|
Post by Mr Whippy on May 2, 2015 23:21:33 GMT
One of my favourites, off the top of my head, is, I think, GRUNT.
Add to it to get something like "Serious Grunt Factor" (which you can shorten to (SGF), and I like it even more.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on May 2, 2015 23:39:41 GMT
The one that annoys me the most is 'night and day difference'. It's true that a night and day difference is achievable with hifi, but only when you use the on/off switch.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 3, 2015 5:54:20 GMT
They're all wank.
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on May 3, 2015 9:45:23 GMT
I used to be in awe of those who could describe differences in great detail and at great length.
Like those wine tasters on TV. (Oz and Jilly)
Not saying they don't actually hear what they describe but to me it's hyperbole.
Perhaps I just have "cloth ears" ?
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 3, 2015 12:29:21 GMT
The one that annoys me the most is 'night and day difference'. Me too. It should be banned from TAS!
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 3, 2015 12:30:16 GMT
I like 'scale' as it describes what I hear between small and large speakers.
|
|
|
Post by alaska on Feb 22, 2016 11:23:45 GMT
"like lifting a veil" ??
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Feb 22, 2016 13:20:42 GMT
It's exactly like night and day when I listen to the system in the morning while doing yoga. Might be cos the sun comes up part way through
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 18:52:41 GMT
"Inky black". Most ink I use is blue?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 19:26:33 GMT
I'm pretty tolerant of descriptive language. Anything that attempts to convey our impression of sound will be flawed to some extent. It can never fully encapsulate the original experience. I appreciate anyone trying to get across what they hear, whatever expressions they use.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Feb 22, 2016 19:28:27 GMT
I'm ok with inky black backgrounds, scale and removing veils, too. They describe what I hear.
It's exaggeration I cannot tolerate, I prefer that people put the changes they hear into context.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 20:52:45 GMT
Ah yes. The magnitude of difference can be hard to get a handle on.
It still surprises me just how "frozen in the and space" my experiences have been. Encountering the same product in a different room and/or system at a later date can be puzzling. What's previously been wonderful is often ordinary and sometimes even vice versa. Of course experience helps you narrow down the possibilities for mismatches, but I still have regular surprises, both good and bad.
If I hear a big difference at the time, I try to remember that it's in that system at that time. Whether the experience has a lot of value beyond that, is often a coin toss.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Feb 22, 2016 21:00:27 GMT
That is so true. There is one experience that I heard on Cerwin Vega speakers, of all things, that I have never since heard replicated on any other system. Do I crave it? Not really, but they do hold that unique 'record' among my experiences.
Hmm, may be worth a new thread, that.
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Feb 22, 2016 21:16:17 GMT
When I heard Martin's system a few years ago I felt sick
Realising how poor mine was in comparison
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Feb 22, 2016 21:17:03 GMT
I'm ok with inky black backgrounds, scale and removing veils, too. They describe what I hear. It's exaggeration I cannot tolerate, I prefer that people put the changes they hear into context. What? Do you mean like: "My Nad 3020 will eat your Belles, Mate"? The Belles…The Belles… Charles Laughton - Or Anthony Hopkins? Charlie L, for me.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Feb 23, 2016 6:54:26 GMT
Well, you COULD say that, but you'd be wrong and look an idiot
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Feb 23, 2016 7:49:02 GMT
I'm in sympathy with those who dislike the cliche superlatives .... but, on a hifi forum, or a review, you need some way to describe the experience that is understandable to at least most of the intended audience.
Without that you are limited to "I dis/like it". More informative is "I like it compared to X" Even more useful is "I like it compared to X because ..." At which point you need some descriptors to convey your meaning. Grunt, veils lifted, transparency, resolution, slam, soundstage, air, dynamic headroom .... etc.
Yes, it's easy to mock. But if you want to communicate, or be communicated to, you need the words to do it with. Personally, I'm interested in the sound characteristics of hifi equipment, and in other people's opinions of that based on their experience. So I'm happy to work with, and occasionally smile indulgently at, the language tools necessary to try and achieve that.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Feb 23, 2016 7:53:35 GMT
Yes, it's easy to mock. But if you want to communicate, or be communicated to, you need the words to do it with. Personally, I'm interested in the sound characteristics of hifi equipment, and in other people's opinions of that based on their experience. So I'm happy to work with, and occasionally smile indulgently at, the language tools necessary to try and achieve that. Well said, Jerry.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Feb 23, 2016 8:01:24 GMT
Describing a personal subjective experience is pretty much impossible without the use of comparisons and metaphors! I remember an exercise we carried out at college (in relation to what, I can't imagine, given that I was studying forestry management) where we were asked to describe the flavour of a packet of cheese and onion crisps. I couldn't do it justice and I doubt many others could either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2016 8:04:00 GMT
I quite like comparisons to people or other things: "If it was a person/car/whatever, it would be X,Y or Z."
I often find this useful in conveying the character of something. It seems to be as good a way as any. Of course, the pitfall is that you never actually hear any component. You only hear its effect in a system and in a room. Therefore it's character may be subject to change when alternately paired.
That's before we throw in the variables of human perception which we've discussed before. Add to that our potentially differing views of said person or object and it gets harder still.
No wonder we struggle to explain and understand personal experiences. It's not the easiest thing to do well.
|
|