musicality, audio descriptions....your ears

[boshk]

I've been reading alot of forum topics recently and I'm curious how you guys come to describing your experiences with audio components....speakers, TT, cdp, DACs, amps, stylus, carts etc etc

How do you come up with the way you describe the component you are testing?

I can understand too little or too much bass, treble and to a extent, clarity and soundstage....but the following, what exactly does it mean?

This component X is:

too bright, too warm or not, edgy,

more or lack of upper detail, lacking in midrange, authencity in sound,

gives good punch, too analytical, unfatiguing clarity........list goes on on

pretty ambiguous and open topic....

 

[chebby]

I've been reading alot of forum topics recently and I'm curious how you guys come to describing your experiences with audio components....speakers, TT, cdp, DACs, amps, stylus, carts etc etc

How do you come up with the way you describe the component you are testing?

I can understand too little or too much bass, treble and to a extent, clarity and soundstage....but the following, what exactly does it mean?

This component X is:

too bright, too warm or not, edgy,

more or lack of upper detail, lacking in midrange, authencity in sound,

gives good punch, too analytical, unfatiguing clarity........list goes on on

pretty ambiguous and open topic....

Stereophile's glossary could help you ...

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/

As for me, I tend to be quite old-fashioned and use terms like "it has a nice tone".

My criteria for "a nice tone" has been shaped by an adult lifetime of BBC radio listening (music and speech but mostly speech) as my primary source/reference.

So, for me, a system's abilities to accurately - and believably - portray voices and surroundings in something like a well recorded drama is most important.

However, I have not assembled a battery of descriptive phrases and I feel pretty stupid when one slips out and I start sounding like a wannabe reviewer 🙂 I simply don't feel confident expressing what I hear in that way. Conversely, I feel utterly confident in knowing if I like a system (or not) but not talking about it to others using accepted hi-fi jargon.

 

[Covenanter]

I try and avoid these terms as much as possible because I don't really know what they mean. For example is someone says his amplifier is "fast" I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. My car is quite fast but my amplifier?

I tend to talk about how close to a real life performance a piece of equipment makes the music sound. I want to be able to pretend I'm hearing it live.

Chris

 

[davedotco]

I try and avoid these terms as much as possible because I don't really know what they mean. For example is someone says his amplifier is "fast" I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. My car is quite fast but my amplifier?

I tend to talk about how close to a real life performance a piece of equipment makes the music sound. I want to be able to pretend I'm hearing it live.

Chris

To expand...

The ability of a system to reproduce, electro-mechanicaly, a series of notes in such a manner that you can actually believe that, at some point in time, they were actually created/produced by a real artist.

I find it also helps if the reproduction is sufficiently good that it tells you something about the artist and the music he/she is playing.

Some equipment does that remarkably well without being particularly good in hi-fi terms, ie poor soundstage, restricted bandwith etc, or as Chebby says, it has a nice tone.

 

[ID.]

Just see what everyone else is saying about the kit and then randomly select words, rearrange and paraphrase things a bit here and there, that way you'll have no need to form an opinion of your own but with all of the jargon you are flinging around it will sound authentic *dirol*

If anyone calls you out on it then drag it into a pointless forum slanging match. Easiest way to do this if you don't actually know anything is to drag it into a pointless discussion on semantics.

While there is some common ground, I often get the impression that not everyone understands any of those terms in the same sense I do, and there's no guaranteeing that I'm correct either, but the stereophile glossary is a prety good guide.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Describing sound is a little like paintings. You could put several artists in one spot and tell them to paint what they see, but all will produce something that looks different stylistically - one person's interpretation might look something like a Monet, whereas someone else's might be like a Constable. God help those who see things like a Warhol or a Pollock...although I'd rather look at Pollock's stuff than Warhol's any day.

 

[Glacialpath]

I think a lot of them are just said to sound good.

Some components can have an effect on timing meaning things can sound sloppy. No idea why but I have heard this sloppyness, then a component gets swapped and suddenly things don't sound so sloppy. They tighten up. Not as in tighter bass just more neatly presented to my ears thus easier to understand.

A small soundstage can sound cluttered, one that is too open can make some things sound lost.

