• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

How we could finally pin down flowery audiophile subjective descriptions

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2,212
Likes
2,934
Is that not a reference?



I don't see that as Dr. Olive being a subjectivist. I don't see that as Dr. Olive being an objectivist, either. I see that as Dr. Olive simply noting what other people preferred. Did he invest himself into the statistics?




Because what you translate in your head may not be .... not at all ..... what a hobbyist translates in their head.

This discussion of "flowery" descriptions between professionals in a professional setting with professional equipment, where choices can be checked almost in real-time, has no relation to the use of "flowery" descriptions by hobbyists and amateurs in forums or in videos, where choices cannot be checked either quickly, or easily, or perhaps not even checked at all.



I've heard it both ways, many times. It depends who the bass player (or horn player or vocalist) is, and who they're talking to.

Jim
Good post Jim. I have stayed out of this rambling on again off again cat fight. Plus I get tired of people taking someone to task when they make a general statement. Because they know that it is only 98% true but not 100% true. If I could, I would fist punch those people through my computer screen. Little nerdy smart alecks. Your post said what needed to be said. Thank you!
 
Last edited:

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,819
In fact maybe too short because you totally miss the point. "Brightness" or "luminance", whatever (although I never heard an audiophile saying "this speaker has too much luminance").

That right there signals a literalism that will be an underlying problem in this discussion.

You know analogies are by definition not equating A and B as identical, right?

My point is that your analogy is not an analogy.

Of course it is.

And the reason for this is that "dark" and "bright" have a totally different relation in your "analogy" when applied to speaker and TV.
"Too dark" or "too bright" is related to the structure of the phenomenon produced by the speaker (the sound) : to much highs, not enough bass, or some combination of the two. There's unwanted differences inside the phenomenon compared to correct reproduction.

When you darken (in a reasonable fashion) your tv with your remote, there's no modification inside the phenomenon. The relation beetween the different portions of the image remains the same and as long the reproduction of the image was correct before the use of your remote, it remains like it after.

That that objection makes no sense, and seems straining to miss the point. Not to mention, incorrect.

First of all, I referenced adjusting contrast/brightness controls. Traditionally (e.g. in CRT sets, and emissive displays) the brightness control adjusted black levels, the contrast control adjusted the proportional luminance of white. This clearly changes the relation of the different portions of the image!

Of course things will depend on the type of display/brightness control - some displays (e.g. LCDs) will, using just the brightness control, raise the luminance in proportion across the board for a brighter image. However contrast will raise the luminance limit being put out by the display, though will not raise all the ranges proportionally! (That's why it typically takes making separate adjustments of "Brightness" and "Contrast" controls to maximize contrast). (And note also, that depending on the setting, even raising the brightness control on an LCD will - due to the way our sight works - alter the PERCEIVED detail and balance of the image).

So, even your description just seems wrong.

But, again, we don't have to get in to such pedantry which misses the point.

What I care about is perception: The analogy is between the two phenomena as we perceive it!

Adjusting the brightness control WILL make an image appear "brighter" and will, all things being equal, make some detail more obvious or visible (e.g. detail that was too dark to notice). Adjusting contrast WILL increase the vividness of the image, and increasing contrast "too much" CAN make highlights POP out more - even to the point of producing an unnatural emphasis in those regions.

Frequency response in speakers may not in a strict technical sense change in exactly the same way - obviously sound is different from light - but the PERCEPTION is a reasonable analogy: The way frequency variations in a speaker can make detail "lit up" or more apparent, and in which high frequency emphasis can make upper frequency sounds "pop out" more, even to the point of an unnaturally vivid emphasis in those regions.

Seriously...you seem to be saying you really don't understand what someone could mean by describing one speaker as "brighter" than the other. (And hence by corollary what they could mean by the other speaker being "darker")

Really?


A correct analogy would have been build around the modification of the gamma curve of the image (hence with brightness or luminance, whatever). But there's two problems for you :
  1. The differences in gamma curves are not usually described as "brightness" and "darkness".
  2. The concept of gamma curve is not common sense concept as "brightness" and "darkness".

I'm afraid that is pedantism in service of missing the point.

(And not to mention, per above, my reference to the effects of brightness/contrast controls were indeed relevant)
 
Last edited:

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,819
Because what you translate in your head may not be .... not at all ..... what a hobbyist translates in their head.

And yet again...somehow humans manage to communicate all day long. Weird huh? It's almost as if our senses and language allow us, despite imperfections, to still converge enough to allow us to communicate.

This discussion of "flowery" descriptions between professionals in a professional setting with professional equipment, where choices can be checked almost in real-time, has no relation to the use of "flowery" descriptions by hobbyists and amateurs in forums or in videos, where choices cannot be checked either quickly, or easily, or perhaps not even checked at all.

No you are trying to make some artificial distinction.

If there is a frequency emphasis on a dialog track affecting the male voices - which we may describe as "too chesty" - it's either there and we've perceived and described the effect, or it's not.

The same goes for a frequency emphasis in a speaker that has the same perceptual effect.

The idea is whether you heard that dialogue today - or years from now - it will have that character.

Same goes for a speaker. If a reviewer describes model A as having a frequency emphasis leading to "overly chesty sounding male voices" it could be a review from 30 years ago - the speaker either has that character or it doesn't, and if you hear that speaker it will have that character.

The same goes for ANY description that communicates some characteristic. It doesn't matter if a client says to me in the mixing theater "I'd like that lightning strike to sound SHARPER" or whether I happen to read of Frankenstien director James Wale asking his mixer to make the lightning strikes sound "sharper." I get the gist of what they are communicating! Same for any audio reviewer using such a term about highs in a speaker, either today or decades in the past.

There really is no magic wall here between the usefulness of subjective description, whether it be creating sound or listening to sound!

And of course, no one is advocating that we simply communicate in some void where people's impressions are never "checked." Comparing our subjective impressions is part of communicating! "You hear this too? Great!"
 
Last edited:
OP
kemmler3D

kemmler3D

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
3,022
Likes
5,643
Location
San Francisco
I just want to say for the moment that analogies are not necessarily analogues. Any time I say "X is like Y" in order to illustrate a point, it's an analogy, "this speaker is too bright" is therefore an implied analogy, but as @gavagai almost points out, it is not an analogue as there is no direct correspondence between optical brightness and frequency response.

Analogies don't need to rely on analogues to be useful, I am also not sure why this is a major point of discussion here.
 

Sokel

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
5,848
Likes
5,788
It's been a long time that we know that when a social group,a technical or scientific sector feels threatened (in any way,mostly financial),one of the ways they use to protect themselves is some kind of "closed" language.
The less the outside people understand it,the better.
That even applies to stuff like philosophy,have a look for example at the special dictionary with terms created by Jean Paul Sartre in his "The Imaginary".
That debate must be over 50 years long.

Edit:Memory must be a bitch,I had a look at it after 20 or so years,and I was amazed of the way he interprets the term "analogon" giving a music example about the real perception and the complex over-sensory mechanism to process it (really simple description,there's no way for me to translate such a dense and complex script in English).
 
Last edited:

Ricardus

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 15, 2022
Messages
843
Likes
1,153
Location
Northern GA
For instance, literally yesterday, I was in a sound design meeting for a streaming season, and was asked by the director to make a three-line dialog exposition "kind of cold ... almost sinister, you know ... so we get a chill when we hear it."
And you gave them what you thought that meant and convinced them that was what it was.

You could have done something else and convinced them, also. It's the way the brain works.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,819
And you gave them what you thought that meant and convinced them that was what it was.

You could have done something else and convinced them, also. It's the way the brain works.

I really have a hard time reconciling your arguments with your being an engineer who actually interacts with clients.

No, it really doesn't just work that way. Or you have miraculously never worked with picky clients and managed to bamboozle everyone you worked for.
I find that improbable.

Often we nail what the client asks for first time, but sometimes it's a back and forth "more supernatural sounding" "no not quite, something more windy-sounding" "yes that's it" "now at this point the scene-out needs a sharper contrast to the next scene" "sharper lighting crack" "more rumble in the bottom end" etc.

If we weren't actually nudging the sound in the direction the client actually wanted, but doing the opposite while claiming "it's just what you asked for," you think we'd have our jobs very long?

If it were just a case of us being able to Jedi Mind Trick the client to make them hear whatever we want them to hear, no matter what we put in after their request, I guess that would make things easy. But...that would be weird...and isn't the reality.

The client we are working for now is VERY picky. But, fortunately, also pretty good at putting sound in to words, which helps us get the job done.
 
OP
kemmler3D

kemmler3D

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
3,022
Likes
5,643
Location
San Francisco
Yeah, I find this whole "subjective language isn't just imprecise, but literally meaningless" argument to be pretty wild too. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, the 2nd most prominent characteristic of audiophiles (after interest in audio) is wanting to argue about everything, all the time, for any or no reason. :shrug:
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
And you gave them what you thought that meant and convinced them that was what it was.

You could have done something else and convinced them, also. It's the way the brain works.
I would love to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong, and neither of us would be a recording engineer.
 

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2,212
Likes
2,934
Yeah, I find this whole "subjective language isn't just imprecise, but literally meaningless" argument to be pretty wild too. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, the 2nd most prominent characteristic of audiophiles (after interest in audio) is wanting to argue about everything, all the time, for any or no reason. :shrug:
Almost the entire audio hobby and business would not exist in the large size it is today without everyone arguing about stuff. It keeps the dollars flowing to the manufacturers! It also keeps many people on the buy, try and replace merry go round for years.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,819
Yeah, I find this whole "subjective language isn't just imprecise, but literally meaningless" argument to be pretty wild too. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, the 2nd most prominent characteristic of audiophiles (after interest in audio) is wanting to argue about everything, all the time, for any or no reason. :shrug:

It is truly bizarre and always sets my head a spinnin'.

I think Axo1989 has previously put his finger on a possible issue, essentially that perhaps a forum like this tends to attract more "STEM" subject folks/engineer-minded etc, some of whom may have a discomfort with imprecision, especially the use of descriptive language in place of quantitative evidence, or find it challenging, vs the more language-oriented (who may find STEM subjects challenging). Difficult for a meeting of minds in some cases.

I dunno, but if so it seems to explain the disconnect.
 

Spkrdctr

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
2,212
Likes
2,934
I think Axo1989 has previously put his finger on a possible issue, essentially that perhaps a forum like this tends to attract more "STEM" subject folks/engineer-minded etc, some of whom may have a discomfort with imprecision, especially the use of descriptive language in place of quantitative evidence, or find it challenging, vs the more language-oriented (who may find STEM subjects challenging). Difficult for a meeting of minds in some cases.

I dunno, but if so it seems to explain the disconnect.
Matt, that is my secret! You can't post up personal info like that. No one knew I was having trouble with STEM topics. Hopefully no one sees this post. :)
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,878
Likes
6,674
Location
UK
Yeah, I find this whole "subjective language isn't just imprecise, but literally meaningless" argument to be pretty wild too. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, the 2nd most prominent characteristic of audiophiles (after interest in audio) is wanting to argue about everything, all the time, for any or no reason. :shrug:
Or natural hot air balloonists - no need for the burner! (This thread is rising!)
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
Because what you translate in your head may not be .... not at all ..... what a hobbyist translates in their head.

Exactly the point.
One man's 'fat' is another mans 'boomy' or 'bassy' or 'punchy' or 'full' or 'chocolaty' or 'nice'

And you gave them what you thought that meant and convinced them that was what it was.

You could have done something else and convinced them, also. It's the way the brain works.

On the other hand I would imagine the bass player would be in the control room listening to the recording and wanting say.... more 'swagger' then an accommodating sound engineer would have to find out what he means and use some compression/tone adjustment or other effects where the feedback would be something like ' yeah man... just a bit more of that' or 'nah, that's not it I want a bit more of this'.

Of course, in a live gig it is all up to the sound engineer (and maybe an involved manager a bit).
 
Last edited:

gavagai

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2022
Messages
21
Likes
47
Location
France
You know analogies are by definition not equating A and B as identical, right?

An analogy has the form : a is related to b as c is related to c.
"as" represent an understanding model that can fill the hole if on of the a, b, c, d is missing.
It works all the way around : if you have a and b and c and d, you may build the model of "as".
If the analogy works like this, it is said to be "model generating".
If the set of relation is defective, the "analogy" is said "aspect seeing". It's not an analogy. In fact it just uses surface resemblances and similarities. There's no cognitive content involved. If you "understand" it, that means that you have sympathies for the individual that produce it.
(by the way, sorry for the pedantry)

Seriously...you seem to be saying you really don't understand what someone could mean by describing one speaker as "brighter" than the other. (And hence by corollary what they could mean by the other speaker being "darker")

Really?
Sorry, but I have to quote myself :
I say that "a speaker is to bright" is a sentence that is not based on an analogy : it's a shortcuts for "this speaker has a problem with his frequency response. Maybe too much highs, not enough bass, of the combination of the two. When I will find out after an investigation, I will use the exact sentence for describing this problem (too much highs for instance).
Using "bright" in another sense (and what sense ?) is for me shamanic agitation, not meaning.
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
7 pages after, and I have not read all the posts yet, but has anyone asked some basic questions yet such as:

1) Are those subjectively derived terms such as crisp, warm etc., were intended and designed accordingly by the electronic (e.g. amplifiers) designers?
2) If 1) is true, then we should already know how to identify products that would satisfy listeners who prefer such "sound signature". If not, then does it mean products/manufacturers that boasted those attributes just happened to have them, by chance but not by designed?
3) Do listeners understand those descriptive especially the so call flowery ones, the same way or at least more or less the same way? If not, then does it mean there isn't much point for people to stick with certain brands that have been said to have say the "warm" sound?

There are many more, or better questions of this sort to ask and the answers may give us some indications as to whether the whole thing is a pointless exercise or not. 1) would have to be asked on the designers. For example, Marantz's designers and their sound masters should be able to tell us how the reviewers could verify the designed/implemented the Marantz sound signature by lab measurements. It is likely that they won't answer such questions, citing secrecy kind of reasons, but then I would hope some highly competent and respected experts can take some independent measurements to substantiate their claims, along with double blind listening tests too if necessary.

Very recently I watched two YT reviews on the AVR-X3700H and the AVR-X3800H by the same subjective reviewer. He described the 3800 with many flowery style words, including forward, bold etc., yet he used "warm", "polite" on the X3700H. So what happened to the Denon sound he had been telling his followers, did he forget what he said before? Examples like this seem to indicate there is no, or at least not much logic to analyze what subjective reviews are about. It could be that even when the collected data for such proposed studies shows consensus in the way such descriptive or terms are used, it might have been started from someone, or just a few started something, and then groupthink via the big mega internet phone finished the job of establishing such consensus. I may be pessimistic, but while I like the OP's suggestion, it think it is a waste of time to actually do anything, or if something has already been done, then I would just read what's available (already read one actually, thanks to the one (NTK iirc) who posted the link).
 
  • Like
Reactions: pau

pau

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2022
Messages
82
Likes
39
Location
Moon
7 pages after, and I have not read all the posts yet, but has anyone asked some basic questions yet such as:

1) Are those subjectively derived terms such as crisp, warm etc., were intended and designed accordingly by the electronic (e.g. amplifiers) designers?
2) If 1) is true, then we should already know how to identify products that would satisfy listeners who prefer such "sound signature". If not, then does it mean products/manufacturers that boasted those attributes just happened to have them, by chance but not by designed?
3) Do listeners understand those descriptive especially the so call flowery ones, the same way or at least more or less the same way? If not, then does it mean there isn't much point for people to stick with certain brands that have been said to have say the "warm" sound?

There are many more, or better questions of this sort to ask and the answers may give us some indications as to whether the whole thing is a pointless exercise or not. 1) would have to be asked on the designers. For example, Marantz's designers and their sound masters should be able to tell us how the reviewers could verify the designed/implemented the Marantz sound signature by lab measurements. It is likely that they won't answer such questions, citing secrecy kind of reasons, but then I would hope some highly competent and respected experts can take some independent measurements to substantiate their claims, along with double blind listening tests too if necessary.

Very recently I watched two YT reviews on the AVR-X3700H and the AVR-X3800H by the same subjective reviewer. He described the 3800 with many flowery style words, including forward, bold etc., yet he used "warm", "polite" on the X3700H. So what happened to the Denon sound he had been telling his followers, did he forget what he said before? Examples like this seem to indicate there is no, or at least not much logic to analyze what subjective reviews are about. It could be that even when the collected data for such proposed studies shows consensus in the way such descriptive or terms are used, it might have been started from someone, or just a few started something, and then groupthink via the big mega internet phone finished the job of establishing such consensus. I may be pessimistic, but while I like the OP's suggestion, it think it is a waste of time to actually do anything, or if something has already been done, then I would just read what's available (already read one actually, thanks to the one (NTK iirc) who posted the link).
Does it matter what the subjective & objective are if neither correlate with each other?

We measure no where what we end up listening nor we describe what correlates to the measurements?'

The most complex measurements of sound are simple as
1669391310541.png


So if you go into details where is the highway / track to see how sound is produced in each of the speaker element vibration? (oh forgot not important with the sinewave) -> no measurements of the site has any care about what builds the cake. just looking the incredients -> tos to pan -> all good all the same outcome. :)

I would like good measurements but we dont have devices yet to measure 'real' differences except flaws in design.
 
Last edited:

pau

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2022
Messages
82
Likes
39
Location
Moon
Another point is , with measurements you go here for max differences. during listening you go average ->the sound details 'reveal' in average is what matters (flaws taken out) whhich none of these reviews consider as valid is a major flaw in the site that i hope will be covered to be taken seriously. it is what makes one enjoy the sound & music after all, not clinic boring sound.

Thank You
 

peng

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,615
Likes
5,168
Does it matter what the subjective & objective are if neither correlate with each other?

We measure no where what we end up listening nor we describe what correlates to the measurements?'

The most complex measurements of sound are simple as
View attachment 245936

So if you go into details where is the highway / track to see how sound is produced in each of the speaker element vibration? (oh forgot not important with the sinewave) -> no measurements of the site has any care about what builds the cake. just looking the incredients -> tos to pan -> all good all the same outcome. :)

I would like good measurements but we dont have devices yet to measure 'real' differences except flaws in design.

But we do have the AP that Amir, JA, Gene and others have. On top, there are standalone spectrum analyzer and oscilloscpes that are readily available. So why are they not measuring things that can confirm whether those claimed sound signatures are objectively identifiable instead of people regurgitating what others said??
 

pau

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2022
Messages
82
Likes
39
Location
Moon
But we do have the AP that Amir, JA, Gene and others have. On top, there are standalone spectrum analyzer and oscilloscpes that are readily available. So why are they not measuring things that can confirm whether those claimed sound signatures are objectively identifiable instead of people regurgitating what others said??
Put a simphony playing, record what you measure, then go into the comples of sound produced and you compare that with the limited you can measure instead of looking blindly what you can measure as truth.
 
Top Bottom