Audio Terminology
Earlier I mentioned that I prefer the term “low-cut” rather than “high-pass” when changing the frequency response in the bass range. Both are technically correct, but some common audio terms make less sense. For example, “warm,” “cold,” “sterile,” “digital,” “forward,” “silky,” and so forth are not useful because they don’t mean the same thing to everyone. On the other hand, “3 dB down at 200 Hz” is precise and leaves no room for misinterpretation. Of course, “warm” and “cold” or “sterile” could describe the relative amount of high-frequency content. But saying “subdued or exaggerated highs” is still better than “sterile” in my opinion. However, many of the terms I see are nonsensical.
Sometimes people refer to a piece of gear as being “musical” sounding or “resolving,” but what does that really mean? What sounds musical to you may not sound musical to me. Some people like the added bass you get from a hi-fi receiver’s Loudness setting. To me that usually makes music sound tubby, unless the music is already too thin sounding. The same goes for a slight treble boost to add sheen or a slight treble cut to reduce harshness. Whether these response changes sound pleasing or not is highly dependent on the music being played, the specific frequencies being boosted or cut, and personal preference.
I don’t think we need yet more adjectives to describe audio fidelity when we already have perfectly good ones. Some audiophile words are even sillier, such as “fast bass,” which is an oxymoron. The common audiophile terms “PRaT” (Pace, Rhythm, and Timing) take this absurdity to new heights, because these words already have a specific musical meaning unrelated to whatever audiophiles believe they are conveying. Some of the worst examples of nonsensical audio terms I’ve seen arose from a discussion in a hi-fi audio forum. A fellow claimed that digital audio misses capturing certain aspects of music compared to analog tape and LP records. So I asked him to state some specific properties of sound that digital audio is unable to record. Among his list were tonal texture, transparency in the midrange, bloom and openness, substance, and the organic signature of instruments. I explained that those are not legitimate audio properties, but he remained convinced of his beliefs anyway. Perhaps my next book will be titled Scientists Are from Mars, Audiophiles Are from Venus.
