Audio Terms?????

[Luvin Da Blues]

Forgive my ignorance but I'm a little confused on some audio terms,

Now I understand terms like imaging, presence, soundstaging, warmth etc but some terms are a little more confusing.

Aren't terms like colorization and neutrality reference based and unless you were in the studio during the recording or at the exact live event how do you know exactly what the original music sounded like or the engineer intended. Are these not based on your personal history with sound systems?

[Dusty Chalk]

It's an ongoing process. I mean, yes, perfect neutrality is impossible to detect, unless you're talking about both the entire recording chain and the entire playback chain, because the recording could be recorded incorrectly in such a way that the playback chain totally compensates for it, but how would you know? You wouldn't, because you have to play it back to find out.

But, one can certainly use those terms to describe something as more or less neutral, or more or less coloured. For example -- my least favourite pair of headphones that I have ever heard, it sounds like there's a roller coaster for a frequency spectrum every time I've heard it. It's the headphones, because I've heard other headphones out of the exact same setup sound much more neutral and less coloured.

So I would think you should be able to use those terms to make that distinction, don't you?

[Luvin Da Blues]

Thanks Dusty,

That just goes to prove that it is subjective to the persons listening history but if you say it's neutral what does that mean to me if I haven't had your listening experience? Or is this just terms that you would use for your own personal reference?

Don't get me wrong in that I can appreciate neutral sounding speakers but thats my personal take on things. I also realize that the more equipment you listen to the finer this line becomes.

I am currently in the process of upgrading my main speakers and am referring more about professional reviews and what they mean to me.

Thanks again.

[basite]

didn't stereophile make a glossary of audio terms once?
I think so

*pokes around on the stereophile site*

ah, found it...

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

here you can find alot of helpful information on an endless amount of audio terms...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Good read Basite.

But I quote "The experienced listener does not just hear the totality of reproduced sound. He hears into it, observing how the component or system handles a variety of sonic attributes which make up the whole. Instead of simply "all the highs and all the lows," he may hear a coloration that his experience has shown to indicate a treble peak."

I'm not trying to start an argument or show my ignorance...just trying to put in context.

[kexodusc]

Thanks Dusty,

I am currently in the process of upgrading my main speakers and am referring more about professional reviews and what they mean to me.

Thanks again.

Honestly, I've been subscribing to audio and musical instrument review magazines of one type or another for a lot of years now and I still don't understand the application of these terms. They're just not consistent from one review to the next.

I wouldn't get too involved with learning the definitions. For the most part, they should be fairly intuitive, ie: bright - high frequency, neutral - "unaltered".
Problem is we all hear differently. An aurologist friend of mine showed me a publication that basically explained how the shape of our ears will account for a bigger change in perception than even room acoustics - quick test - use your fingers to bend your ears forward and listen to the change in high frequency vs. midrange and bass. The brain compensates for this somewhat - but what we're really doing is applying terms to everyone's unique point of reference. My description of "bright" or "harsh" could be, for example, +3 dB from 7000 Hz up, while yours could be -1 dB across the same range.

Take them with a grain of salt, go listen to the gear in question for yourself.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Thanks kexodusc,

Of course my ears will be the one to decide but with limited time due to work and the selection in my price range I am trying to narrow the choices. Maybe I am being anal but this has been a bug in my panties for awhile now and just wanted a clarification on this.

[Resident Loser]

Forgive my ignorance but I'm a little confused on some audio terms,

Now I understand terms like imaging, presence, soundstaging, warmth etc but some terms are a little more confusing.

Aren't terms like colorization and neutrality reference based and unless you were in the studio during the recording or at the exact live event how do you know exactly what the original music sounded like or the engineer intended. Are these not based on your personal history with sound systems?

Ab-so-lute-ly key-rect...If you never heard the original, you can't know how the sound stacks up in playback...Add to that the fact that most product is a virtual "stereo" presentation of any number of mono tracks without the required localization cues we experience in the real world and all the phraseology is reduced to pure hokum...

IMHO, those terms are part and parcel of the audiophool jargon which while supposedly intended to characterize in words, certain sound qualities we may or may not hear, are much more usefull in "quantifying" (in a quite non-quantifying way) all those non-provable claims made for tweaks and wires and...and...and...

Timbral balance is where it's at...

jimHJJ[...once you get that, the rest of it (assuming it's in the software) will fall into place...]

[Dusty Chalk]

That just goes to prove that it is subjective to the persons listening history but if you say it's neutral what does that mean to me if I haven't had your listening experience? Or is this just terms that you would use for your own personal reference?

IMHO, reading reviews takes a certain amount of effort. I try to read a lot of reviews, even if I'm not interested in the product, because I like to get to know my reviewer, what he/she likes/dislikes, why, &c. Once you read enough of someone's reviews, you can gauge what a particular word means within its context. It's just like talking. When a Brit says suspenders, they mean something entirely different than when a Merkin says it. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to convey something. I mean, just because those Brits use words like flats and lifts and so on, yet you can still understand most of what they say, no? You might not find it worthwhile to go see a British comedian who does a lot of cultural humour, because you wouldn't get most of the references, right, but if you pay attention to enough different Brit-speaking peoples long enough, you'd be able to converse with a lassie long enough to get her phone number, right? It's like learning another language, but it's worth it, if the information you're looking for is hiding in what these foreign speaking peoples are saying.

