I've google searched for this list, but either my search criteria are bad or it isn't out there.
My apologies if this is not an original topic.
As the title says, I'm trying to compile a list of words that are employed by audio reviewers and forum pundits in their descriptions of the performance of equipment that don't actually convey anything useful.
A couple of words that have come to my attention recently are 'uninvolving' and 'fatigueing'. Both of these at first sight are characteristics that I wouldn't want my equipment to have, but on reflection they're so unspecific that I feel that the reviewer might just as well have said 'I don't like this equipment, but for no good reason I can put a name to'. Since the whole purpose of a review is to provide specific descriptions of equipment characteristics, I've come to feel that the inclusion of these words automatically discredits the reviewer
Another word I'm not too happy with is 'thin', but perhaps you don't share my view. Anyway, I'm going to leave it open to others now to make some contributions.
w
Ask 10 people for their definition of 'muddy' and you'll get a wide variety of conflicting explanations. . 'Thin' I take as a lack in the lower frequencies but again, someone else may have a totally different definition. I've had 'fatiguing' audio that had lumpy response in the upper frequencies and again..... I have no idea at all of what 'uninvolving' might mean.
G²
- "analog sounding" (isn't everything we hear analog?)
- "musical" (we're all listening to music, right?)
- "effortless" (in contrast to a constipated amp taking a dump)
- "involved" (in contrast to a lazy DAC that really doesn't give a damn)
- "euphoric" (it's the reviewer who's on cocaine, not the gear!)
- "lively" (it lives!)
- "authoritative" (the reviewer's gear is letting them know who's the boss - whip not included)
- "focused" (high end audio gear doesn't much care for distraction, especially when it's chinese)
…to name a few.
Way back in 1990, J. Gordon Holt wrote a 152 page book (or booklet)
The Audio Glossary
Three of skamp's words are defined:
musical, euphonic, focused
This glossary? (http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html)
BTW, "euphoric" (excited) != "euphonic" (purposely pleasing to the ear).
Way back in 1990, J. Gordon Holt wrote a 152 page book (or booklet)
The Audio Glossary
This is indeed useful as it contains many redundant redefinitions of existing words, but I fear the author's intentions and mine are directly at odds when compiling our lists.
Thanks, skamp, for your 'few'.
w
Another classic: danceable (http://gizmodo.com/305549/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better)
some of these:
"Music had a vail lifted with greater depth and space, with nuances rendered with increased accuracy."
I think I remember that one. Wasn't it about something like a mains or cat5 cable?
Waki, you've seen the discussions about the nonsense about PRaT? Often a good troll magnet.
"Butterscotch"
Another classic: danceable (http://gizmodo.com/305549/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better)
Ah, those days when Gizmodo was at least a little bit reasonable.
Waki, you've seen the discussions about the nonsense about PRaT? Often a good troll magnet.
Pace, rhythm and timing?. Yes. I'm not trying to attract an argument though, I just set out to provide a straightforward clarification to a questioner on another forum, and although I knew there were many such words in common use, I just couldn't bring very many to mind. I googled for a list, but I couldn't find one.
The link to the Holt 'Glossary' is great. I recommend it to anyone with a few minutes to spare, a greater condensation of arrant nonsense in one place would be difficult to find. I'm going to re-work it to remove all concessions to rationality and re-post it with any additions contributed here. It won't be a quick job though, I've only read from A to C and I had to leave off, I can only take so much in one dose.
w
This glossary? (http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html)
BTW, "euphoric" (excited) != "euphonic" (purposely pleasing to the ear).
"Euphonic" is typically used when talking about tube amplifiers. The kind of distortions they introduce have sort of a "smoothing" effect, like pouring molasses on every meal you have. I guess some people like it that way.
3-dimensionality
BTW, "euphoric" (excited) != "euphonic" (purposely pleasing to the ear).
I did mean "euphoric" though. Remember, reviewers personify the gear and make it seem alive (see: "lively"). Incidentally, stimulants are known to produce euphoria, and some of them largely increase one's appreciation of music. Though I have no idea what audiophiles are on.
