Annoying Audio Terms
|
New member Username: JohnoasSydney, NSW Australia Post Number: 2 Registered: Nov-05 | Does anyone else get annoyed by meaningless touchy feely terms used by sales staff and pretentious would-be audiophiles? Some of these have semi-intuitive meanings (like accurate), but tend to get used out of, or entirely without, context. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions, definitions and of course, your own favourite annoying terms/definitions. Maybe it's just me, and these terms are perfectly acceptable, but I think not. Thoughts? bright - I know many people accept this as meaning an over-emphasisin the mid to top end, but which is it really? dark - I might use this to describe a song, and would think that you'd maybe catch my drift, but WTF is a dark amp gonna do for me? delicate - I know I'm not supposed to poke my speaker cones with a screwdriver, what else is delicate about my speakers? grainy - I know what a grainy photo is, but how about grainy sound? Something recorded with an 8 bit ADC perhaps? harsh - Distorted I can understand, harsh seems a little wishy washy to me. mellow - This is a mood as far as I'm concerned. Or a word used by one tool to help relieve another tool of some extra cash. punchy - How do I measure this in my scope, is it an impulse response thing? silky - What does my amp need to do to the waveform to make my favourite Van Halen track more "silky". Seriously, "silky" ? Sheesh. warm - I particularly hate this one, it's so goddamm new-age. Please educate me if there's a good, usable definition. zippy - Punchy, but in a more annoying way perhaps? That'll do for now. Let 'em rip people. |
|
Silver Member Username: KanoPost Number: 727 Registered: Oct-04 | Just try to describe the way a stereo system sounds in your own words and you will see that you either use the terminology or your meaning is lost. There are plenty of terms to describe sight as the human mind evokes images as one reads. Terms such as silky have me picture a silk cloth on a closeline in a moderate wind, and is a great visual cue to understand what is being described in the audio sense. Create your own words if you want, but you'll find there's really no way around it unless you want to make your post quite a lot longer. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6492 Registered: May-04 | Here's the best known glossary, but there are plenty on the web to choose from. http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html And, if you really want a take on how words are used to mean nothing, try wading through this thread. https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/146311.html |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 718 Registered: Nov-04 | john, im interested in what YOU would use since your post implies that you are above audiophile wannabees and sales staff. please explain to us no knowledge idiots how we should describe our equipment and sonic characteristics. |
|
New member Username: JohnoasSydney, NSW Australia Post Number: 3 Registered: Nov-05 | Christopher. I'm going to use the glossary provided by Jan (thanks BTW, very interesting) to illustrate a point. A salesman recently tried to tell a friend that a brand X receiver was "better" then brand "Y" because it was "warmer". I'll assume he wasn't talking about its ability to keep a cup of coffee from going cold and use the definitions from the list. Warm: 'The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound.' OK, lets check on dark then. Dark: 'A warm, mellow, excessively rich quality in reproduced sound. The audible effect of a frequency response which is clockwise-tilted across the entire range, so that output diminishes with increasing frequency. Compare "light."' Nice circular reference there, plus there's no definitions for mellow or rich, and I've no idea what 'excessively' rich is. Tilt is explained somewhat better: Tilt: 'Across-the-board rotation of an otherwise flat frequency response, so that the device's output increases or decreases at a uniform rate with increasing frequency. A linear frequency-response curve that is not horizontal.' This is a good, usable definition, we just need some idea of scale, that is, how big is the roll off? A 3 db @ 20 kHz roll-off might sound "better" to some, but I doubt many would be happy with an 18db roll-off. Where does "warm" sit? Aparrently a certain amount of warmth is a "normal" part of musical sound. "Normal" for what? Does this mean that "normal" instruments have a built-in roll-off, or are we talking about matching some property of the human ear's frequency response? The definition of musical is openly "personal" that is, subjective, so it doesn't really contribute to any measurable quantiity, as every judgemnent of musicalty is by definition the opinion of a single judge, and not transferable. musical, musicality: 'A personal judgment as to the degree to which reproduced sound resembles live music. Real musical sound is both accurate and euphonic, consonant and dissonant.' So I guess the sales guy was trying to tell us this amp X was better as it had a flat, high frequency roll off of some indeterminate slope. Whether it was better than the other one because amp Y had no slope (which in my mind would be better) or some other inferior frequency response. I'm still no further ahead on mellow or rich I'm afraid. I understand that there's a lot more to sound than frequency response, but if that's what you're talking about then say it! I never said I was "above" anyone, but if I was trying to explain the difference between item X and item Y, I'd attempt to do so in terms that were meaningful to the person I was explaining it to, or if that wasn't immediately possible, begin a dialogue to ascertain where they're at in terms of understanding. Does this not make sense to you? Sometimes decorative language is illustrative and useful, I understand that, I just feel that it's abused somewhat heavily in the audio arena, or simply re-quoted to signify membership to some elite club rather than to actually provide any information. |
