[ComfyCan]

In describing the characteristics of headphones (and other audio gear), there is a language that is spoken here by more experinced people that is largely meaningless to me, which is frustrating.

As an illustration, here's a quote pulled at random from a recent post from a very experienced headfi-er:

don't like: K701's splitting apart of the layers
- don't like: K701's deadening of the sound
- don't like: K701's over-airiness
- do like: K701's fast tight bass, slightly-warm mids, and spike over female vocal range
- don't like: DT880's slow attack
- do like: DT880's detail retrieval and textured bass
- don't like: HD600's darkness
- do like: actually I'm not sure what I like about the HD600

- don't like: K81DJ's over-boomy bass
- do like: K81DJ's fun factor and portability
- don't like: boomy bass, brightness, sibilance
- like: clean sparkling highs without brightness, accurate bass, and a non-forward presentation[/QUOTE]


I am not being at all critical of this; I just don't know what people mean when they say things like "textured bass" or "non-forward presentation," although I'd certainly like to.

I have read definitions of audiophile terminology on this and other websites, and over time I pick up clues about what I *think* people mean from the context in which such terminology is used.

What would really be handy would be an FAQ/stickie with links to Wav. files that would illustrate the characteristic (where practical). Subjective terms that are not tied to objective examples are really difficult to understand.

Does anyone know of any such reference(s)? Alternatively, links to sites describing audiophile terminology that others have found helpful would be appreciated.

Thanks for any help you can offer; I'm sure I'm not the only one here who finds this language confusing.
Finally, let me emphasize that I intend no criticism of the individual who posted the language quoted above; it is used only as an example.

 

[Roger.McMurphy]

I agree. Nice thread.

I know about warmness, but what the hell is a can with a slow attack? Do slow attack refer to cans that sound warm and laid-back? Same thing goes with non-forward presentation. Cans with non-forward presentations sound laid-back: they sound warm! Isn't it? All of those terms refer to warm sounding cans to me!

Then, what is a fast tight bass? Isn't that a clear, well defined bass?

I think I do get it, but I might get lost. I'm confused.

Please, don't overcomplicate things that truly aren't!

It's meaningless for newbies...

 

[nelamvr6]

The problem with wav files to illustrate terms is that we could never predict what sort of equipment you'd be listening to.

It's hard to make a wav file of a recessed presentation if you will listen on a system that has a forward presentation.

You could buy Robert Harley's excellent book to get a handle on what people are talking about, but in the long run it's prolly cheaper to do a google search for "audiophile terminology" (you'll get 1,360,000 hits) and just keep reading here.

BTW, fast refers to the ability to handle transients.

 

[003]

As for the wav files I think that would be a great idea. As for listening on different equipment, just make the effect really exaggerated, much more so than it would be in a real scenario.

 

[Azure]

When I first came here I also found it difficult to decipher all the subjective terms that people use to describe sound. None of it made any sense to me at all. I ended up finding out that the best way to understand what people were talking about was by actually buying the headphones and listening for myself. Once you hear it and think about it, it should all start to make some sense. When you start comparing headphones you'll see what people mean by certain headphones being faster, slower, brighter, darker, colder, warmer, having more air, textured bass, etc.

 

[F107plus5]

I used to have trouble with a lot of those terms too; but then I discovered the three key phrases:

"I bought 'em." That means they're probably good.

"I sold 'em." That means they're probably not that good.

"I sold them, then I bought 'em back!" Now THAT'S my favorite!!

 

[ComfyCan]

My sincere thanks to those who have responded thus far. I hope there will be further input; I realy think we could all benefit from a little attention to this issue. There are many great minds here, and if we don't let this die on the vine, I think we may just do ourselves some good as a "virtual community."

After all, we are trying to *communicate*, through the written word, experiences that must be heard through our ears. This is inherently challenging, just as it would be difficult to describe the color "blue" to a blind man.

I will order the Harley book; thanks for the link nelam. I've used search engines and that also helps, but most descriptions suffer from the same fatal flaw: without some objective example of a sound characteristic, it is impossible to know whether two people who are using the same term are, in fact, describing the same phenomenon.

Here's a particularly helpful glossary of audio terms I found: http://www.rane.com/par-a.html .

Here's another poking a bit of fun at "overused audiophile terms," that serves to illustrate the issue I'm talking about: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums...ead.php?t=5570 ). The later, however, focuses on the problem, without much creative thought applied to potential solutions. Solutions are what I would like us to collectively explore.

003's suggestion seems to be an excellant one: if example Wav. files were sufficiently exagerated, many concepts could be demonstrated in a way that words alone could never accomplish. Obviously, not every sound characteristic would lend itself to such an approach--but many would. For example, wouldn't it be possible to demonstrate "simbilance" (I know what that is) or "rolled-off treble" ( I have no clue what that is)?