3-dimensionality
That is the very meaning of the word "stereo"...
By the way: boys, I don't see the point in this thread, actually.
Another classic: danceable (http://gizmodo.com/305549/james-randi-offers-1-million-if-audiophiles-can-prove-7250-speaker-cables-are-better)
I'm surprised nobody mentioned "foot-tappityness" yet.
Warm.
3-dimensionality
That is the very meaning of the word "stereo"...
Technically, stereo is two-dimensional.
Three-dimensional would be in the realm of 5+ channel surround-sound.
Two points can only define one dimension (two dimensions requires three non-linear points, thee dimensions requires four non-coplanar points). The brain is successfully able to create a thee-dimensional image with only two ears, however.
Some of these words aren't so bad (pace and rhythm excluded), it just depends on what they're used to describe.
3-dimensionality
That is the very meaning of the word "stereo"...
Technically, stereo is two-dimensional.
Three-dimensional would be in the realm of 5+ channel surround-sound.
Semantically "stereo" is ancient greek for "solid". Ever heard about "stereoscopic" photography?
Technically stereophony aims to reproduce a three dimensional space in front of the listener: left, right and depth. Surround only differs in the portion of space that tries to reproduce, with depth extending also round and behind the listener.
@greynol: I don't think the geometrical analogy makes much sense in this case, time being involved, which is what actually "fools" the ears (and as you yourself said, the brain between) in perceiving depth or, better, relative distance of virtual sources.
It was not an analogy; it was a clarification and was not directed specifically at you.
You didn't say anything about height.
Regarding your other point, you only need to read the initial post. Posts have already been binned for violating TOS #2 and I should have done the same with the other TOS #2 violation (see update below), but it would probably have been interpreted as censorship and as a result be incorrectly seen as justification for what is actually inappropriate behavior.
If you (that is to say general "you") don't like the discussion, don't participate.
UPDATE: That post (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=94833&view=findpost&p=794711) and my response was binned too (not by me, but it was probably for the best).
With the way that most audio equipment reviews are carried out, I think that the answer for "what words are meaningless" is "all words".
Sorry, I think we're missing the cargo ship here.
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?
Airy
Anemic
Anvil-taught
Assertive
Balanced
Bassy
Billowing
Bite
Bloom
Bold
Brassy
Breathy
Bright
Brittle
Broken
Buzz
Clarity
Clean
Clear
Closed
Clouded
Coherence
Compressed
Confident
Damped
Dark
Dense
Detail
Detailed
Diminutive
Distinct
Dynamic
Ear-grabbing
Eargasmic
Effervescent
Elegant
Exotic
Extended
Fast
Feathery
Flair
Flavored
Flowing
Fluffier
Fluid
Full
Glare
Grain
Harsh
Hollow
Impactful
Laid-back
Liquid
Liveliness
Magical
Midrange-centric
Muddy
Musical
Natural
Neutral
Occluded
Open
Overdone
Personality
Pleasing
Polite
Punchy
Refined
Rich
Romantic
Sexy
Slippery
Slow
Smooth
Sophisticated
Sparkling
Spitty
Strained
Subtle
Syrupy
Tasteful
Textured
Thick
Thin
Tight
Transparent
Veiled
Vivid
Warm
Wholesome
Cheers.
ZAPNSPARK
You didn't say anything about height.
I didn't (actually cancelled the word!) because honestly I've never heard a realistic (as to say, really "solid") reproduction of difference in height placement of sources with usual stereophonic recording. But yes, theorically even height could be represented.
By the way (and I stop here with the OT): perhaps someone might be intersted in this (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/TMT-Leipzig'10/TMT-Hearing%20spatial%20detail.pdf) rather qualitative introduction to sterophonic three dimensional reconstruction.
P.S. Roger!
I had posted that list of buzzwords on another forum years ago.
I think the funniest guesses were:
"CD-R blanks" and "ear plugs"
It was in fact, a review of capacitors.
