You didn't say anything about height.
To add to that, it's also a shame since sometimes two pieces of gear might actually sound different objectively.
The following words were collected from an actual 2 part review in an audio webzine. It's not a complete list. Can anyone guess what was being reviewed?[unnecessary full quote of list removed]
Quote from: greynol on 07 May, 2012, 01:12:01 PMTo add to that, it's also a shame since sometimes two pieces of gear might actually sound different objectively.In this case an objectivity wised reviewer can just take the right measurements (not a trivial task per se) and elaborate on the differences between them. Any further explanation, which anyway could be just unavoidable if the target audience is not strictly technical, is left to his expressive capabilities and communication skill, and words are just tools.
I am a little confused. In greynol's comment it appears that no descriptive word is necessary. However your post Nessuno you point out that some words are required to explain the objective difference. However what type of words should be used?
Quote from: knutinh on 07 May, 2012, 01:36:09 AM3-dimensionalityThat is the very meaning of the word "stereo"...
By the way: boys, I don't see the point in this thread, actually.
Quote from: ZAPNSPARK on 07 May, 2012, 02:03:35 PMThe following words were collected from an actual 2 part review in an audio webzine. It's not a complete list. Can anyone guess what was being reviewed?[unnecessary full quote of list removed]A little Googling shed the following light.(1) The above list appeared earlier on the Gearslutz forum and was said to apply to a review of capacitors.(2) All of the above words appear in a standard reference called "A rhyming words dictionary". One can only speculate on the genesis of the two-part article referenced in (1).
Now, from those premises, when a reviewer writes about "threedimensionality" I understand what he, in a simply qualitative and straightforward way, wants to communicate me. Then I can accept that a set of speakers, if properly positioned, can have "threedimensional" capabilities of his own and an amplifier or a converter cannot, but not deny that such a term has a meaning and blame the reviewer if he uses it.
If those conducting the review genuinely wished to convey how well a pair of speakers performed at locating sound sources in 3D space don't you think there are some quantitative ways to do it? Ways that would stand scrutiny by others and could be relied upon by consumers? So why don't they do it?
I would suggest a bit of caution about drawing general conclusions from a particular set of measurements without their supporting discussion.
Quote from: honestguv on 10 May, 2012, 09:38:26 AMIf those conducting the review genuinely wished to convey how well a pair of speakers performed at locating sound sources in 3D space don't you think there are some quantitative ways to do it? Ways that would stand scrutiny by others and could be relied upon by consumers? So why don't they do it?QuoteI would suggest a bit of caution about drawing general conclusions from a particular set of measurements without their supporting discussion.Guess who wrote this very sentence, in another thread! What the word "discussion" means there?
The topic at hand is about reviews, right?
A review, I hope you agree, is by definition and to a certain extent a subjective act and the reader, to a certain extent, is supposed to thrust the reviewer, his knowledge of the matter and bona fide. Otherwise all the purpose of the review is flawed from the beginning and there's no reason in keep on, or even start reading it.
With the way that most audio equipment reviews are carried out, I think that the answer for "what words are meaningless" is "all words".
I cannot see the point you are trying to make. The second quote concerns a set of measurements without their supporting discussion which are to some degree in disagreement with other similar measurements. Because the measurements are showing something unexpected the absence of the discussion is more serious than if they agreed with other measurements.
You introduced the word 3 dimensionality saying it had a meaning for you. I was trying to extract more information on what/why given the context of the word within an audiophile review.
If the reviewer is not even competent, never mind an expert, when it comes to the technical performance of the device they are reviewing it is an enormous red flag. If...
Audiophile reviews only make sense if you recognise that they are not primarily trying to inform the consumer about the technical performance of the device being reviewed. Within this context the emotive, vague and conflicting meanings associated with many audiophile words is fine.
I admit I find difficult to understand the concept of a measure "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with something else. A measure is a fact and it is objective by definition. When you feel it "unexpected" and need to comment it, you are introducing a subjective element.
especially when discussing matters like the three dimensional illusion created by a couple of speakers, where there is no agreement upon a measure or set of measures that objectively and completely characterise it.
All the more, I've never said that a speakers review should not show measurements (and if you browse an audiophile magazine you'll find plenty, even used to justify unrealistic and plainly wrong claims!), but only that using also the word three-dimensonality in this context is understandable and not by itself disqualifying.
And to say it all, it seems to me a form of snobbism to dismiss a review only upon a word that has a precise, although "qualitative", meaning.
And you think that speaking about the capability of a set of speakers to reproduce a three dimensional image is enough to judge the reviewer an incompetent?
It depends on what meaning you give to "technical performance" of a device like a speaker. For an electronic device, system theory (and linear system theory most of the times) gives us precise ways to predict how they will behave with inputs within specs and for this reason I even see little point in "reviewing" them. Speakers (more precisely, transducers) are still, AFAIK, not completely described in every aspect of their performances by a set of measurements and for them I consider there is (still?) space for subjective reviews.
By the way, is this site your ideal of reviewer?