"Audiophile" descriptors, buzzwords and their place in the review world.

[hardisj]

@joentell messaged me Saturday and asked if I would be interested in doing a fun video where we discuss the typical audiophile buzzwords and try to provide some meaningful context to these words, while at the same time illustrating how purely subjective reviews can be quite nebulous at times since a particular description may mean different things to different people; even between reviewers and not just the audience reading or watching their reviews. Keep in mind, we are not saying our definitions are the correct ones. It was very impromptu. We didn't talk about the words before. We just shot from the hip and had a conversation. Heck, even we differ in our definitions from time to time. But that's the point of the video.

Joe decided to split this up over 7 parts rather than drop the whole video because people would probably get bored pretty quick. I agree.

I had fun doing this and really believe it will be useful in many ways. Not just in providing some more meaningful meat to these terms but also in showing how these words can really be quite obtuse at times, even to fellow reviewers. This hammers home the point that good, objective data is important in relaying performance in a truly meaningful manner. Or, if nothing else, it illustrates why reviewers need to stop leaning solely on crazy adjectives and instead try to provide specific frequency ranges in order to help convey what they heard.

 

[egellings]

"Pace" and "Rythmicity": How can a speaker have those? Those are for the musicians to have, hey?

 

[Wes]

blankets lifted, not just veils

 

[Kal Rubinson]

@joentell messaged me Saturday and asked if I would be interested in doing a fun video where we discuss the typical audiophile buzzwords and try to provide some meaningful context to these words, while at the same time illustrating how purely subjective reviews can be quite nebulous at times since a particular description may mean different things to different people; even between reviewers and not just the audience reading or watching their reviews. Keep in mind, we are not saying our definitions are the correct ones. It was very impromptu. We didn't talk about the words before. We just shot from the hip and had a conversation. Heck, even we differ in our definitions from time to time. But that's the point of the video.

Joe decided to split this up over 7 parts rather than drop the whole video because people would probably get bored pretty quick. I agree.

I had fun doing this and really believe it will be useful in many ways. Not just in providing some more meaningful meat to these terms but also in showing how these words can really be quite obtuse at times, even to fellow reviewers. This hammers home the point that good, objective data is important in relaying performance in a truly meaningful manner. Or, if nothing else, it illustrates why reviewers need to stop leaning solely on crazy adjectives and instead try to provide specific frequency ranges in order to help convey what they heard.

This would seem the perfect vehicle to include audible examples. Do you?

 

[Colonel7]

Came across this yesterday on tech-talk at Parts Express. I'm guessing someone has posted it here before. Your mileage will always vary with this.

 

[Vini darko]

Came across this yesterday on tech-talk at Parts Express. I'm guessing someone has posted it here before. Your mileage will always vary with this.

View attachment 115705

That's at the start of all @solderdude reviews over at diy audio heaven. Don't know if he created it though.

 

[Wes]

taut


complex and refined


deeply exotic


luscious dollop


Mediterranean sun


elegant


thirst-quenching


versatile


slutty


chewy texture


power with finesse

windowpane clarity

coldly analytical

euphonic glow

soaring aromatics

elegance

salt-crusted/electric finish

stone-coated heart like tiny sparkling diamonds

 

[Colonel7]

That's at the start of all @solderdude reviews over at diy audio heaven. Don't know if he created it though.

Someone asked for the source and got a dropbox link to a jpg

 

[hardisj]

This is the site I use and mentioned in our chat. Joe threw up a screen grab of it in the video.

https://alexiy.nl/eq/

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I always think those terms are about conveying the subjective feeling that listening to a particular component evokes in the reviewer. As such, those terms and what they evoke seem to me to be idiosyncratic as well as subjective, and therefore tell the reader little if anything other than the authors emotional reaction. Definitely nothing regarding how the component sounds. Anyone who gives credence to such a review is making a leap of faith that the reviewer's experience is accessible to anyone else listening to the same system. A mighty big leap if you ask me.

 

[hardisj]

I always think those terms are about conveying the subjective feeling that listening to a particular component evokes in the reviewer. As such, those terms and what they evoke seem to me to be idiosyncratic as well as subjective, and therefore tell the reader little if anything other than the authors emotional reaction. Definitely nothing regarding how the component sounds. Anyone who gives credence to such a review is making a leap of faith that the reviewer's experience is accessible to anyone else listening to the same system. A mighty big leap if you ask me.

While I understand and pretty much agree, as you know, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are happy to take that leap of faith.

 

[MattHooper]

I'll definitely watch the video at some point.

I seem to be one of the few around here who have found subjective descriptions in audio reviews very informative, in the right hands. They have led me to plenty of speakers I truly enjoyed, and have also often matched well with my impressions of speakers I heard before reading some reviews.

Ultimately it's all about how something sounds. That's why people even bother with measurements. If you have time to develop a deep experience in correlating measurements to sound, then that would likely be as about as good as it gets in terms of communicating about, and predicting the sound of a piece of gear (speakers in particular). But I don't think it's an All Or Nothing proposition, where a less rigorous, less precise method - where you skip looking at the measurements and simply talk about how something sounds - is therefore useless. A sound system produces subjective impressions, and if someone has a good ear and can articulate "what it sounds like" that can be pretty enlightening and fairly accurate to the subjective effect of the system.

I hear pretty much everything an audio reviewer pal writes about, and he's very good at putting in to words what I heard. And when we sit there discussing the sound of speakers we are often using audiophile language, or even making phrases up, to get at the gist of some of the sound character. It works for us.

 

[hardisj]

Part two is up if you need 15 minutes to kill today.

 

[tuga]

I think that reporting subjective listening assessments from an observationist perspective, using neutrality as benchmark and setting aside personal preferences, would be useful but such reviews are as rare as hens’ teeth.
A common language is mandatory in order to convey a clear message, and in my view Stereophile’s Audio Glossary would make a good starting point.

 

[Geert]

There's a Dutch forum where every hardware upgrade leads to more 'calmness' in the sound. Never heard someone explain what it could mean, nevertheless, is seems to be the word all new hifi enthousiasts learn within a week. To make matters worse also dealer's in the Netherlands picked up the term.

 

[tuga]

There's a Dutch forum where every hardware upgrade leads to more 'calmness' in the sound. Never heard someone explain what it could mean, nevertheless, is seems to be the word all new hifi enthousiasts learn within a week. To make matters worse also dealer's in the Netherlands picked up the term.

Could it translate as “smoothness”?

 

[Geert]

Could it translate as “smoothness”?

Not really, because that's another descriptor that's also popular. For me it's obvious the calmness is a state of mind resulting from putting extra effort or money in your HiFi system, and people don't seem to realize they translate that feeling to what they think they hear.

 

[Geert]

Forget to mention the calmness in the sound seem to wear down, taking into account how frequently some people are making upgrades. Which proofs my point.

 

[Wes]

"in the groove"

 

[tuga]

Not really, because that's another descriptor that's also popular. For me it's obvious the calmness is a state of mind resulting from putting extra effort or money in your HiFi system, and people don't seem to realize they translate that feeling to what they think they hear.

Really?