The actual capacitor reviews are here:
http://tinyurl.com/68hnje (http://tinyurl.com/68hnje)
http://tinyurl.com/6chuly (http://tinyurl.com/6chuly)
Cheers.
ZAPNSPARK
To 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.
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]
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).
To 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?
At the What's Best forum the other day, Barry Diament used the word "bleached" to describe, well, actually, I have no idea what he was trying to describe! Something to do with bit depth.
--Ethan
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?
It seems to me greynol complained just the opposite, in answering to a Woodinville post that said "all words are meaningless in a review".
I only expressed the opinion that if a reviewer's audience was supposed to be made of engineers only measurements should suffice, otherwise necessitate some "other words", but existing no approved standard on which exact words to use in describing a given hearing phenomenon, the choice is left to writer's skill.
Just to clarify: the starting point is that a real difference do exists and is actually perceivable (ABXable, in HA terms). Audio magazines are full of ex post demonstrations from nice graphs.
Audio reviews, unless limited to measurements and specs and a comparison thereof, are essentially advertising shills, IMO. Magazines that feature so-called "subjective" reviews do so to attract customers to their advertisers. And those types of reviews are quite meaningless.
3-dimensionality
That is the very meaning of the word "stereo"...
I disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophony)
The word stereophonic derives from the Greek "???????" (stereos), "firm, solid"[2] + "????" (ph?n?), "sound, tone, voice"[3] and it was coined in 1927 by Western Electric
I believe that the practical 2-channel systems and playback geometry usually referred to by the word "stereo" is (at best) capable of the perceptual feat of placement along a 1-dimensional stage between the two loudspeakers.
By the way: boys, I don't see the point in this thread, actually.
Clearly, the point is to show annoyance or frustration of the use of words in reviews that have not been defined anywhere, and that (to us on the outside) seems like meaningless babble that only serve to make the glossy hifi magazines appear more like glossy women magazines about make-up, and less like rationally-based information and buyers advice.
-k
Fluff words are also used by amatures in web forums. The question could be asked in order to find additional examples of unwelcome language listed in TOS #8. I doubt anyone would ask what the point was in that case.
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]
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).
It would be easy enough to take any single issue of The Absolute Sound and develop a similar, though perhaps smaller, list.
The classic of its pretentious type is the acronym PRAT: among golden ears, components are said to differ in their 'Pace, Rhythm, and Timing'. As if amplifiers were musicians. It's Emperor's New Clothes idiocy.
Left alone all the considerations if a common three-axis cartesian system is the one to use or a polar one is more suitable, if it's better to speak in non euclidean terms and not forget about the fourth dimension etc... I think that the word "threedimensionality" has a precise and perfectly understandable sense in audio gear review (at least the one you can search for in a magazine, not in "Transactions of" ) and the concept beneath is absolutely clear.
I explain:
I listen mainly to classical, a kind of music that has always been performed on an actual three dimensions space long before audio gears came into use. There are even compositions that make explicit use of space effects (Gabrieli's canzoni a due cori or J. S. Bach's first choir from Mattew's passion are just the firsts that come to my mind) .
I regularly attend to concerts and have thus developed a rather accurate mental three dimensional image of an orchestra, a quartet, an opera singer playing on stage etc...
It happened to me, rarely I admit, to listen to a stereo set able to recreate, even in part, that image. As to say: a soloist very next to me on the foreground but not the size of a mountain, violins right behind, then horns, then triangle in the far background etc...
On the other extreme of sonical experiences, with some system all instruments are simply clustered around the two speakers. No "virtual" space at all.
Never actually tried (never had the chance to) but I think I could ABX two completely different systems, at least the speakers if not the electronics.
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.
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.
Given that a pair of speakers can be used to create the illusion of sound sources in a 3D space to some extent (and they can albeit not as well as headphones) how useful is an emotive qualitative description to a consumer that has not signed up for audiophile beliefs and can see a large number of other emotive qualitative descriptions in the review many of which appear to make no rational sense (e.g. your 3 dimensional applied to cables). 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?