|
New member Username: JohnoasSydney, NSW Australia Post Number: 4 Registered: Nov-05 | Kano, I agree that visual imagery is often more powerful, and universal, than conventional audio terms. However, the use of such words rarely means the same things to different people. Your use of "silky" is a perfect example, it obviously invokes a certain sound to you. In all honesty, silky doesn't say anything to me about a sound, except in a literal sense as it pertains to the movement of the material itself. Most of these terms convey a feeling about a style or genre of music, rather than about specific sound qualities. I don't understand how terms like "silky" can be used to describe the reponse of a particular pieces of gear, particulary when coupled with the fact that it'll be used to play a variety of styles. Your speakers may make a particular cello movement sound "silky" to you, but will the same speakers make a recording of the 1812 overture equally "silky"? I know I'm over-using the silky analogy slightly, but all too often these flowery terms get used to classify the response of a piece of audio gear, with no reference to context or scope. In my opinion, this is at best unhelpful, at worst, outright wrong and deceptive. While it's not as pretty, if I say that I like my treble a little high, or that I find a particular speaker placement gives a poor stereo image, not too many people will misinterpret my meaning. I occasionally use terms which aren't immediately obvious, like "cluttered" to imply that it's difficult to isolate particular instruments or notes from a recording, but I have no problem in explaining them in a straightforward fashion when I do. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6495 Registered: May-04 | A few thoughts. As I've said before, I never met anyone who didn't think their own system was "musical". Other listeners might not agree, but the owner always thinks it is musical until the desire for something new comes along. Then most people would like to have something "more musical". Quite often the salesperson doesn't have any idea what they are saying either. I was in one shop recently where, no matter what I said, the fairly young salesperson replied it "wasn't warm enough" or would I like to hear something "warmer". My opinion is if the salesperson can only describe how a piece of equipment "sounds", you should shop somewhere else if at all possible. This technique is merely working around to, "Don't you think YYY is warmer than XXX?" If the salesperson can tell you why the product is "warmer", "more musical" or does "pace, rhythym and timing" better than another product, then you might be able to get somewhere with some intelligent conversation. Otherwise, all too often the salesperson and the client might be speaking different languages. |
|
New member Username: PtarmiganPost Number: 5 Registered: Nov-05 | Sorry to disagree with an above post but Stereophile has some of the most pretentious airhead morons in the business. They specialize in making up poetic nonsence terminology. Too bad Audio bit the dust. There are basic terms like warm, cool and detailed that are relevant. To understand them you need the opportunity to hear a variety of good and bad equipment. Many people have never heard really good gear. And if someone can point out the difference in the sound of the gear with repeated A/B comparisons, you will understand the need for basic terminology. Don't look to Stereophile for advice; I don't think they ever quite figured out what Class A means. They seem to think it is something like Blue Ribbon. |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 720 Registered: Nov-04 | john, its easy to debunk something you dont like. now that you have that off your chest please explain to us what terminology should be used instead of the overused words? i understand that your complaint lies in the fact that much of the terminology can seem trivial, but than what words arent? what should our vocabulary be replaced with? being a scientist you should know that even though a system isnt perfect, it has to be used of no other exists. you cant throw out the vocabulary and expect someone to talk about hifi can you? thats like telling a physicist you cant use "gravity" because its use is trivial and expect them to explain why objects fall downward. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavincummPost Number: 331 Registered: Feb-05 | I think the worst term is "wumpy" bass |
|
Anoynymous Unregistered guest | The worst term is: "I recommend" Funny stuff |
|
