Audio Terminology

I used to surf this forum i.e. Hi Fi For Sale with the intention to buy an amplifier(used). A lot of terms are used by the sellers to describe the amplifier they are selling. As I have little knowledge about Hi Fi I find it difficult to understand some of the terms used by sellers to describe the amplifiers there are selling. Moreover I do not have the opportunity to listen to the amplifier myself because I am not living in West Malaysia. Hoping that some one ( sifu) can help to enlighten me on the following terms:

1. High hybrid amplifier
2. audiophiles amplifier
3. Musical, warm, bright, dark, lush, smooth, mellow, neutral, coloured.

Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge.

This is a good site to refer to Audio Glossary. Note that it was a 1993 publication, since then many new terms like "organic" etc have been introduced. Organic sounds to me to be associated more with veggies

Thank you very much DrWho for your helping hand.

the terms are all extremely subjective.

What may seem as "warm & mellow" to someone could mean "slow and supressed" to someone else.

What may seem as "bright & harsh" could be "rhythmic & musical" to someone else.

Perhaps another yardstick to consider while evaluating hifi gear would be, how close can it reproduce the sound versus the original instrument. An electric guitar (say, a Fender Strat plus an assortment of funky effects boxes) in reality is harsh, hard and ziingy (there, i just created my own terminology here... ). So when played back on a proper system, it should sound harsh, hard & ziingy also.

Likewise, a Steinway Grand piano should sound as grand as possible when replayed back via an honest system as well. Assuming the venue was very condusive & the recording engineer didnt make a mess of the capturing process as well.

As with the laws of physics and economics, a lower end (but not necessarily bad) system might be put together to excel in a particular genre of music, but sacrifices playback ability for other genres.

As one moves higher up the hifi food chain, the systems "should" approach a more neutral stance and be able to properly playback any type of music.

Then all the terminologies like warm, mellow, bright, neutral, musical, etc... should converge back to one ONE point of reference which is how honest can it reproduce the intended original source material.

Back to the whole audio chain, the playback system is only half of the equation. The other half with is the recording portion (artist, recording engineer, mixing studio, etc etc etc) which is totally out of our control already. So sometimes its best not to get too soaked up in just one half of the entire chain, but just enjoy & appreciate the music instead.

yes. at one time u hear low, mid, high are just nice suddenly one new cak lem pung cd destroy it all.. everything sounds bright.. demm~ x sedap langsung.. kena tambah subwoofer.. gegegegege

azri wrote:yes. at one time u hear low, mid, high are just nice suddenly one new cak lem pung cd destroy it all.. everything sounds bright.. demm~ x sedap langsung.. kena tambah subwoofer.. gegegegege

Why tambah subwoofer. Chuck the CD away if cheaper than buying a sub

I think his preferred solution is to buy a subwoofer instead.

mugenfoo wrote:the terms are all extremely subjective.

What may seem as "warm & mellow" to someone could mean "slow and supressed" to someone else.

What may seem as "bright & harsh" could be "rhythmic & musical" to someone else.

Perhaps another yardstick to consider while evaluating hifi gear would be, how close can it reproduce the sound versus the original instrument. An electric guitar (say, a Fender Strat plus an assortment of funky effects boxes) in reality is harsh, hard and ziingy (there, i just created my own terminology here... ). So when played back on a proper system, it should sound harsh, hard & ziingy also.

Agreed !

But if your system sounds like this, a lot of people will have the wrong idea that it is not accurate. This is because a lot of time, people judge on the benchmark based on their own system or some system they heard which they think is accurate.



Another example is listening to a lion dance's drum and cymbal clash.

If your system play back as it is, a lot will judge your highs as sounding harsh and digital

The one reference should be how well a system can faithfully re-create the original source. Nothing more, nothing less.

As we all know in real life that a Lion Dance's drum has massive bass and dynamics, and the cymbals clash very bright & harshly.
Then a truly good system should be able to reproduce all that bass extension, dynamism and harshness as well.

But there are some who want to say: "The cymbals sound too harsh! I would PREFER them to sound like woodchimes instead". Thats's their own personal preference and has nothing to do with audio fidelity at all. If they wanna build their system that makes W. Axl Rose (G n'R) or Steve Tyler (Aerosmith) sound like Harry Connick Jr, thats their choice.
But could you really take such comments from these people seriously without a big bag of salt?

So that's why, nevermind what people say because no one really knows what basis are they having as a reference in the 1st place.

But for the one who truly appreciates honesty in music. Then they know where to ask the right questions & seek the right answers, and form their own opinions.


Then that brings forth the next question: Isn't your own system suppose to be for your own enjoyment and appreciation? Or are you trying to build a system that wins praises and applause from other people but in reality is a terrible representation of the original musical score.

Just keep this in mind: A truly great system should play ANY musical genre. It should NOT discriminate or suck in any particular music material. It should be just as happy to play a grand symphony of Beethoven, a Metallica live concert, Jazz & Lounge Music and clinically perfect studio recordings of various "Audiophile Voices" collections.

A truly great system "sounds like nothing at all". So you're left with "only the music" !

Very well said. I totally concur with you.



Having said that, the difficulty would be finding the CDs or musical sources which will most closely sound like the real thing to do the final test and system voicing. Do you have any CDs you would recommend ?

Rammstein, Linkin Park, Nine Inch Nails, Def Leppard, Korn, etc...

mugenfoo, 2 thumbs up from me.

The most important is the owner must enjoyed and immersed into the music rather than equipments when the very first note is played.


Pertaining to Lion Dance's drum which has massive bass and dynamics in real life, it certainly does not produce earth shaking bass or low LFE. What if a system we listen has very low rumbling bass and does this mean the system does not portray an accurate or faithful reproduction of the original source (Reference is the lion dance drum we hear in real) ?



Thanks.

A faithful system should not reproduce what was not there originally in the first place. It should not add or minus anything.

Mikapoh wrote:mugenfoo, 2 thumbs up from me.

The most important is the owner must enjoyed and immersed into the music rather than equipments when the very first note is played.


Pertaining to Lion Dance's drum which has massive bass and dynamics in real life, it certainly does not produce earth shaking bass or low LFE. What if a system we listen has very low rumbling bass and does this mean the system does not portray an accurate or faithful reproduction of the original source (Reference is the lion dance drum we hear in real) ?



Thanks.

Earth shaking Bass & LFE:

Actually, it does... depending on how close u stand to it, and also the drummer; how strong he whacks the membrane & how much Kung-fu he practices during the off-peak seasons !

carz wrote:A faithful system should not reproduce what was not there originally in the first place. It should not add or minus anything.

Yup, thats the idea.

Then people won't need to self-confuse themselves with all the funny audio terms here and there.

carz wrote:A faithful system should not reproduce what was not there originally in the first place. It should not add or minus anything.

Can you really tell how a song should really sounded?? bring 1 cd/lp to 3 different fiend's setup & you will hear 3 different sound reproduction..

azri wrote:

carz wrote:A faithful system should not reproduce what was not there originally in the first place. It should not add or minus anything.

Can you really tell how a song should really sounded?? bring 1 cd/lp to 3 different fiend's setup & you will hear 3 different sound reproduction..

Easy ... There is this thing called "Experience".

If the music is a recording of a piano, then see (hear) which system can more closely re-create the "piano illusion".

If the music has lots of drumwork, then see (hear) which system can better resolve the cymbals, hihats, tomtoms, snare & bassdrum etc etc.

azri wrote:

carz wrote:A faithful system should not reproduce what was not there originally in the first place. It should not add or minus anything.

Can you really tell how a song should really sounded?? bring 1 cd/lp to 3 different fiend's setup & you will hear 3 different sound reproduction..

No ! Unless you were there when the music was recorded live.

And then the music was reproduced faithfully onto a CD (or any other medium), and you have verified on a known accurate system that the CD sounded like the original live music.

Few people have such a privilege, and one of them is Dave Wilson of Wilson Audio.

thats my point.. you can never tell.. what u can have is the sound that can satisfy your ears.. thats it..

Azri,

For one, you could try to use a Wilson CD.

Another way as Mugen said is through experience in recognising how a real instrument sound like. Most people mistake it to mean that you need to really remember the "exact" sound signature. This is not neccessary.

Remember when you hear an ice cream bell or a lion dance from afar, even around a corner, you instintively know it is real, even though the sound is very different than when you hear it upfront. Have you thought why ?

You would be very close if the reproduced instruments has the effect in fooling you into thinking it is real.

Doppler effect.

soonthas wrote:Doppler effect.

Doppler effect on the brain waves probably ....