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.
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.
Supposed I even start to read a review about cables, hardly possible indeed, if I see remarks about their three dimensonality I simply skip the rest and else from that reviewer, if I find the same remark in a speaker review I keep on reading, that's all.
And even so, of course, reading is not believing...
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.
Guess who wrote this very sentence, in another thread!
What the word "discussion" means there?
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. The first quote is trying to put the word 3 dimensionality back into the context of a anaudiophile review.
The topic at hand is about reviews, right?
The topic of the thread is the meaning of audiophile words in reviews. 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.
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.
If a review of the performance of technical equipment is subjective it is a big red flag that something odd is going on. If the reviewer discusses 3 dimensionality in a way that cannot be checked by others it is a big red flag. If the reviewer discusses 3 dimensionality without running simple test signals to quantify how well sources are located it is a big red flag. 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.
With the way that most audio equipment reviews are carried out, I think that the answer for "what words are meaningless" is "all words".
/thread
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.
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.
Not that I see something wrong with this, in principle and in that case, but I'm also sure you know that, for example, reasoning about a measure may also lead to wrong conclusions (TOS #8 forbids graphs as only objective proof not by chance), 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. Of course, if I see a bad response graph at highs, a bad time decay graph, a bad off axis radiation pattern and so on AND whithin the same review I read about good three dimensionality... well... I start to doubt.
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.
I've already tried to explain what and why in a previous post.
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...
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?
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.
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 (http://en.goldenears.net/) your ideal of reviewer?
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.
Measurements have errors which is why measurements of nominally the same thing can be different. Getting a handle on the size of possible errors is a requirement to reliably use measurement data. The experimenter's discussion about how the measurements were taken and their views on the size of the errors, usually optimistic and discounting systematic errors (cock-ups), is useful. Experimenters also draw conclusions about their measurements. Mistakes here are less of a problem so long as the data is reliable and the reader has the knowledge and ability to reason independently.
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.
There have been a large number of experiments on sound source perception going back to the 30s or so. There are no major problems in getting information from the test subjects about what they are hearing and quantifying it in order to "do science". The notion that you can "completely characterise it" makes little sense given that what is perceived depends on a range of non-aural factors and varies with the health of the subject's ears.
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.
But it is precisely the context which prevents many people from attaching anything other than the usual audiophile meanings to the word. If the same description was given by a non-audiophile in general discussion it is likely to be more understood because such people tend to assign meanings to word more in line with general usage and lack the motivations of an audiophile reviewer.
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.
It is not one word that causes many to dismiss audiophile reviews it is all of them as a collective whole. For those used to technical/scientific writing they are very difficult to read because the authors do not seek to communicate using meaningful language but emotive language and with words having vague meanings and often somewhat at odds with their traditional 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?
With rare exceptions, audiophile reviewers are technically incompetent. Not only that they seem to revel in their technical ignorance and do not consider it an issue when reviewing the performance of technical equipment. This says nothing about their competence as audiophile reviewers and I suspect most of them are judged highly by their employers and those in the target audience for their reviews.
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.
I think you are confusing things a bit. Defining a speakers performance is not particularly difficult (i.e. sufficiently to construct a model to replace it) but it does involve a fair amount of work. Although a speaker does have a correct on axis behaviour defined by the same things as other audio equipment it does not have a correct off axis behaviour. Nonetheless it is not particularly difficult to quantify the chosen off axis behaviour.
By the way, is this site (http://en.goldenears.net/) your ideal of reviewer?
The reviewer is not an expert which would be one of my first requirements for an ideal review.
An old Simpsons song springs to mind...
sorry...
Bart: We are happy, we are merry.
Army: We are happy, we are merry.
Bart: We got a rhyming dictionary.
Army: We got a rhyming dictionary.
Bart: Sound off.
Army: One! Two!
Bart: One more time!
Army: Three! Four!
Bart: Bring it on home now!
Army: One! Two! Three! Four!
One! Two! ... Three-Four!