Originally Posted by Clarkmc2
I know these terms have been around forever, so have I, and I am very familiar with the charts you referenced. I have never preferred these terms to the more succinct and precise frequency response equivalents. Chesty is excessive energy in the upper bass or lower midrange. Muffled is rolloff above 2kHz. Aw is a frequency response peak centered around 450 Hz. Thin is attenuation below 500Hz. So why not just say so? Then someone besides a recording engineer can know where the problem lies whatever the cause, in home playback equipment, earbuds or anything else. It is great to know what wander is if you can change the mike placement, but when there is a FR problem for an actual user of the recording product, the traditional terms are not all that helpful. In sound science, frequency response is the language of description. It is not vague and subject to differing interpretations by different practitioners. "Marv said the track was chesty in the middle eight, but that is not what I heard at all."
Your impassioned response to my "transgression" reminds me of computer software designers referring to their customers as "users," a very derogatory term in their hands. If we don't use your terms we are ignorant? Really? They use jargon where I work too, but I don't think those who don't know it are ignorant. "4dB up from 240-290Hz" is a much better description than "A lower mids hump" any day.
I'm not upset, just amused. I have taken the Harmon training. The Golden Ears Training seems Interesting. If I take it maybe I will better understand what the goofballs talking about cables are trying to say, in addition to whatever positive things I may learn.
You are now switching camps here. Preference for a word/definition is vastly different than denying its very existence. First you say it's undefinable and now...by some sort of who knows what...you are able to establish definitions for the undefinable. Good move!
Your initial response was also very discouraging. Apparently I am not the only one who thought so. Now, you encourage the spread of knowledge to precisely define the undefinable and remove such "jargon" for more precise terms. Sounds like a flip-flop but you might know more since you have been around for ages.
Had your initial response been more coherent as it is now, I would not have had such an impassioned response to what seemed like a mentally challenged post. Every singe term the OP mentioned is definable and is certainly audible. The terms mastering and audio engineers use are by no means derogatory but merely language of the trade. Anybody is free to learn this "jargon" and it is not difficult to learn! Should doctors stop using the term myocardial infarction because a vast majority of people don't understand it? Maybe we should vanquish the word "coitus" because children have no idea what is.
Also, how is saying that a recording has too much edge and no air in any way derogatory? I did not believe the OP to be ignorant for asking his questions, in fact, I applaud that he asked his questions. In my mind, no question is ever stupid. I was happy to have provided a suggestion which would help him. Certainly, most people would agree, a positive suggestion is much more worthwhile than a discouraging response like yours. I think the vast majority would also agree that my response was not derogatory in any manner whatsoever.
Those who know me on these boards KNOW that I never condescending and I am always happy to help anyone who is interested in the arts and science of audio engineering....be it simple recording techniques to more complicated matters like acoustic design or spatial localization from binaural cues.
Edited by LFF - 7/10/12 at 11:12pm