We all use a whole lot of words to describe our audio experience. It’s that common verbiage that we use so we can easily get to know where someone’s head is at when describing the experience, good or bad.
These word “markers” are great but can also be easily misleading or be misinterpreted. If someone says this so-and-so component is “clean”, does that mean it excels in revealing detail, or is antiseptic,
and lacking in body? More adjectives to befuddle us.
On balance we all do our best and we generally get each other. Good for that. But, thanks to Paul’s Post, I’m going to add “believable” to the list. So simple, yet so undeniable. If you think it sounds right,
than that could be a final word. I’m going to add that one to the list, but not to replace Al’s ultimate describer…”it seems nice”.
If you add the word “just” after “it”, you have the slogan for Conrad Johnson.
While descriptors can be overused and misconstrued/misunderstood, and even sometimes be completely wrong, I do like the use of descriptors, as they can be honest attempts at describing what we are hearing to others.
Believable… sounds really nice!
Many of you may already have it or come across reference to it but here’s a link to J. Gordon Holt’s July 1993 Audio Glossary that appeared in Stereophile. It’s probably the closest thing we have to a common language:
Nice find/reference.
Cheers.
Nice, I could have used many, and have had a few misinterpretations too🤔
Same with me. Even having had the Glossary for many years, I still misuse terms.
“It just seems nice”?
Gothic novel or audiophile speak? Some favs…
Billowy
Bloated
Cold
Cupped hands
Dark
Gestalt response
Mystic
Phantom image
Screechy
Scrape flutter
Sodden, soggy
Turgid
Veil, veiled
Velvet fog
Visceral
Wander
Willowy
And a nod to one not in the glossary: Dead silence/silent
OMG that is hysterical!!!
It’s true that some of the terms could be called purple prose. By the same token, they do try to get across subjective experience that isn’t all that easy to pin down in more everyday speech. And some of them are spot on, I think, in describing whhat we hear.
Many times it’s not so much the words that someone uses, but their enthusiasm and expressions that more effectively communicate that a component or system sounds believable or real nice like.
There are 8 descriptors that I have never even thought of using, ever. And am glad that words like screechy, hollow and veiled don’t apply to my system, lol
Indeed! This glossary is endless laughs. I thought it was satire at first. But, no, they’re dead serious.
I’m glad to see folks writing about audiophile matters, both gear and music, now using simpler English. I give thanks to the internet for this.
“And there was strong evidence that many of the things people were hearing were not being measured at all.”
I guess some things haven’t changed any since ‘93.
My limited vocabulary matches an equally limited capacity to discern differences. I could go with the CJ definition but usually it’s just ahhh when it feels right and nah when it doesn’t.
Here’s a winner, it could apply to music (as intended) or prose:
vowel coloration A form of midrange or low-treble coloration which impresses upon all program material a tonal “flavor” resembling a vowel in speech.
Let’s not forget the ever popular (at least for one well known reviewer) -
gemutlich
I cringe (severely) when I hear the term “musical.”
Commit to the dust bin: “vinyl-like”.