[Jazmanaut]

Over the years i have been trying to understand terminology that hi-fi/high-end people are using.
Every time i have tried to ask that what one means by "veiled" or such, there is total silence. Could this finally be the forum for this?
I must make clear that i come from pro audio, and i think that we have our own quite exact(ish) terminology. (Like: "a bit more green, and little bit of cha cha to quitar please")
So i want to understand, what "common people" means, when they are descripting different aspects of sound, that our conversation could be more fruity.

So, what do you recon that one means, when they are speaking about:

-Sibilance
-Grainy
-Veiled
-Black
-Micro/Macrodynamics

And for a bonus: In how many part do you split your tonal specrtum, and how do you call them? (Bass-mids-highs...)

 

[Speedskater]

Somewhere on the Stereophile magazine web-page is an audiophile glossary.
Found it:
https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

 

[Jazmanaut]

No "Blackness", "Microdynamixs" or "sibilance" in there.

"grainy A moderate texturing of reproduced sound. The sonic equivalent of grain in a photograph. Coarser than dry but finer than gritty."
Say what???

 

[ranfan]

I'm also interested on this.

Per my understanding as a 'commoner' (please correct me if I'm mistaken):
- Sibilance is relative to each person's comfort threshold for listening to loudness or peak in upper-mid and high frequency. It is usually sensed as discomforting/fatiguing at a certain instrument note or frequency.
- A veiled sound for me occurs when a sound has increased emphasis in the lower frequency, and less in the upper frequency, relative to the mid-range frequency. This sound character can sometimes also be perceived as 'dark' or unclear sounding - especially in the midrange.
- If by 'black', you mean a black background; as I understand it means that there is low level of noise or hiss in the device's sound output. With or without music.
- I'm not entirely sure about 'grainy'; but I think it is a subjective description/term for a sound's texture.
- ??

Low (~20 Hz to ~250 Hz), Mid (~250 Hz to ~2 kHz), Upper-mid (~2 kHz to ~6 kHz), and High (~6 kHz to ~20 kHz)

Again, this is just my view/understanding. I may be less accurate/wrong. Hope it helps.

 

[bigshot]

Most of these terms are made up. Sound engineers don't use terms like veiled or black. They talk about frequency response curves, distortion, noise floor and timing error. Rather than learn the terminology of audio review magazines, I'd suggest studying the principles of high fidelity sound reproduction. It will get you a lot further if you understand what you are talking about, not just making up pretty poetry to vaguely describe feelings about sound.

 

[Jazmanaut]

Most of these terms are made up. Sound engineers don't use terms like veiled or black. They talk about frequency response curves, distortion, noise floor and timing error. Rather than learn the terminology of audio review magazines, I'd suggest studying the principles of high fidelity sound reproduction. It will get you a lot further if you understand what you are talking about, not just making up pretty poetry to vaguely describe feelings about sound.

That is the truth, but when ever i try to speak with hifi entuastics or even hifidealers, about right and coherent terminology, responce is no responce. At all.
And it´s a bit hard to go for example to the highend store to find proper speakers, when you are trying to tell them that those small electrostatic panels get distorted very soon at 2.3Khz, and you neet to find something more neutral sounding etc... But responce is about those microdynamics, and what not.
So i dont think they are intrested to learn even a basics of pro terminology. So i just want to undestand, what they mean, with their expressions. And i want to find out, that is there any logic on those terms?

 

[old tech]

I agree that most of these terms are made up to describe a subjective sound. By definition, as it is subjective, it will mean different things to different people. But anyway this is what I've known these terms to mean.

Sibilance - excessive emphasis on the s consonant, most noticeable on vocals.

Veiled - lack of clarity, similar to the sound you get from a dub tape that is too many generations down from its master.

Black - overpowering and pervasive bass frequency emphasis, the opposite of bright.

Grainy - a gritty sound, the opposite of smooth.

Then there are terms which appeal to a technical basis even though there isn't one. The classic is "analog sounding"

Interpretation 1: smooth natural sound.
interpretation 2: veiled, rolled-off, coloured sound.

Funnily enough, when I seek opinions for the best mastered release of albums, I've learnt the hard way to avoid those described as analog sounding, they always disappoint with the lack of clarity, lack of top end and bloaty bass.

 

[Speedskater]

"sibilance" was in the 1990 printed book, but the definition is not vary helpful.
The others are audiophile words, that seem to be difficult to demonstrate.

 

[pinnahertz]

That is the truth, but when ever i try to speak with hifi entuastics or even hifidealers, about right and coherent terminology, responce is no responce. At all.
And it´s a bit hard to go for example to the highend store to find proper speakers, when you are trying to tell them that those small electrostatic panels get distorted very soon at 2.3Khz, and you neet to find something more neutral sounding etc... But responce is about those microdynamics, and what not.
So i dont think they are intrested to learn even a basics of pro terminology. So i just want to undestand, what they mean, with their expressions. And i want to find out, that is there any logic on those terms?

The problem is trying to communicate with high-end dealers...at all. Do your research on line, find the speakers in the store, point to them and say, "I want to hear those". Bring your own demo material, make sure there is no processing going on (EQ, etc.), give them a listen. Don't comment or ask questions, apart from price, you'll only wake the beast. If you don't like them, move on.

Their terminology is meant to confuse, and create an elitist world that even engineers who actually know what's going on cannot penetrate. Stay out of that world! It's filled with mythical beast and wizards. Ignore their language, it will corrupt your thinking, and it means nothing. Use the high-end shop for what it does best: show and demo gear. And those demos aren't often very good either, but that's what they do best, even if falls short.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

No "Blackness", "Microdynamixs" or "sibilance" in there.

"grainy A moderate texturing of reproduced sound. The sonic equivalent of grain in a photograph. Coarser than dry but finer than gritty."
Say what???

Sibilance - System/transducer(s) has a peak somewhere between 2500hz to 10000hz. In speaker systems, it can be caused by reflections and time alignment issues (ie you hear the output from each speaker on the same note out of sync). The latter is a much bigger problem on cars that are not the Mclaren F1 than any home system.

Black and Grainy - Take a good camera. Take a photo of something with blacks in the frame at ISO100 and then at ISO6400. See how clean the black is on the first setting, and how grainy it is on the latter? This is what people are describing. In a more direct sense, "blackness" means "very low noise floor," while "grainy" is "(a particular kind of) noisy." A very quiet system will not necessarily have "louder bass" or "detailed midrange/highs" as people think it does, it just has less noise that gets in the way.

Easy test: select a track, listen to it at the level you normally would, then hit pause; if you hear any electronic noise, that's grainy, maybe just not obvious. No noise means the noise floor is low enough. Gradually increase the volume. If you hear any noise at that point, then your system is just clean enough for the level you listen at with whatever headphones are plugged in (note that a very high sensitivity headphone might actually get more noise than a slightly lower sensitivity headphone). If you get to max setting with no noise, then at least with your headphone the system is very quiet.

Expensive test: get an eBay tube amp (the more dubious the better) and a Meier, Violectric, or JDS Labs amp, plus an ODAC RevB or Magni2 DAC, then run the same audio test. Cheap eBay tube amp will likely show you what "grainy" is like. Note though that I myself got a cheap hybrid amp from Amazon - a Pangea-modded version of some cheap amp from China - and much of the noise is not only way beyond my hearing levels, but also coming more from my smartphone (which I use as a music server) if not set to Airplane Mode. Needless to say, while I would not have bought it when it was sold for $250, I was floored when a then-$100 hybrid amp wasn't doing as badly as I thought it would, or at least, not on the high impedance, high enough sensitivity HD600.

I agree that most of these terms are made up to describe a subjective sound. By definition, as it is subjective, it will mean different things to different people. But anyway this is what I've known these terms to mean.

Black - overpowering and pervasive bass frequency emphasis, the opposite of bright.

This is a perfect example of the problem of all these descriptions - bass emphasis vs treble and midrange is descried as "dark," and some assume that "black" lies farther to the left of that spectrum. It does not. "Blackness" refers to a black background, and if on a spectrum, the other end is "noisy" (more commonly used is "grainy"). Look up a photo of someone in a tux at ISO100 with proper lighting (even with a speedlight) vs ISO6400.

 

[Jazmanaut]

Ok, so i did figure that "grainy" would be somewhat distorted, because someone just defined hadphones, that they had good blackness between bassnotes, but highs were a bit grainy.
But if blackness refers s/n ratio, then you cant really describe headphones that way... or obiviously you can but...

 

[old tech]

This is a perfect example of the problem of all these descriptions - bass emphasis vs treble and midrange is descried as "dark," and some assume that "black" lies farther to the left of that spectrum. It does not. "Blackness" refers to a black background, and if on a spectrum, the other end is "noisy" (more commonly used is "grainy"). Look up a photo of someone in a tux at ISO100 with proper lighting (even with a speedlight) vs ISO6400.

Yes, you are right dark is the opposite of bright, not black.

 

[pinnahertz]

Sibilance - System/transducer(s) has a peak somewhere between 2500hz to 10000hz. In speaker systems, it can be caused by reflections and time alignment issues (ie you hear the output from each speaker on the same note out of sync). The latter is a much bigger problem on cars that are not the Mclaren F1 than any home system.

This is the second time that I've seen you mention that sibilance is the result of time alignment issues in speakers. Would you mind posting a reference that substantiates that? And the second time the McLaren F1 is referenced in relation to time alignment. Now that's one I doubt many will understand or identify with. Care to elaborate? On either?

 

[Jazmanaut]

If he means that in speakersystems, there could be issues in crossover area, wich could make transition harsh and somewhat spikey on that frequencyrange, i do understand what he is after. But in headphones, where there is no crossovers, only what is left to cause such similar kind of broblems, could be drivermembranes or chassis inner resonance.

 

[gregorio]

Over the years i have been trying to understand terminology that hi-fi/high-end people are using.

I agree with pinnahertz on this one, don't bother. It's not that engineers don't use subjective terminology, we do commonly: Boxy, tight, muddy, bright, woolly, dark, warm, thin and various others. The problem is not only that the audiophile world invents their own terms which often don't equate to any subjective pro audio terms but also that they often take some of the pro audio terms but use them to mean something different. Even the audiophile term "fidelity" often appears to have very little to do with the word "fidelity"? Look at the thread "Is Airy sound and tight bass paradoxical?". None of the definitions of "tight bass" in that thread match my (pro audio engineer) definition and some of them are pretty much the exact opposite.

The other problem in the hi-fi/audiophile world is the tendency to eliminate the recording from the equation and make sound reproduction solely about the equipment. I personally don't want a speaker (or headphones) with a tight bass, I sometimes listen to recordings which have a woolly or muddy bass and I don't want my speakers trying to turn it into a tight bass and vice versa, I don't want speakers to have a smooth bass when I'm listening to recordings which are supposed to have a tight, punchy bass. So even if I do manage to grasp the meaning of their terminology, it's still often worthless! As pinnahertz said, take your own recordings, as they'll typically demo the recordings they think best highlights the strengths of the system/s they're trying to sell and also try and make sure you understand their signal flow, as I've seen routing/processing tricks used to overemphasise the audibility of differences between cheaper and more expensive equipment (or vice versa, depending on where the profit margin is at the time). I maybe wouldn't go as far as pinnahertz and not ask any questions but I would heavily filter the answers and verify them by listening (to my recordings).

G