O8h7w
100+ Head-Fier
Not quite right, according to my dictionary. Or Wiktionary. Or my understanding of language. Follow the links, keep all noted meanings in mind and see if you understand me a bit better then.Jargon = using non-standardized terms in a standardized sector. Instead of noise floor, making up background because you may not have a technical education.
Slang = urban terms used to express experiences or emotions in lieu of conventional vocabulary or to sound "hip" (which is an example of slang).
Very well stated and I fully agree, I'm sorry if I've been unclear enough that someone would think I don't. This whole discussion topic is created by people in this thread trying to wrap their heads around jargon used in another forum without going to the source and reading all the context and origin of said jargon.The use of both jargon and slang are parts of language (the soul of culture) but the problem I have is when it is is presented as dogma, or when assumptions are made that the jargon or slang has meaning outside the cultures using it and represents some sort of "truth". When discussing any topic, but especially one based in technical sciences, it is best to refrain from cultural expressions that may not be universally understood or acepted or even defined. And if it is part of the user's dogma then they need be prepared for rejection and criticism. At least by me.
I will now go listen to the marshmallow creaminess punctuated by crunchy pecans that are my Voce headphones.
Of course the terms that originated there have no meaning here. Yet! Maybe some of them eventually will. This we do not know.
I think someone at some point tried to "explain" a term used by picking a component that exhibits it to an unusual degree and saying in essence "go listen to that, you'll hear it". That's not very helpful. Better would be to suggest a comparison between two contrasting products. Maybe also mention a recommended track and what to listen for in that track. This method of explanation is often used in audio reviews, I think it might be the best way we've found so far to precisely explain a sound quality difference. But it is a bit cumbersome and I'm strongly of the opinion that it would benefit us all if we could find a few more widely agreed upon terms. I don't think we should wait around for scientific explanations of what we hear before naming it, if large enough numbers of us can agree that we do hear it. Such are very long term developments, I don't expect "blackground" or "treble screwery" to become such a term in the foreseeable future, maybe not at all. For "plankton" I'm definitely guessing not at all, but it is hard to make predictions - especially about the future!
I guess it is part of my personal dogma that language is important. I do believe that naming phenomena that we don't know the explanation for facilitates the discussion around them and that this, in circles where a curious mindset is common enough, accelerates the search for explanations. I'm fairly sure that some believe the search for explanations slows down or stalls when a phenomen is named, but I think that only applies when there is a general lack of curiosity.
I now believe I have explained myself way more than enough and can leave this topic be. Thankyou to all involved, it was useful to me at least!