what that is.... at least i hope so.

caesar · Apr 17, 2011

Audio is all about listening and experiencing the system or a piece of gear. The problem with audiophile terminology is that someone is using words to describe intangible and abstract ideas to folks who have not experienced the same thing. If someone has heard the same system, or better yet, is intimately familiar with something, then the communication could make sense. If someone is not familiar with how something sounds, a useful strategy is to compare something that someone knows with something that someone may not be familiar with. Otherwise, it is a bunch of garbage. "Distorted treble" - compared to what?

And recently the magazine reviews have been getting away from comparisons. So reading audiophile language without the benefit of experience of that piece of gear is pretty much a waste of time.

microstrip · Apr 17, 2011

I hope I am not making Ben Duncan a disservice quoting just a few random examples.Taken out of the 96 descriptors and main text they are unfairly exposed to critic. The set must be readout as complete work, most definitions complement each others.

There is not such a think as an universal official Lexico published dictionary for subjective hifi reviews and it will never exist. But going through some people work and reviews I see that although they do not use the words exactly with the same meaning, there is a common broad significance in what they mean with the words. It is what we have, and people must be get used to it and learn how to interpret the authors intentions.

High-end is an hobby and IMHO hifi reviews are mostly entertainment (in the good sense of the word). We expect them to be fair and technical correct, but we should not expect them to be a consumer report type approved document.

mep · Apr 17, 2011

Phelonious Ponk said:
Why did some lover of solid state precision invent the term PRaT? Is it because transient response, damping and other more meaningful terms were inadequate to describe speed and control? Did he really believe that his amplifier could audibly affect the Pace, Rhythm and Timing of the recorded performance? Really? Seriously? Or did he either not understand the existing language or have some reason to avoid using it? Tim

I always hated the term “PRaT” and it has never been in my vocabulary. But I do disagree with your summation. I do believe that inferior preamps and amps can muck with the signal they are amplifying and destroy the integrity of the recording which some would say messed with the PRaT. Because if your transient response is poor and you have a low dampening coefficient on speakers that run away without it, guess what? Your PRaT is flat.

microstrip · Apr 17, 2011

Phelonious Ponk said:
Why did some lover of solid state precision invent the term PRaT? Is it because transient response, damping and other more meaningful terms were inadequate to describe speed and control? Did he really believe that his amplifier could audibly affect the Pace, Rhythm and Timing of the recorded performance? Really? Seriously? Or did he either not understand the existing language or have some reason to avoid using it?

A legitimate question, I think. It's one that certainly haunts me as a wade through the semantic goo of sound stage and musicality and warmth and PRaT wondering what it might mean to whoever just uttered it. And it's one that is certainly relevant to the topic.

Tim

Tim,

You can find why it was invented just reading the classical article about PRAT by Martin Colloms at this link.

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/23/

Nowadays, for me and for thousands of audiophiles PRAT has a meaning. I can recognize when a system has such quality and I understand what the reviewer who wrote it means when in his reviews he refers to system having PRAT. I have owned systems of great PRAT in the 80's (Linn-Naim) and discussed about it with friends much before the publication - but in quite different terms.

Phelonious Ponk · Apr 17, 2011

I'm sorry, micro, I couldn't get past the first sentence:

Martin Colloms (footnote 1) suggests that the traditional ways of assessing hi-fi component problems overlook the obvious: does the component dilute the recording's musical meaning?

Anyone who thinks a decent table top radio can dilute musical meaning doesn't understand what music means. Not much of any real value is likely to follow such a profound level of cluelessness.

Tim

mep · Apr 17, 2011

Phelonious Ponk said:
I'm sorry, micro, I couldn't get past the first sentence:

Anyone who thinks a decent table top radio can dilute musical meaning doesn't understand what music means. Not much of any real value is likely to follow such a profound level of cluelessness.

Tim

Tim-No one expects a table radio to provide a high-end experience. We do expect that from our electronics/speakers that we have paid dearly for. A poor system can definitely change the way a recording should sound just like a good system can bring it to life.

Phelonious Ponk · Apr 17, 2011

mep said:
Tim-No one expects a table radio to provide a high-end experience. We do expect that from our electronics/speakers that we have paid dearly for. A poor system can definitely change the way a recording should sound just like a good system can bring it to life.

I understand and agree with all of that, Mark. And none of it has anything to do with musical meaning. It only has to do with reproduction quality. If you can't feel the passion of Beethoven's Ninth without full-range bass, an expansive sound stage and a sufficient level of PRaT, your next upgrade should be soul. Beethoven heard it through the little speaker in his mind's ear. Play it for yourself right now: Bump bump bump bum.... It's all there. In the imagination, in a six figure system, on a Bose radio. "Musical meaning" has absolutely nothing to do with the "high-end experience."

Tim

PS: Sorry, that was the 5th: Bum bum bum, bum bum bum bum bum, bum bum bum. bum buuum, bum....

The audiophile vernacular

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Banned

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Banned

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

New Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

New Member

Similar threads