New member Username: JohnoasSydney, NSW Australia Post Number: 6 Registered: Nov-05 | Christopher, I'm not proposing that every term be thrown out, although I believe many could be. This doesn't necessarily mean I (or anyone else for that matter) needs to suggest a direct replacement. I believe there's already plenty of terminology available to describe sound. A lot of people don't like terms that sound technical, or require them to be too specific, but that doesn't mean the technical terms are flawed. Some people are scared that if you use technical terms, you'll somehow lose your creative, arty air. Of couse, they may just be worried that if they give a specification that can actually be tested, someone may try to hold them to it. I don't believe I'm asking anyone not to use "gravity", or, as may be the case in the audio realm, SPL, Frequency Response, Impedance, Reactance, Phase etc etc. Some of the terms simply need more fleshing out, or supporting information, things like complex, busy, muddy etc are usable terms if defined and used in the right context. If you're going to use some sort of esoteric metaphor, that too may be OK, but you should accompany it with some sort of explaination. I would not expect a physicist to release a paper on "the shiny properties of my greeny yellowy laser and it's impact on the shakiness of air molecules". That doesn't mean we should strike "shiny" from the english language, but if you're going to talk about laser light, it might be more appropriate to talk in terms of wavelength and power, don't you agree? I'm not attempting to throw out the vocabulary, I'm just suggesting it could be used with a lot more care, and with respect for context. I honestly believe many people in the high end audio arena use terms simply to impress or bamboozle the general public. You shouldn't have to have a physics degree just to tell when a salesperson is speaking rubbish. It doesn't have a huge impact for me personally, as I'm happy to ignore sales staff who are obviously incapable of doing anything more than quoting slabs of text from brochures and magazines. It does frustrate me though when I'm helping out others and realise how common it is for those in the industry to take people for a ride, intentional or not. |
|
Silver Member Username: Touche6784USA Post Number: 722 Registered: Nov-04 | im still confused as to your point in this thread. you want to point out that a large portion of the vocabulary that is used is useless and yet you dont want to find an alternative that would work better. now that you have pointed out the problems with these terms, now what? the majority of the poeple here know better than to throw stuff out from a brochure or some website. im sorry but i see this thread as becoming more and more pointless. |
|
New member Username: JohnoasSydney, NSW Australia Post Number: 7 Registered: Nov-05 | Christopher, Yes I'd like to point out that a large portion of the vocabulary (or at least, it's implementation) is flawed. I don't think I need to find an alternative, there already is one. There are plenty of technical (and other) terms already out there which are more than adequate. If you want to find a direct replacement for every furry term out there, we need to define the term in the first place, the job is then done. I don't think that's possible in all cases as some of the terms serve no consistent purpose as far as I can tell. I don't see it as pointless to highlight a weakness/problem that is rife in the industry. If it helps one person avoid the pitfalls of underhanded hi-fi sales staff, that'll do me. I know I won't convert/convince the die-hard fans, that's a given. Many cult-members can't be talked out of their membership, they're convinced their particular club/cult/religion is the right one. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile debunking the loopier, harmful cults. I know that's a bit of a long bow to draw, and I realise bad hi-fi sales staff don't do anywhere near as much damage as a good (as in effective) cult leader. However, it's the same in principle, if not in scope. (Don't get me started on loopy religions.) To be honest, I kicked off the thread to test the waters and see if/how wrong I was about some of these terms. I admit I've learned some things about some of them and the people that use them. is there an easy fix, probably not, but that doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile discussion. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6498 Registered: May-04 | The "easy fix" is to stop the person using the term ineffectively or even incorrectly and ask them to define in real words the terminology they are using. You will find most people will not agree on the meaning of "warm". Just as a salesperson, reviewer, forum member or friend might use "TIM", "absolute phase" or "timing errors" as a way to not say something useful, the person who uses "warm", "musical" or "PRAT" possibly doesn't know what they are actually saying either. I would say it is not always meant to decieve; but it is often meant to imply a knowledge that isn't really there. But unless you stop the user and make them get on track with you regarding terminology both of you can agree upon, there's not much point in getting upset. Stop the person and ask what they mean. Doesn't seem so hard. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6499 Registered: May-04 | "Skin effect". Now there's one where you should stop anybody who uses the term and have them explain what "skin effect" really means. Not what it does; but what it means. Actually, at least 50% of the terms Monster Cable uses should be explained in real language. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PtarmiganPost Number: 14 Registered: Nov-05 | Forget the buzz. Here's what it comes down to: Does it sound like there are real, live musicians in front of you? i.e., does the music sound solid and precisely positioned in space? And clear? Then it is "warm." If it sounds like a recording coming out of speakers and the imaging is thin and ghostlike, then it could most likely be described as "cold." If you've forgotten what real live musicians sound like, go out and listen to some before you audition equipment. Then you won't need a salesperson to tell you what the equipment sounds like. You will know what it is supposed to sound like. |
|
New member Username: JohnoasSydney, NSW Australia Post Number: 8 Registered: Nov-05 | Jan, I agree that calling out the culprit is the most likely way to get them to change. Unfortunately, it's not always practical. On my own time I'm happy to do so, when I'm helping out someone else, and on a sechedule, it's often easier to ignore the rubbish and just listen to what we want to listen to. My companions, like many people, aren't always comfortable with confrontation either. On Skin effect, your absolutely right. Some people love nothing more than to allude to some seemingly complex theory as if it's actually relevant. As to the Monster Cable issues, unfortunately, truth in advertising is often an oxymoron. J Pi, your strategy assumes the recording has correctly captured the live sound, which isn't always the case and, some would argue, is actually impossible to do. There's also the fact that you're basing your judgement on the memory of a sound, quite possibly from a significant time ago. This makes it very difficult to be objective. Your mood, state of health and a bunch of other factors are also going to influence your perception. I might remember conceptually what the sound at a concert was like, or even recall aspects of particular sections, but I know I certainly couldn't claim to have such a good auditory memory as to match an ABX style in-shop listen to the concert I heard however long ago. Your definition of "warm" is also quite different to that I've come across previously. Your's may of course be the correct definition, whatever that means, but it does highlight the mess that common audio terminolgy really is. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1008 Registered: Sep-04 | John The problem is that should you talk about slew rate, damping factor, jitter, phase shift etc. most customers' eyes will glaze over and they'll be walking out of the shop before you've finished saying your sentence. Those words mean less to them than warm, bright, sharp, harsh, stark, rich, fruity, deep, engaging, involving etc. Those words mean enough to people that they get an idea of what's being discussed. No doubt that one person's bright is another person's harsh, but very few understand truly technical terms and the effect of those terms in design so this jargon has becomce prevalent as the sales assistant's tool to help the customer understand the subject. Of course, most sales assistants would also not understand the meaning and effects of the terms slew rate, damping factor, jitter, phase shift etc. but that's another matter. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6502 Registered: May-04 | Didn't your mother teach you how to "politely" call someone a fool? Just stop the person and request that everyone get on board the same trolley when it comes to vocabulary. It doesn't have to be confrontational. Maybe we're finding something out about you, JT. Supposedly you're there to help your companion. There shouldn't be any confrontation between you and the salesperson. Let your friend do most of the talking and your job should be only to keep your buddy from doing something utterly stupid. Let them make their own mistakes as long as the mistakes are not the sort that will cost them hundreds when, and if, they realize they should have paid more attention. You are not buying another system for yourself; but they are picking what they want to listen to. I have no idea how much experience your friend has in audio, but a simple, "How are you using the term 'warm' since that's not what I'm hearing", should suffice. A visit to an audio shop that leaves anyone feeling demoralized should be reserved only for those truly deserving of such an experience. |
|
New member Username: JohnoasSydney, NSW Australia Post Number: 9 Registered: Nov-05 | Jan, yes I do know how to "politely" call someone a fool. I'm not sure if it was my mother's teaching though, she's not generally inclined towards subtlety  Mostly I say very little while the salesperson's around. I generally just help out with what I beleive are the differences I hear when we're left to do our testing. I'm not sure what you're finding out about me Jan, but remember, you can't believe everything you read on bathroom walls. (or hear on hi-fi showroom floors) Frank, I agree that technical terms will make some people switch off. I think the "fuzzy" terms are just as bad though, but because they're often spoken about as if everyone should know exactly what's meant, people are often too shy to ask for fear of looking ignorant. Using a term like "stark" or "engaging" might seem familiar enough that no one says anything, but the reality is most often that no real information has been conveyed. The salesperson goes on thinkking the customer understands, and the customer is either confused or mistaken, either way, the encounter has been far from idea. It is better, IMHO, to use a term likely to solicit a question or clarification rather than one which is vague, ill-defined or just plain inappropriate. I realise the average punter shares some of the blame here for not asking enough questions. My original post was intended to find peoples favourite frustrating phrases and look for a bit of insight as to whether or not people believe the ambiguity and fuzziness are deliberate. It's been an interesting bit of feedback thus far. |
|
Rantz Unregistered guest | Then there is the term "audiophile" - sounds like someone who should be locked up. I guess many an audiophile's spouse might agree. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6523 Registered: May-04 | JT - Was that you who left the message on the bathroom walls? How'bout that! |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 1012 Registered: Sep-04 | John I appreciate where you're coming from and I accept that the terms aren't particularly helpful, particularly if you're technically inclined. There was a humungous thread that went all the way to around 1000 posts discussing the nature of sound and music - I think it was called 'Do you listen'. I forget since it spawned other threads too. Jan started it (it's usually his fault ) as an honest approach to defining what we listen for when we go into a demo, and whether we use live experiences to gauge how the demo experience measured up. There were arguments of course, since it led into recording techniques, the lack of basic measurable or accepted criteria etc. but it also got heavily into our glossary of terms and what for example 'bright' may mean. As with many threads of this type on any forum, there was no definitive conclusion, but I think it helped the participants and readers to think about the issue as well as to form opinions on how to approach dealers and what to expect in terms of jargon. It also helped show that you need to establish your frame of reference with your dealer in conversation, in order to be able to agree on terms. It's not a long conversation. A customer simply says - ooh that's bright. A good dealer listens to this observation and adjusts his demo accordingly, but if it's, say, a customer who has very old equipment, he may suggest that the customer is used to his now soft sounding bandwidth limited HiFi. Then he can demonstrate that the general presentation of most brands has a bit more treble lift than the customer is used to. As a sometime dealer myself (I work in a shop on Saturdays because I'm really sad!), I also find I have to modify my language depending on the customer, their background and their willingness to listen. This is all sales technique of course, but it's remarkable how few really good dealers there are around who understand their products and can help differentiate between them. That's the key really. It's not really that important whether an amp is bright or not (as an example). What matters is whether it's too bright for the customer, and whether the dealer has other choices which can demonstrate through listening a less bright presentation which still engages the senses. So we're really using these terms in a relativistic model. Once we've applied the terms to the kit on display, we can choose which set of compromises we prefer. We only need the terms in order to establish frames of reference. For example, last Saturday, I had a very interesting demo with a middle aged couple who were looking at their first upgrade in about 15 years. They have a decent system from the early nineties (Kenwood 990 CD player, udiolab 8000a, Ruark TalismanII). The man was sceptical that 'such a lot of money should be required to buy fidelity' since Chinese products could make things cheaper and just as well, and all thee electronics use similar quality components after all. Yes, he was a bit aggressive and to an extent I can appreciate his point of view, especially since I sell £2000 DVD players when ARGOS sell £50 DVD players with more features! We agreed to a demo of electronics and that we should consider a fair chunk extra over what he had paid for his system as an upgrade. So I ended up demoing £3000 CD/amp combinations, 3 of them in fact, into a very good pair of speakers which would show the respective weaknesses and strengths. I certainly did not anticipate a sale, this would be an investigative demo more than anything else. The three systems I played the couple were within a couple of hundred pounds of each other so they were suitable competitors, but still with the same principle of spreading the cash between the two main components of CD player and amplifier. They had very different presentations indeed. The overall quality relative to each other wasn't that dissimilar, but the way music was presented was quite different, such that the couple would remark that it was almost like listening to a different disc (we used several with different genres to show the relative merits). We discussed how one brand was excellent with jazz and rock, but was less capable with opera and a violing concerto, but how a second brand was excellent at opera and the concerto but fell apart on the jazz and rock. Then there was the third brand which majored wholly on resolution, allowing the jazz and rock to breathe and giving real expression to the opera and concerto. None of the presentational differences would be better described by lower jitter, better damping factor or slew rate. The music simply timed well or it didn't, it connected with you raising the hairs on your neck, or it didn't - and in the final analysis this is what counts - nothing else. And here's why this not-so-little story is (In my view) interesting: none of the systems were really enough of a step from the system 'at home'. As it happened I had another system waiting in the wings which was twice the price of the systems on demo. It had been left there from another demo. The true demo had finished with no real consensus since none of the systems was truly a 'must have', but we also came to the value for money question, and I asked them if they wanted to be 'blown away', so they said yes, and I put on the larger system (same brand as one they heard earlier). This was where the gentleman finally said the magic words "that's what I was looking for!". We then discussed the relative merits and how many of the faults of the smaller £3k system were addressed, but their view was the whole landscape had changed, that the whole experience was different and needed a whole new set of terms to refine the descriptions of the experience. They didn't buy - I didn't expect them to do so, but they did walk away to think about it, and to re-evaluate their thoughts on the whole subjective matter that is hifi and value for money. It's a minefield, no question. I hope this is interesting... Regards, Frank. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics