Jargon Buster
I notice that the mag has a Jargon Buster in the back. This is very convenient....but only provides definitions of words I can find on the web
The jargon I have most trouble penetrating is descriptors used for sound. I think I understande but am not sure. I was going to go into a protracted narrative about this....but I think I'll spare you that.
Instead, I will add a table of a selection of terms to get things going, provide context (from the mag) and offer forum members/staff the opportunity to provide the definition. I will maintain the OP to include the definitions as they are supplied. Moreover, if posters would like to suggest other terms (complete with context from the mag), I will maintain the table.
Alternatively, if I'm the only one who finds this difficult, I'll let this thread die.
Note: please do not use one term to define another.
| Term | Context | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Airy | ....this NAD is quite as airy and clear as the best....(July2008 p25) | |
| Bright | The top end isn't bright....(July2008 p14) | |
| Cohesion | ...the bigger 683 were criticised for a slight lack of overall conhesion....(July2008 p12) | |
| Detail | ....serve up a good dose of detail...(July2008 p14) | |
| Insight | Insight is particularly good, vocals are natural and clear....(July2008 p19) | |
| Transparent | ....Vocal clarity increased and became more transparent....(July2008 p12) |
Sorry, another silly post from me. It seemed like such a good idea at the time......
By the way, what the hell does transparent mean anyway?
See-through. So "...Vocal clarity increased and became more transparent..." is probably tautology, as something becoming clearer would suggest increased transparency. Clearly.
LOL.
So you can see my problem. How does one apply this in the context of sound?
"The vocal clarity increased and became more see-through....".
I'm struggling to understand what the reviewer is trying to tell me.
EDIT: sorry your thread changed while I was posting.
I do that occasionally, in the quest for greater clarity, transparency and insight.
Can we draw a veil over this?
We ran a 'how to speak hi-fi' page on 15 of our recent Ultimate Guide to Hi-fi, covering these terms:
Ambience; Attack; Depth; Detail; Dynamics; Frequency Range; Openness; Space; Soundstaging; Timing.
Give us a day or so and we'll post it up here, too.
No because then someone would change an interconnect or something, and it would be like a veil had been lifted from the music (Great hi-fi reviewing cliches of our time, no. 27)
No because then someone would change an interconnect or something, and it would be like a veil had been lifted from the music (Great hi-fi reviewing cliches of our time, no. 27)
Interconnects can't do that. I can prove it (but choose not to).
See also 'window flung open on the music', 'trouser-flapping bass' (which is of course dated by the very nature of its cultural reference) and 'inky black acoustic backdrop'.
See also 'trouser-flapping bass' (which is of course dated by the very nature of its cultural reference)
Hey come on Mr E. Get with the scene, daddy-o
No because then someone would change an interconnect or something, and it would be like a veil had been lifted from the music (Great hi-fi reviewing cliches of our time, no. 27)
Interconnects can't do that. I can prove it (but choose not to).
We ran a 'how to speak hi-fi' page on 15 of our recent Ultimate Guide to Hi-fi, covering these terms:
Ambience; Attack; Depth; Detail; Dynamics; Frequency Range; Openness; Space; Soundstaging; Timing.
Give us a day or so and we'll post it up here, too.
Well, I'm thankful it's not just me!
Have to be after the weekend now, as I stripped the copy out of the page but forgot to bring the file home with me. Sorry!
No. Cool. Anytime
- Login to post comments
It was a quiet evening in the Schloss Pro, and talk turned to...
Consulting Editor, What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision/whathifi.com Audio Editor, Gramophone