ASR Forum Technical & Audio Terms Dictionary

[amirm]

Here is a thread to ask for a definition of technical terms you hear. I will maintain a list of those terms and definitions in this starting post as we develop consensus around them.

BTW, there is a tiny version I created years ago that is in this article: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/fancy-terms-to-impress-your-friends.290/

 

[The Smokester]

Suggestions:

Objective: Component or system evaluations not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts are considered objective.

Subjective: Component or system evaluations based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions are considered subjective.

PRaT: Common subjective audiophile term which is an acronym for Pace, Rhythm and Timing.

Double Blind Test (DBT): A audio test in which devices under test are alternatively substituted, such that neither the subjects nor the researchers know which devices are presently active in the test, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias from the test results.

FFT: Computationally efficient algorithm for computing the discrete fourier transform of a sampled waveform. Can transform between the time domain and the frequency domain, yielding phase and magnitude. Used loosely in audio, this usually refers to the display of magnitudes squared of frequency components derived from Fourier transforming a sample of sound amplitudes from the time to the frequency domain.
...

 

[Cosmik]

FFT: As commonly used in audio, this refers to the display of magnitudes squared of frequency components derived from Fourier transforming a sample of sound amplitudes from the time to the frequency domain.
...

Hmm. Could this lead to some confusion? Of course, a term may be be used commonly in audio as shorthand, but I think the glossary should also include the technical (although understandable-by-humans) definition, too. So for FFT this would be "Computationally efficient algorithm for computing the discrete fourier transform of a sampled waveform. Can transform between the time domain and the frequency domain, yielding phase and magnitude. " or some such.

 

[The Smokester]

Hmm. Could this lead to some confusion? Of course, a term may be be used commonly in audio as shorthand, but I think the glossary should also include the technical (although understandable-by-humans) definition, too. So for FFT this would be "Computationally efficient algorithm for computing the discrete fourier transform of a sampled waveform. Can transform between the time domain and the frequency domain, yielding phase and magnitude. " or some such.

Probably you are right. The confusion I usually have, of course, is in the opposite direction where people are using the term so loosely to make some sort of point that it becomes hard to understand what is being talked about. Obviously, most of the time audiophiles are not talking about the method and probably couldn't draw a distinction between a Fourier transform and an FFT. I will try to address your suggestion.

 

[Thomas savage]

What you really wanted to ask for but we're too polite to ask is a glossary to enable you to understand the nonsense I write

I'm afraid no such glossary will ever exist

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Suggestions:
Objective: Component or system evaluations not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts are considered objective.
Subjective: Component or system evaluations based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions are considered subjective.
...

My suggestions:
Objective: Component or system evaluations not influenced by personal feelings or opinions, conscious or unconscious, in considering and representing facts are considered objective.
Subjective: Component or system evaluations based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, conscious and/or unconscious, are considered subjective.

 

[amirm]

I like Kal's refinement but like to bring it down earth for everyone to understand with examples for each:

Objective: Component or system evaluations not influenced by personal feelings or opinions, conscious or unconscious, in considering and representing facts are considered objective. Typically this involves measurements of system performance.
Subjective: Component or system evaluations based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, conscious and/or unconscious, are considered subjective. This typically involves a listening test.

What say you?

 

[amirm]

On FFT, I think it would be useful to say what it is really used for as opposed to formal definition of it.

FFT: Fast Fourier Transform. This is a computer/programming technique to extract the frequency components/spectrum of a sound wave. Example:
This is the "time domain" audio samples if you were to look at them graphically:

We see that the amplitude/how loud/quiet the signal gets is shown there. But we cannot infer from it what frequency components there are. Here is the FFT of the same audio file:

Now we see the spectrum and the frequency components of that music. We see for example that it has content above 20.05 Khz that is the limit of CD music (x axis).

 

[Wayne]

This is a very interesting thread, especially since I have observed that most discussions (scientific and non-scientific) wind up at defining terms, if allowed to run its course.

My opinion is that we need three words to adequately describe judgments or comparisons commonly made in the audio world when evaluating equipment. Let me qualify that these definitions assume that the person(s) making the observations are acting in good faith and are not trying to deceive for personal reasons (such as advertising, sales, ego, etc.) The problem is that no definitions are perfect and it is hard to get a consensus.