I often wonder, when reading heated disagreements on headfi concerning the characteristis of various amps, headphones, etc., how often the debating parties might actually *agree* with one another, but simply have a different understanding of the meaning of the descriptive terms being employed by the other. It's a "who's on first" problem, of sorts.

A little more standardization in the terminology we use to describe characteristics of our toys and listening experiences would, I submit, be beneficial not only to new people, but to all members--regardless of experience level.

Since none of us can afford to purchase every interesting new product that hits the audio market, we rely on the impressions of one another in deciding how to spend our dollars. Those impressions are only reliable if the people who are giving them are using terminology that we can all understand. A 2,000 post "Headphone Supremous" can get meaningful information about a product purchased by a reasonably educated new guy if the new guy and the veteran are working from the same playbook.

If you agree , I urge you to give this issue some thought, and post any ideas you might have about how we might go about improving the situation. With a little effort and pooling of talent, we can communicate much more effectively than we do now. I'm certainly willing to do my part (although I have the convenient excuse that I don't yet understand most of these terms, and have absolutely no html skills

Finally, as Azure's post implies, I do recognize that no such tool could ever serve to entirely replace experience, which requires time and continued interest in the hobby over a period of time. That said, the learning curve could be shortened, and many ambiguities could be substantially reduced if we choose to make it so.

 

[Azure]

Well, I normally think that detailed impressions using all of these subjective terms aren't as important for entry-level gear to newcomers as it is to higher end gear. So, I'd think that it'd users would naturally and gradually learn more and more about these terms the more they try more headphones. I mean, I don't think new users who are buying their first headphones are not all too concerned about things like transparency, rolled-off treble, liquid midrange, etc. I think after experiencing 2-3 different headphones you get 90% of the lingo nailed and there are no more worries about misunderstandings. I guess what I'm trying to say is whether or not it is all that necessary for new (non-serious) head-fiers to be this fluent in audiophile terminology this early in the game (When it usually doesn't matter) when they'll gradually learn it if they are serious in this hobby (Serious as in planning on buying multiple headphones in which case knowing this vocabulary would be handy). Quite honestly I'm not sure if knowing what all this headphone terminology means would have helped me that much when choosing my first headphones if I hadn't heard any other good headphones before.

With that said, I'm all for the idea as I think it would be interesting, and because I happen to agree with this quote from Alexander Pope:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring; There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

 

[stewtheking]

The quote in my sig sums this up pretty well.

 

[Duggeh]

Theres always the head-fi page at wikipedia. We could start using that to write a section on audio terminology. Everyone chips in their help in describing particular audio phenomenon.

 

[nelamvr6]

ComfyCan, excellent post. You raised a lot of valid and interesting points.

Though I do feel that a lot of the terms we use have been standardized by much use over time, there is certainly still room for improvement.

I think Duggeh's idea is excellent, I just want to caution against spending a lot of effort reinventing the wheel. There are already a lot of very good audiophile glossaries out there. Perhaps we could just link to a couple of the better ones?

 

[FooTemps]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh Theres always the head-fi page at wikipedia. We could start using that to write a section on audio terminology. Everyone chips in their help in describing particular audio phenomenon.

great idea, wanna start it out? lol

 

[Awk.Pine]

Since we're talking about the effects of a driver on a signal, I doubt altering the signal to mimic those effects would be practical. Still, if someone has a high quality means of recording various headphones, and the differences are audible on the low-end cans of the target audience, then this would be an excellent resource.

Why not compile a list of reference tracks so that we have a common set of recordings for us to talk about? When I started listening to hifi equipment, my audiophile mentor pulled out a few albums and picked a few tracks and told me what to listen for on each one. It would be more meaningful to newbies if one could say, "the sibilance of x cans makes the singer's voice on y recording harsh," or "m recording sounds dry on the analytical, n cans, but comes to life on the warm, p cans." Even, "the mp3 compression artifacts are noticeable right here." We could even post sample clips of a few seconds to the website, which could then be taken down to the local hifi shop and given a whirl. (Not whole songs out of respect for copyright, but I imagine that clips accompanied by reviews and not being sold would fall under fair use.)

There's no replacement for displacement. Er. Experience. I cannot tell you how Manet is different from Van Gogh. But I can tell you to look at representative paintings that will help your understanding. Headfi newbies, myself included, need to listen to different cans to really grasp their different sounds. Still, we want to make this process as easy as possible.

There's my $0.02: the HeadFi Sound Reference Library. Such a thing, of course, should include demo tracks on how to handle an empty wallet and confused spouse.

 

[nickchen]

I quite get along with the slang here, my problem are rather these proprietary abbrevations like FOTM & alike. There should be a sticky for that.

 

[Audiofiler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awk.Pine ..should include demo tracks on how to handle an empty wallet and confused spouse.

I agree completely