Understanding some terms used here

[Shivam]

I have come to understand a lot of terms used by audiophiles and similar people here in this forum and various magazines too. Terms like 'laid back' 'detailed' 'smooth high end' 'lack of grain in high end' 'single note bass' 'tight or loose bass' etc are now easy to understand and imagine what the writer wants to convey. There are some terms that I still don't understand.

What do these terms mean -
Clinical sounding (I have visited various clinics but have not been able to associate any hifi sound signature to any of the clinics)
Effortless sound
Involving sound
Tube sound (with this I may not classify as an audiophile but I don't hear a difference in good quality solid state and tube amps)

 

[Santy]

Tube sound (with this I may not classify as an audiophile but I don't hear a difference in good quality solid state and tube amps)

Which means neither I am an audiophile ( I don't need that tag either )
I too have heard some tube amps (and DACs) but they sound similar to solid states. May be I have not heard enough varieties to know what 'tubey' means.

I think effortless by and large is a characteristics of speakers; probably means there is no strain exhibited? The harmonics and overtones of instruments are distinctly preserved even when played loud. May be you feel it would be perfectly fine to pump up the volume more than you thought it can manage.

Clinical may refer to "overly clean music" resulting in loss of the natural timbre of instruments used. Or washed out. Or may be too "synthetic". But I am not sure.

Involving- no idea. May be the reviewer got involved so much for too long that he forgot to return the demo piece.

 

[shanmune]

Involving- no idea. May be the reviewer got involved so much for too long that he forgot to return the demo piece.

What do these terms mean -
Clinical sounding (I have visited various clinics but have not been able to associate any hifi sound signature to any of the clinics)

At the end of the day, I am completely de-stressed. :lol: :lol:

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Engineers talk in technical terms and numbers, and understand each other.

The rest of us are left with language as we use it, the best tool we have for the job. Some misunderstanding is inevitable, as it is in many areas of life. So, when we hear subjective terms, we just have to use a bit of imagination. Some are easier than others, and some cross the bullshit boundary a little too much --- but what else do we have?

 

[Shivam]

I actually used to think clinical to mean very clearly defined with each and every instrument clearly heard. Maybe it was due to the association of clinics with high standards and another term 'hospital grade' which in most countries means one of the highest standards.

Now I think 'clinical' means sound which has too much high frequency sound as if from tinny piezo tweeters or maybe it means too live a sound with excessive reverberation as may be heard in an overly empty clinic with tiled floor and lots of glass panes and metallic furniture.

 

[rohitmusic]

Worth a watch
Rick Talks-Audiophile Terminoligy - YouTube

 

[jls001]

Try this glossary.

 

[sbg]

We do have one here too oddiophiles - by keith_correa

 

[Shivam]

Another glossary by Stereophile -
Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary Glossary: A | Stereophile.com

Unfortunately the words don't mean the same here. An example is 'laid back'. Check all the glossaries and then here in the forum about the 'laid back' sound. Here the laid back sound usually a rolled off high end.

Anyway a lot of those words are clear but the ones I listed above are some that don't figure in many dictionaries.

 

[Santy]

IMO, Stereophile's definition of laid back is right.
Rolled off highs cannot be described as laid back.

 

[square_wave]

A highly resolving system can sound laid back because it does not artificially add that excitement causing edge to the sound to make all that reproduces sound exciting. On other hand a less resolving system can add this edge to mask its lesser capabilities and can sound forward in the process. Many folks consider this as detail but in reality it is a trick.

When a highly resolving system produce high frequencies, the details and go on forever endless detail, attack and decay without sounding forward at all. This is how music sounds when you hear it live and unamplified. Disconcerting it will be for folks used to bright sounding systems.

Adding to the confusion, there are rolled off systems ( also a trick) which can be labeled as laid back .

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

"Highly resolving" is the first on that list of audiophile terms that need defining** (in high definition? ).

I sometimes have a sneaky (and probably unjustified) suspicion that it means expensive. Or my system's better than yours.

It is not a term I use (perhaps I've never spent enough money to use it :lol but if I have to imagine what it means then I suppose it is to do with detail, as in, do you see the dots, or do you see a blob? as I suppose that is what it would mean in, say, an optical context.

**EDIT: on proper reading, I see that square_wave just did explain it.

 

[Shivam]

A highly resolving system can sound laid back because it does not artificially add that excitement causing edge to the sound to make all that reproduces sound exciting. On other hand a less resolving system can add this edge to mask its lesser capabilities and can sound forward in the process. Many folks consider this as detail but in reality it is a trick.

When a highly resolving system produce high frequencies, the details and go on forever endless detail, attack and decay without sounding forward at all. This is how music sounds when you hear it live and unamplified. Disconcerting it will be for folks used to bright sounding systems.

Adding to the confusion, there are rolled off systems ( also a trick) which can be labeled as laid back .

Excitement, sound forward - two more words which I have to understand now apart from 'involving' and 'tube sound'.
Bright sounding - this one I already understand ! hyeah:

 

[square_wave]

Resolving Means the capability of a system to reproduce what is on the recording as accurately and convincingly as possible. Many methods are sought and many paths travelled. Almost all culminate in effective solutions if one is persistent and keep an open mind.

Expensive does not always mean a resolving system.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Resolving Means the capability of a system to reproduce what is on the recording as accurately and convincingly as possible.

makes sense. To you, is that the same as transparent --- or different? If so how? Transparent may be accurate, but is "convincingly" sometimes in the ear of the listener?

 

[captrajesh]

Resolving Means the capability of a system to reproduce what is on the recording as accurately and convincingly as possible. Many methods are sought and many paths travelled. Almost all culminate in effective solutions if one is persistent and keep an open mind.

Very well said.

 

[square_wave]

makes sense. To you, is that the same as transparent --- or different? If so how? Transparent may be accurate, but is "convincingly" sometimes in the ear of the listener?

I certainly believe that the core design of any audio component needs to be transparent. Since no science is perfect and we are trying to reconstruct reality, many methods are sought.

Each method will appeal to a different person depending on his expectations and taste. His / her influences in their early days as an audiophile plays a very crucial role. This where the term convincing comes into play. An example is the horn design. It is cult among some but not liked by others.

This is where ART and ENGINEERING need to converge in a holistic manner.
A good audio component designer is an artist and engineer all rolled into one.

Subjective terms come in where there is ART involved Audiophiles who love their hobby takes it to the next level though

 

[Shivam]

Reviving an old thread to bring some other threads to a common ground. I maybe getting old but I get lost/confused when I see some of the commonly used 'audiophile' terms in the forum being understood in a different light altogether by different members.

Maybe we can use the earlier linked page - Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary Glossary: A | Stereophile.com for trying to explain or understand sound signatures ?

Some recently discussed terms -
bright, brilliant The most often misused terms in audio, these describe the degree to which reproduced sound has a hard, crisp edge to it. Brightness relates to the energy content in the 4kHz-8kHz band. It is not related to output in the extreme-high-frequency range. All live sound has brightness; it is a problem only when it is excessive.
dark A warm, mellow, excessively rich quality in reproduced sound. The audible effect of a frequency response which is clockwise-tilted across the entire range, so that output diminishes with increasing frequency. Compare "light."
warm The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound.