What does it all mean?

[admin_exported]

For years now Ive been reading both professional and amateur reviews of hi-fi and home cinema hardware. The reviewers often speak of equipment sounding bright or harsh, or neutral and balanced, or warm, or of the midrange being clean and honest. Other words mentioned - clarity, attack, soft, hard. I am sure I could go on and on.

Some of the defintions are obvious. For example I am sure I understand transparent or neutral. But is there a definition somewhere which describes what all these terms are and what they mean? So the next time I read a review and they say product A's mid-range was too bright and lacked the scale of product B I'll understand what they mean.

 

[chebby]

I agree. I think a WHF 'glossary' of the more frequently used descriptions would help.

 

[Anonymous]

There's no definitive dictionary of audio or hi-fi terms that I know of. And of course, such a dictionary would not be a perfect guide, as the precise meaning of some terms is partly dependent on the context in which they're used.

However, if there's a particular term you feel you don't understand - or better, if you can tell us the review in which a term appears that you would like to be clarified - I'll be more than happy to explain it in context.

In general, there are a number of factors - say, tonal balance, timing, dynamics, detail - that give rise to the performance qualities that the words you mention above describe.

They are of course, highly interdependent: 'brightness', for example, is a fairly simple consequence of a flaw in the tonal balance, whereas 'attack' is a more complex (positive) result of how the product performs in the time domain and also dynamically.

'Scale' is a quality achieved in kit that excels in both detail retrieval and dynamics, and is also a function of both amp power and speaker size. Put simply, the climactic sections of a Mahler symphony really ought to sound pretty huge. if they don't, the system lacks 'scale' to some extent.

I hope this helps.

 

[JoelSim]

There are glossaries available in various places

 

[Alec]

dominic dawes:There's no definitive dictionary of audio or hi-fi terms that I know of. And of course, such a dictionary would not be a perfect guide, as the precise meaning of some terms is partly dependent on the context in which they're used.

Best throw out my OED then.

 

[Anonymous]

dominic dawes:

They are of course, highly interdependent: 'brightness', for example, is a fairly simple consequence of a flaw in the tonal balance, whereas 'attack' is a more complex (positive) result of how the product performs in the time domain and also dynamically.

Thanks Dominic. I think brightness is the one I'm most unsure about. You say its a consequence of a flaw in the tonal balance but how would a bright system sound? What would be the attributes?

 

[Frank Harvey]

It's all very well getting to know what these descriptive words mean in terms of hi-fi, but even if you could exactly define any specific word, it's still down to the individual's interpretation. What I mean is, what may sound bright (not to be confused with harsh - very different) to one person, may sound perfectly neutral or smooth to another. When asked to describe a particular sound, I do find myself using words I've never heard before to describe sound. As long as people are on your wavelength that's fine, but those who aren't must think we live in some wacky world of our own

 

[Anonymous]

FrankHarveyHiFi: What I mean is, what may sound bright (not to be confused with harsh - very different) to one person, may sound perfectly neutral or smooth to another.

In addition, some people's preferences in sound differ, I quite like a bright sound, so while what may be described as bright by one person might not be as bright to another as you say, descriptions such as 'too bright' don't really mean anything either. At the end of the day, whilst someone elses description is valuable, it is not the be all and end all, almost everything warrants a listen. But there are some rather abstract descriptions flown about on the internet, and agree with the OP, some of them need clearer definition.

 

[Anonymous]

Its all a bit (perhaps a lot) confusing. Some people say they prefer a bright sound. But others say the definition of bright varies from person to person??? And if there's a bright, is there a dull? If there is what's the mid-point called between bright and dull?

And this is just one word. What about forward or any other number of words. I asked the original question as I listen to stuff and I may think that product A sounded better than product B but without neccessarily being able to understand why I thought that. I could say Product A sounded BOOMY or TINNY (which would mean something to me) but perhaps not to any one else. But if someone else heard the same thing thing and called it FORWARD or HARSH, would this be the same thing or not?

I'm not trying to be awkward. Just to understand what these oft-used phrases mean. if they are all interchangeable and dependent on the context of the sentence they are being used in, then they could be misconstrued, and ultimately misleading.

 

[Anonymous]

That was my point, there are some fairly general words, bright, neutral, warm. All of which are fairly understandable, but when you get adjectives like fuzzy, enveloping or precise, they may be misunderstood, (there's a topic somewhere about confusion over the description of MA RX6s as precise) and there are words that people use once or twice to describe a very particular sound, like toasty or direct. It's these rarely used ones that have more varied meanings, but warm, neutral or bright are very general terms which are in glossaries all over, probably better described than I could attempt.

P.S. I think I invented toasty as a hifi adjective.

 

[The_Lhc]

To actually answer one of the poor guy's questions:

"Bright" typically means an over-emphasis on the treble or higher frequencies. If this goes too far, the treble can become "harsh" to the point where it can actually hurt at high volumes or at least become wearying to listen to, hence "fatiguing", which you may have also heard about.

Whether or not people prefer a bright sound or not, that's typically what people mean when they say "bright".

 

[floyd droid]

Then this happens.......... lets say a reviewer thinks a.n .others new amp,for instance,is bright (to his ears) not withstanding what he deems to be bright,and this goes into print in his summing up. Then someone posts a thread 'im thinking of getting a.n.others new amp,waddaya think ' ?. Wallop, nah dont bother its too bright. Matey thinks ,ok it will strip paint, and not bother to audition it. Im pretty sure this happens a lot. And maybe,just maybe,what he was after soundwise,was out there all the time. Not sure if this makes sense but i will soon find out.

Edit ,although the-lhc has posted what is generaly regarded as the definition of bright.

 

[The_Lhc]

Hence the oft-repeated warning to buy stuff you've actually demoed, rather than simply going on reviews.

 

[Anonymous]

chris_beale:
That was my point, there are some fairly general words, bright, neutral, warm. All of which are fairly understandable, but when you get adjectives like fuzzy, enveloping or precise, they may be misunderstood, (there's a topic somewhere about confusion over the description of MA RX6s as precise) and there are words that people use once or twice to describe a very particular sound, like toasty or direct. It's these rarely used ones that have more varied meanings, but warm, neutral or bright are very general terms which are in glossaries all over, probably better described than I could attempt.

P.S. I think I invented toasty as a hifi adjective.

I think I'm violently agreeing with you Chris. With the exception that I don't know what a bright or warm system sounds like. Warm is something I like to be, so I assume warm must be good. But I still cant imagine how a warm system sounds (or a cool one for that matter).

Perhaps I'll just keep throwing random words in to describe the sound of stuff and see if anyone picks me up on it.

By the way the new marantz cd player has a very bungolowed sound to me. Not as toasty as the old model.

 

[Anonymous]

the_lhc:
To actually answer one of the poor guy's questions:

"Bright" typically means an over-emphasis on the treble or higher frequencies. If this goes too far, the treble can become "harsh" to the point where it can actually hurt at high volumes or at least become wearying to listen to, hence "fatiguing", which you may have also heard about.

Whether or not people prefer a bright sound or not, that's typically what people mean when they say "bright".

Thank you sir. Thats one off the list.

 

[Andrew Everard]

One of the better attempts to codify all this is this piece by the late Stereophile founder,
J Gordon Holt.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:One of the better attempts to codify all this is this piece by the late Stereophile founder,
J Gordon Holt.

Thanks Andrew, a brief look does indeed give me a hint at some of the more extravagent descriptions used sometimes.

I think I'm OK with "bright" and "detail" but that's about. Personally I like my sound to be a little bright, hence hte reason that one was so simple...and as for detail...when I put my first proper system together, I could quite literally hear other instruments and beats that I had never noticed in my favourite tracks (most noticeable being the percussion in Purple Rain by Prince, but there we go). So I get that one. Apart from that, lots of it is a complete mystery to me!

My own favourite post which illustrates some of the mumbo-jumbo used on this forum was in relation to the cable I use for my subwoofer, a Chord Cobra 3 cable. One forum member described it here as follows:

"The chord cobra 3 is good value, on the positive side it has a full bass and a fairly open mids, and nice airy top end, and is quite a warm transparent musical cable. If I was to be picky I say it lacks a little in detail, not as open and airy or fast and punchy like some cables - maybe slightly on the warm side of neutral."

As far as I can make out, that is 13 adjectives or phrases used to describe a cable in the space of two sentences. In my own experience I can confidently describe it as being "green".

 

[Cliff1]

the_lhc:

To actually answer one of the poor guy's questions:

"Bright" typically means an over-emphasis on the treble or higher frequencies. If this goes too far, the treble can become "harsh" to the point where it can actually hurt at high volumes or at least become wearying to listen to, hence "fatiguing", which you may have also heard about.

Whether or not people prefer a bright sound or not, that's typically what people mean when they say "bright".

IHC

Thanks for that explanation.

I also have problems with " bright,harsh " & others.So if bright turns into harsh does that also mean distortion of the sound.Thats what it sounds like to me.I've been looking to change my MS 902is for a while now because of this & i'm as undecided as when i started reading reviews.The 902is to me sound shrill,thats another desciption & distorted in the treble.

I was thinking about the Lekter 2s but the review mentioned that the treble at times can sound a bit iffy,not in those terms but thats how i understood it. This put me off because i don't want the treble to go walk about.I'm now thinking on the Lektor 1s ,because review said they do not have any top end fizziness like lots of other speakers..

The problem is we can't audition all types of speakers.

 

[floyd droid]

the_lhc:Hence the oft-repeated warning to buy stuff you've actually demoed, rather than simply going on reviews.

Well yes,quite. But there is always going to be someone who has no choice but to buy going on reviews. For instance, those who live off the coast of scotland. Im not being argumentative by the way.

 

[Anonymous]

I think David (Frank Harvey) is right though, it's all in context and down to one's understanding of the terms. Generally people will understand these terms and get an idea of the sound, but I don't see how there can be strict definitions of these adjectives. Brightness only relating to the 4kHz-8kHz band (Holt's description) doesn't seem right to me. I'm not sure that these things should be technical terms, sound should be described, not classified. Yes it's helpful to have a universal idea of what is what, but it's not uncommon to have the number of adjectives in a summary reach double figures. You shouldn't have to read a review with a glossary, looking something up every third or fourth word. 'Fairly open...' and 'nice airy...' mean the same thing to me, it's just extravagance of 'right-click - synonym' like some Year 9 English essay. The Chord example spent two lavish sentences saying that it's warm and a bit open across the frequencies.

Maybe go all Oz Clarke and make an original description and then explain what you mean by that. Don't get me wrong, I think more detailed descriptions are useful, but not to the point where you are overburdened with jargon, because that's not helpful at all.

I think on the whole WHF get it right, detailed descriptions without shouting out their journalistic ego with jargon, it's the overly opinionated users (like me) who offer up lavish detail that isn't needed.

At the end of the day the answer is to listen to as much as you can and make up your own mind. If you can't then you will have to put the hours in with Mr Holt's Glossary.

 

[Alec]

Andrew Everard:One of the better attempts to codify all this is this piece by the late Stereophile founder,
J Gordon Holt.

Isn't it weird that you hear these descriptions and you either "get" them or not? He has me completely confused on warm and dark - i prefer my laymans conception of warm as gloopy, cozy, lush...And yet i see what he means with bright - which he does not agree has to do with treble only.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Yes, I don't agree with all of JGH's descriptions, but then few people ever saw completely eye-to-eye with him.

But his piece gets us closer...

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:One of the better attempts to codify all this is this piece by the late Stereophile founder,
J Gordon Holt.

Thanks Andrew. I now have my own babel fish translator. I wont treat it too literally. I still preferred the previous explanation of bright, which was too much treble. But it gives me a good start.

 

[PJPro]

Many moons ago I asked for a similar thing. I believe Clare said that something had been produced in one of the ultimate guides and the suggestion was to dig it out and place it on the website.

I seem to remember transparency was one of the terms discussed in the thread.

 

[chebby]

Andrew Everard:One of the better attempts to codify all this is this piece by the late Stereophile founder,
J Gordon Holt.

Thanks Andrew, that is fascinating. (Not just in the sense of hifi but - almost - from a philosophical point of view.)

I actually took some time out of re-reading John Le Carre's 'The Honourable Schoolboy" (and listening to my lovely new tuner) to go through it. I made it to C and will have another read tomorrow.

Bookmarked.