If a mix has been mixed to sound big/live then you really need a fairly live and good sized room to listen to it in. A small dry room doesn't work for me.

Deffinition/detail is a good one. How easily can you pick out a specific sound and have that sound feel natural to you. I don't mean just one guitar but the pick on the strings, the fine detail of an instrument. You might be able to hear a woodwind player breath, that kind of thing.

Warm to me is how smooth the low end is. If it's too warm you might lose some deffinition but warmth can also mean that nice analogue sound and not a clinical digital sound. Warm can also describe weight behind the music, how much you feel it physically.

Midrange is important to sound other wise audio can sound warm and bassy but still sound thin because there is only high end and low end in the sound. You can't really have weight without midrange in my opinion but too much midrange can sound harsh and give you ear fatigue but the right balance will give the right amount of punch.

That's my take on some of these descriptions.

 

[matt49]

Hi-fi has developed its own descriptive jargon in the same way as wine tasting has. As with wine tasting, some of the jargon is based on sound science and everyday experience, and some of it is fanciful. And as with wine tasting, the people who most often stray into the realm of fancy are (professional or amateur) reviewers.

Psychoacoustics has a well established language for describing auditory experience, using terms like loudness, tone, timbre, roughness, consonance, dissonance, beating, and localization. Most hi-fi jargon, insofar as it makes any sense, draws on this vocabulary.

This is all OK as far as it goes, but some people are resistant to the idea of analyzing what they hear, especially where music's concerned. So instead they substitute words like "musicality", which are impossible to define except in subjective terms.

*diablo*

Matt

 

[CnoEvil]

Hi-fi has developed its own descriptive jargon in the same way as wine tasting has. As with wine tasting, some of the jargon is based on sound science and everyday experience, and some of it is fanciful. And as with wine tasting, the people who most often stray into the realm of fancy are (professional or amateur) reviewers.

Psychoacoustics has a well established language for describing auditory experience, using terms like loudness, tone, timbre, roughness, consonance, dissonance, beating, and localization. Most hi-fi jargon, insofar as it makes any sense, draws on this vocabulary.

This is all OK as far as it goes, but some people are resistant to the idea of analyzing what they hear, especially where music's concerned. So instead they substitute words like "musicality", which are impossible to define except in subjective terms.

*diablo*

Matt

The Screen door slams, Mary's dress waves. *biggrin*

 

[Native_bon]

Music will never agree on what is right or wrong... In other words we can never pin down the right description of music or sound. you may guide or direct but it always comes down to taste.

 

[CnoEvil]

"Writing about music is like dancing about achitecture.".....it is not totally clear who wrote this quote (Martin Mull, Frank Zappa, Steve Martin etc), but it holds true.

Even so, I prefer people to try...and very often they get closer than they think.... but it is fraught with problems as it is usually so subjective.

 

[nopiano]

Interestingly, there isn't much common ground between writing about music in concert performances (including recitals, opera, gigs, pub bands, singing, and so on) and reproduced music.

You might have a bright speaker and bright-toned piano, but there are not too many other paralells that come to mind. I used to reckon I could tell a few different pianos apart, and also playing styles (Russian-school, French, USA), but with all the dialogue here about subjective influences I might be less confident these days!

I think Vladimir recently posted a good descriptor for each point in the frequency range (from something like rumble to air), that complements Chebby's link from Stereophile.

 

[Electro]

Interestingly, there isn't much common ground between writing about music in concert performances (including recitals, opera, gigs, pub bands, singing, and so on) and reproduced music.

You might have a bright speaker and bright-toned piano, but there are not too many other paralells that come to mind. I used to reckon I could tell a few different pianos apart, and also playing styles (Russian-school, French, USA), but with all the dialogue here about subjective influences I might be less confident these days!

I think Vladimir recently posted a good descriptor for each point in the frequency range (from something like rumble to air), that complements Chebby's link from Stereophile.

It was me *smile*

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/images/main_chart.jpg

 

[boshk]

I think a lot of them are just said to sound good.

Some components can have an effect on timing meaning things can sound sloppy. No idea why but I have heard this sloppyness, then a component gets swapped and suddenly things don't sound so sloppy. They tighten up. Not as in tighter bass just more neatly presented to my ears thus easier to understand.

