Sound Description FAQ

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by JxK

Does anyone have a good working definition for "texture"? I've heard the word used quite a bit around here and headfi, and never truly got what it meant. Same with "layered" sound. Thoughts?

There is a wiki definition for "texture" here which is most probable what is being referenced but I like the definition here better, even though I doubt it's what anyone refers to when they use the word "texture."

I didn’t find anything good on “layered” sound, I always thought of it in terms of the art of recording/mixing; layering the sound tracks to get a better sound. I did find this which refers to “how many layers of sound there are in the composition and what the relationships of those sounds to each other are.” So it’s possible that people use it to describe how well their headphones/iem’s allow them to notice the layers.

* I haven't added till we can get a consensus

[CrowdAds]

[meanwhile]

..So the first word I looked at was "aggressive" - which was described partly as being "forward"... which is described in turn using the word "aggressive".

This says a lot about the usefulness of these terms and how well people actually communicate using them. Why not just write e.g. "This iem plays so that the treble is rather louder, proportionately, to the bass and mid-range" or "This iem emphasizes the treble"???

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by meanwhile

… This says a lot about the usefulness of these terms and how well people actually communicate using them. Why not just write e.g. "This iem plays so that the treble is rather louder, proportionately, to the bass and mid-range" or "This iem emphasizes the treble"???

Very good point and I wish that your statement was the way it was done. Unfortunately that is not the practice with headphone/IEM reviewers. As I stated in the first post “I’m no fan of flowery decorative word practice …” But speaking for myself in the beginning I needed a good list of descriptions to understand some reviews.

At one point I Googled up definitions only to find that some lists did not include all the words and I can assure you that this list is not complete either. Over time I had numerous lists, some words were defined while others not so I started to compile these lists into one with the help of abi members. Unfortunately I fell prey and use some of these terms in my reviews, while I believe to have tried to explain my opinion as accurately as possible. Luckily I haven’t written too many reviews as I don’t have the cash to buy everything I’d like

Since this is a community I'd welcome your input on better one word descriptive terms/definitions and if we can come to some agreement, we could incorporate your points into the list as well

[meanwhile]

Originally Posted by WalkGood

Very good point and I wish that your statement was the way it was done. Unfortunately that is not the practice with headphone/IEM reviewers.

Well, in turn I have to admit that *that* is a good point too!

However, I have a strong suspicion that the more of these words a reviewer uses, the less his opinions are (on average) worth... Which is often very little in audio anyway:

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/...ve-debate.html

Or as George Orwell said:

1) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which are used to seeing in print.

2) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it.

4) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

..Because if you write clearly, you'll think clearly. Otherwise probably less so.

For example, with "dark" sounding phones/iems, I think people are often confused between ones that have loud bass (i.e. relative to treble and mid) and ones that can produce crisp well-defined bass - which I think is partly a problem with some drivers having resonance problems with lower frequencies (hence those long ridges you see on waterfall graphs) and partly the sharpness of typical bass noises, which tend to be percussive. (Which is why bass monster JVC HXC51's still sound bass monsterish with the bass eq-ed far down.) The more vague and impressionistic terminology you use, the less able you are to make genuine distinctions like this.

Anyway - thanks for the very thoughtful response, and I appreciate the point you're translating rather encouraging!