Audiophile terminology - what is your favourite attribute?

[orgel]

How is "revealing" different from "resolving"?

 

--David

[Julf]

How is "revealing" different from "resolving"?

 

Do we have the resolve to reveal it?

[JohnMH]

I would like to think that "accuracy" is my goal for audio systems. Frankly I've never understood much of the verbiage associated with descriptions of high-end equipment. A little reading here at CA and elsewhere makes it clear that even the term "accurate" is not easy to define. My intended meaning is that the audio system should deliver what is contained in the recording with a convincing degree of accuracy. Ultimately the system would be able to transport you to the recording venue in some sense. I'm not sure I've achieved this yet in my systems.

 

As a trumpet player, I'd like to think that I know what trumpets and other band and orchestra instruments sound like, but clearly the sound the player hears while performing is very different from what an audience hears. The player's feedback is by way of bone conduction, lip vibration and other close proximity effects beyond just hearing the sound. A player's position within the group makes for a very different perception than what the audience hears, as well as the acoustics of the performance space, obviously. Ultimately one has to rely on what their fellow players, teachers, conductors and people in the audience report.

 

Anyway, as I set up my recently acquired Bowers & Wilkins Matrix 801 Series 2 loudspeakers in a fairly large basement space, "accuracy" of reproduction will be what I'm aiming for. To that end I've got Jim Smith's book and DVDs, a Maughanbox bass alignment filter for the B&Ws, Frank VanAlstine's crossover mod details, a bunch of vintage Hafler amps (DH200, 220, 500), Oppo BDP-95 disk player, big-ass 6-core AMD Win 7 computer with EMU 1616m attached, various cheap DACS, linear tracking turntables Yamaha PX3, Pioneer PL1000, Harmon Kardon Rabco ST7, stacks of vinyl and CDS, a few SACDs, a growing digital collection, some of it even lossless FLAC, etc. etc.

 

What do you think? Can I build something "accurate" sounding out of all this accumulated stuff?

 

Cheers

[Part-Time Audiophile]

How is "revealing" different from "resolving"?

 

--David

 

Not sure they are.

 

I find "resolving" used more as a pejorative -- that is, trolls use it as a club. "You don't hear x? Must be that your system isn't resolving enough." Bah. Whatever. Just because I can't hear x in my system doesn't mean anything -- and certainly doesn't have any metaphysical implications about the existence of x.

 

I prefer to use "revealing" when comparing systems. To me, a system isn't revealing, per se, it's just more or less revealing than some other system. Or the system becomes more or less revealing with the introduction of components.

 

But I don't like using either term. The sound of a system presents some detail, more/less detail, or no detail -- as compared to some reference.

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I would like to think that "accuracy" is my goal for audio systems.

 

I'm not sure what this means, though. Accurate to some measured standard? Or your experience? I think this usually means the latter, but isn't that purely subjective (and relative)?

 

My intended meaning is that the audio system should deliver what is contained in the recording with a convincing degree of accuracy.

 

But "convincing" is somewhat less than "accurate", isn't it? Not to put too fine a point on it, but we're now rather distant from "objective", no?

[dkAudio]

My favourite example is "liquid". If somebody tells you the sound of a system is "liquid", is that a good or a bad thing? Does it mean that the sound flows easily, or that the speaker sounds water-logged, and everything is dissolved into a blur?

 

Reminds me of this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46jO96bz_Fo

[beetlemania]

The opposite of veiled IMO is revealing, or detailed. However, at least to me, high detail alone doesn't warrant transparency.

 

Perhaps we are just using different words to express the same thing? Here's my example:

 

When I got my Vandersteen speakers, I thought they were a bit "veiled" in the midrange, especially with female vocals. I upgraded to cables and got a more open, "transparent" sound. All the "detail" was there before and after - I wasn't hearing any new information. It was just a more clear window on the performance

[JohnMH]

I'm not sure what this means, though. Accurate to some measured standard? Or your experience? I think this usually means the latter, but isn't that purely subjective (and relative)?

 

 

 

But "convincing" is somewhat less than "accurate", isn't it? Not to put too fine a point on it, but we're now rather distant from "objective", no?

 

"Convincing" may well be somewhat less or different than "accurate." Yes, I think as human beings we live largely in the subjective realm. But, I would also like to find some relationship between what can be measured to be accurate (frequency response, one that I think I understand to be measurable, for example) and what I may perceive to be "accurate" based on my own experience. I'm not sure this can be done. Wishful thinking perhaps?

 

Not sure I'm completely comfortable using the terms subjective and objective. I had to re-read some philosophy stuff to try to understand the terms. That really didn't help, as the terms don't seem to correspond to the way we see them used in audio discussions.

 

So am I a subjectivist? I think so. Do I wish to get usable information about audio and sound from science and measurement? Yes I do. Can I have my cake and eat it, too? I hope so.

[Melvin]

When I think of a component sounding "organic" or rather the music itself has an "organic" quality to it when played through a component it evokes a certain type of "rightness" if you will. Meaning several aspects of the presentation like timbre, soundstage, presence, and weight taken as a whole sounds, well, correct .. believable. When I close my eyes the illusion is convincing.

[crimsondonkey]

The one that makes me howl is 'authority' - typically used to describe the prowess and ability of power amplification to control speakers, but one that makes me laugh and roll my eyes.

[Julf]

The one that makes me howl is 'authority' - typically used to describe the prowess and ability of power amplification to control speakers, but one that makes me laugh and roll my eyes.

 

"Does your amplifier have the authority to do that?"

[almaatakz]

There is a glossary here

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary | Stereophile.com

and here

Forum message - AVI HiFi Forum

;-)

[Julf]

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary | Stereophile.com/

 

Tells me "liquid = Textureless sound".

Not sure I am any wiser

 

Forum message - AVI HiFi Forum

 

Gives me "​

Bad request. The link you followed is incorrect or outdated."

[mwheelerk]

There is a glossary here

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary | Stereophile.com

and here

Forum message - AVI HiFi Forum

;-)

 

Reading through the posts I was reminded that I had once read a glossary of terms and this is what I was thinking about. Maybe we should quote a few of the terms from the glossary that have been bandied about in this thread.

[almaatakz]

works on my computer.

I try again using the url button

Forum message - AVI HiFi Forum

[Melvin]

It always puts a smile on my face when I read 4 or 5 veils were lifted .. LOL. Perhaps it was a blanket!

[Julf]

works on my computer.

 

I wonder if you need to be a registered user, either logged in or with an authorisation cookie.

[Julf]

It always puts a smile on my face when I read 4 or 5 veils were lifted .. LOL. Perhaps it was a blanket!

 

Well, if they use Richard Strauss' "Salome" as the test music...

[almaatakz]

I wonder if you need to be a registered user, either logged in or with an authorisation cookie.

 

Ah, you are right, that forum section is for registered users. Worth joining just for this thread though.

[beetlemania]

Tells me "liquid = Textureless sound".

 

Hmmm, I stand corrected!

[prufrock]

Tells me "liquid = Textureless sound".

Not sure I am any wiser

 

 

 

I would equate liquid with "moving", i.e the sort of sound you would achieve by giving your system a movicol or a couple of glycerol suppositories. The opposite of a constipated or congested sound.

[Julf]

Hmmm, I stand corrected!

Not sure there are any "right" answers.

[Julf]

I would equate liquid with "moving", i.e the sort of sound you would achieve by giving your system a movicol or a couple of glycerol suppositories. The opposite of a constipated or congested sound.

 

Considering my speakers are full of lamb's wool, I am not sure I like that visual....

[goldsdad]

Considering my speakers are full of lamb's wool […]

 

Is that because they've got bleaters instead of woofers and tweeters?

 

Mine have animal products on the outside! Leather.

[Julf]

Is that because they've got bleaters instead of woofers and tweeters?

 

Considered the Kef K110 mids they have have been described as having a "bextrene quack", I think I have the whole farm yard...