Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Describing Sound - A Glossary
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Describing Sound - A Glossary - Page 9

post #121 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljcii View Post
What about bite?
I think that the meaning of the term "bite" when referring to headphones is exciting sound. Depending on the person, this can be mean any number of things, such as good dynamics, tight, focused and/or punchy bass, perhaps detailed and exciting highs and maybe also upfront presentation. That is "bite" means that there is something really catchy about the sound that will sorta "bite into your mind" with it's good dynamics for example or even "bite" into you in a physical sense, say, by really making you feel it's punchy bass, or making you get that spine-tingling sensation from forward, shimmering highs, or perhaps making you feel the excitement of a singer singing "right next to you," - something of that sort.

Hopefully this makes some sense.
post #122 of 232
I tend to think of "bite" being as more an aggressive (and possibly fatiguing) sound, typically in the treble with cymbals or in the upper mids with piano keys. A sound that might make you wince a little when it hits you, almost like it hurts when you hear it.
post #123 of 232
Yea it does make sense.
post #124 of 232
I just stumbled across thread this while poking around, and I actually made a similar guide for my girlfriend last week (I was introducing her to my rig and giving her some background reading before our trip to the CES in January). It's kind of a different approach - instead of a glossary, it kind of goes area by area in terms of what to listen for. It's a very rough first cut and probably isn't comprehensive enough, but it might be a useful starting point for someone new to this world doing their first critical listening:

Here are a series of things to listen for when listening to an equipment setup as a starting point for critically evaluating what you’re hearing. One thing to keep in mind is that many of these terms are not meant to be inherently positive or negative, and are more related to personal preferences and tastes than any measure of objective value.

1. Performance across the sound spectrum:
-Treble (highs – generally well evaluated by listening to instruments like violins, flutes, or cymbals)
-Mids (generally well evaluated by listening to things like vocals)
-Bass (lows – generally well evaluated by listening to things like bass drums, string basses or cellos)
Performance along the sound spectrum can be evaluated in a number of ways. In addition to many of the ways described below, two things to take into account are the “extension” (how high does the treble go, or how low does the bass go) and “impact” (how emphasized is that part of the sound spectrum?)

2. Clarity is how clear the sound is – it is probably best evaluated along a spectrum from “detailed” to “muddy” and can be applied either to the sound as a whole, or specific aspects (such as treble, mids, bass). How clearly are you able to hear the music, especially in terms of individually hearing all the various elements (all the instruments and singers etc.)?

3. Soundstage – how well you can “hear the space” of the music. A soundstage can be evaluated along five major categories. The first three are spatial:
-Width of soundstage (how wide does the space feel, how much does sound placement appear to vary within that width?)
-Height of soundstage (how high does the space feel, and how much does sound placement appear to vary within that width?)
-Depth of soundstage (how deep does the space feel, and how much does sound placement appear to vary within that width?)
The next is related to clarity
-How good is the “separation,” that is, how well does the setup present individual instruments or singers as having their own individual spaces rather than melding into one?
And the last is the feeling of “airiness” – a really great, well-presented soundstage will give you not only a sense of size of the space but also a feel for the air in that space so that you really feel like you’re there.

4. What is the overall “feel” of the sound? This can be evaluated along a spectrum from “warm” or “dark” (generally meaning the bass is a little stronger and more enveloping – this can also mean that some detail/clarity is sacrificed in order to achieve a more “relaxed” sound) to “bright” (generally meaning that trebles tend to be emphasized at the expense of bass – this can also mean that the sound is very detailed and clear rather than relaxed).

5. Where do you feel like you’re sitting while listening to the music? The presentation can either be very “forward” (i.e. the performer appears to be right up in your face) or more “removed.”

6. What sort of “texture” does the music give off? This is somewhat related to the feel of the sound – the texture can be either “analytical” (you can hear a lot of the details of the sound, but this is sacrificing the feel to some extent) or “lush” (you can really feel the texture of the instruments, but this might sacrifice some level of detail).
post #125 of 232
nice thread, somehow I never saw this before.
thank you
post #126 of 232
Great list, most of them are pretty intuitive but very helpful for a lot of them that I havn't seen before.
post #127 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmanGeorge View Post
I just stumbled across thread this while poking around, and I actually made a similar guide for my girlfriend last week (I was introducing her to my rig and giving her some background reading before our trip to the CES in January). It's kind of a different approach - instead of a glossary, it kind of goes area by area in terms of what to listen for. It's a very rough first cut and probably isn't comprehensive enough, but it might be a useful starting point for someone new to this world doing their first critical listening:

Here are a series of things to listen for when listening to an equipment setup as a starting point for critically evaluating what you’re hearing. One thing to keep in mind is that many of these terms are not meant to be inherently positive or negative, and are more related to personal preferences and tastes than any measure of objective value.

1. Performance across the sound spectrum:
-Treble (highs – generally well evaluated by listening to instruments like violins, flutes, or cymbals)
-Mids (generally well evaluated by listening to things like vocals)
-Bass (lows – generally well evaluated by listening to things like bass drums, string basses or cellos)
Performance along the sound spectrum can be evaluated in a number of ways. In addition to many of the ways described below, two things to take into account are the “extension” (how high does the treble go, or how low does the bass go) and “impact” (how emphasized is that part of the sound spectrum?)

2. Clarity is how clear the sound is – it is probably best evaluated along a spectrum from “detailed” to “muddy” and can be applied either to the sound as a whole, or specific aspects (such as treble, mids, bass). How clearly are you able to hear the music, especially in terms of individually hearing all the various elements (all the instruments and singers etc.)?

3. Soundstage – how well you can “hear the space” of the music. A soundstage can be evaluated along five major categories. The first three are spatial:
-Width of soundstage (how wide does the space feel, how much does sound placement appear to vary within that width?)
-Height of soundstage (how high does the space feel, and how much does sound placement appear to vary within that width?)
-Depth of soundstage (how deep does the space feel, and how much does sound placement appear to vary within that width?)
The next is related to clarity
-How good is the “separation,” that is, how well does the setup present individual instruments or singers as having their own individual spaces rather than melding into one?
And the last is the feeling of “airiness” – a really great, well-presented soundstage will give you not only a sense of size of the space but also a feel for the air in that space so that you really feel like you’re there.

4. What is the overall “feel” of the sound? This can be evaluated along a spectrum from “warm” or “dark” (generally meaning the bass is a little stronger and more enveloping – this can also mean that some detail/clarity is sacrificed in order to achieve a more “relaxed” sound) to “bright” (generally meaning that trebles tend to be emphasized at the expense of bass – this can also mean that the sound is very detailed and clear rather than relaxed).

5. Where do you feel like you’re sitting while listening to the music? The presentation can either be very “forward” (i.e. the performer appears to be right up in your face) or more “removed.”

6. What sort of “texture” does the music give off? This is somewhat related to the feel of the sound – the texture can be either “analytical” (you can hear a lot of the details of the sound, but this is sacrificing the feel to some extent) or “lush” (you can really feel the texture of the instruments, but this might sacrifice some level of detail).

Thanks for the great guide, Ill be sure try a few of those suggestions next time I put on my phones
post #128 of 232

SUB-TERANIAN

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meloncoly View Post
I've seen subterranean used in terms of bass that sounds "underground". It's hard to explain. Imagine being in a cave. It's like...ambient sub-bass?
I relate this to the boom boom sub-bass I hear when an ampped up car drives by and I can hear only the thump thump of the sub-woofers

Not!! healthy for your ears.
post #129 of 232
Subterranean always makes think of deep bass.
post #130 of 232
i really do love this thread. i love words and music words and any more musical words that can help describe music better, im new so i keep this thread open and refer back, woo!
post #131 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Figlio Perduto View Post
i really do love this thread. i love words and music words and any more musical words that can help describe music better, im new so i keep this thread open and refer back, woo!
I'm glad you like it.
post #132 of 232
Just found this thread. I must thank you, for allowing me to understand more clearly, the reviews that get posted here.
post #133 of 232
Can someone define "Tubey". I hear that term used often.
As in, "that amp definitely sounds too tubey."

How can a tube amp sound too tubey???
post #134 of 232
It's hard to describe without using more vague terms, but "liquid" comes to mind... I think most people would say that tubes generally have a very full, lush, almost throaty sound, with a very pronounced sense of "airiness."
post #135 of 232
it's so useful for me,thank you! fordgtlover
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Describing Sound - A Glossary