Objective – judgment or results not influenced by individual biases, personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing reported “facts” or parameters. These usually involve scientific instruments.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

Subjective -- judgment or results that may be influenced by individual biases, personal feelings or opinions (when attempting to be objective) in representing “facts” or parameters. (Bias as used here is not a negative term, as all humans have subconscious biases and are very difficult to exclude when trying to perform objective testing or evaluations). An "objective" result may later be found to be influenced by bias and be subjective.

Opinion -- a judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge and can be (legitimately) based on personal preference

Generally, in science, opinion plays a very limited role in reported results. It is limited to such things as the potential or value of the results of an experiment. In the audio world, opinion plays a big role. For example in this blog, individuals give their opinion as to what songs, works, equipment they personally prefer.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

 

[Memoryerror]

I don't know if this is the right place, but you hear a lot of subjective reviews talk about equipment being "highly resolving". Meaning, I surmise, that you can hear things like a fly buzzing around the studio, that with lesser equipment you would not be able to hear. Ignoring the source, I am guessing that for speakers this could at least partially be determined by how they perform in a CSD test. And in amplifiers by how much noise and distortion is present. Am I missing anything?

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't know if this is the right place, but you hear a lot of subjective reviews talk about equipment being "highly resolving". Meaning, I surmise, that you can hear things like a fly buzzing around the studio, that with lesser equipment you would not be able to hear. Ignoring the source, I am guessing that for speakers this could at least partially be determined by how they perform in a CSD test. And in amplifiers by how much noise and distortion is present. Am I missing anything?

Highly resolving implies details discernible vs covered up or smoothed over I think. Probably over-used and hyperbole most of the time.

I would think usually an audible noise floor would cause such things. Or resonances in speakers. Resonances could hang over and mask subsequent sound that should be audible, but won't be. Some tube gear can have an almost syrupy sound I take it from audible levels of low order distortion and limited treble response. That can seem to smooth away low level detail or in bad cases just mask it. In less severe cases it may be attractive to some people.

 

[DonH56]

Almost, if not every, time I thought a change allowed me to hear some nuance or whatever in my system I'd "never heard before", swapping back revealed it had been there all along, I had just forgotten or not noticed it. I have had many components change the "color" (primarily frequency response) of the sound but not sure anything actually revealed something that I couldn't have heard before. Never really had the wonderful experience of "this new preamp is so highly resolving that I was able to hear the flea farting on the back of the dog across the street, and so did my wife from the kitchen"...

 

[Krunok]

Never really had the wonderful experience of "this new preamp is so highly resolving that I was able to hear the flea farting on the back of the dog across the street, and so did my wife from the kitchen"...

Neither did I. But it did happen when I applied DRC. The same would probably happen if I would buy better speakers, maybe to even greater extent.

 

[DonH56]

Sorry, "DRC"? I'm assuming not dynamic range correction, design rule check, data redundancy check, etc. Too many TLAs!

 

[amirm]

Sorry, "DRC"? I'm assuming not dynamic range correction, design rule check, data redundancy check, etc. Too many TLAs!

He must mean digital room correction.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Sorry, "DRC"? I'm assuming not dynamic range correction, design rule check, data redundancy check, etc. Too many TLAs!

Digital Room Correction I'm guessing.

Or Dynamic Range Control like microphones on video cameras have. I betting on digital room correction.

 

[RayDunzl]

What does DRC stand for?
Your abbreviation search returned 121 meanings

https://www.acronymfinder.com/DRC.html

 

[DonH56]

Ah, thanks, guess I should have known that one...

 

[JJB70]

We need definitions for slam, rhythm, pace, veil, insight, you know, the really important stuff.......

 

[andreasmaaan]

“Subjective” needn’t include influence

by individual biases, personal feelings or opinions

That would be a better definition for “sighted” IMHO.

“Subjective” simply means based on experience as opposed to measurement. When obtained under controlled conditions, “subjective” impressions needn’t be influenced by personal feelings, opinions or biases.

My 2c...