A small soundstage can sound cluttered, one that is too open can make some things sound lost.

If a mix has been mixed to sound big/live then you really need a fairly live and good sized room to listen to it in. A small dry room doesn't work for me.

Deffinition/detail is a good one. How easily can you pick out a specific sound and have that sound feel natural to you. I don't mean just one guitar but the pick on the strings, the fine detail of an instrument. You might be able to hear a woodwind player breath, that kind of thing.

Warm to me is how smooth the low end is. If it's too warm you might lose some deffinition but warmth can also mean that nice analogue sound and not a clinical digital sound. Warm can also describe weight behind the music, how much you feel it physically.

Midrange is important to sound other wise audio can sound warm and bassy but still sound thin because there is only high end and low end in the sound. You can't really have weight without midrange in my opinion but too much midrange can sound harsh and give you ear fatigue but the right balance will give the right amount of punch.

That's my take on some of these descriptions.

thats good description.

As someone who is upgrading, I guess it gets a bit confussing and overwhelming with all the info, reviews and opinions available on forums, youtube etc etc

I am thinking about buying a phono preamp X or Y or Z and reviewers come up with 'absolute detail missing' , 'slightly over bright' , 'bass is loose'..............to me, I have no idea what that means......

I guess its nice to read reviews but nothing can beat a demo or even better, a home demo.

 

[CnoEvil]

As someone who is upgrading, I guess it gets a bit confussing and overwhelming with all the info, reviews and opinions available on forums, youtube etc etc

When it comes to sound reproduction, the only opinion that matters is your own....the secret is to narrow down the reviewer/people who have the same taste as yourself and whose descriptions you find you can trust.

I am thinking about buying a phono preamp X or Y or Z and reviewers come up with 'absolute detail missing' , 'slightly over bright' , 'bass is loose'..............to me, I have no idea what that means......

I guess its nice to read reviews but nothing can beat a demo or even better, a home demo.

The more different systems you hear, the better you will understand the terms......if you have never heard loose bass vs tight bass, then you have no benchmark to judge it by.....and the personal yardstick that you use to measure will change as you hear better and better systems.

 

[Hi-FiOutlaw]

I've been reading alot of forum topics recently and I'm curious how you guys come to describing your experiences with audio components....speakers, TT, cdp, DACs, amps, stylus, carts etc etc

How do you come up with the way you describe the component you are testing?

I can understand too little or too much bass, treble and to a extent, clarity and soundstage....but the following, what exactly does it mean?

This component X is:

too bright, too warm or not, edgy,

more or lack of upper detail, lacking in midrange, authencity in sound,

gives good punch, too analytical, unfatiguing clarity........list goes on on

pretty ambiguous and open topic....

Stereophile's glossary could help you ...

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/

thanks about this one Chebby!

*drinks*

 

[nopiano]

Interestingly, there isn't much common ground between writing about music in concert performances (including recitals, opera, gigs, pub bands, singing, and so on) and reproduced music.

You might have a bright speaker and bright-toned piano, but there are not too many other paralells that come to mind. I used to reckon I could tell a few different pianos apart, and also playing styles (Russian-school, French, USA), but with all the dialogue here about subjective influences I might be less confident these days!

I think Vladimir recently posted a good descriptor for each point in the frequency range (from something like rumble to air), that complements Chebby's link from Stereophile.

It was me *smile*

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/images/main_chart.jpg

Sorry, Electro. Thanks for reposting! 🙂

 

[Rethep]

To me it is important that the sound is so exciting that i keep on listening. 'Balance' between low, mid, and high is very important. The same for 'soundstage', and "dynamics' at last position.

 

[Jota180]

Some HIFI reviewers sound more like wine critics with their flowery prose.

*I'm getting hints of autumn nights and wheelbarrows with squeaky wheels...*.

Aye, right you are.

 

[ID.]

Some HIFI reviewers sound more like wine critics with their flowery prose.

*I'm getting hints of autumn nights and wheelbarrows with squeaky wheels...*.

Aye, right you are.

And for some reason that makes me think you are reviewing a pinot noir...