Either that, or you have to do all your own reviews. I actually know someone who does that -- he goes through more equipment in a year than I will ever go through in a lifetime. But he's also pretty good at buying at a price where, when he sells it off used, he doesn't lose that much. But that's because some of the equipment he buys don't have that many good reviews, so it's hard to find info about them. That and he's very particular.

[AmpNow]

I think you have to research more about those terms to fully understand them.

________________________
McIntosh MA6500 Integrated Amplifier - Get the MA6500 Integrated Amplifier Catalog by McIntosh Laboratory, Inc.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Let me start off by welcoming you to this forum AmpNow, all opinions are welcome.

We are talking about the subjectivity of some terms vs absolute definitions. IMHO some terms should be qualified with..eg;"this speaker sounds more neutral than XXX speaker in my opinion".

Years ago I have spent time in a studio twisting knobs and I have even heard KD Lang
(one of the few excellent singers with popular music IMHO) sing in the studio, now I've never heard a system that matches that experience. Granted I haven't heard that many High End systems but have heard a few so I know what a really good system can do.

[Bingo]

Thanks kexodusc,

Of course my ears will be the one to decide but with limited time due to work and the selection in my price range I am trying to narrow the choices. Maybe I am being anal but this has been a bug in my panties for awhile now and just wanted a clarification on this.

Luvin Da Blues - I too have been engaged in a discussion about words describing sounds and it is truly an interesting but elusive endeavor. No matter what parameters we are trying to describe there are limitations.... we know 'high' and we know 'low' ... we know 'soft' and we know 'loud' ...etc. So some descriptions are indeed a part of everyone's experience...but....and here is the big but: One man's 'neutral' is another man's 'warm' or any other term that extends the description beyond the basics. I understand though that you are trying to limit the options in order to lessen the number of components you have to audition..that could take a lifetime...and that is precisely what I am trying to do....to find out what to 'write off' and to 'include' in the option list..HA! I just succeeded in going in another circle, and that, I am quite sure, didn't help you one bit, did it? ... Nope...it all comes back to the subjective. No matter who says what, you will be the one to decide, and we agree...deciding isn't easy.
Bingo

[PeruvianSkies]

If you took a cheap-o, genertic, basic boombox and played a stack of 50 CD's you would most likely find that almost all of them sound about the same in terms of overall quality. However, as most of us know, not all CD's are created equal. We are not hearing an accurate representation of each CD, we are merely hearing the poor reproduction of such and so all might sound the same, but they all sound poor.

Now take those same 50 and play them through a half-decent setup. You will probably begin to notice a few more things and certain discs might stand out a bit more than others.

Take the same 50 and gradually climb higher and higher in your quality setups and suddenly you come to a point where great recordings stand out, while average recordings sound terrible and terrible recordings get tossed into the trashcan.

Neutral sound is usually how I describe my speakers. They do not 'enhance' the source. How do I know this? Well, being around music for all of my life and knowing what a mix should sound like I have developed an adequate ear for being able to tell if something is being tinkered with. Most of us have this ability, but on different levels. We can typically tell if there is a level of bass enhancement or if things are not coming out the way that they should. Speakers should all accurately reproduce the source.

[Luvin Da Blues]

PV, (my intent is not to piss you off cause you've been a big help to me here) but cannot equipment and speakers be neutral only to the source.

If the mastering or processing in the studio alters the sound how can you tell what was put down on the tracks and so on down the playback chain.

As you said "Well, being around music for all of my life and knowing what a mix should sound like I have developed an adequate ear for being able to tell if something is being tinkered with." I think that you can only say that "it sounds more faithful".

How do you know if it is being faithful to the actual material on the source. Is this not part of "what sounds good to your ears". I still stick with my original thoughts that you would have to bring your equipment to the studio and do a A/B comparison to the Studio Monitors (which may not be neutral themselves) to tell how much they are faithful.

By the way, can't wait till my Stratus's show up 'cause I know they are more neutral that my Infinitys.

[hydroman]

Uh, we (salesmen) were not above making up descriptive phrases just to see the rube nod knowingly...

Best was: 'this unit has a superior spiff-to-noise ratio' [mmhhhmmm]

('Spiff' was slang for sales commision )

[GMichael]

Uh, we (salesmen) were not above making up descriptive phrases just to see the rube nod knowingly...

Best was: 'this unit has a superior spiff-to-noise ratio' [mmhhhmmm]

('Spiff' was slang for sales commision )

Um, you're not the guy who told me that I was too old to hear the difference between an average system and a good system are you? He tried to talk me out of hearing the HK I went in there to listen too. He said I should just get a Bose cube system and be done with it. I'd be much happier.
If looks could have killed, he would have burst into flames.

[thekid]

LDB

I remember in a Philosophy class we had a question that said "If the universe grew exponential overnight how could you tell?"

The answer is you could not because you would not have a point of reference to be able to determine the growth.

I think as you and others have alluded to these terms are really reference points within their own universe. They can be applied generally but as Kex mentioned they are subjective to the listener. Reviews using these terms can point you in a general direction but you need to listen to the speakers yourself to determine where the reference fits in your universe.

However when dealing with questions regarding the universe the answer is 42......

[hydroman]

Um, you're not the guy who told me that I was too old to hear the difference between an average system and a good system are you? He tried to talk me out of hearing the HK I went in there to listen too. He said I should just get a Bose cube system and be done with it. I'd be much happier.
If looks could have killed, he would have burst into flames.

I AM NOT THAT GUY!

What a piss-poor salesman you had. (I also have not been in sales since 1993)