IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Words that are meaningless in the context of an audio review, A list of words which discredit a review by their inclusion
wakibaki
post May 6 2012, 02:40
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 23-July 11
Member No.: 92474



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

This post has been edited by wakibaki: May 6 2012, 02:41


--------------------
wakibaki.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Glenn Gundlach
post May 6 2012, 06:05
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 364
Joined: 19-April 08
From: LA
Member No.: 52914



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.

G

This post has been edited by Frank Bicking: May 6 2012, 12:39
Reason for edit: Removed fullquote of the first post.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post May 6 2012, 09:58
Post #3





Group: Developer
Posts: 1410
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



  • "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.


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Speedskater
post May 6 2012, 12:38
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 137
Joined: 12-December 07
From: Cleveland, OH
Member No.: 49500



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



--------------------
Kevin
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
stephan_g
post May 6 2012, 17:47
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 187
Joined: 6-June 10
From: Bavaria
Member No.: 81240



This glossary?

BTW, "euphoric" (excited) != "euphonic" (purposely pleasing to the ear).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wakibaki
post May 6 2012, 20:37
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 23-July 11
Member No.: 92474



QUOTE (Speedskater @ May 6 2012, 12:38) *
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

This post has been edited by wakibaki: May 6 2012, 20:41


--------------------
wakibaki.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bug80
post May 6 2012, 22:04
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: 23-January 05
From: The Netherlands
Member No.: 19254



Another classic: danceable
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
smok3
post May 6 2012, 23:19
Post #8


A/V Moderator


Group: Moderator
Posts: 1726
Joined: 30-April 02
From: Slovenia
Member No.: 1922



some of these:
"Music had a vail lifted with greater depth and space, with nuances rendered with increased accuracy."


--------------------
PANIC: CPU 1: Cache Error (unrecoverable - dcache data) Eframe = 0x90000000208cf3b8
NOTICE - cpu 0 didn't dump TLB, may be hung
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 7 2012, 00:27
Post #9





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



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.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mzil
post May 7 2012, 00:51
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 497
Joined: 5-August 07
Member No.: 45913



"Butterscotch"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post May 7 2012, 02:13
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 1291
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



QUOTE (bug80 @ May 6 2012, 14:04) *
Another classic: danceable

Ah, those days when Gizmodo was at least a little bit reasonable.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wakibaki
post May 7 2012, 03:10
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 23-July 11
Member No.: 92474



QUOTE (greynol @ May 7 2012, 00:27) *
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


--------------------
wakibaki.com
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
porky_pig_jr
post May 7 2012, 04:33
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 98
Joined: 6-October 01
Member No.: 225



QUOTE (stephan_g @ May 6 2012, 17:47) *
This glossary?

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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
knutinh
post May 7 2012, 06:36
Post #14





Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 1-November 06
Member No.: 37047



3-dimensionality
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
skamp
post May 7 2012, 08:58
Post #15





Group: Developer
Posts: 1410
Joined: 4-May 04
From: France
Member No.: 13875



QUOTE (stephan_g @ May 6 2012, 18:47) *
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.

tongue.gif


--------------------
See my profile for measurements, tools and recommendations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post May 7 2012, 09:01
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: 16-December 10
From: Palermo
Member No.: 86562



QUOTE (knutinh @ May 7 2012, 07:36) *
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.


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PoisonDan
post May 7 2012, 10:52
Post #17





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 678
Joined: 10-December 01
From: Belgium
Member No.: 622



QUOTE (bug80 @ May 6 2012, 23:04) *
Another classic: danceable

I'm surprised nobody mentioned "foot-tappityness" yet. wink.gif


--------------------
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ech3
post May 7 2012, 14:42
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: 13-December 01
Member No.: 632



Warm.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zarggg
post May 7 2012, 15:31
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 545
Joined: 18-January 04
From: bethlehem.pa.us
Member No.: 11318



QUOTE (Nessuno @ May 7 2012, 04:01) *
QUOTE (knutinh @ May 7 2012, 07:36) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 7 2012, 15:36
Post #20





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



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.

This post has been edited by greynol: May 7 2012, 18:14


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Nessuno
post May 7 2012, 17:28
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 422
Joined: 16-December 10
From: Palermo
Member No.: 86562



QUOTE (Zarggg @ May 7 2012, 16:31) *
QUOTE (Nessuno @ May 7 2012, 04:01) *
QUOTE (knutinh @ May 7 2012, 07:36) *
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? wink.gif

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.

This post has been edited by Nessuno: May 7 2012, 17:30


--------------------
... I live by long distance.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 7 2012, 17:33
Post #22





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



It was not an analogy; it was a clarification and was not directed specifically at you. wink.gif

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 and my response was binned too (not by me, but it was probably for the best).

This post has been edited by greynol: May 7 2012, 23:55


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post May 7 2012, 18:01
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



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.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post May 7 2012, 18:12
Post #24





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



To add to that, it's also a shame since sometimes two pieces of gear might actually sound different objectively.


--------------------
Placebophiles: put up or shut up!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ZAPNSPARK
post May 7 2012, 19:03
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 30-April 09
From: Midwest
Member No.: 69408



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
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 04:39